Izzy, I think that Gore has a leg up both on debating skills and on the issues. Bush’s message has been criticized as lacking in a lot of particulars for quite some time. In any case, the issues are for another thread. Suffice it to say that I think debating skills-- putting together a cogent argument, being able to talk sans script if need be, the ability to think on one’s feet and counter an opponent’s argument-- I think those are important skills for a leader to have. Not the most important by any means. Gore is relatively lackluster, IMHO, when it comes to oratory. Nonetheless, I am less impressed by Bush’s ability to go beyond script thus far, and I think his comparatively poorer speaking skills contribute to the “empty suit” and “slow witted” caricatures we have seen presented.
I’m curious, Izzy: What better way do you propose for candidates to articulate the merits of their issues before a large audience? Will soundbites on talking head programs really do the trick? Further, if a candidate’s stance on the issues has merit, shouldn’t he be eager to let that stance be know, in his own words, to as many people as possible?
The way I see it, there is a definite skill to formal debate that can be used to your advantage–The Atlantic Monthly had cover story this summer about Gore’s prowess in marginalizing his opponent’s viewpoint when debating; it’s something he’s been trained at. So I don’t disagree with you there. However: Debating skills aside, how well a candidate is able to defend his own ideas, under pressure, from ostensibly impartial inquiry can tell me a hell of a lot about that candidate’s knowledge of the subjects at hand. Sure, you can mask your ignorance with clever throw-aways (coughRonaldReagancough), but most of the time it will be clear from a formal debate which candidate is the most informed and articulate.
I’ve heard nothing from George W. Bush that leads me to believe that he’s particularly informed (Canadian PM Poutine, anyone?) or articulate. Formal debates would give me an opportunity to change my mind; bite-sized quotes in between commercials on talking head shows would not.
Gadarene:
Well, there you go again . . .
Arnold Winkelried
If it is the result of that, yes, in that narrow aspect.
Actually for negotiations personality counts for alot more than debating skills. Advantage - Bush. Usually the upfront negotiator relies more on his own personality and some backroom guy to fill in the details. Maybe Gore should get a spot on the Bush negotiating team.
This would be more true if the audience consisted of political science professors. As it is, the audience knows alot less about the issues than either candidate. Beyond this, the issues that divide Bush from Gore are not the result of knowledge, but of philosophy. There are knowledgable people on both sides of these issues. It is likely that Gore, having been VP for 8 years is more familiar with the details of presidential issues at this time. But Bush is said to be very familiar with the issues that concern Texas and is likely to be or become familiar enough with national issues to make it a non-factor.
All the current methods of campaigning are silly. In an ideal world there would be no campaigning at all.
My point is merely whether the idea that Bush is reluctant to debate Gore is substantive. I think it is not. Gore is thought to be an outstanding debater, based on his success against Perot and in other debates. This would give any potential opponent pause.
ptahlis and gadarene
Our posts crossed. I think I addressed your points in my reply to Arnold. But I also want to reiterate that if you were Bush and you felt that Gore has an advantage in debating style, which you both seem to concede, than it would be wise to downplay the debates even if you believe that you have a command of the issues that is as good or better than Gore’s. You guys may disagree about his command of the issues. But you would seem to concede that Bush being “afraid to debate” cannot be interperated as an acknowledgment of this.
What would you propose, then, so that people might evaluate the candidates? Or should the winners just be drawn by lot out of a hat?
(See the Improved US Government thread for a proposal in which the winners are actually drawn by lot out of a hat!)
Just FYI I was joking when I posted that. I think that 5 minutes per canidate is pretty poor.
Just out of curiousity, if the election were held today between Jesse Helms and Paul Wellstone, neither of whom have campaigned for the office, do you know who you would vote for? I thought so. So do I (though not necessarily the same person).
Just out of curiosity, if the election were held today between Tom Campbell (Republican) and Robert Rubin (Democrat), neither of whom have campaigned for the office, do you know who you would vote for? 
I’m pretty sure, but not certain. But I’d find out pretty quickly, without weither of them campaigning.
Find out how? If you’re advocating a more enlightened, informed electorate, I’m right there with you. People should do their own research regarding candidates–if they did, I’d wager that third parties would make a much stronger showing than they do now. But not everyone has the time or opportunity to do research–the process of campaigning, however flawed (and it is flawed, turned into a combination horse-race/beauty pageant by both the major parties and the media), is at least better than people choosing their candidates based on a)who they think will win (see the “throwing my vote away” thread), or b)voting purely based on party affiliation (which, as my example above shows, doesn’t always work).
Of course people do a) and b) now anyway, so…
Through the independent media, which, liberal biased as they are, are alot better than campaign nonsense.
Change “time and opportunity” to “interest” and I’m with you. It takes only a minimal amount of time and almost no resources. Unless you are very much in the middle and need to weigh the candidates positions on every single issue.**
**Oh yeah, well how about the “Was it the Kiss?” thread
**Actually it works alot better than you would think. Many of the appointees of a liberal Republican will be alot more conservative than himself, and inverse for a conservative Democrat.
IMHO the only reliable way to chose a candidate is that candidate’s history, not whatever nonsense they’ve decided to spout in an attempt to get elected. Anyone who pays too much attention to whatever the candidates are saying, and certainly to the specifics of what they are proposing, is missing the boat.
I don’t quite agree with your statement. The friendliest person in the world won’t be effective in a negotiation if he doesn’t have any idea of what the issues are that the parties are trying to negotiate. One could argue about how much amiability is effective vs. knowledge, but I personally respect the knowledgeable person more than the back-slapping amiable dunce.
I believe that the analysis of the debate by the pundits will serve me to evaluate the candidates as much as the debate itself.
I have read that Governor Bush has been diligently cramming for his campaign. I for one am curious to see how much his studying has paid off. If his studying is not bearing fruitful results then I would not be encouraged.
Other people are already disputing this statement. I will just say that your opinion seems to be that the only good candidates are people with a wealth of experience behind them and a sufficient track record so that one can judge their positions without having to speak with them directly. I disagree. What if someone has no political experience and decides to run for office? In that case I would try to form an opinion of their honesty and knowledge of the issues by what I learn during the campaign process. Otherwise we might as well have the members of the media be the only ones given the right to vote for candidates for public office.
I will agree with what you say here. Bush’s reluctance to face Al Gore in a debate situation is understandable. But this is a situation in which he will be placed in the course of the presidency (e.g. meeting other foreign leaders at group summits) and as I said before friendliness and humour can only carry you so far. Also I am not willing to take for granted the statements of Bush handler’s that “Our candidate is smart and knowledgeable”. Bush is not helping the opinion some people have of his meager intellectual accomplishments by hesitating to debate in a formal situation.
Sorry, but I cannot take seriously the idea that Bush is a “back-slapping amiable dunce” who “doesn’t have any idea of what the issues are”.
As it will most people. Unfortunately these pundits will not be analyzing anything of substance. Instead they will analyze who made the better impact on the people i.e. who put on the better show.
All he has to do to prove that impression wrong is show up and perform well in a formal debate. His apparent fear of the formal debate does not help to dispel the popular image of the man.
If the guy can’t “think on his feet” during a debate, how well can he be expected to perform in a time of national crisis?
Dan Quayle performed well in debates and was still not taken seriously. This idea of politicians as dunces is more about the shallowness of much of the electorate than it is about the politicians themselves.
Bush has agreed to the three recommended debates.
I think the definitive word on the whole debate mess was put forward by Tom Tomorrow. More Debates
Aha, his second mistake since his nomination.
His first was to not agree to debates.
The man’s a lost cause.
Peace,
mangeorge