Presidential Debate Primer

That LBJ was so slick. He avoided debating Barry Goldwater in 1964. I would wager that W would like to pull the same trick himself. I cannot imagine the gut-wrenching pressure that W and Kerry are feeling as zero-hour approaches. If this is (fair & balanced) anxiety, so be it.

[x History News Network]
Presidential Debates: HNN Scrapbook
By Alex Bosworth

Frontrunners

After the first televised debate in 1960, when Vice President Nixon saw his solid lead in the polls evaporate after debating the photogenic Kennedy, Press Secretary James Hagerty predicted, "you can bet your bottom dollar that no incumbent president will ever engage in any such debate or joint appearance in the future."

President Lyndon B. Johnson avoided debating Barry Goldwater in 1964 through a technicality. Section 315 of the Communications Act reserved equal air time for all candidates, not just those belonging to the Republican or Democratic parties. Johnson claimed that a debate would give himself and Goldwater an unfair advantage over third party candidates. (In 1960 an exemption from the law was approvd by Congress.) Note: President Kennedy had considered debating Goldwater frequntly during the 1964 election.

Having learned his lesson in 1960, Nixon used the Communications Act to avoid debates during the 1968 and 1972 elections. The Federal Communications Commission decided that Section 315 did not apply to presidential debates in 1975.

In 1984 President Ronald Reagan agreed to debate Walter Mondale despite holding a massive lead in the polls. In the words of historian Alan Schroeder, Reagan's decision "shored up campaign debates as a permanent institution."

By 1992, the American public had come to expect debates. When President George H.W. Bush pulled out of a debate in Michigan, "Chicken George" protestors dressed in chicken suits began to arrive at Bush campaign events. The pressure forced Bush to agree to three debates with Clinton and Ross Perot.

In 1996 President Clinton, enjoying a sizable lead in the polls, scheduled his last debate with Bob Dole to occur during a televised baseball game. Advisor George Stephanopoulos commented: "we didn't want people watching the debates."

Appearing Presidential

In 1960 Kennedy inserted the requirement that both candidates stand in order to exploit the fact that Nixon had sprained his knee. Nixon shifted his weight during the debates, an action that looked uncertain and nervous.

During the first debate of 1976, the sound system went out. Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter stood rigidly at their lecterns for more than twenty minutes while technicians worked to restore audio.

Carter demanded a smaller lectern to stand behind in order to mask his shorter height. In return, President Ford was permitted to pick a background color that would mask the fact that the president was balding.

President Ford wanted to attach the presidential seal to his lectern for his debates with Carter. President Carter proposed the same thing during negotiations with Reagan four years later.

Michael Dukakis, six inches shorter than Vice President George H.W. Bush, arranged in 1988 to stand on a ramp that would raise him up to Bush's height.

Geoge H.W. Bush preferred to stand on the right side of the stage to hide his receding hair line.

Format

The first town hall debate (where undecided voters are allowed to ask the candidates questions) began at the behest of Clinton in 1992. Clinton advisors wanted to showcase the future president's people skills.

Debates are usually scheduled to last 90 minutes. The longest debate lasted 100 minutes, during the first Reagan - Mondale debate. Reagan had originally wanted the 1984 debates to last just 60 minutes each.

The Commission on Presidential Debates invited Perot to the first three-way debate in 1992. The Commission decided that Perot did not have enough popular support to merit inclusion in the 1996 debates.

The most debates in any one year was four, in 1960.

The fewest number of debates occurred in 1980. President Carter boycotted one debate, and then engaged in a disastrous debate with Reagan one week before the election.

In 1984, Mondale and Reagan rejected a combined 83 journalists as debate panelists. The League of Women Voters condemned both campaigns for "totally abus[ing]" the process.

Preparation

Bob Dole spent little time preparing for his 1996 debates with President Clinton. President Nixon refused to spend any time preparing for his debates with Kennedy in 1960. Both men lost their respective elections.

Candidates can be equally hurt by preparing for the wrong kind of debate. In 1984 Reagan entered the first debate with Mondale expecting to be attacked. When he was not, a confused Reagan floundered throughout the debate.

