. . . And Sometimes, a Bit of Light

This year’s presidential campaign debates have produced some enlightenment but also a fair share of hyperbole, silliness and examples of foot in mouth. In Durham, N.H., Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona suggested that the $483-billion tax cut plan of Texas Gov. George W. Bush would use up the entire federal budget surplus. “No, it doesn’t,” Bush retorted. “Yes, it does,” McCain shot back. In fact, there’s no way of knowing whether such surpluses will ever exist. The Bush-McCain sandbox dispute got laughs, but it didn’t do much to illuminate the voters on the tax issue.

Still, the debates serve a purpose. They give voters a chance to witness candidates in spontaneous situations and see how they react under pressure. People can tell whether the responses ring true and address issues that voters care about.

But the pressure can lure a candidate into overstatement. At Durham, Bush blurted that he not only would refuse to raise taxes, he would cut taxes, “so help me God.” It was a curious pledge from the son of a former president done in by over-promising on a tax issue.

The meetings between Democrats Al Gore and Bill Bradley have been more intimate and focused. At times, these two policy gurus get so immersed in detail that the average viewer is left snoozing.

In one debate, Gore was so adamant that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military, he indicated he would make that issue a “litmus test” for picking a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Oops. That drew such a strong reaction from military leaders that Gore spent days backtracking and trying to explain what he meant.

Perhaps the best the debates can do is offer voters a sense of who the candidates really are and a hint of how they might perform in the Oval Office. That’s better than a canned speech, much less a slick television ad that tells people what a political consultant wants them to know and no more.