1992: Commission On Presidential Debates Talk Analysis

In 1992, Co-Chairman of the Commission of Presidential Debates Paul Kirk spoke about that years Presidential debates.  Specifically in this clip, Kirk explains that years election as a landmark year due to its unique organization of debates including the first televised events of three Presidential debates and one Vice Presidential debate.  Moreover, Kirk explains briefly the impact of debates on voters according to the statistics of that year. 

1984 Presidential Debate: Reagan Vs. Mondale

On 10/7/1984, President Reagan squared off against Mr. Mondale in a Presidential debate.  This clip of that debate covers a question asked to President Reagan about his religious beliefs and practice, and their role in his policy making.  Reagen responded by explaining he prefers to keep his faith separate from his Presidential duties. 

1976 Presidential Debate: Ford Vs. Carter

Presidential Debate in 1976 between President Ford and Governer Jimmy Carter.  In this segment of the debate, President Ford receives questions about his choice to grant Richard Nixon a pardon after the Watergate scandal and his program for granting immunity to draft and active duty deserters.

How Have Presidential Debates Changed Over Time?

Overtime, there have been obvious changes in the Presidential debates.  However, there are specific debates that may have paved the way for change in the debates.  For example, when looking at the very first Presidential debate between Lincoln and Douglas, it is obvious that there were no televisions view such debates.  What transpired in the debate included twenty-one hours of debate in Illinois broken up into seven separate debates.  Historically, these debates led to Lincoln becoming President (www.USPOLITICS.about.com).  The next major election debate that would change the way elections took place was the Kennedy/Nixon debates in 1960.  These debates though important like every other debates, were special because they were the first televised debates.  See the following clip.

These debates were the nation's first opportunity to see the candidates go at it from all across the nation.  However, while informative, and pioneering in elections, did the televising of these debates change the way America votes for its candidates?  Essentially, now that the country is able to see these debates from every state on public television, it has enabled viewers to look past the issues and see into the personality of the candidates.  With that being said, perhaps the televising of debates has enabled Americans to make their choices based on a larger percentage of personality approval and a less percentage of policy platform approval than before.  In viewing several debates since the first televised debates, it appears to me that there has been a slight shift of candidates attacking opposing policies to candidates attacking the character of opposing candidates.  See the following video.  

Perhaps the debates have always been this way on some level or another, but now that the mass media is so powerful, we are able to see it.  However, in viewing the two debates, I believe there is a very transparent difference in the body language, attitudes, and overall agenda of the debates.  Thus, my opinion that while the media has evolved, election debates have evolved with it and there has been a shift.  I urge voters to vote for sure.  However, I urge viewers to attempt to vote less according to character flaws or qualities and more so about the policies.  

Does Herman Cain Have What It Takes To Win A Presidential Debate?

With the elections coming up in just a year, it is no surprise that many Americans are looking at the Republican candidates and their stances in an effort to picture what the national debates will be like.  In doing so, many Americans have also become, like myself, much infatuated with Herman Cain.  While Cain may be receiving much media attention and support from other Conservatives, I wonder, can Herman Cain win a debate against President Obama?  According to Rush Limbaugh, Cain is more than qualified not only to beat Obama in the race, but to be a more effective leader than Obama as well.  According to Rush's website, a lot can be said about Cain granted how he's handled media scrutiny lately.  See the following website for a full transcript of what Rush said regarding Cain versus Obama (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/10/comparing_the_experience_of_obama_and_cain).  Now that you have read this website, see the following video of Mike Tyson parodying Herman Cain just because its funny as hell.