Clinton researched debates in both 1996 and 1992 extensively. In 1992 advisor Harry Thomason arranged for camera shots of Clinton to include Bush or Perot in the background, reacting to Clinton's speech. Clinton came off looking like the strongest of the candidates.

Ford was the first candidate to act out an entire debate with his advisors to prepare for the 1976 debates.

Reagan rehearsed his 1980 line "There you go again," in order to make it seem spontaneous.

Lessons

"TV favors the underdog," in the words of Alan Schroeder. Ever since Nixon lost the 1960 election, the frontrunner's campaign has typically tried to reduce the number of debates, while the candidate who is behind has tried to increase the number.

James Baker, who famously suckered Carter into a late debate with Reagan, argues that once debates are scheduled, the polls "freeze." Remaining undecided voters wait until after viewing the debates to make up their mind.

Cartoon characterizations win debates. Mondale made Reagan seem old in 1984 at their fist debate, Clinton made George H.W. Bush look out of touch in 1992, and Dukakis came across as wooden after the 1988 debates.

Vice presidential candidates can attack their opponents with few negative consequences. Lloyd Bentsen demolished Dan Quayle in 1988 by referring to him as "no Jack Kennedy." Quayle tried to return the favor in 1992 by attacking Clinton's character.

Catchy slogans can convince the American voter better than factual information. Reagan managed to erase all concerns about his position on Medicare with four words to Carter: "there you go again." Similarly, Clinton gained a strong following with American women despite allegations of his infidelity by telling audiences that he felt their pain.

Televised debates favor politicians who are able to appear charming and at ease while on the stage. Kennedy trounced a sweating Nixon in 1960. Clinton played to the audience in 1992 by stepping off the debate stage and into the crowd. Former Hollywood star Reagan famously quipped when asked if he was nervous to stand on the same stage as President Carter: "Not at all. I've been on the same stage with John Wayne."

Alex Bosworth is an HNN intern. He graduated with a degree in history from Whitman College in May 2004.

Copyright © 2004 History News Network

Getting To The Bottom Of Things

In the daily Technology newsletter from The Washington Post, a trivia quiz is supplied. I got the correct answer today. If this is (fair & balanced) smugness, so be it.

According to a recent survey, what percentage of wireless-device users say they have e-mailed from a restroom?
1%
15%
30%
45%
In a recent survey by Harris Interactive commissioned by wireless provider T-Mobile USA Inc., x percent of wireless-device users said they have e-mailed from a restroom, 19 percent while eating in a restaurant, and 21 percent while talking to friends or family.

Copyright © 2004 The Washington Post

The Roots Of War In Iraq

We have met the enemy and he is us. If this is (fair & balanced) petroleum avarice, so be it.

1.
[x Slate]
Oil Terror: Don't blame Osama for high gas prices.
By Daniel Gross

As the price of crude oil spiked in recent months, economists and energy pundits were stumped. The data on global economic growth, supply, and demand didn't seem to warrant the action in the markets. There had to be an alternative explanation.

Thus was born the "terror premium." In May, when crude topped $40 per barrel, economists and oil analysts began to argue that prices were being pushed up by fear of terrorism and political instability in major oil production centers—Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia, and particularly Iraq and Saudi Arabia. What's more, several big events slated for the summer—the Euro 2004 soccer tournament, the Athens Olympics, the U.S. political conventions—would provide targets for attacks. George Worthington, Asia Pacific chief economist for Thomson IFR, quantified the terror premium as $8 a barrel. The same month, the Economist likewise settled on $8, and the Kerry campaign noted that "Economists estimate that Americans are now paying a 'terror premium' of $10 to $15 per barrel for oil." In August, HSBC economist John Butler suggested the premium was somewhere between $10 and $15.

