Encouraging No-Beef Debates

You probably remember the greatest hits of Ronald (6) Wilson (6) Reagan (6). In a debate during the primary contest of 1980, he declared "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green." There were "there you go again" and "are you better off than you were four years ago" directed against President Jimmy Carter. Four years later, President Reagan quipped of Walter Mondale "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience."

Mondale himself benefited from a one-liner when he asked primary opponent Gary Hart "where's the beef?"

In 1988, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen turned toward GOP vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle and charged "I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." 

These remarks had two things in common: they occurred during a debate between presidential or vice-presidential contenders, and they contributed nothing toward understanding issues or what the individuals would do once in office. And if not for these great one-liners, it's not certain that we would have hurtled down the road to the hatred of government and vast economic inequality President Reagan promoted.

Thankfully, these zingers have become less common the past quarter-century. However, that somewhat ancient history may rear its ugly head again. 

Earlier this month, Joe Biden commented "It's a little bit of exaggeration calling it a debate. It's like a lightning round." and for once he won't have to retract a statement.

When in Miami Wednesday and Thursday evenings the Democratic presidential candidates "debate" each other, they

will have 60 seconds to answer questions and 30 seconds to respond to follow-ups. And there will be no opening statements, though candidates will have a chance to deliver closing remarks.

The two-hour debates will zip by quickly, with five segments each night separated by four commercial breaks.

Ten candidates will face off each night on NBC News, MSNBC and Telemundo after a total of 20 candidates met the Democratic National Committee's threshold for participation.

With so many candidates, there's only so much time to go around.

Yes, superficiality will rule the day (night).  If- as will prevail-  there is insufficient time for any particular candidate to explain a policy, there will be plenty of opportunity to stage a quick strike with a prepared one-liner that will leave pundits breathless with excitement.

Worse, the isolated, out-of-context remark will hit social media with a bang and be replayed continually by cable news and broadcast networks. And it will tell us nothing.

It didn't have to be this way. There could have been five nights with four hours of debate each night, one hour with each of two candidates squaring off. That would have been eight candidates per night and 40 for the week.

With 20 candidates making the cut, each individual would have appeared twice, facing a different opponent on the two occasions. Amy Klobuchar, for instance, might have debated Joe Biden one night, Andrew Yang the other.  Biden in turn would have (obviously) debated Klobuchar and, perhaps, Julian Castro- or Eric Swalwell, John Hickenlooper, or Kamala Harris.

Almost no one would have watched all twenty hours. However, everyone could pick and choose which hours she or he wished. And who could pass up the chance to hang on every word from John Delaney?

Perhaps it would have been too much to expect that a news network would have sacrificed ratings for the opportunity for viewers, who will be voters, to be informed.  The DNC also may have balked.  But it would have given the candidates more time to explain their positions and would have spared us prime-time meaningless speculation from MSNBC employees, contributors and guests about what to expect in the debates upcoming that evening.

Admittedly, there would have been a downside. Whomever emerges as the eventual nominee would not have had the experience, so needed in a general election campaign, of debating nine other candidates simultaneously.

Share |

They Should Be Thankful

Former H. Clinton adviser and CEO of True Blue Media Peter Daou operates Blue Nation Review, from which he attacks Bernie Sanders on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

"Anyone on the left who smears Hillary with evidence-free attacks when we’re facing a potential Trump presidency," writes Daou, "should be ashamed of themselves. And Bernie Sanders should resist the impulse to surf this ugly anti-Hillary wave."  He insists "some of Bernie Sanders’s supporters" are "going after Hillary Clinton’s integrity with false accusations and innuendo."

Former conservative Republican David Brock, founder of the pro-Clinton Media Matters and Correct The Record and of Super PACS American Bridge and Priorities USA, is an unabashamed Clinton supporter and surrogate. In a recent Time magazine interview, Brock was asked about the remark by Clinton pollster Joel Benenson that Sanders is conducting "the most negative campaign" of any Democrat in presidential primary history. He responded

I think so. … All of these attacks on Secretary Clinton at the end of thee day are character attacks. They’re very personal they’re totally unwarranted and it’s especially troubling because he’s using the Republican playbook against Secretary Clinton these are exactly the kinds of attacks certainly after she wins the nomination that they will be launching, and I think it’s very troubling that he’s using these same tactics.... 

One can be forgiven for wondering what these tactics are.  It wasn't Bernie Sanders who set up the House's Special Committe for Benghazi. Nor was it Sanders, but rather Marco Rubio who- after Clinton's splendid defense in front of the committee- (falsely) claimed "she got exposed as a liar." And it was Republican consultant Ed Rogers who last month remarked of Mrs. Clinton's e-mail scandal "There is no question among the experts I talked to about whether she is guilty; there is only a question of whether the Justice Department will indict, slow-walk the case or stiff-arm the FBI."

When Bernie Sanders was asked at debate in October about the e-mails, he remarked "I think the secretary is right. And that is, I think the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails."  When in the most recent debate talk turned to the impact of the criminal justice system on African-Americans, Sanders could have turned to Mrs. Clinton and asked if she had changed since in 1996 she spoke of urban youth as "super-predators," who must be brought" to heel." He did not.

