Tuesday, November 25, 2003

How Candidates should answer questions

Here's what is going on at the Democratic Debates: Democratic Debasement.
Questions are framed in such a way as to show the candidate in a bad light, or to get them to bring out the bad qualities of another. Playing into their hands is unintelligent, and acting on it, ungentlemanly...and diminuitive to the party as a whole.

Governor Dean showed the way to a new approach tonight when he paid a complement to Mr. Kucinich, and John Edwards, Al Sharpton and General Clark have each given compliments to others on the stage, and with good effect...both to them and the recipient of the praise. But don't stop at niceties! Why not see who can pay the highest compliment to one or more of the others. Way more effective than tooting ones own horn...and it is a form of product placement and good PR for everyone involved...including the Democratic Party. There is much to brag about!

Maybe the one who pays the best compliment, and one who receives the highest compliment will become a team. POTUS and VPOTUS, say. And what if, say, Howard Dean receives the most votes, but then performs an amazing act of grace and says that he wants to serve as VP to Wes Clark, whom he feels would be more suited, given the nature of the current crisis, and wishing to comport with the natural order...since, being a younger man, he could well prepare for the future role while serving as VP.

And wouldn't John Edwards make a better Attorney General than John Ashcroft? Who would doubt that?

And who better for the Secretary of the Department of Peace than Mr. Kucinich?
So many wondrous opportunities ahead! May they all find a place in the coming Democratic Correction.

Again...so many possibilities! Keep an open mind...

But aside from praising others while preparing your response, one may well toss out responses to questions made to others...but please...only if you know you can also answer the specific question, posed to you, as well.

We brought you Exuberance. Bush brought you Terror.

Use the time to celebrate each other, and the party you represent. One of the strong suits of the Democratic Party is that it welcomes, nourishes, and celebrates diversity...and are known for being excellent producers of exuberance in the process. We are not the Doom and Gloom. We are living the Doom and Gloom. We were the Exuberance! (How soon some forget!)

Another thing... It doesn't hurt to meditate prior to debating. Keeps one centered...in the best sense of the word.


Someone should collect all the questions asked during the debates (or on Russert, etc.) and then simply list them...like this:

1) Why do you suck?
2) Why do people like you suck?
3) Do you still beat your wife?
4) If your daughter were raped by Willie Horton, would you let your child stay at Neverland?

This way we can see clearly just how stupid these questions really are.
And to think just how much jing these folks rake in...and for what? Questions that have already been asked a hundred times? Questions about their operating system? Their modus underwearandi?

The questions asked in a debate of such import should be of utmost importance.
One is reminded of what Sartre said about certain refugees whose silence was tied to their staying alive. But at certain times, a moment would open up where one could speak with another. Their utterances were the opposite of small talk. We've all but forgotten that language. This is tied to freedoms we are now in jeopardy of losing.

Would we only have raised our consciousness in word-drunk times...