It is a dark time for democracy. Antifa, Black Lives Matter and other Marxist organizations are running rampant around the country looting, burn and committing all manners of violence. If you disagree with their worldview publicly, they will come after you. They are encouraged in this by the very politicians who are supposed to represent the people, who are supposed to help provide for a civilized society. These politicians are giving people “space to destroy.” Why aren’t they providing for “domestic tranquility?”
One of the features of Presidential campaigns since Kennedy/Nixon have been the debates. Since 1976 they have been a recurring feature every four years. The debates were once run by the League of Women Voters. That ended after 1992 when Ross Perot was invited to be on stage. The DNC and the RNC run them through an organization they created. Neither the DNC not the RNC wanted to give a platform to someone who might actually say things out loud that many people wanted to hear but were an anathema to Washington politicians.
And it is not just presidential campaigns that have them. Debates have become the staple of the election process around this country. Their importance is echoed by the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI). This is an organization created by former President Obama. The YALI affirm that debates;
“help voters make informed choices and encourage candidates to focus on policy issues, a conviction so widely held that these candidate showdowns have become mainstays of the electoral process in many places.”
The Washington Post has a slogan that shows up on the front page of the newspaper. “Democracy Dies In Darkness.” This is supposed to affirm the importance of transparency in government. This underscores the importance of bringing sunlight to the processes of government. All processes including election campaigns should be open to the public.
Given this background, why is WaPo suggesting that maybe debates are not a good idea? Karen Tumulty opined that it’s time to rethink the debates. She doesn’t really say why, just that maybe it’s not a good thing. Tumulty did point out that a debate requires the candidates to suspend public appearances for a few days while preparing. That might affect PDJT. However, Biden’s schedule seems pretty open at this point.
Other left-wing media outlets have jumped into the fray against the debates. CNN political analyst Joe Lockhart, a former Clinton White House press secretary, flat out stated that Biden shouldn’t debate Trump. Why? Because PDJT is a liar and Biden should not have to respond to his lies. If it were true that PDJT is a liar, shouldn’t Biden be pointing out the lies to the public?
The NYTimes’ Elizabeth Drew is against the debates because they are “meaningless and without substance.” Don’t the debates give the public an opportunity to see the candidates thinking on their feet? Prep helps one to have information available when the questions come up, but the unknown nature of your opponent’s response allows the public to see who can react on their feet. Isn’t this a good quality?
All of these media outlets are quick to point out that they are not concerned that Joe Biden can go toe to toe with the President in a debate. Hmm…If you believe that, I believe there is a bridge in Brooklyn we should be talking about.
Joe Biden has become a walking advertisement for dementia. At this point, there have to be serious conversations going on within the Democratic elite about this. This is undoubtedly playing into the delay regarding who the VP pick will be. You cannot settle on a VP pick until you know for sure who the Presidential candidate will be.
Debates are an important part of the campaign process. Eliminating them would indeed be a dark day for democracy in this country.