The presidential debates - my one question and Washington Post editorials

I hate what we call political debates. No, I detest them. We do not have political debates but a misbegotten monstrosity that is part press conference and part a hand job for the public which has as its sole goal not to engage any of the participants in a rational discourse that might really show how they think or what they think about the issues. Our so-called debates are only pablum for our democratic impulses. The debate featured in the last season of The West Wing is a fantasy I think shared by many of us. Instead, we had President Bush whining how hard was the work of being President. (We now know how hard he was working about getting the Iraqis to stand up while we sat down and organizing FEMA to prepare for natural and terroristic emergencies.)

Come to think to think of it, George W. Bush makes a perfect case for changing the style and content of our presidential debates from its current neutered and useless form. No more softball questions, no speeches to the talking from the media, and turn the thing from a game of badminton to full contact football. I probably ought to apologize to the game of badminton for the comparison to our presidential debates. How would have George W. Bush have done if he had had to justify his positions, his ideas, in a freewheeling debate with John Kerry? Would John Kerry have been able to get the stick out of his ass and acted like he could do more than mouth a consultant's talking points? How would we, the people, react to seeing how our leaders actually could think on their feet? I never thought the Republic in any danger from any politician till the arrival of George W. Bush. We cannot afford another of his type - from either party - from this day forward.

Having vented my spleen, let me say I heard a good bit of the Democratic Party debate and little of the Republican Party debate. We got more personality in our lineup but so what? It was a masturbatory exercise for the public. With the Republicans, I heard Ronald Reagan's name so much I thought I was in 1988. I gather I am in the majority who watched more of the Democratic debate than the Republican. For the next one, I suggest the producers (for what is this but an infomercial of political pornography) watch the Westminister Dog Show.

However, I would suggest one question be asked of all the candidates. They all need to explain their position on the unitary executive theory. I know, I know, not at all a good question. Not that it is bloody likely to be asked. The masses will not understand it. I disagree. The reason the question will not be asked are these:

1. The candidates will have to actually show that they can think on national television. Not a desirable thing for some.
2. The candidates will have to show on national television that they can think and talk about substantial things. A scary prospect for some candidates. For some it may prove to them that evolution does exist.
3. It may just expose what they think are the powers of the presidency and the limits on those powers and what they would do with those powers.

That last one makes it the killer question.

Today's Washington Post has three articles on the debate ranging from showing their uselessness (Eugene Robinson on the Republican debate) to the silliness (Richard Cohen, again, on the Republican debate) to the usual need for a change editorial.