Let this be the last debate

Jim Thompson wrote, “Pollster Frank Luntz and Historian Doris Goodwin Offer Up Ridiculous Claims About the Presidential Debate.”

Few men are as well-named as Luntz.

Thompson said, “Luntz claims that the last two presidential campaigns, beginning with Trump versus Clinton in 2016 and then Trump versus Biden in 2020, were the beginning of the end of democracy. It seems everything in politics is ‘the end of democracy.’ Luntz claimed that personal invectives and insults are too debasing and, apparently, a sign of the end of democracy. Luntz is a pollster, not a historian. Maybe he’s unaware of the long history of politicians insulting each other. While Lincoln and Douglas were debating, they were long on insults; they were just more creative with their rhetoric.

“Howard Taft punched out a political rival who insulted his wife. When Teddy Roosevelt decided to run for president for the second time, he tried to convince Taft to step aside. When Taft refused, he and Taft constantly insulted each other on the stump — and they were fast friends. Insulting rivals is not new to Trump. Trump is just the first meme candidate.”

If this debate is the end of democracy, Godspeed CNN. Let’s return to having a constitutional republic where mobs ginned up by the partisan press don’t always get their way.

Everyone says they want a Lincoln-Douglass debate but the reality is one would speak for an hour, the other would speak for 90 minutes and the first one would do a 30 minute rebuttal. It was the political equivalent of soccer.

Presidential debates promote two bad ideas. The first is that temporal issues should decide elections. Nixon and Kennedy debated about two islands: Quemoy and Matsu near Formosa — now known as Taiwan. Both men agreed that we should be willing to go to war to defend Quemoy and Matsu. It was only a matter of whom they wanted to defend them against.

Thank goodness that Khrushchev built a base in Cuba instead of one way the hell over on the other side of the world or we would have gone to war.

Debates also promote a second bad idea that presidents are omnipotent and can solve all the woes of the world. This gets us into foreign wars even Queen Victoria would have rejected. And she loved war with a passion because she had to prove she wasn’t weak just because she was a woman.

This idea of an omnipotent president also creates havoc in our country. Biden has let in 20 million invaders from around the world. He has welcomed Venezuelan gangbangers, Islamic terrorists, Chinese spies and assorted child sex traffickers.

Oh the debates are not without their charm.

At a debate in 1984, Henry Trewhitt of the Baltimore Sun, asked Reagan, “Mr. President, I want to raise an issue that I think has been lurking out there for 2 or 3 weeks and cast it specifically in national security terms. You already are the oldest President in history. And some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with Mr. Mondale. I recall yet that President Kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuban missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances?”

Reagan replied, “Not at all, Mr. Trewhitt, and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience. [Laughter and applause] If I still have time, I might add, Mr. Trewhitt, I might add that it was Seneca or it was Cicero, I don’t know which, that said, ‘If it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state.’”

Four years later, Bernie Shaw kicked off a debate by asking Mike Dukakis, “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”

With all the warmth of an iceberg, Dukakis replied, “No, I don’t, Bernard. And I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime.”

No wonder Kitty drank.

I am not saying debates are irrelevant. Certainly the 1960 debates elected JFK and the one Carter-Reagan debate in 1980 elected the right man president.

But if Nixon had won, the nation and world would be better today. Nixon and Khrushchev held an impromptu kitchen debate in 1959 and the Soviet leader learned not to mess with him.

Khrushchev met with Kennedy in Vienna in 1961 and sized him up as a fool. A year later, the Berlin Wall was built and Soviet missiles were headed for Cuba.

Politicians have adapted and are wary of debates. That the only debate between Biden and Trump occurs this week, four months ahead of the election, informs me that no one wants to risk having the debate affect the outcome. I agree.

While I am not knee-deep in the hoopla, I am amused by the spectacle before the spectacle. Bonchie is hoping the drugs they feed Biden to get him through a public speech won’t work this time.

Bonchie wrote, “Will the debate be different? It's possible the numerous commercial breaks (which are not normal for a presidential debate) will help him. It's also possible that being in a controlled studio environment will mask some of the issues, especially if he's allowed to sit down. Still, it's hard to imagine that Biden is going to show up and pitch a perfect game. If Trump lets him, Biden will highlight his own deficiencies.

“In other words, while the drug cocktail team is no doubt treating this as their Super Bowl, they can't escape the realities of basic human physiology. Biden is senile, and jacking him up is always a temporary and imprecise procedure. Will he be energized on Thursday? I'm fairly confident he will be. Will that lead to him appearing normal and coherent? I'm much less confident on that front.”

Watching Biden melt down would be entertaining, but CNN will just go to a commercial break and have technical difficulties that end the debate after that.

Think not?

The New York Post reported, “CNN abruptly cut Donald Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt from the air Monday morning — just days before the network is set to host the first 2024 presidential debate between her boss and President Biden.

“Anchor Kasie Hunt pulled the plug just minutes after the interview got underway after asking Leavitt what the former president’s strategy was for when he takes to the stage in Atlanta, Ga., on Thursday.”

Vince McMahon and his WWE wrestlers would be proud of that moment because CNN found a way to make headlines worldwide and promote this Mumble in the Jumble, or whatever they are calling this farce. Hunt may be a bum as a journalist but she knows marketing.

Sadly, some pros don’t get it. Roger Stone tweeted, “Asking Jake Tapper to moderate a debate with Donald Trump is like asking the Boston strangler to massage your neck.”

Stone is among those who wonder why Trump accepted a CNN debate saying it will be unfair. That is the very reason he wants to be there. If he wins, he wins despite them. If he loses, well, it was a unfair bout and therefore invalid.

Ratings-starved CNN does not care it it looks like a pro wrestling referee who sides with the bad guys. All that matters is getting viewers and collecting premium prices for its ads.

But I want to clear up some disinformation. CNN did not — repeat, not — give the questions to the White House in advance. The White House is giving CNN the questions.

The media hype is underwhelming. Hillary wrote a piece for NYT, “I’ve Debated Trump and Biden. Here’s What I’m Watching For.”

I believe she means she’s lost debates to Trump and Biden.

Thursday should be a midsummer’s night’s scream heard by a few partisans who need to find a hobby. Most Americans will be out there having fun. May this debate be the last of its kind.