Accountibility in Debate

I have viewed all the debates held thus far, the most recent of which was the Democratic Youtube debate. Shortly after the Republican Youtube debate was announced, two campaigns said they were not able to attend (Giuliani & Romney), whereas two others, John McCain & Ron Paul, signed in. There has been an outcry that the majority of Rep. candidates are refraining from joining this format because they fear regular American people. Another school of thought agrees with Mr. Romney, that the format does not display the respect and decorum that should be present in a debate for individuals running for the distinguished office of the presidency and that the questions posed in this latest offering were not answered fully.

I agree that many questions posed in any of these debates are not fully answered. In some respects they have become personal relations opportunities or mere question and answer sessions. However, one thing that the Youtube format brings is an accountability factor. The validity may be marginal in this format, but it is greatly increased when candidates react with disdain and make comments that result in U.S. citizens and voters feel irrelevent. Unfortunately it hasn't taken a "debate" of this nature to disenfranchise the citizens of this country. Politics has been doing this for decades by not allowingwhat some may see as the lowest common denominator of our society to feel they have a stake in this. Some of the recent questions had a humerous bent or were more humanitarian than political, but why is that kind of dialogue a "step down". Is politics so lofty that we only elect ideas? No, we look for a person behind the rhetoric. Convictions behind the t.v. smile and campaign promises.

I feel that someone running for president should not fear any level of "accountability" to the American people, no matter how minimal it is or may seem to be.

Mr. Giuliani and Sen. McCain have already made a stand here in Iowa by saying they will not participate in the upcoming Straw Poll. Sure, they may not expect to do well in the state, but does that mean that you write it off and leave the few supporters you have behind? Do you not participate in a debate because the questions might be hard for you to answer, or silly?

In politics I will admit I am no expert, but as a citizen, a teacher, a human being I expect (though naive it may be) more decorum and respect from those who would be the leader of this country for the people who elect you.

Thank you Ron Paul for being a leader who does not waver and does not shy away from any challenge.

Leave Undeclared Candidates Behind

In a presidential field of eighteen (across major parties) I am questioning more and more what the relavence is for polls like those listed all over the internet to include a growing number of candidates who have not even declared their official canidacy. I am equally amazed at how they shuffle the numbers to determine if one person isn't running who would get their supporting votes. Why skew the public opinoins? As it is, the polls are not representative of any hard data because no one takes the time to call every American household, nor is this feasible. By including the ever growing list of names, in both parties, of people who "may throw their hat in the ring" you create even greater irrelavence in these polls and position yourself consistently further and further from the true feelings of the populace of this country.

It would seem then that polls become another instrument for media influence where it has not business other than to inform, not sway people by painting a falsified portrait of "popular opinoin". You lessen the desire of citizens to vote by diminishing their belief in their power to choose leaders by subduing what is considered by the "power elite" to be little or no consequence, including candidates like Ron Paul.

I do not ask for pandering in the other direction by inflating everyone's numbers, just simple honest and credible reporting. Let's start there.