How to Fix the Debates: Better Moderators

The last of the Lincoln-Douglas debates took place 150 years ago today in the politically volatile Mississippi River town of Alton, Illinois.

As Stephen Douglas, the former Illinois Supreme Court Justice who was the incumbent senator, took the stage, a prominent Illinois Democrat, Dr. Thomas Hope, attempted to ask the candidate a question.

The exchange followed this course:

DR. HOPE: Judge, before you commence speaking, allow me to ask you a question.

SENATOR DOUGLAS: If you will not occupy too much of my time.

DR. HOPE: Only an instant.

SENATOR DOUGLAS: What is your question?

DR. HOPE: Do you believe that the Territorial legislatures ought to pass laws to protect slavery in the territories?

SENATOR DOUGLAS: You will get an answer in the course of my remarks.

The crowd applauded, and that was the end of any attempt to "moderate" the debate between Douglas and his Republican challenger, Abraham Lincoln. Ninety-nine and nine-tenths of what was said in Alton, as in the other cities on the Illinois debate trail of 1858, was said by Lincoln or Douglas.

Modern debates are, of course, as fully defined by their media moderators as by the candidates. During the primary season, there were several debates where a moderator--particularly CNN's Wolf Blitzer--did more talking than most of the candidates.

Moderators have not been quite so verbose this fall, as the Commission on Presidential Debates puts its imprint on the process. The commission, a corruption of democracy run by former Democratic and Republican party chairs, so carefully manages formats and rules that those allowed to sit in the moderator's chair know full well that they must conform.

And they do, miserably.

To be sure, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain are somewhat at fault for the desultory nature of the debates so far. Obama is cool to the point of being frigid, hyper-cautious in his responses and so calculating that even when he delivers a zinger it sounds too rehearsed. McCain is too hot, so desperate to make a connection that he bobs about like a demented troll and steps on his own best lines.

Theoretically, the performances of the candidates should have been improved by prodding from able moderators.

Not this year.

The first presidential debate faltered as Jim Lehrer tried without success to get Obama and McCain to engage in a serious discussion of the financial meltdown that everyone else in the country was talking about.

The second presidential debate was just weird. Tom Brokaw, hamstrung by the ridiculous CPD rules, actually seemed at times to be debating the candidates about how to handle follow-ups. Here's a sampling:

OBAMA: Tom, just a...

BROKAW: Senator McCain...

OBAMA: ... just a quick follow-up on this. I think...

MCCAIN: If we're going to have follow-ups, then I will want follow-ups, as well.

BROKAW: No, I know. So but I think we get at it...

MCCAIN: It'd be fine with me. It'd be fine with me.

BROKAW: ... if I can, with this question.

OBAMA: Then let's have one.

BROKAW: All right, let's have a follow-up.

MCCAIN: It'd be fine with me.

OBAMA: Just -- just -- just a quick follow-up, because I think -- I think this is important.

BROKAW: I'm just the hired help here, so, I mean...

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: You're doing a great job, Tom.

Ouch.

It is a reasonably safe bet that Bob Schieffer--who did not embarrass himself as the moderator of the 2004 presidential campaign's third debate between George Bush and John Kerry--will do a better job of managing tonight's debate in Hempstead, New York, than did his predecessors in Oxford, Mississippi, and Nashville, Tennessee. (Why these debates are being held in states that are not even remotely "in play" this year is a question for another day.)

But Schieffer will still be constrained by one of the CPD's many structural assaults on the democratic process. Because the commission decides who gets the honor of taking the stage with the candidates, moderators play it safe -- so as to be invited back for a repeat performance in some future election season.

Under the current rules, we'd be better off with no moderator. Just let the candidates go at one another, as Lincoln and Douglas did. The truth is that Obama and McCain, constrained by their shared desire to appear presidential, could pull it off without a problem.

Ideally, however, presidential debates would be moderated by journalists, thinkers and activists who could force the candidates to actually say something.

Here are five suggestions:

AMY GOODMAN: The host of Democracy Now takes no prisoners. She challenges politicos of both parties with questions that no one else has the guts or the understanding to ask. Dial back to her Election Day 2000 interview with then-President Bill Clinton if you want a sense of Goodman's skill set. And she has only gotten better over the ensuing eight years. No one would bring a broader range of issues to the stage and no one would do a better job of pressing the candidates to address them.

