The VP Debate: Questions and Answers

Another post started with a confession - shame on me.

I did not watch the entire debate. I lasted about half an hour, and then I switched over to watch North Woods Law, a show about conservation officers in New Hampshire and how they deal with people, and animals, on a daily basis. 

Their work entails listening to what people say, and what they don't say; setting aside their own beliefs and impressions to cut to the chase and take care of an issue; and acting with empathy and compassion towards people (and animals) when they are not at their best. 

As I listened to as much of the debate as I did, I tried to act like a North Woods officer, and really listen to the questions that were being asked, and the answers that were given. When the lies and honestly, the "let me get my talking points in here before time runs out, or even after time runs out, because that's what I'm here for, really" stuff, I gave up and promised myself and others that I'd watch it today and that I would read the transcript. 

I kept my promise, I did.

Below is my take on the actual questions, sometimes hidden in a lot of moderator talk, and the portion of any response that directly addressed the question that was asked. 

HQ is a question asked of Senator Kamala Harris; PQ is a question asked of VP Mike Pence. If the answer provided was not directly responsive to the question, you'll see a blank space where the answer should be. 

Here is the debate, in a nutshell.

HQ. What would a Biden administration do in January and February that a Trump administration wouldn’t do? Would you impose new lockdowns for businesses and schools and hotspots, a federal mandate to wear masks?

A. And our plan is about what we need to do around a national strategy for contact tracing, for testing, for administration of the vaccine, and making sure that it will be free for all.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. Why is the US death toll, as a percentage of our population, higher than that of almost every other wealthy country?

A.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. How can you expect Americans to follow the administration’s safety guidelines to protect themselves from COVID when you at the White House have not been doing so?

A. The difference here is President Trump and I trust the American people to make choices in the best interest of their health

*****     *****     *****

HQ. If the Trump administration approves a vaccine before or after the election, should Americans take it, and would you take it?

A. If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.

*****     *****     ***** 

PQ. Vice President Pence, have you had a conversation or reached an agreement with President Trump about safeguards or procedures when it comes to the issue of presidential disability? And if not, do you think you should?

A.

*****     *****     *****

HQ.  have you had a conversation or reached an agreement with Vice President Biden about safeguards or procedures when it comes to the issue of presidential disability? And if not, and if you win the election next month, do you think you should? 

A.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. Neither President Trump, nor Vice President Biden has released a sort of detailed health information that had become the modern norm until the 2016 election. And in recent days, President Trump’s doctors have given misleading answers, or refused to answer basic questions about his health. And my question to each of you in turn is, is this information voters deserve to know?

A. And the transparency that they practiced all along the way will continue. The American people have a right to know about the health and well-being of their president, and we’ll continue to do that. 

*****     *****     *****

HQ. Do voters have a right to know more detailed health information about presidential candidates and especially about presidents, especially when they’re facing some kind of challenge?

A. Absolutely. And that’s why Joe Biden has been so incredibly transparent. And certainly, by contrast that the President has not, both in terms of health records…I’m glad you asked about transparency because it has to be across the board. Joe has been incredibly transparent over many, many years. The one thing we all know about Joe, he puts it all out there. He is honest, he is forthright…

*****     *****     *****

HQ. And you would pay for that new spending by raising four trillion dollars in taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. Some economists warn that could curb entrepreneurial ventures that fuel growth and create jobs. Would raising taxes put the recovery at risk? 

A.

*****     *****    *****

PQ. Should Americans be braced for an economic comeback that is going to take not months, but a year or more?

A.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. Do you believe as the scientific community has concluded, that man-made climate change has made wildfires bigger, hotter, and more deadly and have made hurricanes wetter, slower and more damaging?

A. And with regard to hurricanes, the National Oceanic Administration tells us that actually as difficult as they are, there are no more hurricanes today than there were 100 years ago.

*****     *****     ***** 

HQ. What exactly would be the stance of a Biden-Harris administration toward the Green New Deal?

