This week: Do the Debates Mean Anything?

Clinton and Dole squared off on Sunday. The Veep candidates debated last night. Did you watch the debates? Did they affect how you will vote? Do you think that the election debates offer worthwhile discussion of our country's future? If not, where do you find substantive political debate?

Read what others have said so far, and then tell us what you think.

See what Tripod members had to say about grassroots political protest in the last survey. For other past survey results, check our survey archive.

A new Politics & Community survey is published each Thursday.

---

Comments or Questions:

Mur: Being noncommital and probably voting neither Clinton or Dole, I watched the debate last night with interest because I know that one of them will win. I must say that I was impressed more so than I expected with Gore, and, if he keeps his promises, I decided that I will probably vote for him in 2000. So in that respect, the debate was useful (not that I would vote for Kemp, the feeb who called women "Female Americans." Where does that mean I immigrated from?

ammond: What? Someone had a political debate? I guess I don't keep up on political debates. I've long since decided I wouldn't vote Republican, couldn't vote Libertarian and don't like rich guys playing at politics. I heard something recently on the Natural Law Party. Seemed to have hidden agendas to me.

Omicron: I never watch debates. The contestants always dance around the issues, and say things like "We need to..." and "The problem is..." But the debates never actually accomplish anything. I think it would be more usefull if the two guys would get together in private, drop all their posturing and public smiles, and talk seriously about this stuff. They could come up with real solutions that might work, and either one of them could use them, no matter who wins the election.

No, debates do not influence my vote. Candidates do. I'm young, so I haven't had the chance to do much voting yet, but I'm probably going to go conservative. The debt is skyrocketing. Crime is rampant. Politicians squabble over popularity points and never do anything. (I'm not saying that these are direct results of Liberalism, but it's certainly not the result of conservatism, which has not been prevalent for some time) The liberals have had control of our country for too long, and it's time we took it back. Get tough on crime. Loosen gun control, so the criminals are afraid to harm us. Bring back some old school curricula (I look at the kids coming out of public schools today and I think, "These kids are STUPID. They know HALF of what I did when I was their age..." And I'm only 21... (This is the scariest part; that someone as young as I can SEE such a drastic difference in so short a span of time.) Teach those kids traditional values. Make more jobs available, and force people to look for them instead of leeching off of society.

Oops. I think I've gone off on a tangent. Oh well. Disregard the previous. It's just the rantings of a dissatisfied, disillusioned, (just plain dissed) American.

Style: I guess I'm the typical Gen X-er in the sense that I am very cynical about politics. The debates prove nothing to me except that both men are politicians. Words, words, words. That's all the debates are. I saw part of a TV program that focused on the lives of both men (kind of like an episode of A&E; Biography). That program was more interesting, and more informative, than a debate. A documentary on the candidates tells me more about them than what they tell us themselves.

Applecheeks: I'll take the negative side of this debate. I didn't watch either debate, and I won't watch the next one either. If you don't already KNOW both party platforms, you never watch TV. We also already know that it is Dole's style to attack Clinton's ethics and morals, and that Clinton waffles on the issues....so why waste our time (not to mention overriding some great prime time TV shows). It would be better to showcase all the other candidates that most people NEVER even hear of or from!

mobear: Nope who wants to pay to listen to more lies? What more is there to actually say? Dole would be the next worse President since .... well you fill in the blank. The powers that be has given us very little choice but why should I listen to only 2 sides when there is a lot more very qualified people out there running for the office? Just lots of questions and very few answers from yet another very dissatisfied citizen but wouldn't trade my citizenship for anyone else in the world. Would you?

MLSeymour: Watching the dull duopoly debates underscored again the need for Open Debates with all candidates...Browne,Perot et al.

pukka: Well I can't vote (too young) but I watched the debates with interest. I don't like Bob Dole, because as a Generation PCer His comment at the end: visit my web site @ w-w-w.dolekemp96.-o-r-g the spelling out of org showed how desperatly dole was being sycophantic to young "people". He overplayed drugs, and according to a CBS News Poll he lost the debate (50-28 vs. Clinton). Also Dole has to remember that teens can't vote (yet). He might be trying to win the electorate for 2004..

