http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...bates.preview/

FYI, the first of three is this Thursday. Let's get ready to rumble! Two men enter, one man lives. HA! [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'll avoid making remarks about which one of the contestants is comparable to Master Blaster.

I might watch it if I thought the candidates would actually directly argue with each other, or actually take stands on issues.

i think it should be like the british parliament. everyone gets to yell including the audience.

Is it really a debate? Not from the sounds of the format. It's just the two of them on stage together at the same time.

From the St. Petersburg Times:
Spontaneity isn't in debate script
A Times Editorial
Published September 26, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No reference to a specific individual in the audience. No direct questions to each other. No questions from undecided voters. No movement by candidates outside a predesignated area. And no TV shots of a candidate when he isn't answering a question.

These are just a few of the rules laid down in the 32-page debate agreement governing the schedule of four national debates, three presidential and one vice presidential, that start Thursday evening at the University of Miami in Coral Gables.

The product of intensive negotiations between high-powered representatives of President Bush and challenger John Kerry, the litany of restrictive requirements reads more like a recipe for stilted dialogue and staged confrontation. If there's any way to wring the life out of a verbal debate between two candidates so clearly opposed to each other, this document has found it.

From the manner in which candidates are to enter the stage ("proceed to center stage, shake hands, and proceed directly to their positions behind their podiums"), to the camera angles allowed and the denial of follow-up questions to audience members participating in the second debate, every possibility of spontaneous action or reaction has been restricted.

While we have no desire to see a repeat of Al Gore's famous sighs of derision from the 2000 debates, the current array of rules seems oppressive and detailed to the point of absurdity.

Most polls suggest that these debates will be a huge factor in the final decisions voters will make, just weeks before Election Day. But the rules drafted to govern the events almost guarantee that viewers will see an overly scripted, highly controlled exchange, not the robust, spontaneous debate that could shed light on a close, competitive campaign.

Yep, makes you long for a good old Jeb Bartlett v. J.W. Bullworth debate -- now *that* would be good.

I think I'll just not vote this election -- to protest my country's horrible political process. It embarrases even me -- which is saying a lot, because I'm not easily embarrased.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">You can always watch monkeys on The Discovery Channel. :D </font>

[ 09-27-2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

In light of what's going on in Florida, how about canceling the debate and using the proceeds for hurricane relief?

<font color=cccccc>My understanding is that there will be a debate, thou it will only involve 1 of the 2 onstage.</font>

That would have been funny before it was beat to death. Just shows you that Americans have no patience for explanation or footnotes or "maybes." Please paint the world in simple black and white for us because shades of grey waste our precious shopping time and you can't do that much thinking while cramming Big Macs down your throat. Oooooh.... is that a new Justin/Britney article on that magazine?

Among the nations of the world, we are the idiot with ADD. But, we can sure as shit shoot our guns. The USA -- the bad attitude skater punk of the new world order!

[ 09-27-2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]