Presidential Debate #3: New Ground Rules

In politics it is often more important to avoid the appearance of impropriety than to avoid impropriety itself. Improprieties may go unnoticed, but the appearance of impropriety by definition does not.

I did not hear about the story of "the bulge" until a friend of mine mentioned it to me on this very site. There is an entire website dedicated to the question of whether or not Bush was wearing a radio device during his much-improved performance in the second Presidential debate. The Bush camp has immediately responded to these suggestions by belittling and ridiculing anyone who might possibly consider entertaining the speculation that such a thing might have been done, thereby lending a certain credibility to the speculation.

Personally I don't think Bush was wired, because I imagine that it would be fairly easy to conceal such a device in a way that won't create a visible bulge under your suit jacket. (So technically I suppose I am not discounting the possibility that Bush was using a radio receiver, just the likelihood that the thing on his back was a radio receiver.) The presidential tailor has expressed the opinion that this bulge is actually just a chance pucker in the fabric of Bush's jacket, and I don't find this too unbelievable. I also think that it is possible that, given the public nature of the debates, the President may have been wearing body armor, something that the Secret Service would probably want to keep quiet. (Some observers* have noted that Bush looked really well-muscled during the debate, suggesting that his suit may have been padded to give him a less wimpish appearance.)

To be fair, it should also be noted that Bush's supporters have suggested that Kerry could be seen to be pulling a rules-violating crib sheet from his jacket pocket as he approached the podium. (There were podiums at the second debate? There are some things you can't tell over the radio. I really need to watch my videotape.) The Kerry camp maintains that this was just a pen, allowed by the rules.

But in the interest of avoiding the appearance of impropriety, I would like to propose the following changes to the debate rules**:

1. Immediately prior to the debate, each candidate will be publicly patted down, wanded, and forced to remove his jacket, shoes, and all metal objects by a crack team of airport security screeners. The screeners will perform this job with the highest possible level of thoroughness.

2. If either candidate should make any utterance of complaint regarding the intrusiveness of the search, the surliness of the screeners, or the general sense of contempt for his person and property, he shall be immediately whisked off to another, more isolated room and subjected to a full body-cavity search and an item-by-item dissection of all objects on his person or in his possession. This inspection shall last no less than an hour, during which time the debate shall proceed without him.

3. If during this second-level search the candidate should again utter any suggestion of disapproval for the treatment to which he is being subjected, he shall immediately be removed to an undisclosed location for detention for a period of no less than three weeks, during which time he shall be ineligible to run for, or be elected to, any public office.

The alternative to this is for both candidates to simply debate in the nude, making their own shortcomings*** far more apparent.

* My mom.
**I previously suggested these new rules here, but I think they're worth a full blog entry.
**Not an original thought on my part at all. This comment was so funny it's stuck with me for 30 years, and I didn't even know what it meant the first time I heard it. If you haven't clicked on the link yet, do it now.