smouer: No, the debates don't change my mind, I didn't watch the Kemp/Gore debate, though I did watch the first Dole/Clinton debate. I'll vote republican regardless, though I lean libertarian (the less government the better-- I was happy when Newt shut the government down, and dissappointed that Dole and other sissies talked him into turning it back on). However voting libertarian is a wasted vote, as they don't have critical mass to effect the election. I do hope the debates are useful to the uncommitted. Maybe Colin Powell's campaigning efforts can put a spark back into the election for the un-interested. If Dole wins despite Clinton being ahead in the polls, then I will be convinced that the polls are being manipulated by the liberal establisment. For sure the parasites living off the taxpayer are agitated and will vote democratic. Campaign slogan recommendations:

Parasites for Clinton/Gore !
Spell 'Democrat' -- P-a-r-a-s-i-t-e ! Spell 'personal responsibility' -- R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n
Spell 'balanced budget' -- R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n

LifeNDeath: Unfortunately, this year the debates didn't mean anything. We will be treated to a Big government-fest. Clinton wants government to grow by 20% while Dole wants it to grow by 15%. Is this what we want? I don't think so. Other candidates who are on the ballot in all 50 states were excluded, such as Ross Perot (not much different from Clinton and Dole) and Harry Browne, who actually does stand for smaller government. He proposes to end the income tax, social security, and endless failed government programs. And he doesn't just vaguely refer to some plan somewhere. He tells you where to find it, in his book WHY GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK. This is why the debates mean nothing. All issues that challenged the monopoly of the two old parties were ignored, hence the American people lose. We have a right to hear the issues.

orbot: Lost all respect for Kemp. Dole is falling apart. Republican platform apparently indefensible. Gore presidential. Clinton such a wonk!

TMan: I didn't see the debates, they do not affect the way I vote. All of it is BS and neather Gore or Kemp mean anything they say. Just as Clinton and Dole BS all of us just to get elected.

wineland: I think the debates are a waste because one is allowed the opportunity to see how much of a gentleman, idiot, fast thinker or fast talker the candidate might be.

I think a Larry King interview with each candidate, or a Perot style info-mercial would be far more beneficial. Here the view of one candidate on one night, the next candidate the next. The debates in my view are boxing matches without physical contact.

mas: No, I did not watch the debates. Without Ross Perot and Harry Browne being included, they were a farce. I knew in advance that Clinton and Dole would babble about nothing, so I didn't bother to waste my time watching.

And I still plan to vote for Harry Browne.

Henselman: After watching both debates on Hanoi Jane's Clinton News Network, I'll probably vote for "Bubba" Clinton and Algore aka "Bozo". Frankly, I can't figure why anyone could vote poor Bob into office to face a sure depression. It is only right that Bubba and Bozo should go down with the ship when all of the short term government bonds come due. My dilemma is whether to divide my vote and keep a Republican congress. The debates have strengthened my view of how trivial the office of President truly is.

msoft: Clinton and Gore both seem to adhere to the creed that government is a cure-all for everything and this has been the Democratic Party's philosophy that has failed America. Bob Dole and the Republican Party recognizes that this is a failed idea. The debates only confirmed this. I believe that changes in our society lie with the individual and their attitudes and personal responsibility. I am voting for Bob Dole because he has integrity and stands up for what he really believes in. How can America trust a man who can't be faithful to his own wife, can we trust him with our country. I think not. Bob Dole has served his country and given a piece of himself to it, what has Bill Clinton given for his country? The polls in the last election predicted a Bush win but the opposite happened. Remember the Truman-Dewey race? I think the world is going to be in for a big surprise this November. I think the majority of people in this country mistrust Bill Clinton and that will be his own undoing. My question if we went to war tomorrow, who would you want as your leader? My leader would be Bob Dole hands down.

tosaints: not unless a candidate significantly changes his stance on what I consider as the important issues. And why aren't all the candidates included in debates? Its bunk when they say its cuz they don't have a realistic chance of winning. How can they ever have a chance if they can't even be heard?

blauvelt: Not surprisingly, third-party candidates have been excluded from the debates by the bi-partisan (read: "two-party") debate commission. The "debates" have degenerated into a self-serving status-quo love-fest staged by two branches of essentially the same political party. I watched the debates and accept them for what they are, but I am thoroughly disgusted by their portrayal by the popular media as being a legitimate, unbiased forum.

As protectors and practitioners of one of our most precious liberties, free speech, all of us can play an invaluable role in protecting the American People's democratic freedom of political choice by considering and presenting the views of third-party candidates on an even footing with those of the two major parties which have conspired to monopolize the political process and effectively dissenfranchise those who might choose an alternative if actually presented with a choice.

