Time to scrap or change presidential debates

There has been a lot of criticism about media focus on the "theatrics" of the presidential debates rather than the issues. But that's because the current format of naming one almighty moderator who "alone" decides on the issues and questions (even, apparently in the Town Hall debate) means that many issues -- and most of those that are important to people -- get ignored.

Inconceivable that a "domestic policy" debate doesn't cover immigration or that a "foreign policy" debate ignores the crisis in Europe. What planet do these moderators live on? And why did we have to listen to vice presidential candidates discuss Syria for 15 minutes just because it's something Martha Raddatz wants to know more about?

Raucous and comical as they were at times, the Republican primary debates, with a much better mix of moderators and formats, at least covered the issues and gave voters a chance to see where these candidates really stood.

The stifling format of these more formal presidential debates reflects the desire of the campaigns and the "presidential debate commission" to tightly control events. With these septuagenarian moderators and their astonishing self-censorship, they get what they want and the voters miss out on an opportunity to nail down these candidates on issues that matter.

Deficit deception

This post at Firedoglake pretty much expresses my frustration with the Democratic arguments about the deficit. Citing a statement from Rachel Maddow's Steve Benen, David Dayen titled his post "Democrats Bragging on Their Deficit-Cutting Skills Helps Nobody, Hurts America."

Benen defends Democrats by saying Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have been the biggest deficit cutters. Not only does this ignore the fact that Republican are playing a cynical game of bait and switch, it is also bad economics and arguing that his what the public expects defeats the purpose of politics. As Dayen writes:

The public has come to believe the wrong thing, and if Democratic partisans refuse to straighten them out on it, there’s no way to change that mentality. Partisans who use the deficit data to bolster the case for their party consign the country to continuing austerity and will make it impossible for government to carry out the functions of progressive policy, or to stimulate the economy when the need arises. It’s an extremely dangerous game.

Is Ryan ready to be president?

President Ryan. Try that on for size.

If the Republican ticket wins in November, Vice President Paul Ryan would be the proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency.

While former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin faced a storm of criticism about her qualifications to succeed to the White House when John McCain picked her as his running mate in 2008, there has been virtually no debate in this year’s campaign about whether Ryan is ready to be president.

Presidential nominee Mitt Romney appears to be in good health and if he is elected there is no reason to think that his running mate would succeed to the presidency during his term of office.

There hardly ever is. And yet it has happened more than 20% of the time, with nine vice presidents out of our 44 presidents succeeding to the White House in the wake of death or resignation of the president.

In 2008, critics attacked Palin as not being ready for the presidency when gaps in her knowledge of world affairs and general lack of political experience became evident.

Commentator Bill Kristol and other conservatives had championed the charismatic Alaska governor for the vice presidential nomination because they thought she would bring “energy” to the campaign.

And it was Kristol who led the push this year to make Ryan the vice presidential nominee – again to tap into that youthful conservative energy. Kristol, in fact, would have preferred Ryan at the top of the ticket with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as his running mate.

Conventional wisdom has it that vice presidential candidates don’t really tip the scales in voters’ choice of president. And yet the VP selection seems to be an important part of the mix and Romney’s choice of Ryan has generated a lot of debate and discussion, not least because of the Wisconsin congressman’s reputation as a fire-breathing fiscal hawk.

But Ryan has run into credibility problems, in weighty matters such as the inscrutable math of his budget proposals to less important questions like misstating his time running a marathon or staging a completely artificial photo-op washing pots in a soup kitchen.

Some of this may seem harmless, but when you’re the punchline for comedians – one joke last week said that after the 90-minute vice presidential debate, Ryan would claim he did it in 60 minutes – it can distract from your more serious message.

Peppering your convention speech with numerous fuzzy statements that require clarification from fact-checkers can also distract from your message.

But the main distraction from Ryan’s message of fiscal conservatism in this campaign has been his shyness in talking about it in any detail.

Remember that famous debate on Medicare that Ryan declared he welcomed and wanted to have and would win? Now he rarely brings up his plan for voucherizing Medicare and when asked just retreats into a mantra that nothing will change for those currently in or near retirement and his plan will “save” Medicare for the next generation.

None of that necessarily disqualifies him to run as vice president. But does it give voters confidence that he would be suitable as president if the need should arise?

It’s not something we like to talk about because it generally means a calamity of some sort has occurred. And yet, critics didn’t hesitate to fault Palin for being unsuitable for the White House.

Romney himself has no doubts about Ryan's readiness for the presidency. He told CBS's "60 Minutes" when he announced Ryan's selection in August that it was his first priority in choosing a running mate and that the Wisconsin congressman has the judgment, character and capacity to become president if necessary.

Perhaps because a seven-term congressman seems prima facie more qualified than a half-term governor, there has been little questioning of Ryan’s readiness for office, even though he would be one of the youngest vice presidents ever.

Ryan, who would be nine days shy of his 43^rd birthday when he took office on Jan. 20, would rank as sixth youngest behind John Calhoun, who took office 14 days before he turned 43.

Youth, however, is not in itself a disqualification. Richard Nixon, after all, was second youngest vice president at 40 and Dan Quayle third youngest at 41 when they took office in 1953 and 1989 respectively.

In recent times, vice presidential candidates have generally either won statewide office or served in a high administration position. George H.W. Bush, for instance, ran for vice president after serving as director of Central Intelligence, and Dick Cheney was defense secretary during the first Gulf war.

Those who ran directly from the House of Representatives have not been on successful tickets – New York Congressman William Miller was Barry Goldwater’s running mate in 1964 and Geraldine Ferraro, also from New York, ran with Walter Mondale in 1984.

Voters seem to prefer that candidates for president or vice president have a wider purview than that gained by a congressman representing his or her district. Also, standing the test of a statewide contest is valuable seasoning for a national campaign.

Although Ryan had clearly cribbed well for foreign policy questions in last week’s debate, he was left floundering against Vice President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a lengthy discussion of Afghanistan.

In general, some of Ryan’s missteps in the campaign could be attributed to lack of experience outside the cosseted environments of Congress and his Wisconsin district. While not exactly jejune, he often does not come across as having the maturity or gravitas to take charge in the White House.

Of course, if the Romney-Ryan ticket wins the day Nov. 6, he probably would never have to. Unless he does.

Nobel Peace Prize

I need to revive this blog because some things that don't fit in my other blogs just cry out for comment -- like today's announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize for the European Union.

It is an Orwellian decision, equal to giving the award to Kissinger after bombing Cambodia or to Obama before he has a chance to do anything to earn it. Coming just days after Merkel needed 7,000 policemen, tear gas, water cannons and stun grenades to protect her for a six-hour visit in Athens, it is especially ironic. My column on the visit earlier this week included the headline "Euro was supposed to bring peace, not riot police."

It's clear that the Nobel committee often wants the prize to be monitory but in this case it's likely to encourage Merkel and other leaders to persist in their disastrous policy of ruining millions of lives in southern Europe to preserve low unemployment and easy prosperity in northern Europe. The euro has turned the European Union, as Soros has compellingly explained, into an imperial enterprise. And now it has gotten a Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

The role and record of the EU in fostering peace and integration has been historic, but now the ill-advised adoption of a common currency is undoing much of that good work. It is spectacularly bad timing to make the award with the current crew running the show.