Red State / Blue State | An election season blog

In the December 2001 edition of the Atlantic, David Brooks wrote an essay titled "One Nation, Slightly Divisible," in which he suggested that America is divided largely into two political cultures, one "red" and one "blue." His idea is based on those electoral maps in 2000 that colored majority-Republican states in red and majority-Democratic states in blue. Brooks' witty essay pictures the red-state voter as trending rural, a salt-of-the-earth type, concerned with individual liberty and family values, whereas the "blue" voter trends urban, more of a book-reader, a Beltway-savvy intellectual, the environmentally conscious soccer mom or dad.

Cliches? Maybe. But Brooks does have his finger on two very strong currents in the American votership. It's not that Pennsylvania is a "blue state" or Alabama is a "red state." It's that our two political cultures don't talk to each other much, or even know much about each other. To bridge that gap, we've brought together two "red" voters - John Franklin and Cynthia Sneed - and two "blue" voters, Terri Falbo and Timothy Horner. Each week, they'll ponder and debate the issues arising in the election campaign. The hope is that they'll model an intelligent discussion, a great big conference room where red and blue sit down together.

Cynthia Sneed, Red Stater

Question Number Ten: Do you like the format for the debates? Is it a "real debate"? Do we ever learn significant things about the candidates from these debates? What would you rather see?

I would love to see Kerry adviser Mary Beth Cahill and Bush adviser Karen Hughes covered in Wesson Oil. James Carville and Laura Ingraham would moderate, and there would be no rules including the pulling of well-coifed hair!

I do not like the format of the debates at all. The rules border on insane, and the moderators are boring. And really, must we use a moderator from CBS? Can't we all agree that CBS needs serious group therapy before they continue as the "most trusted name in news"?

I am afraid the debates are going to be political speeches. We know what each candidate will say. In fact, we can all recite the speeches: "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time; W stands for wrong” versus "terrorists are going to terrorize us unless we terrorize them first; F stands for flim-flam flip-flopper."

I wonder whether Bush will wear his beach sandals. I wonder whether Kerry will tone down the bright orange color of his overly processed chemical peel (I'm sorry, but I just do not believe he did that in a tanning bed; it looks like a deep chemical peel gone awry, and no, I am not going to discuss how I know but I do). If not, he had better be sending his valet (that is Yankee for "butler," guys) for some IGIA Spot Cover Concealer (available at your local Walgreens).

The candidates must wait for a cue from the moderator and then "proceed to center stage, shake hands and proceed directly to their positions behind their podiums" (is this the first time they have touched? Can Kerry keep from patting W's behind? Can W keep from patting Kerry on the head and nicknaming him "Flipper"?) Those lecterns must be set 10 feet apart and equally canted toward center stage, measuring 50 inches tall from the audience's view and 48 inches to the writing surface on the candidates' side. No risers, chairs or stools permitted. Apparently the ability to sit down is not a prerequisite to be president of the United States.

Jesus, Socrates and Cicero would be impressed. Imagine the Sermon on the Mount today - better yet, the "debate" between Jesus and Satan in the wilderness.

Now, Satan, we all know you slither, but remember to stand up straight - and Jesus, no hovering over Satan. The two candidates must look the same height to avoid unequal advantage.

The Bush campaign says that "the aim was to create an even playing field for the President, who has far less experience debating than his opponent, who is essentially a career debater. The other objective was to curtail grandstanding and filibustering, something many great debaters rely upon."

I have no doubt that Little Shrub can out-talk a telemarketer with a time limit and will have no problem holding his own against with the "nuanced" (that's French for "Who knows what the heck he is saying?") Kerry and also does not want to look like a midget compared to Lurch.

The cameras must stay fixed on the candidate answering the question, taking the only entertaining portion of the debate program from viewers. As it turned out, the networks, who did not sign on to the candidates' agreement, did not honor this rule.

No direct confrontation between the candidates and no moving from behind the podium. No room temps were specified. When it is warm, President Bush sweats like a pig in the pen, and when it is cold, John Kerry looks like a cadaver from Six Feet Under.

Likely the most devastating rule to Bush is on the delivery of speeches: "The manner of delivery shall be such that the speech will be comprehensible to the intelligent, educated, non-debating member of the general public." Well, Bush is sunk right there - must have been a Kerry requirement. The most devastating rule for Kerry will be that concerning the "use of pictures": "Charts or pictures will not have any weight as evidence in a round." This was the first time I've seen Kerry not surrounded by pictures of his Vietnam odyssey. Can he survive without his props?

All in all, these debates will be a waste of perfectly good hot air that could better be used in Florida to generate much-needed electricity. Should be fun!

posted at # 1:35 PM