As evidence for the terror premium, analysts tended to cite the difference between the price of a barrel of crude oil to be delivered in the next month and the price of a barrel to be delivered much later. In March 2003, for example, just before the Iraq war started, light sweet crude traded at about $35 per barrel in the spot market while the price for a June 2004 contract was only about $25. In May, when oil hit $40, the price for a barrel of oil to be delivered in July 2005 was about $35. In other words, the market assumed that oil prices would return to historical means in the future once the temporary instability responsible for today's elevated prices dissipated.

But what if the theory of the temporary terrorism premium is wrong? After all, terror and instability are likely to be with us for the foreseeable future. And the absence of terrorist incidents at major events this summer didn't calm the oil market down. Quite the contrary: Oil prices are climbing and topped $50 a barrel this week. Could it be that the rise of oil prices is caused by global economic forces that are more powerful than terrorism?

As Barry Ritholtz points out, there may never have been much of a terror/instability premium in oil prices to begin with. After 9/11, when the world suddenly became aware of the ravages of terrorism, oil prices plummeted briefly. Why? Investors feared the global economy would contract, thus tamping down demand. Further, between April 2002 and January 2004, oil prices were relatively stable. (The price spiked sharply before the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq in early 2003 but quickly settled back down to prewar levels.) It's only in the past year that prices have taken off.

What's changed, then? Global economic growth, continued increases in demand from all corners of the globe, and concerns about capacity. Three years ago, Japan, the United States, and Europe were in a rare period of synchronous recession. Today, all three are growing, and China's appetite for industrial commodities is suddenly omnivorous. Perhaps the price of oil is rising because the long-term equation of supply, demand, and capacity has changed in the past few years.

The first reaction to such an assertion—by investors and by analysts—is denial. Analysts tend to forecast by analogy: Under generally similar macroeconomic circumstances in the past, oil prices behaved a certain way, so that's how they should behave next year. But perhaps we are at the beginning of a new era in which the old rules have been thrown out the window. The International Energy Agency noted that second-quarter oil demand grew by a whopping 5 percent, despite the higher oil prices. Meanwhile, the United States, the world's largest consumer of oil, produces less and less of its own oil and imports more and more each year; car sales are growing in China; and the huge economies of Latin America—Argentina and Brazil—seem to be recovering. If demand continues to grow rapidly, concerns over production capacity will likely increase, not lessen.


Daniel Gross is a journalist, editor, and New York Times best-selling author based in New York and Connecticut who specializes in three broad areas: business history, the links between business and politics, and the culture of Wall Street. A graduate of Cornell University, he holds an A.M. in American history from Harvard University, and has been a fellow at the New America Foundation. He has worked as a reporter at The New Republic and Bloomberg News, and has written articles, book reviews, essays, and commentary for more than 60 publications, including New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, New York, New York Observer, Slate, American Prospect, and Washington Monthly. He currently contributes columns to Slate, Attache, and CEO.

He appears frequently in the media to discuss issues affecting Wall Street and Washington, and in 2000 coined the term “the politics of personal finance.” Gross has appeared on CNBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, C-SPAN, Bloomberg Television, Reuters Television, and on more than 35 radio programs,, including Fresh Air with Terry Gross, and NPR’s “Marketplace.”

Gross is the author of three books: Forbes Greatest Business Stories of All Time (Wiley, 1996), a New York Times and Business Week best-seller that has been translated into seven languages; Bull Run: Wall Street, the Democrats, and the New Politics of Personal Finance (PublicAffairs, 2000), and Generations of Corning: 150 Years in the Life of a Global Corporation, 1851-2001 (Oxford University Press, 2001), co-authored with Davis Dyer.
Since 1999, Gross has edited STERNbusiness, the semi-annual management journal published by New York University’s Stern School of Business.

In collaboration with design and editorial professionals, Gross has worked with individuals and companies in areas such as executive recruiting, management consulting, media, insurance and utilities, and provided editorial services including speechwriting, ghostwriting, business plans and annual reports, op-ed articles, and book packaging.

Copyright © 2004 Slate Magazine

2.
[x The Boston Globe]
What I hope they'll say: We're a selfish nation
by Derrick Z. Jackson

During a football commercial break, my TV turned into a kaleidoscope for a crazily spinning Hummer. During another timeout, a Cadillac spun around a dance floor, bullying several foreign luxury cars off to the side.