By any objective measure, the Libertarian candidate, Harry Browne, should be afforded treatment equal to Dole and Clinton (and Perot). The Libertarian party is a legitimate, grass-roots party with a steadily growing membership, and Mr. Browne will be on the ballot in all fifty states. He is an articulate, persuasive spokesman for limited, constitutional government, and at the very least, would introduce important and often neglected issues and ideas into the national debate.

( check out Harry's web site at http://www.harrybrowne96.org )

jrjones: Well, I do think they are useful. I believe they don't change many minds, but if even a few are affected, so much the better for that candidate! I agree that it is way past time to give conservative ideas a chance, so I loved listening to Kemp pose real ideas (not just words, really) as opposed to the mantra chanted by Gore (let's see...medicare, social security, medicaid, welfare, and education). I believe in: welfare reform, reducing the size and scope of government, education choice, tax reform/reduction, truth in sentencing, and tort reform. The Republicans address them all, and are fighting a real uphill battle, since the media lends them no friendly voices at all. I also could not quit obsessing on Gore's tan - is it real or is it QT? I do think that the politeness was a refreshing difference, and did not find it boring at all. Bring on more 'nice' debates!!

sugar21: Debates are pointless because there is yet to be a candidate who speaks the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

PopaBear: The pres/vp debates were depressing to the nth degree. Clinton & Dole were trying to make a mountain out of the molehill of what % should the governmental leviathan grow.

Absent was any suggestion that government is WAY too big and powerful and has become, instead of a protector of rights, an usurper of rights.

HARRY BROWNE, the Libertarian, and even Ross Perot (both on the ballot in all 50 states) should have been included.

afreedom: Harry Browne wasn't included, and without his ideas, I think the debate lacked any serious and workable solutions to the problems facing America today.

Freeopinion: Almost politicians often say only their hope not reality. I think we should select candidates as a good politician like when we choose our good friends. In other words,we dont't consider politics or politicians so seriously.

Ericx: I do not believe the presidential debates are useful. They often only try to better their image while deflating their opposers. A real political debate that would be considered useful I believe is one that really adresses the topic in a non offensive form. I believe the goal of a debate should be to educate the people of where they stand on a variety of issues that affect the public. Not to gain a political advantage. I also believe it should adhere to the public. Let the public bring up some issues and ask some questions. Also make the response impromptu. Do not let the peple know what the questions will be. Now all they have to come up with is how to make thier opponet look bad creatively. Instead of just answering the questions. After all they all ready have the answers long before the debate even starts. And what kind of debate is it when you know and have researched the questions that are to be asked?

CharliePevey: That's it! I've quit the Republican party. A long time ago (1992) I decided not to vote for Clinton for President--so why should I do this now? My reason for watching the debates was to see whether or not Dole and Kemp could say anything substantial about their plans. Dole was cracking jokes, and Kemp was forgetting his lines (or getting one-upped by Al Gore). The October 16 debate will just be another upper in the polls for Bubba, like every news story since the Republican convention.

As for the debates, somebody please put Ross Perot (and, why not, Ralph Nader) against Bill Clinton and Bob Dole in a debate; that's what the electorate wants to see!

As for my vote, I'm ready for someone else to step up to the plate. I'd rather be right than vote for a winner. Mr. Perot, congratulations. Not only have I decided to vote for you, I have changed my affiliation to Reformer. It's what I need to do in order to look objectively at how I vote.

TRush: The Commission on Presidential Debates showed itself to be an organization more concerned with keeping the major-party status quo than with the best interests of the country. I hope that next time, only objective criteria will be used -- along the lines of 50-state ballot access (or even on ballot in enough states to win an electoral vote majority), and possibly qualification for matching funds.

One solution proposed recently is that a candidate be required to participate in an open debate to receive matching funds. I believe this is appropriate.

dpwiener: The debates mean very little when other candidates like Perot and Browne are excluded. None of the real issues will get serious consideration, when Clinton wants to grow the Federal Government at 20% and Dole "only" wants to grow it at 14%. As for Kemp and Gore, I honestly TRIED to listen to their debate, but those have got to be two of the dullest, most boring speakers alive.

Ericx: I am back and with more comments! Today I witnessed a good debate. It was a congressional debate at howell high school in michigan. They started out telling about themselves and what they stand for. For most of the time they would answer questions that concern the students. The republicans will well represented and answered the questions very good. While the democrats will illknowelegable about some of the subjects. This debate was good because it was informative. It really helped clear up some of the ideas that they stood for. These are the kind of debates that should be held.