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 ]

Heh heh, well Timber, as long as there are citizens like you around to recognise such an unfortunate notion there may be hope that your empire will outlive this century afterall [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] ;)

Yeah, Timber, [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] for your cynicism. Run for prez!

As I think I've said before, I'd rather see a presidential-hopefuls boxing match instead of a "debate." Not only would we learn more about their character and their platform than we will in a debate/meaningless mudslinging session, it would be much more viscerally satisfying for the average voter.

Oh, look, Kudos from the socialists of the New World Order. Look for me in 2024, guys!

Okay, I'm joking... or not.

"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!"

Huh? Sorry I don't understand. I'm just not in the same lingo league as some people here. Oh well. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Even the president is sick of hearing the PResident's joke about how Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it. Of course, the red side of the campaign is still chanting "flip flop" at every chance.

Most truthful answers from a politician are more complicated that "yes" or "no," because most issues are not black and white. But, this is a problem for Kerry, because most Americans don't have the patience for nuanced answers or complicated explanations for complicated problems. Most of us want it dumbed down. We save our heavy lifting thinking for shopping.

More of the same rant.

A stream of consciousness comment to highlight our impatience and whimsy and consumerism.

The idiot with ADD is not only dumb but also has attention deficet disorder ("ADD") -- meaning he has no patience or attention span. So, the only information he can really absorb is stuff that's (1) dumbed-down and (2) very bite-size.

Trying to draw a connection in characteristics between the USA, a young nation, and rebellious youth. Also including a reference to our militarism.

*Whew* Fisked myself to death! Hope it helped.

[ 09-28-2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

hehe! thanks TL. i didn't do too well with high school english. but i was a wiz with theoretical physics and fine arts. oh well. ;)

Here is some more interesting info on the "Two Presidential Canditates Standing on Stage at the Same Time Television Hour". What a joke.

From Connie Rice at NPR

After weeks of political wrangling, Sen. John Kerry and President Bush will square off for the first of three key presidential debates. Both camps have agreed to an elaborate, 32-page contract that spells out everything from the size of the dressing rooms to permitted camera angles.

But the controversy over the debates threatens to overshadow the events themselves. Some citizen groups complain that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) isn't as non-partisan as it should be, and that Kerry and Bush won't be pressed on urban issues. Commentator Connie Rice says that's just the tip of the iceberg, and she's got another Top 10 list -- this time: 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?"

[ 09-29-2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">I really enjoy leadership debates in Canada. They are like an episode of Jerry Springer :D . The US one sounds like it will be a snooze fest [img]graemlins/sleep3.gif[/img] . Maybe both parties will breech the contracts and go for the throat.</font>

[ 09-29-2004, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

*singin*
"Well, I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free...."

.... if uninformed.


Maybe we'll get some under-the-breath uses of the F-word from Kerry to liven the thing.

I want the wives to debate and hear Teresa say "Now YOU shove it". HA!

Let's not have the wives debate. IMO, the red sweater brigade wins that one. And, sorry red sweater brigade folks, but I don't really want you to win -- though you probably will.

TL, what the hell are the red sweater brigades?

Republicans. An Example.

<font color=plum>What a joke. I'm not one to watch the debates anyway, but this is just absurd.

I wasn't looking forward to the debates because neither of them will address the issues as much as they will attack their opponents on the issue. I would want to here what Kerry plans to do about the Social Security system instead of listening to him crow about what Bush DIDN'T do or what he DID do wrong.

Of course, the whole purpose of counter-arguments and follow-up questions is to allow each candidate a chance to respond to the charges leveled by his opponent. Some character assassination will naturally occur in that setting - but it is still FAR preferable to the scripted dialogue that will be billed as the Presidential Debates this election year.</font>

Okay Timber, everything about that link creeps me out. In fact, I think I'll dress as Alan Keyes for Halloween. I'll need a red sweater...

Check out his activism list.
http://www.renewamerica.us/issues/index.htm

First on the list? Get Alan Keyes' program on primetime! MSNBC didn't put it there because of radical muslim and homosexual groups, not because it's attempting to be a semi (by cable standards) legitimate news channel.