PAT BUCHANAN: The paleo-conservative commentator, television personality and three-time presidential candidate has big gripes with both candidates and both parties. He thinks Obama's a social libertine and McCain's an imperialist. He would challenge both candidates aggressively, using barbs, wit and an encyclopedic knowledge of the domestic and foreign-policy matters in which he has been intimately engaged -- often controversially, which should be a moderator qualification -- for more than four decades.

NOMI PRINS: A former managing director at Goldman Sachs and head of the international analytics group at Bear Stearns in London, Prins left Wall Street some years ago to write and talk about corporate corruption and the scandals, crises and meltdowns she so presciently predicted. Now a senior fellow with Demos, her 2004 book, Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America (The New Press) was chosen as a "Best Book" by The Economist, Barron's and The Library Journal. Prins knows how to discuss finance, the current crisis and possible fixes in the language of Wall Street and Main Street. She could lead the candidates through a real discussion of the economic issues that are the definitional concerns of this campaign.

CAROLE COLEMAN: The toughest interviewer of George Bush during his presidency was not an American journalist. It was the Washington correspondent for RTÉ, Ireland's national network. Coleman interviewed the president in the summer of 2004 and actually demanded that he answer questions. The White House was furious. Coleman was undaunted. "Should I just have been more deferential to George Bush?" she mused. "I felt that I had simply done my job and shuddered at the thought of the backlash I would surely have faced in Ireland had I not challenged the president on matters that had changed the way America was viewed around the world." Imagine a debate moderator who actually thought her duty was to the voters, as opposed to the candidates and the CPD.

RALPH NADER: The nation's leading consumer activist should be on the tonight's stage as an independent candidate who has qualified for ballot positions in 45 states -- as should Green Cynthia McKinney and Libertarian Bob Barr. But Nader's history of challenging both parties, his disdain for the compromises of official Washington and his refusal to countenance political doublespeak is what makes him moderator material. He would stir things, to be sure. But Nader's deep understanding of and respect for the republic and its potential could conceivably introduce Obama and McCain to their better angels.

Comments (64)

1. mud wrestling!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/15/2008 @ 11:34am

2. Fine nominees for moderators.

   All too good, too smart, and -- worst of all -- too independent.

   Much too hard for media owners to buy off.

   Posted by sloper at 10/15/2008 @ 11:58am

3. i'm looking forward to it. never know when something unexpected might happen regardless...

   hoping flippy mac goes bonkers on ayers or something.

   Posted by dexter666 at 10/15/2008 @ 12:06pm

4. just wish we'd had another veep debate sandwiched between pres debates 2 and 3...

   would love to see that incompetant palin get another chance to look scarily incompetant...

   Posted by dexter666 at 10/15/2008 @ 12:07pm

5. I might watch this debate since it is quite obvious that both Obama and Biden have been daring McCain to mention Ayers which means that Obama has a good response waiting,but Mccain has no idea what that response is.All McCain knows is that when Obama has time to prepare,like he did with the Wright speech,he comes out on top.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 12:14pm

6. Oh, well...Mr Nichols off on another of his "Wouldn't it be great if..."s

   BTW, tonight will be very interesting.

   McCain has said he WILL push the "Ayers/ACORN" stuff. But he also knows it's blowing up in his face with Moderates and Independents.

   So he'll likely do it quickly, momentarily...and then drop it. He'll hope it throws enough red meat to his GUPDOG/LVLIB/RED-RIO base...but not SO much that the Middle sees him as desperate and mean.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 12:21pm

7. McCain is losing voters over the age of sixty and they lived through the sixties,know all about the weather underground,know it was crazy times and don't care about Ayers.They want McCain to tell them what he is going to do for them and he needs to focus on that or lose Penn and Florida..

   Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 12:26pm

8. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 12:26pm

   Ayers and ACORN are strictly LVLIB/RIO/PONTI/GUPDOG/etc. red meat...

   people losing their 401Ks, houses, or jobs don't really care who Bill Ayers is or was or what he did when Obama was nine years old.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 12:34pm

9. Do you pay taxes? You'd better watch your wallet if Obama gets elected. And don't invest in any stocks either, based on the way the market's behaving, those will tank more and more the likelier Obama appears to get to the Presidency.

   OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT

   By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief IT'S A LEAK! Barack Obama tells Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher he intends to "spread the wealth around."

