debate advice for republicans

I read this article on CNN written by a debate coach that flew in the face off all the debate wisdom ever assembled.  The two most important things to know about debating are, “less is more,” and, “don’t stay stupid things.”  My favorite thing about the article has to be how it trails off at the end the way someone does when they’re getting time signals from the adjudicator.  “Romney won because he did.”  Wonderfully written, truly so.

Romney is winning the debates in the media because deep in his cold, dark heart he is as Republican as Nancy Pelosi.  If you go on someone’s record (and don’t look at MY debate record because it will repudiate everything I’m typing) and really that’s all we can go by: Romney is to the left of the President.  Of course the media is eating him up, they know he’s no more conservative than Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan (the real Ronald Reagan from the 1980s, not cartoon Ronald Reagan that people worship like he’s the Virgin Mary). 

The big difference between being in a debate round and a Presidential primary is that in a debate round I’d need to make a compelling argument to win and in a primary the argument has to be that you yourself are a compelling argument.  There are some huge differences between a debate and the charade that the candidates go through every four years.  One of my debate partners always said that the purpose of debate is to ferret out the truth, through the discussion both sides would have the truth would come out.  These aren’t debates and they shouldn’t be called that so the whole article is pretty useless because they’re not debates nor are they judged as debates BUT I’m bored so now everyone has to suffer:

There was this dynamic in debate, when I was a kid, where the rounds EVERYONE had to suffer through were the elimination rounds.  The people who said the truly outrageous stuff rarely saw the light of day.   We’d never have to suffer through a Santorum and Bachmann.  If you said crazy, hateful, and downright dishonest things during the preliminary stages you wouldn’t make it very far and you wouldn’t be invited back.  Booing soldiers – or pretending you didn’t hear it, saying people should be left to die, or any of the truly outrageous things that have been said (not things I summarily disagree with) wouldn’t be tolerated. 

I’m pretty confident that if my coach were on the adjudicating panel for the Republican debates she’d have put a stop to it.  In fact I think the only thing that would have stopped her would have been a non-violent scuffle with the coach from Creighton on the way to stop it.  Marty, to you I say, “ladies first.”  I assure you, they’d be much harder on the Democrats for the silly things they let fly.   These shenanigans were never tolerated and I can’t imagine the Republican voters are putting up with this either.  We were policed, they put a stop to things we said that were absurd, and we were made to learn to tie a tie.  I cannot and will not vote for someone who can’t tie a tie.

Do you have any idea how incredibly difficult it is, and how amazing my coaches are (and by proxy the good people of Creighton, but not Patty who never voted for me – not even once) for being able to reign in – even on occasion – my ability to say absurd things?  I remember once in a round I was asked if I knew where the next ‘hot spot in the world was going to be,” and I responded that, my point was, “we can’t know where it will be but it’s probably small, unstable and ends in –stan.”  I was not wrong but I wasn’t truly ashamed of myself until I started hearing George W. Bush repeating my arguments in the State of the Union.  It was difficult, but my absurdities could be reigned in and I usually only let loose when people said truly stupid things like, “we admit Puerto Rico to the union because we need it to bomb Somalia.” 

Then you have the small issue of decorum in the debates.  We were never allowed to be so rude to each other, and this is a better example: a teammate of ours that we’ll call “James” was accused of lying about something, specifically about a country we’ll call, “Lesotho.”  Now, “James” isn’t a liar but I’ve never met someone more creative with the truth or had a more detailed knowledge of the boundaries of propriety than “James.”  We were incredulous, not only that he’d been called a liar the one time we’re positive he was telling the truth, but also that someone would call someone a liar.  You don’t lie but you also don’t call someone out on lying, the people judging the rounds are generally better informed than you are anyway. 

Do you really want a President who is, for lack of a better way to put it, a dick?  My friend Stanley (who isn’t small or unstable, but never-you-mind his name starts in Stan) likes to harp on the President’s unfortunate remark about the Special Olympics and makes the good point that people who say horrible things expose horrible character.  I’d juxtapose the bad behavior that comes out in the incredibly choreographed performances we’re seeing in the debates and something that slipped in a light moment.  Both are horrible and the Special Olympics comment weighs on me as a voter against things like always getting Mrs. Clinton’s chair in the sit-down debates in the 2008 cycle or being the clearest voice against mocking Mrs. Palin’s family dynamics, but it’s hard to defend something you planned to say being less awful than something you didn’t. 

The real problem with these debates boils down to that: adjudication.  The people adjudicating the debates have no problem with the things being said being patently false or untrue, the fact that they’d lie about their records and each other, and that most of them cannot tie a tie.  You are letting this happen. 

Mr. Santorum, I know you’re wearing those vests because the tip of your tie doesn’t hit your belt buckle: it’s why I wear a vest every time a tie is warranted.  We’re on to you, sir. 

As an adjudicator I was empowered to and definitely voted against people who were indecorous.  My favorite one was, for no reason related to the discussion at hand, the ‘affirmative’ side of the debate called their opposition ‘immoral’ for not being vegans.  I knew the people on the opposition and they were truly horrible people but of all the things that person had done in her life to fixate on a cheeseburger was beyond my comprehension.  I didn’t vote for the ‘affirmative’ team because – beyond their ideas being truly insipid – they were rude.  You have to ask yourself is nice guys from Utah who speak Chinese need to finish last?  Do I want that to come up on Google when people want to learn about the President?  Do I want someone who’ll talk to someone who agrees with them like that talking to people unsure of us throughout the world and at home?  I’d like to think you didn’t. 

Misty will claim there is no such thing is a decent, God-fearing Republican.  I know that while I can’t think of one that could get clear of the nominating process – you wouldn’t nominate the real Ronald Reagan today or Teddy Roosevelt – they do, indeed, exist. There are good, decent Republicans in elected office today that could attain the presidency.  After watching these debates I can’t imagine that they’d make it through the primaries.  Until we demand candidates who are serious, thoughtful, and trustworthy we’re bound to keep suffering through these shams, and none of us win in this scenario.  I’ve only heard of a double-loss once in debate history (it’s one of those rules that exist but never come into practice) but I think you have us heading toward one.

If my coach were giving these people advice I think she’d tell them to stay true to their records and life-long ideals, focus on their arguments instead of someone else’s construction of their arguments, and present yourself as the leader that people want to see: someone smart, articulate, and able to lead.  There is a reason that after eight years of a Republican President we picked someone named "Hussien" of a decorated war hero for President of the United States.  Give us a good reason to take you back, quit reminding us why we put you on the curb with the rest of the rubbish.  

Also, she's by no means vain but she’d take issue with the photograph of the person who wrote the article.  She’d kill me if I took (and I have) a bad picture of her and put it on the Internet.  

 

Comments

[Patty]

Chris -- I couldn't vote for you because, for some reason, you let the most stupid stuff come out of your mouth when I had a ballot... and liking you as a person doesn't mean that I'll vote for you, because parli isn't a US Presidential race... sorry dude!

[ChrisTOPHER]

Patty, I like to hold onto that like a grudge or an 8 track. I like to give you a hard time. A lot of times in Parli I think it ended up being a crap shoot anyway.