Declaration Alliance - Make all Texas students say the 56 word "We hold these truths" bit every day! Because THAT's what's wrong with our education system. Not enough indoctrination.

and my favorite: Conservative Petitions, which has three, count em three petitions that accuse liberals of treason or demand censure. "Demand 249 turncoats in Congress and the liberal media stop risking our soldiers by politicizing the war in Iraq." What's that, like every Democrat in congress? lol.

Very important things that need public support there. I hope he, and any congressional contender who would connect him/her self to these 'issues' would lose. Soundly.

On the debates, I saw a poll on ABC world news (whatever it's called specifically) that the percentage of people who think the debate isn't at all important is up to 47% (or close to that) from 28% in 2000. 19% will rely on it to decide which candidate to vote for. (I don't recall the exact numbers or wording - it was unprinted and yesterday).

Anyone watching it at this moment in time???

<font color=cccccc>I caught the last minutes, but more importantly the closing statements. The Sen had a good dialogue, and I was thinking *wow* has he come a long way. But IMO the President sealed the show with his.</font>

I watched the horse and pony show, I didn't learn a damn thing I didn't allready know about each man and their positions/character/ideas/vision/whatnots.

I caught the opening bit and the final few minutes. Spent the time in between watching survivor on videotape (hey, the kids go to bed at 8:30).

Kerry came across very smooth to me, very polished. I did get tired of "I have a plan"... if you've got one, open it up, buddy. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Bush came across rather lackadaisical, I think. He was not very polished, and perhaps that's the image he was going for -- he's not overly polished, he's an average guy. Sometimes, listening to his answers was almost painful.

I'm not sure where I'd put the win (and of course, both camps are claiming they won). Kerry didn't encourage me to vote for him, and Bush didn't frighten me away.

Both men did an okay showing, and neither man really answered the problems alleged about them. But, the format turned out to not be so horrible as I thought it would be.

I'm watching it on MSN now... Listening to Bush is painfull, not politically (well it is but thats not my point...) but because he seems very insecure public speaker... almost as bad as myself... [img]smile.gif[/img] Stammering and taking long pauses in mid sentence, poor guy.

Kerry however just rambles on... about his plans... and I'm wondering why I'm wasting my bandwidth watching this...

[img]smile.gif[/img]

Because no matter where you are, there's a good chance that the next bozo in charge of the USA will have an effect on your life. That, and it's like watching a car wreck or a grossly overweight person in spandex... you just can't look away from the spectacle.

Didn't Nixon have a Secret Plan for getting us out of Vietnam...?

LOL! We know how secret that was... and how well it worked.

Personally, I'd say they came out about even in that debate -- which, from a pretty hard Republican, is a huge compliment to Kerry.

I was embarrassed for Bush, he is such a bad speaker. He looked like he was going to faint away because he was so scared. I'm thinking is this the way he is in a dialog with world leaders.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">So when do they debate domestic policy and what is important for the USA at home? Was it me, or did they both seemed to be running for president of Iraq not president of the US.

While Foreign Affairs is important I don't think it should be the "be all and end all" of party platforms and should definitly not be the most important.

Kerry won the debate based on being the better speaker.</font>

[ 10-01-2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

The domestic issues debate will be the third debate. This debate was specifically on foreign policy, which is a topic dominated by the "I" word over here.

Didn't waste my time watching more than a couple of minutes of this. I watched MXC instead.

<font color=plum>I thought Kerry did an excellent job. He had obviously given a great deal of thought on how to deal with Iraq if he becomes President and I have faith that he and Edwards have already begun outlining a comprehensive plan to withdraw our troops and hand control over to the Iraqi gov't completely within a specific timeframe.

My swing vote was decided last night and will be placed firmly for Kerry/Edwards come November.


NO, Not Really. [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] </font>

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...oggers01m.html

Here's a link to the Seattle Times about two bloggers describing the 1st debate. One Bush and one Kerry supporter.