How to Effectively Moderate a Debate

I was fantasizing about moderating a Presidential debate the other evening and thought I would reveal portions of my formula for an actually informative debate which, of course, the candidates would hate. I believe people get tired of lame generalities and talking heads waiting for the right opportunity to get in a good sound bite. Of course, that is fueled by the media only talking about the good sound bites in their post-debate analysis.

First, at the beginning of the debate, I would have the candidates stipulate that none of the others were trying to bring down the world as we know it and that the others were not inherently evil people. I would also have them stipulate that THEY, not their respective spouses, were running for office and that whoever won, the spouse would be fine as first whatever. I would have them agree that no one was supporting bad education, less health care, a weaker military, etc.

Second, I would have them agree I could cut them off when they drifted into talking points instead of answering questions. When they answer with "We need a President who can.... (list of generic issues they can spout on about)", the microphone gets turned off. Additionally, no meaningless sound bites (e.g., "We are not going to balance the Social Security system on the backs of the elderly", which sounds great but doesn't mean anything and just wastes time).

Third, I would make them answer questions specifically. When they say "We have to fix the Social Security system", I stop them and make them spell out their specific steps to do it. When they say, "I will bring our troops home", I stop them and ask specifically how and what they will do in Afghanistan and Iraq which will make that possible, or will they just leave those people in the lurch after we committed to them as a country. When they talk about "experience", experience doing what specifically? What did you accomplish or did you you just hang around a long time? "I worked to... (fill in the blank)" is a lot different than "I actually did something". The object is to point out the specific differences in what they propose to do.

Fourth, when they claim a statistic or make an accusation, I stop and ask them to provide proof of their statement. No more made up statistics or vague accusations.

Fifth, no personal stories. When the candidates get a hard question, they always respond with "I met Jane Doe in Smalltown, North Some State, and she... (heart wrenching story)". That is like the news media who, no matter how strong the economy is, can always find someone not doing well so they can criticize the administration. It contributes nothing and allows the candidate to avoid the question.

Sixth, no redirecting questions. None of the "That is a good question but what we should really be talking about is... (stump speech points)". Answer the question or quit wasting our time and shut up.

Final point (to the audience), as soon as the debate is over, turn off the television or change channels. Do not listen to the opposing spin-meisters talk about how great their candidate did. You watched the debate, you heard the candidates, you know what they said. That should be enough.

The Democratic Soap Opera♦

It is really interesting to watch the latest in the Democratic Party nomination process. Barrack Obama still leads in delegates and it is pretty far-fetched to see Hillary Clinton catch him mathematically, given the proportional distribution system the party uses in their nomination process. It is also apparent that the Clinton campaign is getting pretty desperate because they have begun to try to destroy Barrack Obama. I have always found it ironic how the Clintons have always wanted it both ways. When their actions are examined closely, it is either a "vast right wing conspiracy" or "the politics of personal destruction". But every time they find themselves behind the eight ball, their tactic is always to try to destroy anyone who gets in their way (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Ken Starr, Kathleen Willey, etc.).

Barrack Obama is facing a tough fork in the road. His campaign has been trying to remain positive and to set a new tone but if he doesn't respond to the Clinton attacks, he will appear weak. Since everyone knows that Clinton will stop at nothing to achieve her ends, making vicious attacks doesn't affect anyone's opinion of her, sadly. However, when Obama fights back, she can claim he was facetious in saying he wanted to run a positive campaign. For her, it is a no lose strategy because without it, her campaign is lost, anyway.

The interesting fact is that, on most substantive issues, there is little to no difference in their respective policies. To see so much blood-letting over no real policy differences just points out the egotism in both candidates. It certainly follows since most people who go into politics tend to be egocentric. If the race really was about issues, it would be much less rancorous.