A. I will repeat and the American people know that Joe Biden will not ban fracking…And part of those jobs that will be created by Joe Biden are going to be about clean energy and renewable energy…And so Joe believes, again, in science…Joe is about saying we’re going to invest that in renewable energy, which is going to be about the creation of millions of jobs. We will achieve net zero emissions by 2050, carbon neutral by 2035…We will also reenter the Climate Agreement with pride.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. Vice President Pence, do you believe that climate change poses an existential threat?

A. As I said, Susan, the climate is changing.

*****     *****     ***** 

PQ. How would you describe our fundamental relationship with China? Competitors? Adversaries? Enemies?

A.

QH. How would you describe our fundamental relationship with China? Are we competitors? Adversaries? Enemies?

A.

*****     *****     ***** 

HQ. What is your definition of the role of American leadership in 2020? 

A. Just think about it as relationships. So we know this in our personal and professional relationships, you got to keep your word to your friends. Got to be loyal to your friends. People who’ve stood with, you got to stand with them. You got to know who your adversaries are and keep them in check… it’s about relationships. And the thing that has always been part of the strength of our nation in addition to our great military has been that we keep our word…

*****     *****     *****

PQ. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, what would you want Indiana to do? Would you want your home state to ban all abortions?

A.

*****     *****     *****

HQ. If Roe V Wade is overturned, what would you want California to do? Would you want your home state to enact no restrictions on access to abortion? 

A.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. Tell us specifically, how would your administration protect Americans with preexisting conditions to have access to affordable insurance if the Affordable Care Act is struck down? 

A.

****     *****     ***** 

HQ. In the case of Breonna Taylor was justice done? 

A. I don’t believe so…And her life was taken unjustifiably and tragically and violently.

*****     *****     ***** 

PQ. In the case of Breonna Taylor, was justice done?

A. I trust our justice system, a grand jury that reviews the evidence.

*****     *****     *****

HQ. If your ticket wins and president Trump refuses to accept a peaceful transfer of power, what steps would you and vice president Biden then take? What would happen next?  

A.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. If vice president Biden is declared the winner and president Trump refuses to accept a peaceful transfer of power, what would be your role and responsibility as vice president? What would you personally do?

A.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. If our leaders can’t get along, how are the citizens supposed to get along? 

A. I want to tell you that we’re going to work every day to have government as good as our people, and the American people each and every day. Love a good debate. We love a good argument. But we always come together and are always there for one another in times of need. And we’ve especially learned that through the difficulties of this year.

*****     *****     *****

HQ. If our leaders can’t get along, how are the citizens supposed to get along?

A. Joe has a longstanding reputation of working across the aisle, and working in a bipartisan way. And that’s what he’s going to do as president… I do believe the future is bright. And it will be because of your leadership, and it will be because we fight for each person’s voice through their vote.

And blissfully, that was the end of it. 

Now, you may think that all the other stuff that was said during the 90 minutes or so of the debate was necessary, or helpful, but to me, it wasn't. It was just talking points, it was trying to get the soundbite in, it was looking for a zinger... and even those fell pretty flat.

You can see that, if we scheduled the debates for 30 minutes, there'd be more than enough time for the actual questions and answers. And if the Commission on Presidential Debates wants to allow an hour of random chatter after the actual question part, that's up to them. 

I've been watching debates since 1968, when I followed the election with my Dad, a history teacher, who was trying to get his high school juniors and seniors engaged in our process for choosing a president. That was also the first year I 'voted,' going into the booth with him, pulling the curtain back, and pushing the lever for his choices. With that foundation, I've been engaged in this stuff ever since, but my distaste for the debate process has increased as my interest in actually sitting through them while they are happening has waned.

How about you? Did you think anyone answered questions that were actually asked? Did I miss anything that was responsive to the specific question posed by Susan Page? What did you think of the debate as a whole?

Wondering on Wednesday 9/30/20

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Random wondering, in no particular order, from the so-called presidential debate.

