PERRICONE: Wonder Why The New York Times Suddenly Hates Debates…

The Eighty-four year old Elizabeth Drew, late of the New York Times, (another NYTWIT) advocates the “Scrapping” of the Presidential Debates. Now, if I told you that, you wouldn’t believe me and rightfully so. You would be dubious and you would have the right to be. So, the link above is to her “opinion” to this post for your edification and proof I have not lost my mind–yet. Yes, the Wellesley graduate and co-alumni of Hillary Clinton, wants, for the first time I can remember, abolish the presidential debates between President Donald Trump and Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden.


Recall history and the presidential debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas starting in 1858–there were seven of them and the achived the approbation of “The Great Debates.” Each debate lasted three hours and there was a strict format, with little or no interruption of intervention by some powdered moderator. The press coverage was intense and the recordations of the debates were eventually published and propelled Lincoln from a country lawyer to a legitimate presidential candidate in 1860. Conversely, the exposure which propelled Lincoln, exposed Douglas and his star faded.

For it is the crucible of the public debates which can forge a candidate into political prominence or disassemble one on his or her way to the ash heap of past contenders. Debates are the only time the voters have a chance to see the candidates under the clock and pressure to convince the electorate that he or she deserves their vote. Debates are as important to the voter as the physical casting of their vote. Political advertisements are recognized for what they are–devices to influence. But debates denude the raw candidate, as he or she stands before the public to advocate their position as being more meritorious than his or her oppenent’s. It is the one time when the voter gets a chance to compare and contrast the candidates and their positions, without the intervention of their handlers.

So, again, why would anyone( Drew) advocate denying the voters a chance to make an educated choice on whom to vote for President? The answer is patently clear. Elizabeth Drew and her acolytes know Donald Trump will rip through Joe Biden like a chain saw through rotten wood and the public will see for themselves how hapless and feckless Biden is a Presidential Candidate. Drew’s advocation for concealment of the real Biden is a form a critical censorship design the deny voters in all states the right to decide for themselves whom would be the better man. This form of censorship is plainly unAmerican and should be treated as such.

Simply put, he who does not want to debate does not deserve the vote of anyone. He who does not want to debate should not be running for the Office of the Presidency of the United States. He who does not want to debate, is telling the American voter to just trust him. Really?


Are we to trust a man who has confected corrupt deals in Ukraine and China? Are we to trust a man who can’t dress himself everyday? Are we to trust a man who was part of a corrupt administration that spied on Presidency of Donald Trump and proffered counterfeit investigations for the last three years, thereby holding the United States political hostage? Are we to trust a man who boasts that he wants to be the most “Progressive” President in the history of the United States? (Remember, Progressive is an euphenisim for Socialist.)

We the People have demonstrated that we can be fooled by politicians. We have demostrated our williness not to see the true nature and compostion of politicians. We have proven we are blind to the real issues. We have proven we can be deaf to the real voice of a candidate and what he or she are saying. But never have we proven that all of us are deaf,dumb and blind at the same time and for the same reason.


Because of Debates.



Interested in more national news? We've got you covered! See More National News
Previous Article
Next Article

Trending on The Hayride

No trending posts were found.