Rekna

An interesting note about the debates is only the two canidates have signed the agreement. No one else did (especially the media). My hope for the debates is that the media throws the contract out the window and gives us a real debate. None of these stupid rules just a good honest debate. Ask the hard questions, ask questions that the canidates didn't know were coming, and let the canidates ask eachother questions.

Anything less is pointless to watch.

Ustwo

Mostly pointless yes, but who should be asking the questions?

I wouldn't trust a 'non-biased' reporter to do it fairly. You can ask tough sounding questions which are really easy, and you can ask tough questions.

I'd like to see them debate each other and ask each other questions.

Failing that, I would want each campaign to pick ONE person to ask the other one questions. The democrats could have Dan Rather and the republicans could have Sean Hannity for all I care. Just make it fair in its biases.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Rekna

If you wanted really good ratings you could do micheal moore and ann coulter!

Ustwo

Maybe after working together they would fall in love.

No thats to horrible to imagine.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Flyguy

The candidates should ask each other questions. No rules, they both duke it out asking each other questions. This rule bullshit turns it into nothing more that a scripted 90 minute stage play.

Redlemon

Would you settle for "Al Frankenbeans and Ann Cunter"?
Porn For Progress - Preview Clips, found on Fleshbot.com (NSFW, if that isn't apparent.)

(I'm very sorry. Please ignore me.)

Superbelt

I wonder what would happen if either man broke the rules? Really, what would the other do? Pull out of the debates? The media would pounce all over that and I don't think there would be any backlash on the man who broke the rules. I think the media would like to run with a story about a candidate who refused to be handcuffed and wanted to get into a serious debate with the other candidate over policy.
I would love to see Kerry just come out swinging at the debates like this. I can't see Bush doing it, since most of the 32 pages of stipulations are from his side.

Ustwo

No rule would be broken until the last debate in any case.

If you do it in the first, you can get the same treatment in the second.

If you wait till the last one and surprise the other, they won't be able to counter.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Superbelt

First, Second or Third, I believe there will be a massive breakdown in the debate structure. It's too rigidly ordered not to. It's just too big an opportunity to knock the opponent on his ass.

Ustwo

Well since the feeling is Kerry needs to score big, if it happens I will bet it will be him doing it since he as the least to lose if it backfires.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Superbelt

Kerry isn't exactly reeling. He is leading in Ohio and Pennsylvania right now. If Kerry can keep PA and gain Ohio, Florida or even West Virginia he wins.

Both will want to get a knockout punch though, and I don't think there is anything whatsoever to lose for a candidate if he trashes the conditions and directly questions the other.

edwhit

As I recall, these tight ass rules (or similar rules and formats) were used at least last time as well. This is not new to this election year.

I believe it is an attempt to keep order, keep on schedule, as well as make it real comfy for the candidates. Yea, I long for a real debate as well. And I agree, Danny and Sean would be awesome!!

I beleive Kerry really does need to score big on the debates in order to convince the people on the fence. I don't think he has the wrong answers all the time...I think he needs to learn to use more brevity. People hear what is initially stated and often times he is either interrupted before he can continue his explanation or at the very least is able to be misquoted easily because of it. This causes him to appear befuddled and appear flip floppish. He gets very frustrated when he is accused of being indirect and not stating how he feels on certain issues and yet he brings much of it on himself.

Interesting enough, Bush has the opposite problem as I see it. Bush appears, to me at least, to attempt to always have that brief quotable statement EVERY TIME HE TALKS to the media. It seems to me that he wants to come across as Reagan often did. Reagan was VERY gifted at public speaking and at disarming his opponent with humor and brief comments, however, he was not afraid to elaborate when needed. Bush needs to cut the cheese and EXPAND on his statements. (Yes, I hear all the Bush is too dumb to do this or that jokes and comments. That's nice but rather tired)

edwhit

Right now the poles fluctuate a bit much to make comments like that IMO. A lead in Ohio now could turn to a loss in Ohio in the next 24 hours.

The one thing I can see to lose by trashing the conditions out right (as opposed to a "slip" here or there) is that he risks looking out of control and un cooperative. That can easily get turned into wood for a fire.

Superbelt

I know, polls fluctuate constantly. I don't want to put too much faith in them. I believe that the race is in a dead heat right now. Both have everything to lose and to gain by the debates.

roachboy

the debates are the culmination of television's staging of the presidential campign as sporting event.
no worries about excess content.
no worries about coherent presentation of complex issues.

if kerry seems smarter than bush (which is not unlikely) then commentary can turn to weight class, wondering why a middleweight is fighting a flyweight and dont you feel sympathetic to the flyweight who of course is getting pummelled out there simply because you cant expect a flyweight to compete with a middleweight and so the evaluation of the debates as event becomes shifted onto absurd criteria as well.

personally, i think the evening would be better spent trying to work out important questions of great moment, like why would an establishment that is advertising a "hookah night" also brag about the fact that they put white wine in the pipes? why would you do that?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

edwhit

While I agree that the debates can be viewed as a sporting event, they are also very important in order to get a better feel for the views of each candidate and for America as a whole to get a chance to hear responses to questions IN context.

