The art of political debate has turned into a media driven 2 hours of mudslinging which brings about few good results. After a debate, we sit around and talk about who "one-upped" who and who suffered the worse figurative black eye. The only thing we really know about our candidates after a debate is who can think on their feet quicker and who has done his / her homework in regard to how to get under their opponent's skin the most. So, perusing this dilemma, I think I have found the ultimate solution by looking back in our very own history. The fine art of dueling! Yup! Our history is filled with the subject and many a mudslinger was found guilty by a single shot or maneuver with the sword or saber. All sorts of ideas came into play concerning dueling for indeed the Irish were one of the first to make actual rules that had to be followed which brought in arbitrators, (seconds) types of weapons, time lines, honor and dishonor. It was even, at one time, thought that the winner of a duel was given a sort of nod by God in which the public could take confidence that the last one standing was indeed the chosen one therefore the most honorable person. Granted, 18 states by 1839 had made dueling illegal it didn't stop good old Abe Lincoln from getting into a scrap with James Shields in 1842. http://www.lib.niu.edu/1995/ihy950248.html Since I am extremely sure that the civil war era is more in the wheelhouse of @Mari North, she might possibly give us other 19th century era dignitaries who endorsed the duel as a satisfactory way of solving certain political problems. In 1806, Andrew Jackson, who is NOT one of my favorite politicians, killed (murdered) Charles Dickenson. I parenthetically wrote murdered because Jacksons weapon misfired but immediately shot again which was against the rules of dueling. He did a lot of that sort of thing, ref. Andrew Jackson, slaves/ Seminole Indians. Now that I have offered up a solution we should decide the weaponry. Uh, paintballs maybe or even tasers at 10 paces might be a good offering. I like the paintball idea if it is coupled with that the loser has to parade his paintball riddled self out in the public for the entire day thereby marking him as "stupid.". Or perhaps, when a candidate is proven to have lied, then a firing squad consisting of the other candidates wielding paintball guns might be in order. Yeah........I like that! No blindfold please since one should indeed have to face his accusers and take it like a man!
How about we give the Debate Moderators paint ball guns and let them shoot them at the Candidates whenever they get off the topic question and go into their two year old tantrums and one upmanship!
That line about lying reminds me of the present predicament of the president of the Philippines. Last year there was this promise that the new railway will be up and running on a specific date. The secretary of the department of transporation said that he would let himself be run over by the train if his declaration does not come true. The president seconded the motion by saying the 2 of them would be on the tracks so the train can run over them... if their promise is not fulfilled. The date passed and until now the promise has not been fuilfilled. The president has lied. And his alibi - don't take that statement literally. Come on, Mr. President.
Ah yes, that would indeed be a good addition. Now, who shall we appoint to shoot the rating seeking moderators for leading the candidates on their journey toward looking like a foolish prat? Perhaps the candidates themselves could wield rifles loaded with suction cup darts. Each dart would have a small sign on it reading, "stupid.". When a moderator gets three suction cupped stupids attached to his or her forehead they are automatically put on leave of absence for 60 days sans pay. Naw, wouldn't work. The candidates would waste all of their ammo on each other. But, good idea Babs! Wish our Louisiana patron saint Jim Bowie was around. Maybe he'd have some good advice as well.
How about we pick some "We the People" like you and me from different states and let them "paintball" the Moderators. If we give the Candidates paint ball guns, that would just be adding fuel to the fire that is already burning out of control with all of them.
Dignitaries, not really. Hmmm.... not much comes to mind here, @Bobby Cole . Duels had really declined by the time Fort Sumter was attacked, legal, illegal, or otherwise. A couple of months after the Battle of Gettysburg, President Polk's nephew who happened to be a Civil War general had a duel about some battlefield tactics in Arkansas. His opponent was... oh boy, you're making me think. Okay, it was another general... Marmaduke, who later was elected Gov. of Missouri. It happened near Little Rock. Marmaduke killed Walker (ooops, forgot to name him before.) Two years later, (a couple of months after Appomattox) was the Hickok / Tutt duel. (Wild Bill, that is.) Bill lost a watch in a game and wasn't very happy about that. Met for their gunfight, did their paces or whatever those dueling dudes do, and Hickok killed Tutt. I really would have thought Tutt would know better! Do you consider Wild Bill a dignitary? Sounds like he was a sore loser, doesn't it? Now about those paintball guns... yeah, that may be an idea. But when those politicians get really babyish, I'd suggest rotten tomatoes. Or rotten eggs. Or spit balls. The possibilities are endless for playground bullies, which I consider many of them to be.
I'd like to see something more on the order of the Lincoln-Douglas debate, once we're down to two major candidates. By a coin toss or other means, one candidate would be given a half hour to state his or her positions, uninterrupted. The second candidate would be given an hour to rebut and to state his or her own positions, and then the first candidate would be given a half hour to rebut and sum up. I am sick of media gotcha questions. If there are going to be gotcha questions, they should come from opposing candidates, from whom we can expect partiality.