The real shame in all this is that the Democratic Party is taking an election that should be a walk in the park and are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Self-Reliance and Accountability

The liberal philosophy forgives everything. Nothing is anyone's fault. Anything bad which happens is clearly the result of evil forces, never a bad judgment on anyone's part. I wonder if that has anything to do with the Trial Lawyers Association basically owning the Democratic Party. If everything is someone else's fault, there is always a reason for a plaintiff's attorney to file for damages. No one ever does anything wrong but instead has situations foisted upon them... unless, of course, you are a Republican. In that case, you clearly are evil and it is only through fortunate circumstance that you are exposed.

Most people find over their lifetime that other than their parents, no one is ever really looking out for your best interests. The may SAY they are, but they aren't really. If your best interests happen to coincide with theirs, then okay, but when given a choice, they will always go with their own. That is a stone cold truth. The object lesson there is that you better wake up and pay attention because if you don't look out for yourself, you are going to get hosed.

There are, of course, no people more self-serving and full to their necks with fecal matter than professional politicians. Their whole goal in life is to convince people that they are looking out for the people but sooner or later, their true colors are exposed. The House of Representatives is a group of politicians who essentially continually run for office and occasionally vote on something. The Senate is a group that does mostly lip-flapping and wallow in their self-importance.

This wasn't originally about politics. What inspired me to write this time was the current housing "crisis". Recently, I have heard Hillary Clinton propose a moratorium on foreclosures. Barrack Obama has also promised help. It is an interesting problem to deal with. There is no way to correctly separate: 1) people (novices or not really smart people) who were given loans by predatory lenders and didn't bother to figure out if they could make the payments when the interest rates went up from 2) the much larger group of real estate speculators. I known what you are thinking, "These are people in their primary residences". True, but most of the people I know who overbought in the last few years did it as an investment figuring the way housing was rising in prices, they could make money by living in the house a couple of years and unloading it and taking their profit. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt so I think the group of morons (read "victims" if you are a liberal) is a minor population compared to the investment crowd. That brings in some harsh reality. If I bought Google at $200 and the stock tanked, would I be asking the government to bail me out? Most would think I was crazy for trying. That is what investing is all about. You take a risk after looking at the cost/benefit scenario. Sometimes you make money and sometimes you lose money. These people for the most part are not the victims of lenders as much as they are victims of a mob rush to make money in real estate. They gambled and they lost. I never saw a form in Las Vegas that you fill out to allow you not to pay the casino after you lose.

Last year, I found a house that was too good to pass up and paid off my 4.375% mortgage on my first home (sadly, I miss it) and bought a new house at 6.0%. My mortgage payment doubled. Before I bought the house, I did something apparently novel... I figured out if I could afford it. I also did not get an adjustable rate mortgage and spend my evenings praying interest rates wouldn't rise. Let me summarize: I bought a house I could afford and got a mortgage I could pay. I know it sounds simple but apparently it is genius to some. Senator Dick Durbin wants to allow bankruptcy judges to be able to adjust mortgages. The reason first home mortgage rates are lower than second homes, yachts, etc. is precisely because that CANNOT happen. If he succeeds in passing the legislation, people who pay their mortgages and buy houses they can afford will have to subsidize the speculators and ignorant people who buy over their heads.

But of course, it isn't their fault. It is always someone else's fault.

The Rhetoric of Electioneering

The buzzwords currently flying around about the current election cycle are "experience" versus "change". After an eight year term by any President, the election is always about change. Eight years always tires the public of whoever the sitting administration happens to be.

It is interesting to watch the Democrats. particularly Hillary Clinton going down in flames as she argues for herself on the "experience" side. In fact, the candidates with actual experience have all failed to gain any traction. For a resume, you can't get much better than Bill Richardson (Governor, Ambassador, Cabinet-member, etc.) but he never made it out of single digit poll land. Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd were long term Senators and received little support. The fact that they sounded like raving maniacs trying to attract the attention of the media that they never received probably didn't help. The media long ago decided that the Democratic race was Clinton, Obama, and Edwards and basically didn't cover anyone else.