And yes, while Bush often appears to be less smart than many, he is sometimes considered a better debater than some or comes across as a better debater. Why? He is aggresive. Aggression often sounds better than weak stammering (even if due to thinking through to find the best most accurate answer).

SinisterMotives

Exactly. This was posted by a member of another board I'm a member of. I think it bears repeating.

---------

Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates.

(10.) They aren't debates!

"A debate is a head-to-head, spontaneous, structured argument over the merits of an issue," Rice says. "Under the ridiculous 32-page contract that reads like the rules for the Miss America Pageant, there will be no candidate-to-candidate questions, no rebuttal to your opponent's points, no cross questions or cross answers, no rebuttals, no follow-up questions -- that's not a debate, that's a news conference."

(9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.

"The League of Women Voters ran these debates with an iron hand as open, transparent, non-partisan events from 1976 to 1984," Rice says. "The men running the major campaigns ended their control when the League defiantly included John Anderson and Ross Perot, and used tough moderators and formats the parties didn't like. The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates -- the CPD -- in 1986."

(8.) The "independent and non-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates is neither independent nor non-partisan.

"CPD should stand for 'Cloaking-device for Party Deceptions' -- it is not an independent commission on anything. The CPD is under the total control of the Republican and Democratic parties and by definition bipartisan, not non-partisan. Walter Cronkite called CPD-sponsored debates an 'unconscionable fraud.'"

(7.) The secretly negotiated debate contract bars Kerry and Bush from any and all other debates for the entire campaign.

"Under what I call the Debate Suppression and Monopolization Clause of the contract, it is illegal for the candidates to debate each other anywhere else during the campaign," Rice says. "We need a new criminal law for reckless endangerment of democracy."

(6.) The debate contract effectively excludes all other serious presidential candidates from participating in the debates.

"This is what I call the Obstruction of Democratic Debate Rule, which sets an impossibly high threshold for third-party candidates... Where are we, Russia? Isn't Vladimir Putin wiping out democracy in Russia by excluding all opposing candidates from the airwaves during his re-election campaigns? Most new ideas come from third parties -- they should be in the debates."

(5.) All members of the studio audience must be certified as "soft" supporters of Bush and Kerry, under selection procedures they approve.

"It's not enough to rig the debate -- they have to rig the audience, too? The contract reads: 'The debate will take place before a live audience of between 100 and 150 persons who... describe themselves as likely voters who are soft Bush supporters or soft Kerry supporters.' We should crash this charade and jump up in the middle to declare ourselves hard opponents of this Kabuki dance."

(4.) These "soft" audience members must "observe in silence."

"Soft and silent... In what I'm calling the Silence of the Lambs Clause of this absurd contract, the audience may not move, speak, gesture, cough or otherwise show that they are alive and thinking."

(3.) The "extended discussion" portion of the debate cannot exceed 30 seconds.

"Other than the stupidity of the debate contract, what topic do you know that can be extendedly discussed in 30 seconds?"

(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.

"Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics," Rice says. "For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare."

(1.) Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD's co-chairs are corporate lobbyists.

The CPD is run by Frank Fahrenkopf, a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist, and Paul Kirk, a top gambling lobbyist," Rice says. "And the biggest muliti-national corporations write the checks that fund the CPD -- Phillip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and dozens more. The audience may have to be silent and motionless, but the corporate sponsors can have banners, beer tents, Budweiser girls handing out pamphlets protesting beer taxes -- a corporate-sponsored circus to go along with the Kabuki Debates. Could we get a more fitting description of our democracy?"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4052162

Ustwo

What people are looking for isn't who has the best answers to questions.

Its who fucks up.

They are looking for Al Gore's debate wierdness or Bush 41 looking at his watch.

The winner of the debate will be the one who looks the least flustered.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

cthulu23

Hell, this won't be a debate tonight, it'll be a joint press conference.

thebeat

wow, Kerry would rather talk and look at Jim Leher than address the public..

__________________
random

cthulu23

By your avatar, I can see that you are looking at the debates with a strictly objective eye.

Edit: yes, I recognize the irony in that statement

DDDDave

No, the two candidates did not sign the agreement. A representative from each campaign signed the agreement. Not even the campaign managers but just two staffers.


So what if they don't follow the rules? No one in the media agreed to anything, neither one of the candidates agreed to anything, the moderator didn't agree to anything.

__________________
I am just a simple man trying to make my way in the universe...

"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." - Thoreau

"Nothing great was ever accomplished without enthusiasm" - Emerson

Rekna

Yeah, thats actually what i meant to say. Basically just representivives of the two canidates.

edwhit

I believe the reason to follow the rules in the "debate" is to remain a gentleman.