   Last updated: 10:19 am October 15, 2008 Posted: 3:37 am October 15, 2008

   WASHINGTON - You won't find it in his campaign ads, but Barack Obama let slip his plans to become a modern-day Robin Hood in the White House, confiscating money from the rich to give to the poor.

   Conservatives yesterday ripped Obama after he was caught on video telling an Ohio plumber that he intends to take the profits of small-business owners and "spread the wealth around" to those with lesser incomes.

   The fracas over Obama's tax plan broke out Sunday outside Toledo when Joe Wurzelbacher approached the candidate.

   Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

   "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

   After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

   Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 12:36pm

10. "It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

    Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

    "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

    Critics said Obama let the cat out of the bag.

    "It's clear that his main goal is redistribution of wealth,

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 12:36pm

11. I dunno, if Amy Goodman gets up there she's liable to "Joe McCarthy" herself: If the Mainstream sees her in action she'll never work again.

    Buchannans on JOHNS list so he appears objective I guess.

    And Nader? Bhwaaa... Bhwaahaaaahaaa... Bhwaaahaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaa haaaaaaahaahaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaa....

    Does anybody think, in their attempt to make these candidates deviate from their talking points, that theses guys would do anything but make fools of themselves on camera?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/15/2008 @ 12:37pm

12. Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

    "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

    Critics said Obama let the cat out of the bag.

    "It's clear that his main goal is redistribution of wealth, not growth," said Andy Roth with the anti-tax group Club for Growth. "He's perfectly happy to destroy wealth as long as he can redistribute it."

    Obama has been meticulous, Roth said, to conceal the "socialistic" nature of his tax plans. "But every once in a while, he lets it slip," he said.

    Republican candidate John McCain yesterday charged that Obama's comment was telling.

    "This explains how Senator Obama can promise an income-tax cut for millions who aren't even paying income taxes right now," he said in Pennsylvania.

    "My plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can 'spread the wealth around.' My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans."

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 12:37pm

13. Look for continued major tankage in the markets if Obama gets elected due to higher taxes, plus a return to the late 70's of Jimmy Carter with increasing rates of joblessness and inflation as companies cut jobs to trim costs and hike prices to pay for increasing costs of energy and every other commodity. My advice is to buy gold and real estate, those are the only true inflation hedges.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 12:40pm

14. Mask-No point in McCain preaching to the choir and he'd best try to get some new converts and Ayers won't get him those..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 12:42pm

15. Ponti-I don't pay taxes and live off of tax payers and could use a raise..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 12:45pm

16. Look for continued major tankage in the markets if Obama gets elected due to higher taxes, plus a return to the late 70's of Jimmy Carter with increasing rates of joblessness and inflation as companies cut jobs to trim costs and hike prices to pay for increasing costs of energy and every other commodity. My advice is to buy gold and real estate, those are the only true inflation hedges.-----Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 12:40pm

    Wow....that Obama is amazing! FOUR MONTHS BEFORE he's even Inaugurated...

    and the market has already tanked and we're paying increased costs for energy!!!!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 12:46pm

17. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 12:46pm

    "and the market has already tanked and we're paying increased costs for energy!!!!"

    You don't think the market is capable of discounting for future probabilities, including the 100 percent chance of major tax increases under Obama and the Democratic Congress?

    You don't much about the stock market, do you MASK?

    Of course you don't. That would explain why you're an Obama supporter.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 12:51pm

18. Mask-No point in McCain preaching to the choir and he'd best try to get some new converts and Ayers won't get him those..-------Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 12:42pm

    Ohhhhh, but he's GOT to now. He PROMISED them he would...just yesterday in fact.

    Plus he can't just "be nice" or the debate would be a draw and he needs a knock-out punch.

    Sooooooo, being McCain what he'll do is...try to split the difference. Throw out 1 or 2 (at most) comments about Bill Ayers or ACORN so that PONTI will have something to Cut & Paste off of The Drudge Report (You don't really think he reads Charles Hurt in the NY Post, do you?)

    and then drop it fast and hope the Moderates and Independents didn't notice...and then move on to his "brand-new, fresh-out-of-the-box, get-it-now-while-it's-hot economic revitalization plan which proves he 'feels your pain'" talking points.

    But those on the Hard Right hoping for blood are going to be disappointed, I think....

