Margaret BauerIn last Thursday’s presidential debate, we watched President Bush and his challenger Senator John Kerry speak at length about issues such as the war on Iraq, nuclear proliferation, and Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist network. In the coming weeks, additional debates will highlight domestic issues such as health care, tax reform and education. But what viewers did not get a chance to watch was the nearly three week debate over the debate, specifically whether to even have one. What emerged from the fray, like a phoenix from the ashes of political campaigning, was a document that rivals the Declaration of Independence in beauty and the Constitution in timelessness (and lack of mention of slavery).
Known simply as “the 32 page agreement on the three presidential debates,” this historic document covers such minutiae as room temperature, podium height and camera angles, containing such pearls as: “No candidate is allowed to use risers or any other device to make them look taller.” This resolution is undoubtedly inspired by the notorious “Douglas incident” of 1858, in which the diminutive Senator Stephen A. Douglas stood on top of fifteen phonebooks in order to appear taller than his opponent, the six-foot-four Abraham Lincoln, during their famous series of debates, nearly costing Lincoln the presidential election.
Despite these exciting rules, and because this column must be at least tangentially related to sports, one gets the impression that a more “Xtreme” debate would have been more effective in helping the American people find a candidate to throw their support behind. After all, nobody can watch months of professional sports without rooting for a champion, and it’s nearly impossible not to respect and admire Nitro, of American Gladiators fame, after he knocks some personal trainer from Detroit off of the raised platform during the joust event. Perhaps what this process needs is less ambiguity or some way to determine a clear winner. With a little fiddling of the rules, and the attachment of corresponding point values, I believe this is possible. With that said, here are some of my ideas for making some of the more unintuitive rules more “sexy,” and therefore the whole debate more palatable to the general public.
Rather than forbidding cutaways from the candidate answering the question, let’s bar shots of anything other than the candidate not answering the question, while encouraging them to strut, flex, and pose demonstratively. Celebrity judges Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lou Ferrigno, and Dolph Lundgren can evaluate, on a 10 point scale, which candidate has “the goods.”
Instead of allowing the candidates their own makeup artists, each contender must instead be made up by an artist chosen by their opponent; five points will be awarded to the candidate whose artist is able to make their opponent appear closest to KISS front man Gene Simmons.
In the current format, candidates are permitted to ask rhetorical questions. In the Xtreme debate, candidates may ask any question, but must answer any question directed to them by posing another question, meaning the debate must consist of questions answered only by additional questions. Points will be deducted for answering a question with an actual response. This should help the undecided Jewish voter.
Candidates must utilize a full snap count, audibles permitted, before receiving the question. While waiting to respond, the opponent must reach a count of no less than 100 Mississippi’s before rushing the podium. Should a candidate desire to challenge an assertion of fact, a red flag must be thrown by the campaign coordinator before the opponent begins a new response.
Since both candidates pride themselves on their military service, rather than using the traditional coin toss to determine order of questioning, preference will be given to the candidate with the most confirmed combat kills (sorry, George).
If a foreign object is employed during the debate (e.g. hidden bag of sand to blind opponent, steel folding chair), then a candidate’s posse may rush to the stage to defend their leader. This could present intriguing match-ups such as John “Personal Injury” Edwards and Howard “The Scream” Dean vs. “The Nasty Boyz” tandem of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Should Cheney’s heart give out, Cheney 2.0, his Halliburton-created clone, will be allowed to enter the match after a one minute wait, as customary under Royal Rumble rules.
While it’s difficult to predict which candidate would have a definite edge under these rules, (especially since an “in the event of a tie deathmatch” is out of the question) it’s still easy to predict the winner of these debates: the democratic political process. But until the day when John Kerry stands alongside Randy “Macho Man” Savage and utters “Snap into a SlimJim, oh yeaaaaaaaaaaaah!” the American people will have to make do with elaborate drinking games. “Axis of evil,” look out!