• What the hell was that? I turned off the #CaterwaulinginCleveland before the end of the first segment last night - I didn't even make it ten minutes - but I did watch the entire thing this morning. I found myself alternately wanting to scratch my own eyes out, and wanting to stick lit firecrackers in my ears to make the noise stop. I just wanted it to stop.

• Chris Wallace is taking a lot of crap for not doing a better job moderating the debate. Anyone who's giving him crap should be forced to sit in the moderator's chair for two minutes and prove they can do better. Off the top of my head, I can only think of people who would have done worse, other than maybe Jim Lehrer and maybe Gwen Ifill, or maybe Peter Jennings... 

• In that same vein, can you imagine if it had been the team from NBC/MSNBC trying to wrangle that #CockfightinCleveland last night? Chuck Todd, Hallie Berry, Andrea Mitchell, Savannah Guthrie - who knows how many moderators the peacock network would have thrown at it?

• Joe Biden wasn't wearing a wire, Trump was wired, and never have I wanted a mic kill switch like I wanted one watching the video today. Or a Dick Brick. Probably 20 years ago, maybe more, a handful of  us  fun people, all now former smokers, came up with the idea of having a foam 'brick' we could throw at the television whenever Dick Vitale was broadcasting SU basketball games. We hated him, we did, and furiously threw ideas around, how we'd market it and all that... Alas, our dreams were big, but our smoke breaks were short; by the time we really gave it some thought, someone had beaten us to it, absent the Vitale reference. 

• Is it too late to create a #MAGAMA brick, I wonder? I mean, it's not too late to cram through a SCOTUS nomination, right? 

• Speaking of sports references, there was a long-time sportscaster here, local guy named Joel Mareiniss, who had a kind of funny way with words. I thought of him, and of my dad, while watching the #ChaosinCleveland, when it occurred to me that if my dad were alive today, he'd be spinning in his grave. That's how confused I was...

• My confusion pales in comparison to that of Portland-area sheriff Mike Reese, who learned watching the #CatfightinCleveland that he was a Trump supporter. Except, of course, he's not one. Fun times for him, right? 

• How on earth, "for the love of all the corn," as a friend of mine says, does the president of the United States of American not immediately seize on the opportunity to condemn white supremacy? Seriously - for all the kernels on all the ears of corn on all the corn plants in all the cornfields on all the farms in all the states in all of the entire country, why didn't he just say "yes" to that question? Instead, he gives marching orders to the Proud Boys? #whattheactualhell

• Again, but we can use all the peas in all the pods on all the plants on all the farms and in all the gardens in all the backyards in all the states in the entire country, isn't the very first thing a Republican does, when hearing that their Fearless Leader didn't say "yes" to that question, is IMMEDIATELY go out on social media, call their local radio station, show up at their local TV station in their Donald John Trump footed pajamas  with the presidential seal on the fanny and declare their wholehearted and unequivocal condemnation of white supremacy? And why is it that so few of them did that, and why are so many of them simply saying "what he said" in reference to your comments, Sen. Tim Scott? Any ideas? 

• I saw a tweet last night suggesting that Latinos watching the debate on Telemundo thought that Trump won the debate. And that got me wondering what it must have been like being the translators and closed-captioners for the #CacophonyinCleveland - I picture it looking something like this: fkjg;h$(*Y lkjaoia4[ #$(*&#P$( )$5385-#$$^%(^(@*#pao48yp983y4t  -- and I hope I've not offended anyone with that effort. For all I know, I've typed a top secret Qanon password or something, and my fervent hope is that's not the case.

• Should there be another debate, you may be wondering? Yeah, you and everyone else in the world, after the #CarriedawayinCleveland debacle last night. At least so far, the next one, a Town Hall catering to undecided voters in Florida (don't even get me started on that), is still on the schedule. The Commission on Presidential Debates has said they're looking for ways to add more structure to the process, because "more orderly discussion is needed." That's gonna be fun for them, don't you think?  

