We don’t always sip scotch whisky at the Salida Single Malt Sampling Society. We also taste rye, tequila, Irish, bourbon — and last week, the only known legal Colorado whiskey, 92-proof Stranahan’s. Our verdict was that it was pretty rough on the first sip, but seemed to improve as one moved down the glass.
We could not be sure, however, whether that was the nature of the potation or a variant of how “the girls always look prettier at closing time.” Our closing time was early so we could go home and watch the presidential debate.
I’m not sure why we bothered. For one thing, I don’t know why we call these events “debates.” I took the course in high school. There was a formal proposition, and we took the affirmative or negative. We had to address the proposition, rather than mean-mouth the opposition.
The best part about the class was that often, you didn’t know which side you’d be on until class started, so you had to learn both sides and be prepared to argue either.
A real debate between candidates would have a proposition like “Resolved: The United States should adopt a universal single-payer health-care system” or “Resolved: Alaska should be an independent nation.” The candidates would make their arguments and rebuttals, and we would judge accordingly.
The alleged model for the modern presentations is the series of debates between Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln for an Illinois U.S. Senate seat in 1858. The candidates alternated as to who would speak first. The first speaker got an hour, the second an hour and a half, and the first speaker came back for 30 minutes of rebuttal, for a total of three hours.
What we have now is more like a public job interview, with applicants fielding and evading questions. Why do we call it a debate?
And where do the networks find those “undecided” voters to query? Both candidates have been running hard for more than a year. Anyone with the slightest interest in public affairs has all the information necessary to make a decision, and there can’t be that many Americans who just emerged from comas.
But wait. Might some candidate make a game-changing gaffe? I’ll wager that Barack Obama lost not a single vote when he said “green behind the ears” instead of “wet behind the ears,” and John McCain’s “that one” did not change anyone’s mind.
It turned out to be an evening better devoted for sampling whiskey, but perhaps the final “debate” this week will be an improvement. The odds are against it, though. Whiskey gets better with age, but campaigns apparently do not.
• • •
In last Sunday’s column, I wrote that John Marshall, manager of two losing Republican campaigns, became development director at Mesa State College from a patronage appointment, and the job was not advertised.
One source was an article in the Grand Junction Free Press, which quoted Mesa President Tim Foster saying the college chose not to advertise the position because it wanted to act quickly to continue raising money to remodel the fieldhouse.
This inspired a call from Foster, followed by an e-mail. He said the college does not have patronage jobs and normal hiring procedures were followed; the position was advertised on the college’s website and in local media.
“I also appreciate the retraction — if it comes — will, in all likelihood, be marginalized,” Foster wrote.
Well, I’ve done my best to hide it here.
Ed Quillen (ed@cozine.com) is a freelance writer, history buff, publisher of Colorado Central Magazine in Salida and frequent contributor to The Post.