    I HOPE I'm wrong. And that McCain goes a little too far and comes out blasting both barrels....and appears not only mean and ill-tempered and focusing on "issues" nobody outside of Ditto-head-land CARES about...

    but very desperate.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 12:51pm

19. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 12:45pm

    "Ponti-I don't pay taxes and live off of tax payers and could use a raise.."

    Of course you a) don't pay taxes and b) want a raise, you're a Democrat, aren't you?

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 12:52pm

20. mask-McCain let his temper back him into a corner and will have to mention Ayers or look weak,but Obama will have his response ready and will probably put McCain on the defensive and ruin his chance to say much about the economy.Don't know,but will be interesting.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 12:55pm

21. Ponti-No,I'm not a democrat.As I have stated numerous times I vote for both parties.I am a disabled Viet Nam veteran who worked for many years and have a destroyed body and can't work now so I live off of my veterans disability check,but it isn't enough to live on and puts me well below the poverty level..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 1:00pm

22. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 12:55pm

    Hey IM, you know you're a lot like chaoszen, who thinks that because he exists, he has the right to demand that the rest of us provide him with health care. And when he says that he owes everyone else free health care, too. Gotta admire that grasp on reality you liberals have.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 1:01pm

23. Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 12:51pm

    Oh, so the Dow plunged because it ANTICIPATED Obama winning (nothing to do with that housing thing???)....I see.

    And gas prices rose because Big Oil or OPEC knew Obama was going to win and thought.....what?

    How's this "theory" of yours work again?!??!??

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 1:01pm

24. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 1:00pm

    I know all that, IM. I don't argue with the right that our disabled vets have to their benefits. What I argue with is the right for perfectly able bodied people who have never done shit for this country thinking that the world owes them a living and everything else. And that's the sort of people you are in with.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 1:03pm

25. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 1:01pm

    The housing problem was part of it, but the certainty of major tax increases that would result from Obama's election are a big part of it too. Just as the crash of '29 was a major cause of the Depression, but the policies of Roosevelt are thought to have made it much worse.

    Of course, I don't expect you to understand this, because you have already told me that it is an article of faith with you that tax increases don't hurt the economy. Still waiting on your response to the question that if this is true, why the government doesn't raise taxes by 300 percent, redistribute it, and make us all rich.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 1:06pm

26. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 12:55pm

    McCain's definitely in a box with paradoxical options-

    1. He needs to attack Obama to cut into his polls. Plus he's promised PONTI and Pals (new show on Nick Junior...heheh) that he'd "take it to Obama on his 'radical associations'".

    but 2. That stuff HURTS him with the Moderates and Independents who he VITALLY needs to even try to win.

    The gamble he's going to have to make is "Can I say a LITTLE 'Ayers/ACORN' stuff and it satisfy the Rabid Right...or will they expect more?" and "If they DO get mad at not getting enough blood...will they stay home or is fear of Obama still going to drive them to the polls?"

    I think McCain is smart enought to know that the Hard Right is so terrified, he can MOSTLY ignore them tonight.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 1:06pm

27. ponti-I'm against welfare and I only use my free veterans health care to get a new artificial leg with since they cost $25,000 a leg.Other than that I don't go to doctors and rely on God to keep me healthy which God does.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 1:08pm

28. Mask-I almost feel sorry for McCain because he is in what is quite likely a lose/lose situation as you have so ably shown.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 1:11pm

29. The democrat primary debates were

    "FIXED"...

    Posted by bleedingheart at 10/15/2008 @ 1:13pm

30. bleedinheart-I had two of my dogs fixed.What's your point?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 1:15pm

31. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 1:08pm

    You're against welfare? Then you're voting for the wrong candidate, my friend.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 1:17pm

32. ponti smells like cheese,

    ponti smells like cheese,

    nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah

    NYAH!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/15/2008 @ 1:19pm

33. ponti-What did Bush do about it?I wasn't going to vote until I saw what was going on at Palin/McCain rallies and learned more about Palin and do not want her anywhere near the white house.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 1:23pm

34. Hey IM, you know you're a lot like chaoszen, who thinks that because he exists, he has the right to demand that the rest of us provide him with health care. And when he says that he owes everyone else free health care, too. Gotta admire that grasp on reality you liberals have.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 1:01pm

    I know all that, IM. I don't argue with the right that our disabled vets have to their benefits. What I argue with is the right for perfectly able bodied people who have never done shit for this country thinking that the world owes them a living and everything else. And that's the sort of people you are in with.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 1:03pm

    Let's see now . . . is it gone? . . . nope. Damn, PONTI! What's your shoe size? You must be nearly choking on it.

