Return to story

What good are debates without juicy questions?

February 22, 2008 12:16 am

HILLARY CLINTON keeps demanding that Barack Obama hold more debates.

Political debates? Talk about a waste of time!

In a society where the latest antics of Britney Spears get more television air time than the Iraq War, who is going to watch a presidential primary debate?

Even in the midst of a Hollywood writer's strike, the debates that were held couldn't get enough of a TV audience to create a minor blip in the Nielsen ratings. "I Love Lucy," 55 years into re-runs, attracted more viewers.

Still, the Democrats and Republicans keep running all over the country participating in debates in every state that is holding a primary.

The excuse for these debates, of course, is that the American people need to hear the candidates' take on the issues.

Listen, these candidates are spending millions of dollars on TV, radio and newspaper ads every month. Anyone who hasn't heard their spiel by now certainly is not going to flip over to some semiobscure cable channel to become better informed.

But debates give cities and states a few moments in the spotlight and create programming for television, so they will likely continue.

Once upon a time, I believed that professional wrestling was on the up-and-up and that those hard-line debate questions from reporters were spontaneous.

I discovered long ago, however, that pro wrestlers have choreographers and that political candidates have aides who screen debate questions.

In a national election, image is too important to have some joker ask a question a candidate can't answer. For the most part, questions are submitted and answers are rehearsed. That, almost without exception, is the long and short of it.

Questions that are not politically correct are tossed out and any reporter who slips something in that wasn't supposed to be asked will likely never participate in another debate.

Questions are screened even on a local level. Two years ago, during a public forum that I attended, questions were sought from the audience and the woman next to me asked in writing--which was the official procedure--for a candidate's response as to her actual district of residency, which, to some, had come into question.

The question was never asked--and there was no shortage of time. It was simply too politically incorrect, not general enough, too much to the point. Those in charge of the debate would not allow the one question that was most pertinent to the campaign to be asked.

UNASKED QUESTIONS

So it is with the presidential primary (and, soon presidential) debate questions. The ones Americans want answered never get asked.

Like, "Hillary, do you and Bill still sleep in the same bed?" Or, "Hillary, did you stay married to Bill just so you would have a better shot at the presidency?"

Then, of course, there is the obvious question, "Hillary, what are you going to do if you're elected and Bill starts fooling around with those White House interns again?"

My goodness! We could never ask those questions!

Why? That's what every Republican I know is asking out loud these days. And those are the "issues" the press will focus on if Hillary is elected.

No? Then tell me something you remember about Bill Clinton's presidency besides his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Reporters could ask Barack Obama to tell us more about his experimentation with illegal drugs and whether he would ever use cocaine or marijuana again.

Obama could also be asked about his past sex life.

No, we don't want to ask things like that before an election, we just want to crucify officials for their past transgressions after they are elected.

What about John McCain? Why doesn't someone ask him whom he would like to have as his running mate if nominated? The man is 72 years old and if he should die or become incapacitated while in office his vice president would have to take over.

Personally, I'd like to have some idea who that might be. After all, we don't want the country to fall into the hands of an idiot.

But we can't bring age into this race because that would be both insensitive and politically incorrect.

Bull! A 72-year-old man is no spring chicken and his age could very well be a liability--especially when holding the most powerful office in the free world. That, friends, is not insensitivity, it is a fact.

TALK VS. ACTION

As for the issues, well, no debate is going to tell the American people what a politician will do after he or she is elected. Until she takes the oath of office, Hillary Clinton won't have a clue what she will do about the Iraq War and Barack Obama doesn't know what steps he will take to try to turn the economy around.

Oh, these candidates think they've got it all figured out, but until they sit in the hot seat they don't know how they will react to national and world problems. When asked during debates, all they can do is speculate.

I don't have much faith in political debates. Canned questions and rehearsed answers don't reveal much about a candidate.

And they never allow the questions that we really want answered, like, "Senator Clinton, what steps are you going to take to keep Bill away from the female White House interns if you're elected?"

That's an answer that most Americans--especially Republicans--want to hear. And the question will likely never be asked.

Pity.

Donnie Johnston:
Email: djohnston@freelancestar.com