Debates lose their bite
There is a reason for a gavel to be on the dais. Politics is supposed to be a boisterous, spirited business, full of passion and an expressed commitment to ideals.

So it would follow that political debate should be a lively exchange of ideas and initiatives.

So why is it we are now subjected to what are labeled debates but is really videotaped campaign literature?

Not that we're asking for the equivalent of the WWE's "Monday Night Raw" professional wrestling extravaganza, but how about a direct engagement between the candidates?

Lloyd Bentsen's observation during a 1988 debate that Dan Quayle was no John Kennedy appears to have quelled the spirit of competitors and lowered the bar for those who came later, their exchanges becoming nothing more than politically correct clichés.

From the interminable - witness the current presidential debates that have been oozing along for months and have served as nothing more than sound bites - to the tightly controlled saccharin exchange that took place in Manalapan on Oct. 24, political debates appear to have become nothing more than a chance for candidates to spout talking points that should be on their written campaign pieces.

A debate is a live affair, and those in the audience have every right to expect it to be lively.

There should be no constraints on what a candidate will say or the language they use to express themselves.

They should be allowed to say whatever they feel is appropriate to the question they were asked in the time allotted to them to respond - no expletives deleted.

What better way is there for the electorate to get a full measure of an individual than to watch him respond under pressure, his ability to stop or start on a dime with no constraints but his own personal understanding of what the voters expect or are entitled to from him and his ability to express that in his own fashion?

Some things are a given, and candidates telling voters they are against higher taxes and for less crime and in favor of affordable housing is redundant.

A debate should serve as a forum for candidates to challenge each other's ideas and ideals, and, in the case of an incumbent, serve as an opportunity not only to justify or advance an existing record of office, but also to face the challenge of that record.

The leaders of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in Manalapan have acknowledged that they let the process of setting up last week's debate take place independent of their input and be developed under the direction of someone who should have served as nothing more than a functionary at the event.

The volunteers from Manalapan's cable television committee, while important, even vital to the broadcast of the debate, should have been seen and not heard. It was their job to be behind the scenes, in every sense of the phrase, operating equipment and not setting script parameters for the event itself.