    LOL.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/15/2008 @ 1:28pm

35. Obama would look like a Kerry clone if Nader got in there as a debater. Obama couldn't stand next to him for 10 minutes. The DLC weasel would be shaking, or frozen solid.

    Posted by ElyDog at 10/15/2008 @ 2:07pm

36. Well, GOP posers and Naderite cultists...

    in 20 days you disappear back in Ralph's quadroannual spider hole...for 3 1/2 years....

    and then you get to start all over again!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 2:21pm

37. If McCain tries to bring up Ayers, I'd love to see Obama counter with some questions about the GOP pushing stuff like "Waterboard Barack Obama"...

    http://www.sacbee.com/812/story/1314854.html

    ...and how the result has been the Secret Service now having to conduct investigations into people yelling "kill him" directed towards Obama at Republican campaign rallies.

    Posted by Lillian at 10/15/2008 @ 2:28pm

38. When Barack Obama responded to the Ohio plumber who didn't want his taxes raised that Obama wanted to "spread the wealth around," I wanted to tell him to spread his own wealth around. It was in any event a rare moment of candor on the part of Senator Obama.

    Obama all but told the plumber that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity. The encounter played out one of the old themes of democratic politics: the appeal to the many to take from the few. It's traditionally an easy sell in democratic regimes.

    Despite Obama's implication to the contrary, however, It doesn't represent much in the way of change. According to the most recent (2006) data released by the IRS, the top 1 percent of filers paid nearly 40 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 60 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent paid virtually no income taxes (3 percent of all income taxes paid).

    The personal income tax, the federal government's main source of revenue, is collected overwhelmingly from a relative handful of Americans. The large majority of all Americans pay little or no income tax.

    Given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, political philosophers have long worried that government based on majority rule could lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city," warns Aristotle.

    The founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle's worry. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be "incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." James Madison and others therefore made it a "first object of government" to protect personal property from

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 2:46pm

39. unjust confiscation. Numerous provisions were included in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the property rights of citizens.

    Given that one of the causes of the American Revolution was a tax, the founders understood very well that taxation could become a way for one group to prey on another. So while the Constitution empowered the federal government to levy taxes, it limited this power mostly to indirect taxes like tariffs, duties, and excise taxes. For much of American history the federal government subsisted solely on those fees.

    The Constitution did grant the federal government the power to levy "direct" taxes on a "per head" basis, but required that all money raised this way must be given to the states according to their population. The aim here was to preserve a decentralized federal system of rule, and to make it "difficult to place a direct tax on capital, the most destructive tax in terms of economic growth and economic initiative," according to Professor Edward Erler.

    Until the Civil War, the idea of a tax on individual incomes would have seemed preposterous to most Americans. Only as an emergency wartime measure did Congress adopt an income tax in the 1860s, and the measure was allowed to lapse with little fanfare in 1872. Estimates vary regarding the percentage of citizens affected by the income tax of this era, but none places it at more than 10 percent.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 2:47pm

40. ponti-A fair number of our deep thinking founders thought that people were property.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 2:48pm

41. 1. As Nader is a candidate himself, one would think he would be disqualified as a moderator.

    2. Pat Buchanan!?? Give me a break!

    Posted by jgold2 at 10/15/2008 @ 2:57pm

42. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 2:48pm

    So, two wrongs make a right?

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 2:57pm

43. ponti-No,but it does raise the question as to how deep a thinkers that they were and how much they understood about history.In other words,it brings their judgment into question.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 2:59pm

44. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 2:59pm

    "ponti-No,but it does raise the question as to how deep a thinkers that they were and how much they understood about history.In other words,it brings their judgment into question."