• And I wonder, what you would do to help drive "more orderly discussion" the next time out? Muzzle the candidates?  Take away time for interruptions and talking out of turn? Trump's mic would have been turned off with about ten minutes left, and Biden's not all that much later, if that had been in place last night. Although, to his um, 'credit,' Biden made more quick hits (telling Trump to shut up, calling him a clown, saying he was the worst president ever, and so on) compared to Trump's more rambling, long-winded  interruptions. Either way, I'm not looking forward much to the next round. 

• Overall, I had very low expectations for what became the #ClamorinCleveland - Trump's a bully, for sure - everyone knows that - but he exceeded my expectations by behaving even way more worser than usual. I was not sure how Biden would handle it, whether he'd "stand back and stand by." as it were, or if he'd go to the center of the ring to engage. There was more of the latter than I thought, but I don't know that it helped all that much. 

I  came away from the #CagefightinCleveland with full comfort knowing that my opinion of Trump was, and is, the correct one. As Biden said to Trump about the pandemic, "it is what it is, because you are who you are." 

And who is he? A man completely undeserving of the honor of being called the president of the United States.  About that, I have no doubts.

What are you wondering about?

Making Political Debates Better

I stumbled upon this WaPo opinion piece while I was cleaning out my inbox, and I was delighted to see it. Why?  Because Greta Van Susteren, a person with a much larger audience than I have, pretty much agrees with me on what we need to do to make political debates more meaningful, and more valuable to voters. 

First, here's my perspective, told through three blog posts. The first, titled The Comic Book Debate, painfully re-lived one of the 2015 Republican presidential debates. After noting how rare it is for me to agree with a bunch of Rs, I said

...according to CNBC, this debate featured "the best team in business" and it was "the first debate focused on Your Money, Your Vote" - you know, tough economic issues like the shrinking global economy, growing national debt, beaten-down middle class and all that...

Got it -- great team of moderators, great topic. And then, the first question.

This series of debates is essentially a job interview with the American people. And in any job interview, you know this: you get asked "what's your biggest weakness?" So in 30 seconds, without telling us that you try to hard or that you're a perfectionist (cue the giggles), what's your biggest weakness and what are you doing to address it?

The second question ended with "Let's be honest. Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?" It got worse, leaving me at the end to note

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- we deserve so much more... and so much better. 

About a year later, I addressed a post to the Commission on Presidential Debates, suggesting that It's Not Too Late to Fix Things. My concerns were not a whole lot different this time.

While I appreciate to some extent the benefits of having a famous name and face or two sitting at the moderator's desk for the Presidential debates... we have seen this year a continuation of the moderators getting in the way, interjecting themselves and their interest in 'getting a story' into the debates, rather than facilitating the conversation in an objective manner.

I acknowledged that Donald Trump had been treated badly by the moderators (and I'll add today, that helped him win the election). I also said

It's clear that we have no opportunity to fix the candidates our political parties bestowed upon us this year, but we do have an opportunity to fix the debates so that they are more effective in educating the voting public on where the candidates stand on important issues, and significantly less focused... on sharing the candidates' respective baggage. 

I had a bunch of ideas to make it better. In addition to obvious stuff like using trained debate moderators, not media talking heads; shutting off microphones when the candidates go beyond their allotted time, etc., candidates would be forced to talk about their own policies, not the other guy's or the other gal's. I even suggested that fully-vetted minor party candidates - those offering the breadth and depth of policy positions that we'd expect from the major party candidates - also be allowed to participate. Crazy stuff, I know. 

My frustration grew last year watching the Dem debates, leading to another post focusing on Immigration Questions I Wish I Had Heard.  Here's the problem with the debate I had watched,  which covered a lot of topics, but not well. Mostly, having the candidates attack each other's positions and statements

makes for good theater, and it gives pundits a whole lot of material to work with, but does it help a voter understand where the candidates stand? Can we ever learn that, when they have one minute to not only respond to the question, but to get in  how their own stance differs from the one that drove the initial question? And to deliver a notable quotable, if they've got one handy?

