Flawed Formats-Candidate Initiated Questions - Montana Senate 6th Debate
Debates aired on C-Span are increasingly using a flawed format, the segment where candidates are invited to ask one question of their opponent. The impulse is understandable as the interchanges are usually lively-sparks flying-energizing otherwise tedious debates.
A couple dozen debates aired on C-Span have used the practice. Although statistical validation awaits the luxury of post-campaign analysis I venture the following observations. Candidate questions tend to be:
* Imprecise, long accusatory exhortations by candidates, often interrupted by the moderator seeking to know just what the question is.
* Questions about scandal. Accusations raised elsewhere in the campaign are reintroduced, presumably for emphasis, but typically only solicit practiced answers and counter accusations
* Questions about campaign ads. Perhaps a majority of questions ask if they Stand by their ads, why they continue to air lies. Not surprisingly, the answer is to insist they are true and matched by the questioner's improprieties.
* Questions seem to be reflexive with horserace sensitivity, seldom an exploration of issues
* When questions address issues they often are designed to hoodwink, raising examples they presume the opponent will not have thought about or heard of before. Obscurity as strategy may reflect how "clever" some researcher is but doesn't seem to enlighten.
: Sen-MT, Conrad Burns, Jon Tester, candidate questions, format, Gov-NV
The result of such interchange is vindictive bickering, surely entertaining, but hardly fulfilling the purpose purported by the debate hosts. The most egregious example from the 2006 cycle I witnessed is the 1st Governor debate in Nevada between Dina Titus (D) and Jim Gibbons (R). (
Video-late in the debate)
Of course questions between candidates could be substantive, focused, and even as they fulfill political goals for candidates. I have been following the six debates between Conrad Burns and Jon Tester in Montana. The race appears to be tightening (NewWest.net)charging interest in the outcome for which party will control the Senate.
In their final and 6th debate in Great Falls both candidates appeared on top of their game, persuasively putting their best foot forward. In the debate the candidates asked questions that not only summarized much about the election, but also had specificity the demanded more than the standard response, exposing a dexterity and quality of mind we might hope for in debates. OK, I admit the questions are not purely policy issues crossing strongly over into the practices isolated above as weaknesses, but they also illustrate that experience across several debates does seem to improve questions and focus.
Chuck Johnson writing for the Lee Newspaper chain reports the candidate question exchange from CM Russell HS:
The debate livened up considerably when they were able to ask each other one question and delivered their closing statements. At times, there were cheers and jeers for the candidates, but the audience was mostly well behaved.
Burns chided Tester for emphasizing his support for Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, yet at the same time taking $26,000 in campaign donations from the Council for a Livable World.
"They want it (Malmstrom) gone," Burns said. "They want it shut down. If you support Malmstrom, I'm asking you why don't you give the money back?"
"First of all, my vote cannot be bought," Tester said.
The council is concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons and dirty weapons around the world, Tester said, calling Malmstrom "absolutely critical for our national security."
Then it was Tester's turn. He asked Burns about staff members who became lobbyists, including several for Jack Abramoff, the now-disgraced admitted felon who was a Washington super-lobbyist. They made $20 million in fees for lobbying their former boss, Tester said. Burns also received more money from Abramoff, his associates and his tribal clients than any other member of Congress. (He returned the money or gave it to charity last December after he was criticized for accepting the donations.)
"Isn't it time you stopped the revolving door?" asked Tester, a Big Sandy farmer and president of the Montana Senate.
Replied Burns: "Jon, you've been beating up on me for 18 months. Nothing's changed because there's nothing there."
