Modernize the Debate Format

The first debate between presidential candidates in the modern era were the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Before those, and before TV, there was little demand for any type of debates between the presidential candidates.

The Lincoln-Douglas Senatorial debates of 1858 were actually the first nationally watched debates [ in the newspapers, at least]---mostly because of the hot button issue of the day of slavery. Those guys debated for hours at a time, with people watching, listening, and asking all the questions. "Mr. Lincoln, if you win the election, will you finally take off that big hat?"

No moderator. No lights. No sound bites or quips.

And those debates set up the national rematch just two years later when the candidates met again when running for President. NJ gave 4 Electoral votes to Abe and 3 to candidate Douglas, split the state north and south. Wow, even back then the south and the north had their differences!

And so with the high standards set for debating by Lincoln-Douglas and Kennedy-Nixon, we entered the debate negotiations this year. Choices: A standard debate with podiums and lights. Town hall format with candidates on high chairs, and answering questions of audience members. The candidates seated at a table, talking to each other and the moderator. All boring, with a capital B.

Suggested debate better formats:

Cage match, 'Thunderdome' style: Two candidates in, one candidate out. Both candidates get to swing from those elastic thingies, like in the Mel Gibson movie.

Play "Jeopardy" format: All answers must in the form of a question. For example "This is a nation we invaded for no particular reason".

Leno/Letterman and the Late Night Couch: Candidates talk about tell anecdotes about their childhood, plug their new book or an appearance on SNL, ask passersby some JayWalk questions and read a Top Ten list.

American Idol: Both appear in front of Simon, Paula and the other guy, and sing their economic programs. The home TV audience votes.

Stare contest: Both candidates stare at each other, and the first one to smile or laugh, loses.

and finally, Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?----with all questions posed at the fifth grade level.

"We are proud of that commercial."

...John McCain, on a commercial that compares Barack Obama's popularity with that of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Popular---you need to be pop-u-lar.

...and the commercial uses their likenesses without their permission ---something we here at NJPolitics Unusual would not do. Therefore, we paid a highly respected artist <------------ draw their likeness.

The commercial mainly takes Obama to task on the issue of his ‘celebrity'. Or as Bush might say, “Celibacy”. Or maybe “Celebritity’.

For some reason, the McCain campaign believes that the ability to draw tens of thousands of people to rallies in Europe, and seventy thousands of people to rallies in the states is somehow a ‘negative’.

Indeed, we certainly don’t want a president who is ‘popular’.

Perhaps McCain is so inspired by Bush’s poll numbers sliding down faster than the Jamaican bobsled team, that he feels the best way to become president is to be 'unpopular'.

The commercial shows a montage of celebreties who are popular, but apparently lack any substance ----Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are the prominent blonde duo in the spot. So, somehow we are supposed to draw the conclusion like Spears and Hilton, Senator Barack Obama is also shallow, stupid, and vapid.

Furthermore, perhaps McCain wants us believe that should Obama successfully move from Illinois Senator to the full-fledged POTUS, that he will immediately be--

Photographed by paparazzi without undershorts when he gets in to the Presidential limo.
He will be arrested for drunk driving and star in his own reality show.
And appear in an online sex tape---probably all in the same week he goes to his first G-8 conference. All of which might make even more popular, actually.

When you think about it, much of what Hilton and Spears have done, has been done before by other presidents. Bill Clinton exposed his underwear choice on MTV; Bush has been arrested for drunk driving; and even Ford appeared in a sort of reality show ---Saturday Night Live.

Of course, no president has appeared in an online sex tape—at least not yet.

Side note: Paris Hilton's parents [full fledged McCain supporters who maxed out], say that the commercial demeans their daughter.

Only in America could an appearance in a presidential campaign commercial demean someone who has been in jail, appeared on a reality TV show, and appeared in an online sex tape.

Liquor vs The Lord

Let's say you’re a town looking to zone an entertainment area, and you have lots of religious institutions in town. Then the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just became your best buddy. That's because they say you’re good to go ---and you can keep religious institutions zoned out of the area. Seems like a First Amendment issue heading to the US Supreme Court real soon. Here's the rest of the story.

There is a New Jersey statute that bans the sale of liquor within a couple of hundred feet of a church. Not quite sure what the "distance" from a church has to do with either the sale of liquor or praying, but the ban does impose a burden on towns looking to beef up their night life. In this case, it was Long Branch.

Long Branch was always known for years as a popular resort town. Even presidents visited there on a regular basis for rest and relaxation----Chester A. Arthur, James Garfield, Ulysses S. Grant, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford Hayes, William McKinley, and Woodrow Wilson ---just to name a few. Seven presidents, count’em, seven. There is even a park in town named Seven Presidents Park. How’s that for an accurate name?

Anyway, it seems The Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism wanted to set up shop in Long Branch, but was unable to. The town, it seems, has areas zoned so that churches would not impede the town’s entertainment zoning plans. Planned development includes the Broadway Center, a planned entertainment and commercial hub of Long Branch. This complex brings together retail shops, cafes, bars, restaurants and two performing arts theaters as well as 500 new residences sitting atop a 1,500 car parking garage. We’re sure Mayor Adam Schneider wants this plan to happen.

So, The Lighthouse does what everybody does in America [and New Jersey] these days: They called up their lawyer [in this case, their lawyer is Derek L. Gaubatz of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Washington, D.C] and sued the town. Their chief complaint: Long Branch violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). That acronym may sound like either an extinct species of fish or a pastry from a formerly communist Eastern European country, but I can assure you it’s good law. RLUIPA was even popular with both sides of the aisle. Both Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy were strong sponsors of the law ----recognizing that “discrimination against religious entities in the land-use context is a major problem nationwide.” Good for you Ted and Orrin. Now that’s bi-partisanship.

Anyhow, the court said in the 2-1 majority opinion that "It would be very difficult for Long Branch to create the kind of entertainment area envisaged by [its redevelopment] plan - one full of restaurants, bars, and clubs - if sizable areas of the [district] were not available for the issuance of liquor licenses.” So it's hello Liquor, good-bye Lord, I guess.

The decision could have nationwide impact because the circuit courts are split on the issue. And yet another important case from New Jersey could end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. Do we rock or what?

New Jersey land-use lawyers had better get their act together, appeal brief-wise. With our melting pot mixture of religions, local zoning officials, and strong feelings of municipal home rule, this will see more action very soon.

Stay tuned.