IT SHOULD surprise no one that Axl Rose said it best. And though he was referring to critics of Guns 'N Roses rather than presidential debate politics, the message retains its meaning today: "Get in the ring." The controversy over each candidate's willingness -- or lack thereof -- to participate in debates is just another manifestation of the serious, but too often minimized differences between the two sides.
It has become fashionable of late to throw around words like "Republicrat" and to otherwise imply that there are not fundamental issues at stake in this election. This strategy plays out between the two candidates as well. One side wants to mold this campaign into an honest discussion of the issues. The other side would rather avoid such a discussion altogether, leaving personality as the prime issue. Why? Because Texas Gov. George W. Bush knows that on the vast majority of issues, voters favor the positions of Al Gore.
Our country needs an honest conversation about both candidates' views on the issues. The only way that can happen is if Bush faces up to the task and gets in the ring. No matter how much the Bush campaign tries to dance around the debate issue, it is only hurting itself in the long run by ducking it.
|
Early this year, Gore turned back Bill Bradley's challenge for the Democratic Presidential ticket by using his own ideas against him and putting him on the defensive. Bradley could not recover. Like him or not, the Vice President has an uncanny knack for exposing his opponent's weaknesses and using those against him until he caves.
This "debate over debates" began on a humorous note last July when David Letterman invited both candidates to appear on "The Late Show" together. Gore accepted immediately, as he has with nearly every such invitation he has received. The Bush campaign, on the other hand, waffled in the face of this invitation. They have yet to issue a response clearer than "We're considering it."
Playing the debate card is nothing new in politics. It is a generally accepted rule that the front-runner avoids debating for as long as possible while the trailing candidate fights like mad to arrange such a confrontation. But what makes Bush's refusals unique is that he is no longer the front-runner.
Most polls show the contest as a statistical dead heat between the candidates. So what can explain Bush's refusals? He wants to avoid the issues and give the impression that he is comfortably ahead in the race.
There is nothing inherently wrong with Bush holding the positions that he does. It is his prerogative, and his party would not have chosen him as their leader if he did not stick to his conservative beliefs. The problem is that Bush wants to make this a campaign about something other than issues. In his ideal world, this election would amount to little more than a junior high popularity contest.
Obviously, that is a contest Gore won't win. But we are not holding an election for national prom king or national game show host. We live in a democracy in which we elect the candidate who best fits the majority's views on the important issues of the day. Bush is cheating himself and the public by simultaneously trying to blur the differences between the parties, while denying voters the chance to make clearer distinctions between him and Vice President Gore.
That is what makes this situation so different. The Bush campaign is openly rejecting the same debate format that has been in place since 1988. Instead of the traditional format of two or three presidential debates in prime time on all major networks, Bush aides are calling for the candidates to debate on the Sunday morning political shows. Needless to say, comparatively few people would bother to tune-in to a presidential debate at 11 a.m. on a Sunday.
For many voters, the debates are the only chance they have to watch the candidates live on television in a largely unscripted format. It is no coincidence that for this same reason, the debates receive the highest ratings of any event during the campaign season.
The Bush campaign should embrace this challenge. Bush's current strategy of smothering the importance of issues in this campaign will not remain as effective once the general public begins to hone in more closely on the differences between the parties.
These debates offer both candidates perfect opportunities to define themselves with respect to their opponent. We, the voters, deserve to hear them. Bush needs to get in the ring.
(Timothy DuBoff's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | YesterdayPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | April 27, 2024The University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