 And here's what I proposed as a possible solution.

I would much rather hear real discussion on key topics, with 30 minutes or more set aside to have a real debate about the issues that matter. The candidates can be made aware of the topics in advance, but obviously not the questions, so everyone can be prepared for a robust discussion. That's right, a discussion - not an argument or dissection of resumes.

I outlined very specific questions on immigration that would have allowed us to understand where each of the candidates stand on key issues, including DREAMers, a border barrier, the e-Verify system, and more. The benefits of this go beyond helping us understand where the Dems stand, though.

... it will give everyone a chance to see, with their own eyes, that what the president says the Democrats want, and what they really want, are likely very different animals entirely.  

I think this is one of the only ways they will be able to counter his insane tweets and blatant lies. It will also give pollsters a chance to craft good questions for people, and see where the country really stands.

So, now you know where I'm coming from on this issue; here's Van Susteren's take on things.

Presidential debates are supposed to provide voters with a better understanding of a candidate’s views and how he or she would likely govern. Of course, if you think the job of the president is to make short, snappy decisions without consulting others and without examining all the pros and cons, then the existing debate format probably suits you. If, on the other hand, you think the job of the president is problem-solving, then the debate ought to be exactly that — a problem-solving test.

... If we don’t want the Oval Office to operate like Twitter, why do we test our candidates as if it does? (emphasis added)

YAY! A kindred spirit, even if she's from the other side of the aisle! Her approach is very similar to mine but goes further. I suggested giving the candidates the topics, and allowing them to prepare - but she takes it even a little bit further. Here's how she'd handle moderator duty.

...three days in advance, I would supply the candidates with a series of identical, fact-based problem scenarios. These scenarios would relate to real issues facing the United States — such as health care, infrastructure, Iran, North Korea, climate change or cyber warfare. Candidates would consider how to respond to the scenarios; they could consult with advisers and arrive at the debate with a (hopefully) workable solution.

She notes that we could still get canned answers, but I think we'd know spot them right away, compared to others who were taking this format seriously. She also points out that being able to consult with their teams would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

...what would look like “cheating” in the context of a take-home exam is akin to real-life governing. No one wants a president who acts without the benefit of being surrounded by subject-matter experts and trusted advisers. 

Van Susteren notes, as did I, the benefits of hearing the candidates answer the same detailed question, and

because the questions would not flit from subject to subject, there would be more ability to test the quality of candidates’ thinking. The presidential hopefuls would be required to describe how they had arrived at their approach, explain how it might be achieved and outline the potential consequences.

Moderators would be there to "...press the participants, politely but repeatedly, on the feasibility of their proposals." Getting things done if there's a divided Congress, or concerns about our allies and whether they'll go along with us are just a couple of probing questions she suggested could be asked.

The reasoning behind her plan is perfectly valid, even if it does attack the Dems on policy.

This format would inhibit a candidate’s ability to promise free college, Medicare-for-all and a tax increase only on billionaires — all to be magically approved by a Republican-controlled Senate — then have the time clock go off and everyone move on to trade policy....

Admitting, as I did, that there's more one way to make debates better, her bottom line and mine are the same:

If we want better outcomes in Washington, we must change the vetting process for how our presidents get there.

 Hear, hear. Maybe we can figure this out by the time we come out of the nomination conventions...

It's Not Too Late to Fix Things

The Commission on Presidential Debates

October 10, 2016.

To Whom it May Concern:

While I appreciate to some extent the benefits of having a famous name and face or two sitting at the moderator's desk for the Presidential debates, and the potential positive impact on interest and ratings, we have seen this year a continuation of the moderators getting in the way, interjecting themselves and their interest in 'getting a story' into the debates, rather than facilitating the conversation in an objective manner. 