No other metaphors are necessary to understand the United States on the eve of the presidential debates.

About 1,050 U.S. soldiers are dead in Iraq. Up to 15,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. None of that has persuaded us Americans to put down the kaleidoscope and stop spinning in our own orbits. No amount of mass sacrifice abroad has resulted in mass sacrifice at home. No amount of failure in the original mission of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has made us question the fantasy of bullying the world. Our toys really are us. We're big, we're bad, and you Euro girlie-cars, we're cutting in.

It would be sad to conclude someday that our leaders sent our soldiers halfway around the world to die for our cars. In the absence of weapons of mass destruction and in the absence of Saddam Hussein being tied to Sept. 11, there is not much left to conclude. On its current Web site, the Economist Intelligence Unit says "the biggest potential prize" and an "ideal prospect" for international oil companies is Iraq, home to the world's second- or third-largest oil reserves. In 1993, the deaths of a mere 18 Army Rangers in resource-starved Somalia made us flee that country.

Today we accept 58 times more American fatalities to secure Iraq. We accept the death of human beings who just finished being boys and girls, yet we have not accepted the notion that to avoid losing more of them, the rest of us must grow up. In 1991, during the first Gulf War to defend Kuwait from Saddam, Americans were consuming 25.2 percent of the world's oil. Today the figure is 26.1 percent, according to statistics kept by British Petroleum.

A huge part of that consumption is our insistence on huge cars, symbolized by Hummers and Caddys. But almost everything about our lifestyles, from our obesity epidemic to our homes, reeks of not giving one whit about being only 4 percent of the planet's population yet creating a quarter of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Even though the size of the American family has shrunk over the last half-century, the size of the average American home has more than doubled, with a single home in the suburbs loaded with more technology than whole villages in the developing world.

If any of this comes up during the debates, it will be a miracle. The last thing voters want to hear from a presidential candidate is that a more secure America means a less selfish America. You certainly will not hear that from President Bush, who says he can drill us into energy independence, even if that takes out a few snow geese and polar bears up in the Arctic. Nor will you probably hear much about sacrifice from his challenger, John Kerry. The Massachusetts senator has a voting record that earned him the endorsement of many environmental groups. But in the heat of pandering to voters, Kerry also said: "You want to drive a great big SUV? Terrific. That's America."

It should be a national shame that more than 1,000 soldiers have died in Iraq, and to this day the only sacrifice President Bush has asked of Americans was so trivial as to be utterly American. "One of the great goals of this nation's war is to restore public confidence in the airline industry," Bush said 16 days after 9/11. "It's to tell the traveling public: Get on board. Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida."

Hummers, Caddys and Disney World. That's America. A Martian landing in front of an American TV set on a Sunday afternoon would conclude that that is what our modern wars are for.

The presidential debates start tonight. Bush and Kerry will say they can best finish the job in Iraq and make America more secure. Neither has dared to tell Americans that the job begins at home. The debate will matter when one of them asks us to put down the kaleidoscope and end the fantasy of a chicken in every pot and a gas guzzler in every garage.

Derrick Z. Jackson was a 2001 finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in commentary and a winner of commentary awards from the National Education Writers Association and the Unity Awards in Media from Lincoln University in Missouri.

A Globe columnist since 1988, Jackson is a five-time winner and 10-time finalist for political and sports commentary from the National Association of Black Journalists. He is a three-time winner of the Sword of Hope commentary award from the New England Division of the American Cancer Society.

Prior to joining the Globe, Jackson won several awards at Newsday, including the 1985 Columbia University Meyer Berger Award for coverage of New York City.

Jackson, 45, is a native of Milwaukee, WI, and a 1976 graduate of the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Jackson was a Nieman Fellow in Journalism at Harvard University in 1984. He holds honorary degrees from the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA, Salem State College, and a human rights award from Curry College in Milton, MA

Copyright © 2004 The Boston Globe