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.

Joe Franklin, 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?

The mention of "da bait" in South Alabama brings thoughts of crickets, worms and fishing on the creek. It is kinda like "da fence." People think of net wire and barbed wire.

We don't have debates. We have discussions, arguments, heated arguments, cuss-outs and occasionally fights. I understand the presidential debate required teams of lawyers and a 32-page contract. If the difference of opinion among the common folk required preparation of a 32-page contract, Saturday nights at the county jail would be much quieter.

The idea of a contract brings to mind fights of young boys in elementary school. There was no biting, no hair pulling, no kicking, no scratching, no eye gouging, and no spittin'.

I've never had a debating course and have no regrets. The presidential debate format seems more like a staged, controlled, or scripted news interview or news conference.

The questions should come from those participating and not the commission or moderator.

I'd rather see more head-to-head action. As it is now, we learn who's the slick talker and who has the best make-up artist, hairstylist and manicurists.

Third-party candidates are virtually eliminated. Many commentaries and editorials refer to how equally divided this county is politically. I think the divisiveness of many elections would not be the case if third parties were included in our process. A viable third-party candidate can make Democrats and Republicans, alike, the party of big money. Does Democracy require a two-party system?

The Commission on Presidential Debates is neither nonpartisan or neutral. The Presidential Debates were stolen from the League of Women Voters years ago after their inclusion of thir-party candidates. We may have women's rights, but I can just imagine the alpha males (big dogs) of the Democratic and Republican parties meeting somewhere in a back room plotting to take control of the debates from the women, with all those alpha males sharing the idea, "We can't have this bunch of women running the presidential debate."

The most significant product of the debates are the one-line "zingers" that are repeated many times on news broadcasts and talk shows. These remarks leave a lasting impression where policy and rhetoric soon fade away.

I did learn that four of my neighbors went to sleep while watching the debates. The majority stated prior to the debates, "Heck no, I ain't watching no debate."

During the debates the candidates praise themselves, criticize the opponent, defend accusations made against them, and give no specifics as to what they will do for the voters. The debates are much too formal and stiff. Maybe this is why most voters find the spin shows more interesting. That's why the percentage of viewers for televised presidential debates has drastically declined in the past 40 years. These days, no one watches except pseudointellectuals, political sophisticates and party diehards.

I think that we should take a look at some of the old-fashioned political rallies, which included name-calling and finger-pointing. The promise of more action would interest more viewers, and perhaps my neighbors could stay awake.

posted at # 1:37 PM