Clinton constantly touts her experience. What experience? She was an attorney in an apparently disreputable law firm. Then she was the wife of an elected official who managed to screw that up. Finally, she is a second term Senator in the carpetbagger tradition who has no significant legislative accomplishments. How does that translate into experience? Simply put, it is the best argument her campaign could come up with to put up against Obama. Obama shouldn't even be a Senator except that his opponent who would have beaten him dropped out of the race. He won against Alan Keyes (essentially a forfeit). He has done nothing in the Senate. Therefore, Clinton thought she could use that argument against him. Big mistake. After an eight year administration, having a nothing record is probably an advantage. Edwards is not really a factor. There is virtually no chance of him being elected. The reason he didn't run for re-election in North Carolina is that he knew there was no chance he would win.

On the Republican side, Huckabee has emerged in Iowa to the surprise of most. He will get little support in New Hampshire but may do well in South Carolina. If he does, it could represent a sea change in American politics. Mitt Romney continues to decline in popularity because he represents the status quo (big money, negative campaigning). While studies show negative campaigning works, the public dislikes it intensely. Romney is creating the impression that he is trying to buy the election, and will do anything, no matter how smarmy, to win it. It is not a way to get popular. Huckabee's strategy of not answering with attack ads may not work, but if it does, it could change future elections to the positive. McCain has taken a page from Huckabee's book and stayed a bit more positive than usual, despite the fact he is well known as (to put it mildly) an acerbic character. Basically, he is a prick. However, that could serve him well as President. Giuliani decided to tank Iowa and New Hampshire. The problem there is that if you get off the media radar, it is hard to get back on it. It will take a big showing somewhere else soon to get back in play when you have a lot of negatives. Thompson is both figuratively and literally a non-starter. You can't make an announcement on the Leno show than never show up again. Ron Paul comes off as your nutty old uncle who no one ever takes seriously. He has no shot.

New Hampshire is today. It will be interesting.

Sean Taylor and unintended consequences

In the wake of the terrible tragedy of the murder of Sean Taylor, there will be some interesting consequences of the event. It is very sad to see any 24 year old killed. Taylor was a physical freak of nature with unlimited potential as a professional football player but that is not nearly as important as a young father killed inside his home by an intruder. The actual circumstances may never be known but it appears to be a home invasion robbery. Here are a few predictions:

1) There will be much speculation about his past run ins with authority. Some will raise the "where there is smoke, there is fire" speculation. Others will say that such discussion is racist because Taylor was black. If he was killed by a robber, both sides are morons.

2) There will be a spike in gun sales. Despite this being a solitary incident in Miami, there will be an elevation of the paranoia level across the US and people will purport to protect themselves with weapons. I just hope people are smart enough to buy the correct weapon, a shotgun. Since police who regularly train with weapons only hit 40% of what the fire at, a sleepy non-trained person in a dark room at three AM needs something that doesn't require accuracy. You can fire a shotgun around the corner and almost hit everything in the room.

3) The NFL will honor Taylor this week, then completely forget him by next year. In professional sports, if it doesn't make money, they aren't interested.

4) Some idiot sports fanatic somewhere is wondering how many weeks getting killed will keep him from playing and whether he should be dropped from his Fantasy Football picks.

CNN and MSNBC Off the Cliff Again

CNN and MSNBC, fading quickly in relevance and audience due to the decidedly biased reporting they are now widely recognized for, have now started using the tabloid journalism trick of trying to create controversy when none exists. In their most recent attempt to rally their liberal viewers, they have attempted to create controversy surrounding comments by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. O’Reilly, who has the most watched program in cable news, was discussing how the gangsta rap culture does not represent the mainstream black culture in the United States with Juan Williams, a respected liberal journalist who writes for the Washington Post and is also a Fox News regular contributor. What O’Reilly said was that Sylvia’s, a well known restaurant in Harlem was no different than any other conventional American restaurant in atmosphere. CNN and MSNBC have attempted to construe those remarks as racist. Juan Williams, who is black and usually very restrained, has called the people at CNN “idiots” for their pretend controversy. I am not a big O’Reilly fan but I can certainly recognize sensationalized nonsense when it appears.

