It's what Neil Postman called "Amusing Ourselves to Death" on steroids -- and we lap it up like manna from heaven.

I thought the same thing the first time I saw one of these debates, although I replaced Monday Night Football with WWF wrestling.  Same smell...

What has horrified me the most is the various reactions that the audiences have at these events.  They cheer for the death penalty, advocate sick people dying without healthcare, and boo at a gay active duty soldier? Who ARE these monsters?

I feel as if someone has transported me back to ancient Rome and forgot to tell me about it.  Does the Republican party have a horde of barbarians that they dress in suits and bus to each of these events?

Pat Buchanan was saying this from his right-wing perspective, but he’s correct in that the U.S. is hopelessly divided among cultural lines. Religiousness/bigotry, patriotism/jingoism; it all depends from your perspective and there’s not much middle ground there.

I think the Republican debates are the best thing to happen to the Democrats in a long time.

Obama/Colbert in 2012?

Yeah - I think that's pretty much what TV looks like these days.  High on flash to cover of for the near-zero calorie diet.  I didn't strike me as anything out of the ordinary; I didn't strike me as something I would want to see, either.  

To me, most TV looks like a talent show theme (American Idol etc) now.  

i noticed this at least as early as the original (1990 or so) United States war against Iraq. In the days leading up to the war, the mainstream capitalist Tee Vee channels had lots of hype and buildup, complete with special "War In The Gulf!" type logos. This continued during the war itself, and after the war (or that phase of United States war against Iraq) ended, the same logos were repurposed as "Peace In the Gulf!" And it really did remind me of the Super Bowl, or the World Series, the Stanley Cup finals, the NBA finals, or the major college football and basketball championships. Except of course that in wars, many people really do die or suffer serious injury, whereas in sports contests, deaths are extremely rare and even the injuries are typically not life threatening.

Damn that was awesome!  I was going to skip it since I figured it would just be politicians telling the usual boring lies.  But I watched the first 2:30 and I am glad I did, thanks Lisa.  My favorite part was when Newt ripped John King a new one for how he opened the debate.  That was pure win.

Is it just me or did that intro seem to reduce the feeling that any of the candidates were actually real people?

My husband and I watched the first three minutes and had hilarious flashbacks to a TV show called "American Gladiators" that used to air in our small north European country back in the 1990s. The layout is the same, from the way the "characters" are presented to the game show stage/crowd sweeps and the flashy lights and stars.

What I would love to see analyzed - the presentation is crass and ridiculous, but to what degree is the content actually changed from earlier years?

Sometimes I think half of the culture divide is just style.

The television new-media (I hate to call them "news") is much more focused on the horse-race over actual substance.  Substance isn't exciting and doesn't sell to advertisers on a 24-hours news cycle.  You can see that by how they labeled the candidates as if this was some fake "reality" show -  "Who will win?  Tune in next time and find out!"  It's disgusting.  Unfortunately the majority of people get their "news" from television, yet television is a one-sided conversation that doesn't allow for full participation and actual conversation/debate.  It's all about talking points and style.  If you want substance, tee vee is not the place to find it.

Whenever I hear politicians and others complain that how a candidate treats WOMEN does not rise to important enough to be brought up in a presidential debate, I wish I could argue with them on the spot. How a candidate treats women absolutely does say something about his character, courage, and values. Newt's attempt to blame the media only reveals his LACK of character, courage and family values. 

I watched this and was immediately struck by how Mr. Gingrich was prepared with his outrageous indignation. What surprises me is that people buy his reaction as anything but well rehearsed. When Mr. Gingrich is actually angry, he is a lot less composed and sputters like the rest of us.

Holy crap, it felt like I just started watching a reality TV show. 

Ugh.

I like the continuous deflection: "the Democrats will attack ___", when they are all unapologetically at each other's throats.

I suppose how unfavorable a comparison you find this opener to those of American Idol and Monday Night Football depends entirely on your opinion of those other programs.

For my part, I not only find it sensationalistic, but further, it's a less dignified and serious manner to conduct the debates.  Of course, I'm completely willing to acknoledge that my notions of "seriousness" and "dignified" might just be a form of elitism and an expectation of the particular frameworks I've grown accustomed to. 

As an aside and possibly obvious point, the flash and the glitz which gives this opener all the suspense of a Who Wants to Beat a Millionaire bit seems to me to be the product of producers who see the success of major network programming and strive to replicate it, appropriate or not.  We can all decry the vacuous, superficial nature of these shows which showcase the worst rather than the best of us, but it sells.  And maybe that's because that all they're selling, but they definitely count it as a success all the same.

The problem is that an opener like this is a signifier.  In itself, who cares?  Who cares about the superficiality of an introduction?  Well, those who think our political process deserves more respect do, but I'm not sure that that's the real problem here.  At issue for me is the lack of actual debating, a lack of real issues being discussed.  Unfortunately, as you're right to suggest, this style of introduction signifies a derth of substance to follow, full of more this pagaentry than actual debating.

All I could think of was this segment from Newswipe a few years back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MiXN_GImng#t=12s

They might as well have hired Ryan Seacrest to host this.

"But seriously, if you're not an asshole and you vote Republican (there are a few), I wonder why, because there is no way you can have good values ​​(ie not be anasshole) and see better reflected in the current conservative climate. Most people I know who do that are there by a certain stubborn will to recover the concept ofconservatism of these people even if they disagree with them. And it is doomed to failure. "

It's real serious may be conservative (in policy), without being retrograde and out.The problem, the problem is that the only politician to make sure you get the POWER goes astray in speeches used to inréresser all morons and illiterates who never go to the polls to vote, because they have never interrested to society or theircountry or they simply do not know what the plotique can use their. The policiticientests too to please the mass base in the manner of Tweeter! We have the politicians we deserve, because we do not criticize and say nothing more intelligent we become intellectually lazy ... 
C'est vrais sérieusement on peut être conservateur (en Politique), sans être rétrograde ou arrièré. Le problème, le problème est que l'homme politique pour uniquement être sur d'obtenir le POUVOIR se fourvoie dans des discours servant à inréresser tout les abrutis et les illéttrés qui ne vont jamais aux urnes voter, parcequ'ils ne se sont jamais intérressés à la société ou à leurs Pays ou tout simplement ils ne savent plus à quoi la plotique peut leurs servir. Les policiticien essais trop de plaire à la masse de base à la manière de Tweeter! Nous avons les Politiciens que nous méritons, car nous ne disons et ne critiquons plus rien de intelligente, nous devenons paresseux intellectuellement  ...

http://www.developpement-affaires.com 

If we can't sensationalize a meaningless contest over who gets to occupy the most powerful office in the world, what can we sensationalize? Are we not allowed to have fun?

If anthropologists found a tribe where chiefs were elected every couple years, but always implemented the same policies regardless, and the literal words everyone involved used treated it as an event of apocalyptic importance even as they gave every sign of treating it as an entertainment event, we wouldn't think they were dumb; we'd appreciate their sense of humor and maybe even interpret the farce elections as a creative way of defusing social tensions. (We could note how the narrow range of policies that gets enacted reflect the interests of a ruling clique as well, and yet recognize that this was an orthogonal issue.) Why not extend the same charity to our own culture?

I am a reader from Germany. For me, this opener really looks surreal, it could be right out of an action movie mimicking politics. What strikes me most is the complete absence of any political content concerning the different candidates. 

If this really is what US citizens want, they would fall asleep in a German TV debate. I have to admit that it frightens me to see this opener as it epitomizes the emptiness of a huge part of US politics.

All they need is that NFL robot.

Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!