I agree with your argument. And I agreed with Santos’s position on the issue, but you have to conceed that Vinnick’s tactic was a very effective one.
Sorry - I didn’t mean to imply I agree with him. I don’t.
I just meant that he expressed his viewpoint in a rather original, if misguided, manner that was at least honest regarding his stance. I haven’t been to the rain forests or cruised down the Amazon, but I sure as hell know I am not going to support mining or farming there either.
If felt less real than a live debate?
I stand corrected.
Damn, I’ve done that twice on the 'Dope today.
Can’t you call me a big fat dummy or something, and I can call you a Dukey Butt?
Besides, you made a better point than I, DB. 
That’s nothing. Santos was bitching about Enron, even though that presumably took place under a Democratic administration in West Wing World.
You forget those Nasty Republican Congressmen.
Que? Less real than a real debate would, translate to actual if it helps.
I guess I’m the only one who thought the debate was a runaway victory for Santos. To me, Vinick really didn’t seem to understand his own political philosophy.
I thought Vinick did have a firm grasp on his positions. It just came across to me that he is more of a classic Republican - less government is better government. Santos, on the other hand, came across as a classic Democrat - government is there to help those that don’t have the resources or money to help themselves. And that includes the poor and downtrodden, the uninsured, and the little animals living in the tundra.
Omniscient I can understand why they stepped out from the podium. Santos has always been more comfortable dealing one-on-one with people. By stepping out, he made himself more comfortable with the audience. Vinick then did it because he didn’t want to appear stuffy, for lack of a better term. I liked what he said as he was moving - “Is he the only one that gets a microphone?” or something like that. And I see it as totally in-character for both of them to do that. But hey, that’s just my thoughts. But i agree with you that the debate could have gone either way, and that it was intended that way by the writers.
Someone else brought it up but you’ll notice in this debate a distinct lack of these phrases
“in the last 8 years…”
“my plan calls for…”
“If I am elected I would…”
“under the Bartlett administration…”
There were token references here and there but never as many as one would expect in a real debate. Politicians follow the same rules as salesmen: ABC. Always Be Closing. What can I do to get you to vote for me today? Every answer in a real debate would ALWAYS end with “my plan is to do X and if you vote for me, this is what you’ll see accomplished.”
It’s hard enough trying to create a lively, intelligent debate between two opposite opinions on a multitude of issues and have the result come out in roughly a tie. To add in policy would be overwhelming. To create proposals for each side would have been such a needless hassle within the framework of what the writers were trying to accomplish. So they didn’t.
This episode wasn’t about what Matt Santos believes. It wasn’t about what Arnie Vinnick believes either. The writers sat down and said “if an intelligent liberal Democrat and an intelligent conservative Republican were to debate real world issues, how would it likely turn out?” That’s what they wrote. That’s why there were so little “West Wing world” references. It wasn’t about that, or the election. It was about debating the issues.
So while I think there were some jarring differences between what would be said in a real debate and what happened in this episode, I also believe that the writers had a specific goal in mind and the succeeded spectacularly on that goal. It was a great, thought provoking episode.
Minority opinion here: I thought this episode jumped the shark. It was annoying (especially with Ellen Degeneres) and stupid. A scripted live debate between fictional characters? Honky, please. I turned it off after 15 minutes.
And which “National Park in Alaska” were they referring to? Denali? If this was in reference to drilling on the arctic slope, that would be in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is not a national park.
Did anyone else who saw the West Coast feed notice Jimmy Smits’ gaffe when he yelled out “Theories?!” as though Alan Alda had just used the word “theories”–when in fact, he hadn’t?
You could even see Smits grin sheepishly and move to cover his mouth like he had said something wrong. It was kind of funny.
But he recovered quickly enough. It was Alda’s falt for flubbing his own line anyway–he was supposed to say “theories”!
Also, I didn’t think they did a terribly good job of making it look “unscripted.” For example, they would cut to a person (esp. the moderator) in preparation for that person’s next line. You can’t do this in a live unscripted broadcast…
I was wondering–were there really no rules in the Lincoln Douglas debates? I thought there were rules about length and order and so on, just that they could go on for like half an hour rather than just for two minutes.
I wish debates could be done using fifteen minute speeches instead of two minute soundbites. But I suspect the two minute thing is due as much to the influence of the broadcasting network (it makes for better TV) as it is to the negotiations between candidates.
What I’d really like to see is a written debate. A book, publishe every presidential election, say six or seven hundred pages or so (yes, six or seven hundred pages or so) where each major candidate in the election gets to set down his or her views in extended, hopefully-well-argued form, and each candidate gets to respond to the others’ articles as well. (And respond to responses and so on for some number of iterations.)
This, IMO, would be neat.
Here in California we get a booklet where advocates for and against constitutional “propositions” do just this, except within the space of a page or so for each article. It’s, as I say, neat-o. Makes me feel like I actually have the moral, and not just the legal, right to vote, being all informed and shit.
Anyway, as to the debate itself, I thought Vinnick was more tricky and quick-witted than Santos, but I also thought it was clear that each man was intelligent of full conviction of the truth of their views. I woulda been happy with either man in office, though just based on their views, I would have voted for Santos.
-FrL-
Yes, I caught that. A really good stage actor should try to find a way to handle the scene without such a gaffe if the other actor blows his line or misses his cue, though. Hell, I managed it in high school drama.
Sure, but I figured Smits’ reaction was understandable in light of the fact that he’s used to doing West Wing as pre-recorded–in the normal course of events, he would have smiled at his goof, and they would have done the scene over. (So I assume.)
Smits isn’t a stage actor as well is he?
-FrL-
I was alluding to that in an earlier post when I mentioned Alda’s experience as an actor. I’m pretty sure he’s done a significant amount of stage work in his career.
I thought my mind was playing tricks on me there. Good to know I wasn’t just having selective hearing loss. 
While I totally disagree with the “jumped the shark” assessment, and I think this was one of the rare circumstances where a live episode doesn’t seem contrived or out of the logical dynamic of the show, I did agree with how cringe inducing the Ellen Degeneres periods were. At the outset where she was babbling about live broadcasts I was literally yelling at my TV. That alone was almost enough to totally ruin the experience for me. She is just god awful.
Also, they specifically refered to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the debates, calling it “ANWaR” a few times. I’m not sure if they used the phrase “national park” or not, but if they did I think it can be forgiven if you allow for the use of the term “park” in a common sense, not a proper one. Either way it’d be a understandable gaffe in a real debate too.
Hard to say who won. I voted for Santos in the online thing, but that’s more that I tend to agree with a less laissez-faire approach.
Santos had a good point about how all the good Republicans were “liberals” (actually progressives/reformers, which is what he really meant–laissez-faire is a form of classical liberalism too).
Vinick’s bit about tax cuts saving Africa was really cute.
Those two bits really stood out to me.
I’d like to know, too.
So would I, but I doubt that most of the electorate in the USA would read it.