Sept. 27 - Looking forward to the presidential debate? Don’t bother. There isn’t going to be one.

advertisement

Oh, sure, George W. Bush and John Kerry will stand on the same stage on Thursday, but any similarity between that and a debate is purely a function of the power suits they’ll be wearing and the stump speeches they’ll be spitting out in 90-second chunks.

In NEWSWEEK, my colleague Fareed Zakaria (and when I say "my colleague," I’m not only being extremely presumptuous but downright dishonest) called the debates "the only time that the candidates stand face to face, answer questions and respond to each other." But in reality, the candidates don’t stand face to face, they are under no obligation to answer questions and they are forbidden, by the very rules of the debate, to respond to each other.

I can say that because I’ve just read the debate’s 31-page "memorandum of understanding" hashed out by the Kerry and Bush campaigns (if you want to see the full text, hunt around on georgewbush.com or johnkerry.com). Thanks to this lawyerly document, the rules of engagement prevent almost all engagement. It should be called a debase rather than a debate.

For instance:
The candidates can’t address each other. In 1980, when President Jimmy Carter complained that Ronald Reagan would gut Medicaid, Reagan’s rejoinder—"There you go again"—propelled the challenger to the White House. But if he said it this year, he’d be admonished by the moderator. And if this rule was in place in 1988, Lloyd Bentsen could never have told Dan Quayle, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." That remains the second greatest moment in the history of debate, after the time Cicero told Demosthenes, "I’ve dined on ambrosia. I know ambrosia. Ambrosia is a passion of mine. And Demosthenes, you don’t know how to make ambrosia." It’s unclear if even Al Gore would be allowed to audibly sigh under the current rules!

AMERICAN BEAT     Current Column | Archives • Gersh Kuntzman: The Battle of Bill’s Burgers Our columnist follows in the gastronomic footsteps of the former president—and discovers just how satisfying that can be • Gersh Kuntzman: Hamster Vets for Truth Do hamster-lovers care how differently the presidential candidates treated their family pets? Our columnist investigates

"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions." So, Kerry can’t ask, "Mr. President, what are you going to do to ensure a swift transition to democracy in Iraq," but he can ask, "Just how dumb are you?"—a rhetorical question that always stumped me when I was a kid. I mean, if you think about it, there really is no good answer.

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate." Kerry should have vigorously opposed this rule. Sure, he’s crashed and burned as a candidate, but I still held out hope that at some point, Kerry would hold an X-ray of his leg in one hand and an empty beer can in the other and say: "See the dot on this X-ray? That’s a piece of shrapnel I picked up in Vietnam. It’s a reminder of what I did after graduating from Yale. See this beer can? It’s similar to the kind sold widely in Alabama while I was in Vietnam. It’s a reminder of what the president did after graduating from Yale." Now that would be a great debate moment. Too bad it violates the debate rules.

"At no time during these debates shall either candidate move from their [sic] designated area behind their [sic] respective podiums." This rule only applies to the first and third debate because at the Oct. 8 "town hall"-style debate, the candidates can actually perambulate—a little.

Advertisement Hair! Mankind's Historic Quest to End Baldness by Gersh Kuntzman

"Each candidate may move about in a pre-designated area...and may not leave that area while the debate is underway." Obviously, Bush and Kerry are as fed up as I am with people who only watch debates to see a two-candidate pileup.

"TV cameras will be locked into place [and] shall be limited to shots of the candidates or moderator...There will be no TV cutaways to any candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question." He got rid of Saddam and now President Bush is avenging his father’s biggest demon, the TV cutaway. The year was 1992. The first President Bush was debating Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and Texas Wrdo. Ross Perot. At one point, Perot was answering a question, but the TV cameras showed Bush looking at his watch—an indelible image that implied to voters that he thought he had some place better to be.

As a result, both campaigns pushed for the "no cutaway" rule four years ago, but the major networks refused. If the networks cave this time, this debate will be about as exhilarating as the Japanese national anthem (ever hear it? All I can say is thank goodness they never win at the Olympics).

The audience for the town hall debate will consist of "likely voters who are ‘soft’ Bush supporters or ‘soft’ Kerry supporters." Never mind that no one should ever allow himself to be described as a "soft" anything, but if everyone in the audience has already picked sides, what are the chances that someone will ask a question so out of left field that it might actually force a candidate to stumble? Each side knows its talking points too well to bring up a topic that’s not "on message"—preventing such moments as when Bush, responding to a question about the sovereign status of American Indian nations, said, "Tribal sovereignty means that, it’s sovereignty. You’ve been given sovereignty and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and the tribes is one between sovereign entities." (Too bad the debate rules don’t even allow follow-up questions because I have a doozy: Mr. President, do you even know what the word "sovereignty" means?)

Now, not all of the rules are about stifling spontaneity. Some are just silly (and a little reminiscent of Korean War peace negotiators debating the size and shape of the conference table): "The podiums shall measure fifty (50) inches from the stage floor to the outside top of the podium facing the audience and shall measure forty-eight (48) inches from the stage floor to the top of the inside podium writing surface...No candidate shall be permitted to use risers or any other device to create an impression of elevated height." Pity the midget presidential candidate! This rule actually favors the shorter Bush, who will not have to stoop down to take notes.

The memorandum states that "the stools shall have backs and a footrest and shall be approved by the candidates’ representatives." If you ask me, a stool with a back and a footrest sounds like a director’s chair, not a stool, but I was in no mood to quibble. What I really wanted to know was whether a high stool favors the 5’11" Bush or the 6’4" Kerry, so I called New York furniture designer Jonah Zuckerman for a clarification. "The taller man always looks better coming off a stool," says Zuckerman, who owns City Joinery. "This is where Kerry is going to make some hay."

He’d better not; making hay could be considered use of a prop and, as such, would violate the rules.

Gersh Kuntzman is also a reporter at The New York Post. Check out his rudimentary website at http://www.gersh.tv/

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

MORE FROM NEWSWEEK COLUMNISTS

Newsweek Columnists Section Front

• My Turn: Taking the High Road, Riding the Shoulder • Quindlen: Mortal Kombat, Election Level • Alter: We're Dodging the Draft Issue • Samuelson: Presidents and Jobs (Again) • Levy: Memo to Bloggers—Heal Thyselves • Newsweek Columnists Section Front

TOP STORIES • Gersh Kuntzman: The Non-Debate Debate • The Book of Bob • How to Pick a War President • Alter: We're Dodging the Draft Issue • Grande Plans

• Jeanne spawns tornadoes • Two hostages freed in Iraq • Kennedy: U.S. more vulnerable • No rape prosecution for bishop • U.S. forces pound Sadr City