Note that I say this as a #NeverTrump person; I don't support him or his positions, but like many of his supporters, all of his campaign team, his family, his closest advisers, and many of my own friends, I believe he has undeniably been treated differently by the moderators in the first two debates. 

When that happens, soundbite collection goes up, but real discussion on the issues decreases correspondingly.

It's clear that we have no opportunity to fix the candidates our political parties bestowed upon us this year, but we do have an opportunity to fix the debates so that they are more effective in educating the voting public on where the candidates stand on important issues, and significantly less focused, as a friend of mine put it, on sharing the candidates' respective baggage. 

So how do we fix it? Here are a few ideas.

First: officially define, or re-define, the role of the moderator to include the following activities:

1. Introducing the candidates.
2. Explaining the rules, such as how much time is allowed to respond, who goes first, opportunities for rebuttals, and so on.
3. Reading the questions, or introducing the people who are to read the questions.

Second: the moderators should be prohibited from the following activities:

1. Fact-checking the responses from the candidates.
2. Arguing with the candidates.
3. Controlling the time allocated to the questions and rebuttals.

Third: moderators should be pulled from the ranks of judges who have been deemed qualified and have actually participated in events held under the auspices of the National Debate Tournament, and not from the media.

Regarding how the debates are structured, here are some suggestions for the 'town hall' debate format: 

1. Only audience members who were invited to participate in the town hall are allowed to pose questions to the candidates.
2. The moderator role in the town hall format is limited to (a) introducing the questioner; (b) ensuring the question (and any rebuttal) goes to the right candidate based on established rules; and (c) at the end of the responses, asking the questioner whether or not, in their opinion, the question was answered.
3. A designated timekeeper, who is qualified and certified as a judge in the National Debate Tournament, will maintain the visible clock for response and rebuttals times; the clock will include an indicator at 20 seconds, 15 seconds, 10 seconds, 5 seconds, and when time has expired. All candidate microphones will be disabled at five seconds after time expires.

When the 'traditional' presidential debate format is used, I suggest the following:

1. Candidates are required to defend their own policies in response to questions falling within larger topic 'blocks' such as national security (immigration, crime, terrorism); foreign policy (military deployments, treaty support, the Middle East); economics (budget, debt, taxes); public policy (education, the environment, energy, and climate change,  jobs and trade, health care, safety net programs, the Supreme Court, speech and religion, gun control/gun rights) and so on.
2. Because the candidates are discussing their own policies, there will be no rebuttals in this format. 
3. These debates will be held without an audience present. Pooled media video/audio will be employed, as they are at many other aspects of the campaign. Viewing areas will be provided for those wishing to attend and watch the debate from outside the hall. 
4. Time will be kept in the manner described above, with the countdown indicators and automatic microphone shut off at five seconds past the expiration of time. 

Finally, to expand the discussion of ideas in the country, I believe we need to expand the presidential debate stage to include participation from minor parties, with some restrictions.

1. Minor party candidates who are on the ballot in at least 26 states by July 1st of the election year are allowed to participate fully in the town hall debates.
2. In order to participate in the 'traditional' presidential debate format, the minor party candidates must meet the ballot line requirements and also must have published policies in each of the topic blocks. 
3. Moderators and the timekeeper will review websites for all of the candidates meeting the ballot requirements to determine whether the candidates have defined sufficient policy positions to allow participation in the topic block discussions.
4. The review is not intended to assess the validity or viability of the policies, but rather to ascertain whether the candidate has defined enough of a platform to be included, and to determine whether there are any topic blocks where a candidate cannot compete based on the lack of policies.

Is this perfect? Nope. 

Is it boring? Perhaps, if you're more interested in a mixed martial arts event or some politicians-vs.-lion kind of thing. 

But for all of the people who actually want to understand what the candidates stand for, as opposed to hearing what they say at rallies without having to really say anything other much at all about what they stand for, or hearing talking heads make their opinions known, these might be acceptable options.

There's one more debate. It might not be too late.