WHEN IS A DEBATE NOT A DEBATE?

Many, like myself, did not have the privilege of watching the CNN/Tea Party debate; but from the many news reports, it was just argumentative than a real debate, when one would answer questions directly that was not based on what the other participant had just said.

With each person trying to set up his or her own policies, and asserting that others should follow his or her example, it became a marketplace of perplexed ideologies and nothing more. The public could not be "sold" in that manner.

Like the first debate, the moderators wanted to have straight answers for viewers to assess how much knowledge a candidate has about running a government, but it became a helter-skelter of episodes only. It was like jumping or running from one issue to another and not reaching definite conclusions by most candidates. Some even seemed to be sneering at fellow participants.

The fact being that, after all said and done, politicians depended on bureaucrats to follow up on proposals, which have been turned into law by legislators.

All the president or governor has to do was to make sure that his or her policies embedded in those laws were fully adhered to by the people that they were intended for. That was the real extent of their (politicians') power; and those candidates could not be any different, if they attained the goal of becoming the president.

Basically, that is the system here in America; while in other countries, a public relations office is attached to that of the president, prime-minister or governor, to collate and coordinate the laws to see how they are actually working in the public arena.

It gives the chance for corrections to be made in mid-stream, while any piece of legislation in progress is having an overview to ensure how it was faring, and whether it is having difficulties or not, by experts conversant with every situation "on the ground"; they have to base their reports on reality, which are piped to the office of the president, prime-minister or governor. This is done by the adjunct public relations office, through the chief secretary or chief-of-staff.

It is the most practical way of governing; and although, there are other branches and departments that handle government business of numerous kinds, the detailed advise coming from a closely knit of experts, with insight into public reactions at all stages, count more than any other.

That was what many people expected the candidates to be talking about; how to govern effectively.

In last night's debate, even if a question was close to finding out how a government was run, the response was diverted to discussing border protection or injections for little school girls in Texas, or an illegal alien in a coma at a local hospital, who should not be anyone's responsibility. What?

The candidate who maintained that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme should not be deemed a serious person, as the program has been in existence for years, and nobody has ever described it as being dishonest or faulty to the extent of it being ended. It only needed to be adjusted from time to time to suit its recipients and current fiscal condition of the nation.

Social Security, like Medicare and Medicaid, has to be revamped to meet with present day standards and requirements; but to attempt to abolish it completely would be dishonest on the part of any government.

Also, job creation must not just be a "word of mouth" exercise. There should be a plan to support the ideas that would reduce any type of unemployment situation happening anywhere, be it in the Obama administration or anywhere else.

Or the repealing of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, should not be taken lightly, as it covered extremely serious medical conditions that many families were experiencing or were related to through a family member or a loved one. Those families would be completely devastated, if they went back to facing the old system, in which only Insurance moguls dictated policy. Or where patients were directed to less qualified doctors to cut costs

Becoming the President of the United States takes more than just espousing a few moral principles, or bringing life experience stories into debates to prove one's exceptionalism.

One has to be knowledgeable and competent enough in all aspects of life, with an agenda to serve the people that elected him or her; and not to be a master or a controller of all he or she surveyed.