Opinion : Debating \'smarter, not harder:\' A mildly optimistic view of disheartening words

It's appropriate, with all the love they have for each other, that both the Democrats and Republicans running for President met for debates during the week or weekend of Valentine's Day.

It's far more appropriate that these debates took place as the world celebrated the weekend of romance named for a a guy who died single and was beheaded by a crazy government leader.

Listening to the eight surviving “hopefuls” was inspiring in just one way – it was a reminder that in just nine months, the election will be over, and we can start welcoming the candidates of the 2020 Iowa Caucus to our state.

I guess the fact that the candidates will be pestering voters in other states and leaving us alone for a while is also good news.

It's clear, however, that not much good came from either party's debates last week.

It started in Milwaukee, where Hill and Bern continued their pathetic pandering to black voters. In South Carolina, they merely accused police of arresting men just because of their skin color. But in Milwaukee, with more black votes on the line and the race getting tighter, they upped the rhetoric – now they are accusing police of shooting black people just because of the color of their skin.

If you listened to any of the Democratic debates on race and police, you only heard criticism of cops. Not once did either Clinton or Sanders point out to the “Black Lives Matter” crowd that for every black person shot by police, hundreds of unarmed black youths are shot by members of their same race.

I have spent much of the last few months researching the murder of a police officer with Vinton ties by a black man who was not – but should have been in jail. Along the way, I encountered clear statistics showing that hundreds of young black people are murdered each year – almost always by young black men. We had a time of national mourning when a pyscho racist killed nine black people in a South Carolina church last year – as we should. But nobody pointed out that nine innocent young black people get gunned down every single day and the response from the Black Lives Matter movement – and politicians like Clinton and Sanders – is silence.

I have been saying for years that politicians need to focus on the crime in those areas, and find ways to make life better so young people growing up there know that there is opportunity for them. But until every young black person who gets killed by a young black man inspires a loud demand for change, nothing will change, except for a growing contempt for police encouraged by presidential candidates who don't have the courage to simply cite murder statistics and say, “This has got to stop.”

Any police officer or law-and-order-loving American would have listened to Hill and Bern and say, “Is that all the Democrats have to offer?” Unfortunately, it is.

Fortunately, however, the Democrats have six good reasons to hope for victory in November – the six pathetically pandering GOP candidates.

The Republicans followed the Democratic police-bashing rally with the most ridiculous debate performance in U.S. History.

It was like watching a playground argument.

Jeb Bush, after hearing Ohio Governor John Kasich explaining some of his programs which he thought were successful, declared that Kasich has “cooties.”

Donald Trump responded by boasting, “I am KING of the Hill!!!!!” and followed that with, “I rule, Ted drools.”

Marco Rubio replied to Trump by taunting Cruz with chants of “Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire!”

To this attack, Cruz chanted: “I am rubber. You are glue. What you say bounces off me and sticks to you!”

Of, course, the candidates did not use those childish words during the Valentine's Eve debate. They were much more immature.

The GOP debate was like an argument between my two oldest granddaughters, a combination of wailing and allegations of “She started it.” Only the girls are cuter, and I tend to expect a bit more maturity from presidential candidates – although after 20 years of writing about them, I probably should know better.

And following the Democratic pandering for the black vote, the GOP candidates pandered to whites concerned about immigration, with each candidate claiming that he is the toughest one – the one most likely to keep those nasty undocumenteds from crossing the border.

To paraphrase the old adage, maybe the GOP needs to debate smarter, not harder, on this issue.

A few former colonies north of South Carolina, at John Hopkins in Maryland, is a genius of a brain surgeon known to most as Dr. Q.

How did Dr. Q, who was born in Mexico, get to the U.S.?

“I hopped the fence,” he says.

Fortunately for the countless lives he has helped save, Dr. Q managed to stay here and for decades has been a citizen. The GOP is dying for a candidate to take a stand on immigration that strengthens the border while acknowledging that most of the people who came here illegally came to do what those of us who were born here try do: Find a job we like, work hard at it, and create a home for our families.

Both parties need (among many other qualities): 1. A candidate who can honestly present a way to help those who came to work find their way here while simultaneously helping those who came her illegally for the wrong reasons to find a one-way ticket home; and 2: A candidate who can honestly lead an effort to make sure that all races are treated fairly while demanding that every Black Lives Matter protester gets as angry about every 6-year-old gunned down while buying gum as they do about the few “unarmed black men” who dies in a confrontation with a police officer.

Alas, it seems that neither party has one of those at this time. The candidates are trying to look "tough" on issues instead of trying to offer smart solutions. 

There are two things that give me hope, despite the stain that last week's debates left on our national mood.

First: Campaigning brings out the worst, in even the best of us.

Look at the following statements:

"He has a hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."�

"He is a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."�

Those comments date back to 1800, when, according to professor Kerwin Swint, negative campaigning began – thanks to two of our favorite Founding Fathers, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

“Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward,” Swint wrote for Mental Floss magazine. “Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was 'one of the most detestable of mankind.'"�

Jefferson and Adams had been best of friends and partners in the American revolution. And while they died as friends, for decades they were the leaders of opposition parties, and bitter political foes.

Yet for the most part, we remember Adams and Jefferson for the positive things they said, and did.

So, despite what you heard from any of our eight presidential wannabes – from among whom one will rise to become President – it's historically unlikely that any of them are as bad as it seems. And yes, many of them do seem downright awful right now.

And my second reason for optimism: Pitchers and catchers will begin reporting for work this week. The 2016 baseball season is under way. Politicians may come and go, but baseball is here to stay.