I hate to say it, but this time I’m with Fred. At the Republican Presidential debate in Des Moines, Iowa, this Wednesday, the moderator asked the candidates to raise their hands if they believed in global warming. Former Sen. Fred Thompson (TN – R) refused: “I’m not doing any hand shows today.” Stunned, the moderator pressed harder: “And so, is that yes or no for you?”

“You want to give me a minute to answer that?” Thompson inquired.

“No,” the moderator replied.

“Well then I’m not going to answer it.” Thompson insisted.

While I’m not a Fredhead, I applaud the Senator for pointing out what many voters know: these debates are a waste of time. When a candidate isn’t allowed to explain his position in 60 seconds, a hand-raise doesn’t do much. For once, I don’t blame the candidates; but I do blame the media. With unfair questions and inane set-ups, these past 10 debates have flopped.

The biggest problem with the debates is that there are too many. Every interest group under the sun, must, of course, have a special themed debate in their honor, and if the candidates don’t attend the media depicts their absence as apathy. In September, for example, PBS personality Tavis Smiley hosted a debate on minority issues, which the top tier candidates, including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, Arizona Sen. John McCain, and Thompson, skipped. “Top Republicans scolded for skipping black debate,” and “Smiley: GOP ignores minorities” the next day’s headlines yelped.

But was it really necessary? Most of the questions covered familiar territory—the Iraq war, immigration, education—but were dressed up with demographic statistics. Couldn’t PBS have asked about disparities among minorities as follow-up to more general questions in another debate?

Fearing a second round of racism charges, the top tier made sure to show up to the Univision debate last Sunday. Dubbed in Spanish, the debate intended to focus on “Hispanic issues” and ended up being one hour-and-a-half echo.

The questions themselves proved the stupidity of conducting debates on such narrow premises. The moderators asked Giuliani: “To what do you attribute the declining of support among Hispanics to Republicans?” They asked Romney: “Why has the Hispanic support for Republicans declined?” And they asked Thompson: “What are you going to do—what can you offer to recover the lost ground among Hispanics?” The candidates duly recited their talking points, and assured the moderators that they didn’t hate Hispanics. They broached some substantive topics—the Cuba embargo, Hugo Chavez’s socialist regime in Venezuela—but once again, why couldn’t they discuss these issues in a debate on foreign policy? Only Hispanics care about Chavez? Only blacks care about crime?

When not stereotyping voters, the media is stereotyping Republicans as gun-toting, Bible-thumping rednecks. The CNN/YouTube debate was a prime example. CNN billed the debate as a chance for ordinary Americans to ask the candidates tough questions, but it was really a chance for ordinary Democrats to take a shot at Republicans. Besides a large number of the questioners being avowed supporters of Democratic candidates, the questions were insulting. One video showed a man from Texas brandishing a Bible asking, “Do you believe this book?” We soon learned that Giuliani thought some stories were allegorical, Romney interpreted it differently than others, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee still didn’t quite understand it totally. Bet that made your decision easier, didn’t it?

This presidential campaign is already too long, and these vacuous debates serve as repeated reminders that we still have a lot of folly to endure. At this point, we know the basics, the talking points, the boats. Now, all that’s left for the candidates to do is bash Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)—and even that’s getting old.



Brian J. Bolduc ’10, a Crimson editorial editor, is an economics concentrator in Winthrop House.