Now that we have seen what Rush and Mike Tyson think of Herman Cain, it begs the question again:  can Herman Cain win a debate against President Obama?  While it is completely entertaining and laughable some of the things that Cain has said, it is also scary.  The country is not looking for entertainment, the country is looking for leadership.  With the primaries happening now and the nomination and national debate coming around the corner, it is my professional opinion that Cain can only play the crazy card for so long.  We have a President who is currently under much scrutiny and criticism and should Cain win the Republican nomination, we will have a debate amongst two people who are privy to having shots taken at them by the media.  However, Obama has shown to be a very charismatic and well-spoken speaker, while I could write a dissertation on what has been said about Cain's public speaking, I will simply say he has work to do.  Given that over 53 million people watched Obama and McCain debate for the first time, Cain should be preparing in the off chance he wins the nomination to answer to the nation officially on a national debate level.  

The world is a crazy place, and it just may be crazy enough to nominate who I think is the craziest candidate I have ever seen.  Herman Cain, you entertain me.  My request to you, is to censor yourself just a bit.  Maybe take it down a notch so I can write about someone else.  Until you do so, while you continue charming America one comment at a time, I have no choice but to continue writing about you.  God bless America, and God bless you Herm.    

Romney Makes A Powerful Promise For 2016

 In Washington at the "Defending the American Dream Summit," Presidential candidate Mitt Romney made a very steep promise.  In what looks like a continuous effort to shrink the government, Romney promises that should he become President, by the end of his term in 2016 he will have reduced the spending levels to 20% of GDP.  Romney explained that to meet that goal, the government must find $500 billion in annual savings.

According to CNN, in an effort to fulfill this promise, Romney explained that the biggest money saver in this plan would be to place the control of medicaid into the hands of the states, and limiting the company's growth to the consumer price index.  Moreover, he included plans to slice budgeting from other sources that would specifically benefit the conservative platform such as Planned Parenthood.  He also suggested the following proposals:

- Re-structuring Social Security and Medicare, including letting seniors choose between federal coverage and private health insurance plans

- Reducing foreign aid to countries that don't need it and countries "that oppose American interests."

- Cutting the size of the federal workforce and linking government salaries to private sector salaries

- Combining wasteful government agencies

The Democratic party has already contested this proposal. In a memo from the Obama election campaign, said the Romney plan would destroy Medicare and Medicaid, enact cuts that would hurt the middle class and provide tax breaks to corporations. Moreover, "He would return American families to the failed economic policies that contributed to the years of rising inequality, stagnant wages, and eroding middle-class security," the memo said. While the constant disputes over campaign promises will continue to occur, it will be interested to see if Romney's plan is realistic or idealistic. In regards to this promise, one thing may be depended on, and that is the advancement of one party, and the disappointment of another.

Cain Vs. The Media: Round 102938545849304

It seems as though every week, one can expect that when the name "Herman Cain" is entered on any Internet search engine, the results may very well yield controversy.  But this week, the controversy is not about being pro-choice or pro-life, tax reform, health care, or unemployment.  It is about a strong presidential candidate, and sexual harassment.  In the late 1990's, Herman Cain was allegedly involved in acts of sexual harassment during an era when he headed the National Restaurant Association.  While no specific details have come to surface yet, this issue has sparked many responses and quite frankly has trumped much of the talk this week regarding politics in the U.S.

Perhaps one question should be considered in regards to this weeks latest Cain coverage.  Should this incident trump the media coverage and discussion of the election when such issues as abortion, taxes, unemployment, and health insurance exist?  While such issues are the reality of Americans, much of what media outlets and other politicians are discussing are this alleged event.  Cain has refused to acknowledge this issue amongst the media.  However, many opposing candidates and other politicians who are opposed to Cain in general have said that he should speak up to bury the issue.  For example, former Utah Governor and competing candidate Jon Huntsman has called for Cain to speak up so that his issues can stop "taking the bandwidth out of the discussion of issues that should be discussed."  Oppositely, Sen.  Kay Bailey-Hutchison says "until something concrete is proven, its just politics as usual."  Below is Jon Huntsman on "Meet the Press" where Cain's issue of sexual harassment is discussed.

In the eyes of many individuals who partake in politics, bringing up the past is purely political strategy.  In knowing that, perhaps Cain should come out and speak publicly about these allegations.  It may be in his interest given his controversial quotes and comments, that have earned him a number of opposers.