Even when the Vermont Senator has the former Secretary of State on the ropes, he doesn't go in for the kill.  A defining moment may have come, and passed, in the Milwaukee debate when Mrs. Clinton argued

But I want to — I want to follow up on something having to do with leadership, because, you know, today Senator Sanders said that President Obama failed the presidential leadership test. And this is not the first time that he has criticized President Obama. In the past he has called him weak. He has called him a disappointment. He wrote a forward for a book that basically argued voters should have buyers’ remorse when it comes to President Obama’s leadership and legacy. And I just couldn’t agree — disagree more with those kinds of comments. You know, from my perspective, maybe because I understand what President Obama inherited, not only the worst financial crisis but the antipathy of the Republicans in Congress, I don’t think he gets the credit he deserves for being a president...

Sanders gave an extended reply, respectfully beginning with "Madam Secretary, that is a low blow." He then went on to praise President Obama (which Clinton does with greater strategic effect), state  "a United States senator has the right to criticize the President," and talk about that "blurb," which few people know about and fewer still care about.

Then he got close:  "President Obama and I are friends. As you know, he came to Vermont to campaign for me when he was a senator. I have worked for his re- election. His first election and his re-election." Was Sanders about to have a Lloyd Bentsen moment (video below)?  Hardly, as he then went on to complain "I think it is really unfair to suggest that I have not been supportive of this president."

Sanders should have channeled the late Texas senator and stated "President Obama and I are friends. As you know, he came to Vermont to campaign for me when he was a senator. I have worked for his re-election. His first election and his re-election. Madame Secretary, you are no Barack Obama."










It could have fallen flat. However, his bid for the nomination always has been a long-shot, and Senator Sanders should have taken that shot. It might have turned the campaign around.

The likes of Daou and Brock imply that the Senator is not quite the Democrat Hillary Clinton is. All the whining and wailing has obscured the likelihood that Bernard Sanders has known from the start that he likely would fall short. However, he is a Democrat loathe to open a wound which might be exploited by the GOP in the fall campaign or to give the Republican Party fodder for an effective video to be used against her. He seems to lack the killer instinct and he might not be a typical Democrat. But he is the best kind.








Share |

The Same Old Tune

"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."
-Jean-Baptist Alphonse Karr, Les Guepes, 1849

And so it goes with Democratic vice-presidential nominees.

As to 1988: In an article otherwise chock full of speculation and distortion, Karl Rove in today's Wall Street Journal points out:

Michael Dukakis spent the last months of the 1988 campaign calling his opponent's running mate, Dan Quayle, a risky choice and even ran a TV ad blasting Mr. Quayle. The Bush/Quayle ticket carried 40 states.

Aside from his memorable and biting comment about Quayle in the debate, where was Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen? Running a positive campaign, enhancing his own reputation, and doing nothing to undermine the GOP presidential nominee.

And 2000:

A little friendly banter between Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Lieberman and Halliburton's Dick Cheney, in which the Connecticut senator during debate declines to call Cheney on his self-serving modus operandi:

....I'm pleased to see, Dick, from the newspapers that you're better off than you were eight years ago, too.
CHENEY: I can tell you, Joe, the government had absolutely nothing to do with it. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: This question is to you.
LIEBERMAN: I can see my wife and I think she's saying, "I think he should go out into the private sector."
CHENEY: I'll help you do that, Joe.
LIEBERMAN: I think you've done so well there, I want to keep you there. (LAUGHTER)

The V.P. nominee did what he could to undermine the ticket's chances during the recount controversy. In a July, 2001 article in The New York Times about the Florida vote debacle and the issue of Americans living abroad, David Barstow and Don Van Natta Jr. explained:

The flawed votes included ballots without postmarks, ballots postmarked after the election, ballots without witness signatures, ballots mailed from towns and cities within the United States and even ballots from voters who voted twice. All would have been disqualified had the state's election laws been strictly enforced.

Joe Lieberman's response on November 19, 2000 on Fox News Sunday to Repub efforts to have unlawful ballots from military personnel, contrary to law, counted? "In fact, we think that the ballots -- both the absentee ballots and the ones that are being hand counted in the three counties in South Florida now -- deserve the benefit of the doubt."

Then in 2004: Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards runs a listless campaign with little criticism of the Repub ticket, arguably an effort to maintain his reputation as a positive campaigner so as to enhance his bid for the 2008 presidential nomination, if Kerry were to lose.

And now in 2008: Joe Biden, appearing yesterday at a town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, gushing

Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend; she is qualified to be president of the United States of America. She’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States.

Predictably, the McCain camp promptly jumped on the statement, contending

It's very interesting that when it comes down to Barack Obama's biggest decision of the presidential election in choosing a vice president, the man that he selects says that he himself was the wrong choice, and that Hillary Clinton would have been a better fit.

Joe Biden is on the ballot this November for re-election to his Senate seat in Delaware, as Joe Lieberman was on the ballot (successfully) for re-election to the U.S. Senate as he was allegedly working to be elected Vice-President. Biden thus far has been reluctant to criticize the other V.P. nominee, Sarah Palin (who is constantly attacking Obama), though I am unaware whether this has been his choice or instead that of the campaign. Still, as Rove notes in his piece today, "the asssaults (or what the Republican operative implies are "assaults") diminish him- not her."

I admit that I thought the selection of Biden was wise- in part because he would not be reticent in going after whomever John McCain would select as his running-mate. Instead, or so it appears, "the more it changes, the more it's the same thing."