    Well, I'd say that the fact that they founded the richest and most prosperous country in the history of mankind pretty well proves their judgment was quite good. Of course, if you're a bitter socialist wondering why your wonderful dreams always fail in practice, the success of the USA is like salt on a fresh wound. This pretty well explains the nastiness of most lefties, I think.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 3:05pm

45. ponti-I'm hardly a socialist.I'm just not into possessions and own little.God provides me with what little I need in that way and so I don't concern myself with property.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 3:11pm

46. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 3:11pm

    Be that as it may, the fact that some of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders doesn't cast any more of a shadow on them than the fact that most of them did not bathe regularly. It's common for educational charlatans to impress the ill-educated by applying our current standards to people who lived hundreds of years ago in an attempt to delegitimize people and ideas as a class. Don't fall for it.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2008 @ 3:16pm

47. ponti-I don't fall for anything.I look at facts and arrive at my own conclusions which is why I have crossover beliefs rather than all right or left wing beliefs.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 3:18pm

48. Mr. Nichols,

    I think you are right. And of course my ultimate, dream candidate for a moderator would be:

    Bill Moyers.

    The episode in which he interviewed you and Bruce Fein remains for me one of the highlights of television.

    Posted by badiou at 10/15/2008 @ 4:09pm

49. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/15/2008 @ 3:32pm

    How exactly does Ayers differ from you in his advocation of violence? The only difference I can see is that the Weathermam frequently let people know before they blew something up and the color of the skin of the people on the recieving end.

    Further, there is a difference between working with someone - or even going to their church - and subscribing to their beliefs.

    And what exactly is your problem with New Party? Their principle idea is electoral fusion, which could work just as easily for the Constitution/Libertarian parties as it does for New Party/Green parties. Nothing particularly radical about it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/15/2008 @ 4:13pm

50. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/15/2008 @ 3:32pm

    I suspect we are going to start seeing people take a page from the conservative playbook over the last few years - Obama Derangement Syndrome, anyone?

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/15/2008 @ 4:16pm

51. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/15/2008 @ 3:32pm

    Gee, can you imagine if Ayers had said "Think Dresden" as a "solution" to the "Global War on Terror"?

    or said (on the subject of "winning" the Korean War)

    "3-5 nuclear weapons against China and a threat to Russia to keep in line or they would have been next would have given the world a much better opportunity for peace than we have seen as a result of not letting MacArthur achieve the victory that we should have."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 4:28pm

52. BTW, given my point, love to see Larry go to people losing their home or their job and say "Look, McCain may not help on those issues (and I don't want him to help), but the Other Guy knows a guy who was a radical in the 60s and you can always find another house or job!"....

    and watch them beat the crap out of him!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 4:30pm

53. Just a reminder for Ponti and i'm nobody that anti-slavery societies already existed at the time of American Independence and that a fair number of the slave-owning founding fathers were philosophically conflicted about slavery. Washington was not the only one who freed "his" slaves in his will. It was the cotton gin that saved slavery by allowing planters to reap even greater profits from their slaves and that ran over the Enlightenment qualms of some slave owners.

    As for democracy and property, I have very little sympathy for the propertied classes, since they have built their wealth on the exploitation of labor - agricultural or industrial - and have responded, more often than not, with wanton violence to any assertion of right or justice by the exploited and oppressed.

    David Williams' "Bitterly Divided: The South's Inner Civil War" is particularly good in discussing the relationship of property, especially land and slaves, to democracy in the pre-Civil War American South. It is part of a growing body of literature on the "Civil War within the Civil War" that tore the American Confederacy apart, including the complaint of many white southerners that it was "a rich man's war but a poor man's fight."

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/15/2008 @ 4:32pm

54. cka2nd-But they kept the slaves while they were alive,although I am aware that Jefferson and others were not into slavery,but weren't sure what to do if they freed them since their economy depended on them and weren't sure that the slaves would be better off freed since there was no place for them.They freed them in their wills and let someone else worry about that.Was a bad thing all the way around.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/15/2008 @ 4:39pm

55. I doubt McCain will get much uplift from undecided voters by citing Ayers. ACORN is another matter, but still very little uplift.

    Face it, to be undecided at this point isn't an indicator of one's intelligence. Both candidates have outlined programs and policies. If you haven't made a decision yet, you are an emotions voter anyway and the facts don't really matter. It's how you "feel". Whatever...

    On subject, I do like the idea of a new style of moderator; No moderator. How about the debaters simply take the floor. Let them talk the issues, frame the insults. Let the conversation take a life of it's own?

    Could that be any worse than we already have? I have to admit, the only good presidential debate I've ever seen was on an episode of The West Wing...

