You might find this interesting then: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4052162 Text- (You have to ignore the misplaced Perot reference - I assume it's an error) Connie Rice: Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates The Tavis Smiley Show, September 29, 2004 · 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?" and: Libertarian candidate M.Badnarik and Green party candidate D. Cobb debate will be aired on C-SPAN this afternoon at 1 pm eastern time. More info here, and here.
I am still undecided, but are you telling me I have to choose between these two I thought Kerry did a good job although I am a little fuzzy on his plan although I am in the process of studying it. I know its easy to be a monday morning QB and I`m not sure if I trust this guy enough to vote for him. Bush looked like he would rather be anywhere else but at the debate. I cannot believe that they did not have him ready with solid answers and its clear that he is not very good at this form of debate. IMHO Kerry won this debate. As far as some of the posters on this board saying All The talking Heads said Kerry won, I do not agree with that, as I was flipping through the channels after the debate everyone had a different spin on the outcome.
i was thinking the same. and you know what?? it has me sooooooo disinterested. i've literally become the american who would rather change the channel to sports or entertainment than watch or hear another thing about this election.
I actually thought it was a fairly good debate, as far as substance goes. I didn't expect much, but both candidates mostly answered the questions asked to them, and both gave an impression of their philosphies toward foreign policy. It wasn't decided because of a clever one-liner, or because somebody sighed too much, or wore too much make-up. In this day and age we can't expect too much more from a debate.
Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.” and GWB has never lost a debate. Methinks Lockhart et al want Kerry hungry for all three debates. I rewatched the debate for the second time last night on CSPAN. I have to say that GWB looked a man who would not be too unhappy to go back to Crawford in Jan 2005 and let someone else sort out Iraq.
"more of the same" and if you watched it on CSPAN which split the screen with both the candidates all of the time then you got to see GWB's temper brewing while Kerry was talking (which beats a sigh any day of the week). Methinks Americans do not want an ill-tempered man as President.
I did watch it on CSPAN, and Bush's movements weren't in his favor. I even liked Kerry's one-liner that you mentioned, but I don't think any of those rose to the level of Gore's sigh, or Reagan's 'There you Go Again.' They may have had some effect last night, but neither Kerry's sharp one-liner nor Bush's anger, and bumbling overshadowed the answers to the questions, IMO.
I'm pretty surprised at the overwhelming consensus that Kerry won the debate. I'm obviously partisan and thought Kerry edged out Bush by a bit. However, after the debates I have not seen one focus group or poll that showed anything less than Kerry as the clear winner. On MSNBC, I think it was, they interwiewed a focus group of undecided voters and every one of them thought Kerry had won. Here are some of the numbers- CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE Kerry: 53 Bush: 37 CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE: Kerry: 44 Bush: 26 Tie: 30 ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE: Kerry: 45 Bush 36: Tie: 17
You guys are desperate. You refuse to believe the polls of the public, you rather listen to a Democrat!
I listened to the debate on the radio because I don't care about body language or mannorisms that the media seems so intent on judging the candidates by. So Bush smirks and stumbles a lot, so Kerry nods his head for no apparent reason. I don't care. I care about the substance of their words and ideas. That said, I think I might have to join the "I can't believe we have to vote for one of these boobs" camp. Bush clearly wasn't on his game last night. I could have done without him saying "he changes positions" every 2 minutes. He seemed very coached. He kind of reminded me of myself in college when I spent all night cramming for a final only to get to class the next day and (figuratively not literally) crap all over myself because my brain was fried. I thought he made some good points but spent too much time on the "he changes positions" shtick. IMO, Kerry left him some hanging curveballs but he kept the bat on his shoulder. Maybe it was just the lame debate format. Kerry seemed much more fomfortable. Not quite up to the debate machine Clinton was, but he certainly came off looking better than Bush. He didn't really do much to answer his critics though. Still not sure where he stands. He says he wants to send more troops to Iraq, then bring them home in 6 months. I was pretty offended when he was talking about nuk-u-lar proliferation. He questioned how we can call for other countries to scrap their programs while we continue to build ours. To me, that almost implied that we were on the same level as Iran and N. Korea. I happen to trust our leaders a little more than those of Iran and N Korea. Anyway, back to the drawing board for Bush. Kerry clearly "won" this debate as far as public opinion is concerned. I still like Bush's ideas much better than Kerry's, but Bush would not have convinced me if I were an undecided.
A lot of people mentioned Bush repeating the flip flopper message too much last night, and I heard them talking about it on Imus this morning. They made a good point. It was the wrong time to try and hammer that message, because the John Kerry at the podium last night was very steadfast, wasn't a flip flopper, or someone who appeared the least bit wishy washy. Bush had obviously come in with the strategy to try and drive that label home. But it Bush's words didn't seem to fit John Kerry and his presence at the podium last night. It could also be that I've finally seen that the the label isn't true, and that Kerry has always held the same position regarding Iraq, that also made it seem so out of place.
Total agreement with what you said. Chalk me down as another voter that can't believe these are the two people we have to choose from.
people say they don't understand what kerry stands for. i think he is very clear but am willing to admit my bias. but please, somebody, conservative or other, explain to me what bush's ideas are.
Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course.
Nice way to completely take that out of context. Kerry said we shouldn't have outsourced the job of moving in on Osama in the mountains to warlords.
In the new tradition of America-Lite which has brought us light beer, TV-lite, education-lite, and lite church, what would you expect from lite politics but lite debates. This is "sound-bite mentality" taken to a new level. Bush's facial expressions were the only redeeming factor; they were hilarious. Kerry comes across as a toss up between a mortician and a corpse. We really deserve a wider array of choices. Or maybe we don't.
If Jr had rolled his eyes any harder, he'd be in the hospital! Take a look at this video. http://www.democrats.org/
