Debates Are On

[Brown]

From The New York Times (registration required) and AP:

Negotiators for President Bush and Democrat John Kerry agreed Monday to three 90-minute debates beginning Sept. 30, including one town-hall format with questions from undecided voters in the audience.

The two campaigns essentially went along with recommendations by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates -- except that the topic for the first debate will be foreign policy and homeland security rather than the economy as the commission had suggested.

The final debate, which the commission had said should be about foreign policy, will now be about the economy.

This is really the first good news of the campaign. Both camps actually agreed on the debates, and the agreement appeared to be reached in good faith by both camps.

Presidential debates will take place on September 30 (University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla.), October 8 (Washington University in St. Louis, town-hall format) and October 13 (Arizona State University in Tempe, Ariz.). Of course, the most interesting of the debates will take place on October 5:

There also will be a vice presidential debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland on Oct. 5.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

From The New York Times (registration required) and AP:This is really the first good news of the campaign. Both camps actually agreed on the debates, and the agreement appeared to be reached in good faith by both camps.

Presidential debates will take place on September 30 (University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla.), October 8 (Washington University in St. Louis, town-hall format) and October 13 (Arizona State University in Tempe, Ariz.). Of course, the most interesting of the debates will take place on October 5:

/Start shanek

YOU'RE A LIAR. THIS IS NOT A REAL DEBATE. THEY ARE IGNORING THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES LIKE MIKEY BADNARIK WHO WOULD WIN IF THE PEOPLE COULD HEAR HIS MESSAGE. THIS IS AN AD-HOMINUM ATTACK. WELCOME TO IGNORE!

/End shanek

 

[crimresearch]

Re: Re: Debates Are On


YOU'RE A LIAR. THIS IS NOT A REAL DEBATE. THEY ARE IGNORING THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES LIKE MIKEY BADNARIK WHO WOULD WIN IF THE PEOPLE COULD HEAR HIS MESSAGE. THIS IS AN AD-HOMINUM ATTACK. WELCOME TO IGNORE!



Is the board malfunctioning again? I could have sworn I had him sucessfully on ignore...

 

[shanek]

This is really the first good news of the campaign. Both camps actually agreed on the debates, and the agreement appeared to be reached in good faith by both camps.

Of course; why wouldn't they? Both of their parties actually control the debates. They'd be idiots to turn down the opportunity for three 90-minute infomercials.

 

[merphie]

I find it interesting that even Nader was excluded from these debates.

What is a good reason for this action?

 

[geni]

I find it interesting that even Nader was excluded from these debates.

What is a good reason for this action?

It lowers the air time of the candidates (ok thats a real reson not a good reason)

 

[merphie]

It lowers the air time of the candidates (ok thats a real reson not a good reason)

Yeah, 12 hours in a day is just not enough time.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I find it interesting that even Nader was excluded from these debates.

What is a good reason for this action?

1) He has no chance of winning
2) He is an idiot

 

[merphie]

1) He has no chance of winning
2) He is an idiot

Because you don't agree with someone we should ban them.



I like that idea! I have the same opinion of Kerry. I think he should be banned from the debate.

 

[geni]

Because you don't agree with someone we should ban them.



I like that idea! I have the same opinion of Kerry. I think he should be banned from the debate.

Get rid of bush as well and the deabte would still be just as real

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I believe you have to be a candidate in 15% of the states, or something like that. Nader isn't. So no sound bites for him.

 

[merphie]

Get rid of bush as well and the deabte would still be just as real

My point was that you can't exclude someone from the debate because you don't like them.

Where is the freedom?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Because you don't agree with someone we should ban them.



I like that idea! I have the same opinion of Kerry. I think he should be banned from the debate.

Wrong. I disagree with some things George Will says, but he is most definitely NOT an idiot. So you see, it has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with someone. It's that Nader is an idiot. Period.

 

[SezMe]

The key is the first word in this phrase from the NYT article in the OP: "bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates" It sure is. It is run jointly by the reps and dems and they make their own rules so the end result is no surprise.

I long for the days when the debates were run by the League of Women Voters. Them I trust. The elephants and asses I don't.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The key is the first word in this phrase from the NYT article in the OP: "bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates" It sure is. It is run jointly by the reps and dems and they make their own rules so the end result is no surprise.

I long for the days when the debates were run by the League of Women Voters. Them I trust. The elephants and asses I don't.

There is nothing stopping the LOWV from organizing their own debates.

 

[shanek]

I find it interesting that even Nader was excluded from these debates.

What is a good reason for this action?

There is no good reason for it. The real reason is that the CPD is controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties and is run at the behest of their candidates to the exclusion of all others.

 

[shanek]

I long for the days when the debates were run by the League of Women Voters. Them I trust. The elephants and asses I don't.

They run most of the statewide televised debates here in NC and they've always been good about including the Libertarians. But there are still limitations. Example: in 2002, they invited Elizabeth Dole and Erskine Bowles to debate. They both accepted. They invited the Libertarian candidate, Sean Haugh, and as soon as it was announced that Haugh had accepted both Dole and Bowles withdrew from the debate.

So, there's no way you can FORCE such a debate to happen. All of the candidates have free speech rights, after all, and so they can't be forced to speak anywhere. That's as it should be. But the way the CPD is set up it hides this behavior from the public. Can you imagine the bad press Bush and Kerry would get nationwide if they behaved the way Dole and Bowles did?

 

[geni]

I believe you have to be a candidate in 15% of the states, or something like that. Nader isn't. So no sound bites for him.

Michael Badnarik
David Cobb
Ralph Nader
and Michael Peroutka

are all candiates in enough sates to win (with the posible exception of nader)

 

[merphie]

There is nothing stopping the LOWV from organizing their own debates.

If they did it would get near the coverage the others would and therefor present a bias opinion to the general public.

 

[merphie]

They run most of the statewide televised debates here in NC and they've always been good about including the Libertarians. But there are still limitations. Example: in 2002, they invited Elizabeth Dole and Erskine Bowles to debate. They both accepted. They invited the Libertarian candidate, Sean Haugh, and as soon as it was announced that Haugh had accepted both Dole and Bowles withdrew from the debate.

So, there's no way you can FORCE such a debate to happen. All of the candidates have free speech rights, after all, and so they can't be forced to speak anywhere. That's as it should be. But the way the CPD is set up it hides this behavior from the public. Can you imagine the bad press Bush and Kerry would get nationwide if they behaved the way Dole and Bowles did?

Maybe they are afraid more of what someone like Nadar might say. Perhaps put them on the spot with tough questions they can't answer without their over paid speech writers.