Rhea, on Sep 25 2003, 08:22 AM, said:
The day I'll be impressed with any of them is the day they ALL sit down to a debate where they are NOT prepped on the questions and where they observe at least a modicum of courtesy.
... ALL of them?
Anyway, I disagree. I think this format has value.
Somebody can be very slick, and come up with good-sounding answers on the fly to virtually any question... and be completely ineffetive. Conversely, somebody could be a bit slower, and make fantastic decisions. In an executive position such as this, decisions don't often have to be made quickly, just correctly. Aside from natural disasters, there's no situation so pressing that a bit of lag time for analysis will cause massive problems.
That being said, I would also like to see how Arnold thinks on his feet. It's a shame we won't, but that probably is the more savvy political move. There's little to gain and much to lose.
EDIT: As for the lack of courtesy... blame too many candidates and an ineffective moderator. There was really no excuse for having more than the big three (plus maybe Davis) present
Edited by Javert Rovinski, 25 September 2003 - 10:29 AM.
St. Louis must be destroyed!
Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease. THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.
"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.