    The only things you can be sure of from tonight's debate is that George Staphanopolis will gush Obama the winner - and nothing new, nor of substance will be discussed by the candidates.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 10/15/2008 @ 6:55pm

56. dang, yet another sneering conservative who doesn't quite grasp the fact that his heroes got their shot over the last eight years and look what a shambles they've left us. indeed, competent administrators like clinton, kerry, gore, obama, etc., receive nothing but scorn, while a third-rate b-movie actor is swooned over despite his legacy of corruption, illegality, and spendthriftiness, and the utter incompetent W lies us into war and bankruptcy. get a clue pal. democrats are not liberals; they are generally centrists, and the redistribution of wealth that so concerns you is nothing but a drop in the bucket compared to the transfer of wealth that we have seen lately as we socialize the greed and incompetence of our financial sector.

    Posted by subagua at 10/15/2008 @ 6:57pm

57. Nader and Buchanan would be great together as moderators. The idea of having two guys who have been excluded from debates sharing control of a debate seems fitting. However, I'm sure no matter how acrimonious the election was the candidates would agree to skip such a debate.

    Posted by sdslaw at 10/15/2008 @ 7:06pm

58. Posted by subagua at 10/15/2008 @ 6:57pm

    Democrats are centrists, not liberals? ..."and the redistribution of wealth that so concerns you is nothing but a drop in the bucket compared to the transfer of wealth that we have seen lately as we socialize the greed and incompetence of our financial sector."

    Obama and McCain both voted FOR the $850B bailout. I fail to see how conservatives and liberals can be on opposite sides when our government has such complete disregard for our liberty.

    You see, subagua, I can see that Mccain and Obama are both deceiving us. You can apparently only see one side. Shame really. You probably even believe that four years into an Obama Presidency US troops will be out of Iraq and Afghanistan...

    Posted by freiheit1 at 10/15/2008 @ 7:09pm

59. Sure hope they will be, freheit, as is the desire of the vast majority of dems. all i hear from the repubs is the need for victory in iraq at any cost, whatever that means -- as if we couldn't declare it already and come home. I can't even imagine where our troops will be 4 years into a mccain presidency. iran? venezuela? hanoi? i'll take my chances w/obama.

    Posted by subagua at 10/15/2008 @ 8:21pm

60. and yes, democrats are centrists. they believe in maintaining the existing social, political, judicial, and economic structures while instituting necessary safeguards against the failings of human nature. there are no democratic presidents in recent memory who have sought to undermine these social systems the way a true liberal would. as opposed to, say, running up 10 trillion in debt to finance what? what do we have to show for all the debt the republicans have run up since 1980? new energy technology? first-class infrastructure? a workable justice system? just what have we gotten for all that republican spending? corporate welfare? S&L bailout? sweetheart no-bid contracts? how much has it cost us to service that debt, as we have now been doing for over 25 years? you think that's not liberalism?

    Posted by subagua at 10/15/2008 @ 8:31pm

61. you cons just don't get it. the dystopic future is now and in the coming months millions of schmuks will awaken from their pop culture/consumerist drunken binge with a nasty hangover and a nastier attitude.

    they will indeed see their own vices and culpability, but as human nature dictates they will be a lot more pissed off at the irresponsibility and robber baron tendencies of those who led them down this path of ruin...

    ceo's paying themselves hundreds of millions for half crappy performance, credit sharks extending absurd lines of credit, fat cats scrathing each others' backs...

    the party is over. the dystopic future is now...and it ain't "socialism" folks will be blaming!

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/15/2008 @ 8:53pm

62. Posted by freiheit1 at 10/15/2008 @ 6:55pm

    FREI complaining about Stephanopolous...

    the debate isn't even half over and DRUDGE already has McCain winning it!

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 10:09pm

63. Debate just over. Now I'm counting the seconds to see how quickly ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, the Nation, et al unanimously and independently come out with their habitual conclusion - Obama Won.

    Posted by CrtclThnkr at 10/15/2008 @ 10:35pm

64. Well, Obama did win by any reasonable standard and Bob Schieffer was great.

    Bet FOX news will be accusing him of being a sitar playing hippie radical socialist collaborator because he made the other old white guy look crabby, shallow and slow.

    Posted by Pogge at 10/15/2008 @ 11:03pm