I watched this evening as Heidi Collins of CNN had two people on to discuss the topic. LaShawn Barber, a black woman, said that if you listen to his comments in context that there is nothing offensive about them whatsoever. However, in addition, they bring on a raving diatribe-spewing Boyce Watkins, who manages to accuse Bill O’Reilly of a long standing history of racism and hate and even manages somehow to insult President Bush in the process. This is their “expert” opinion? It is like Wolf Blitzer giving credibility to Jack Cafferty, the loudest whining shill of them all.

On MSNBC, there is Keith Olberman who apparently has some pathologic hatred of Bill O’Reilly as he devotes episode after episode of his cable-access style program to smearing O’Reilly and Fox News. Tonight, he had some “expert” who sounded more like an asylum escapee saying that Mr. O’Reilly is about to have a mental breakdown and talking about psychiatric diagnoses based on how Mr. O’Reilly pays for his food in restaurants. Who at MSNBC thinks that discourse of this low level has any place on television? Countdown with Keith Olberman cannot aspire to moving up to the class level of the Jerry Springer Show. The show is a total sham when it comes to any objectivity.

As I said earlier, I am not a big fan of the O’Reilly show. He is sometimes unnecessarily uncivil to guests and talks over them. But I am a fan of some semblance of objectivity. I am reminded of the McCarthy hearings. At long last, CNN and MSNBC, have you no sense of decency? Have you lost all of your self-respect? Are advertising revenues and ego so important that you are will to prostitute your journalistic values to this kind of phony controversy? It is shameful.

Leadership, Responsibility and Behavior

There is a disconnect I see relatively often when it comes to leadership positions. Many don’t seem to understand that responsibility and authority come as a package. You cannot be held responsible for things you don’t control and you cannot control things without being held responsible for the outcomes of your decisions. The more common disconnect of the two is people being reprimanded for things they did not decide. I have written earlier posts about brown-nosing and non-confrontational leadership. Being in charge is a lonely position. Those who cannot handle the isolation need not apply. In order to be effective in those positions, there are certain core requirements. First and foremost, effective leaders demonstrate that they have the welfare of their people at heart. This does not mean a leader is always nice. A leader does reprimand. A leader does hold subordinates accountable. A leader hands out unpleasant tasks. The true leader does these things fairly while simultaneously attempting to the utmost to provide the best working environment for subordinates.

There is similarity between leadership in an organization and raising kids. The two most important factors are caring and consistency. Your subordinates and your children have no reason to behave if they feel you don’t care what happens to them. They have nothing to lose from you by misbehaving. Children want to maintain the trust and caring of their parents. Subordinates need the same support from their leaders. They need to feel like their leaders have their interests at heart. The minute they don’t feel it, they lose respect for the leader. Everyone knows there are tough jobs to do but if the jobs are handed out fairly and leadership takes the time to explain why the job is important, respect will remain in place.

Consistency is a hallmark of a well-run organization. Both children and subordinates need to know where the lines are and that there will be repercussions for crossing those lines. It is not that there MAY be, it is that there WILL be. There is a lot of security in knowing the rules. A lack of rules shows subordinates that leaders don’t care. Consistency with the rules shows fairness and forethought. Everyone hates the stress of “walking on eggshells” situations where you never know what is coming next. A consistent mean-spirited leader is better than never knowing minute to minute what is coming.

Another side of responsibility is individual. I have told my children many times that at some point in your life; you have to decide what kind of person you will be. Being a reliable and conscientious person is not a grand act. It is not one day running into the burning building to save the occupants. It is a series of small daily decisions, often made when no one else is around. It is deciding to do the right thing when the right thing is inconvenient or unpopular. It is taking the harder course of action and not allowing standards to slip. It is being willing to uncomfortably confront someone to improve their performance or correct a mistake when the easier course is to let it slide.

At the end of the day, it is not the perception of others that the good leader strives to improve. The real leader holds himself/herself up to a personal standard. You cannot fool yourself. You know, even when others don’t, that you did not do your best. You know when you blew something off. If you did everything to the best of your ability, in the end it doesn’t matter what others think because you cannot control others opinions and you will have the satisfaction that comes with true accomplishment.