BS: Don't fence him in? Prez debate rules

Subject: RE: BS: Don't fence him in? Prez debate rules
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 01:30 PM

All the interests have been represented in the negotiations for the debates except those of THE PEOPLE! I am outraged at how the particulars have been so sanitized as to make the debates no more than side by side commercials. Where are the follow-up questions; the direct inquires; the challenges of fact; the third or fourth parties to REALLY shake things up? Nowhere, that's where. The media should have some spine on this, being all over it like a cheap suit. But why would this be any different from any of the other areas where they have shown none? The media of Jefferson's dream does not exist. We are doomed.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't fence him in? Prez debate rules
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 08:36 AM

I wish to God these bloody damned "debates" actually were!

A statement by a moderator about the question (e.g., Resolved: The Conflict in Iraq Has Been Lost). One person for pro gives a timed statement of their position. A person from con does the same. Pro again, con again. Then each side gets to rebut, again timed. Two statements per side, four rebutals, alternating like the statements. Then the moderator(s) decides who wins on points.

What we have now is a misnamed shouting-match-cum-press-conference-cum-photo-op.

(Or just put 'em together in a darkened room with each having a big knife, and the winner takes all.)

Subject: RE: BS: Don't fence him in? Prez debate rules
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 05:45 AM

They tried to win assurances that TV cameras won't show the other candidate's reactions when his rival speaks

I found this rather more manipulative and worrying than the part that bothered kat. According to my paper, "The White House could even try to pull out of the next two encounters if it did not go well. The Bush camp has already hinted it might do that if television companies stray from the rigid rules on coverage, banning shots of one candidate reacting to the others remarks."

The idea that either candidate would leave in a huff during the debate for such a reason is absurd, since it would immediately be interpreted as their losing the debate and the specific scene would be replayed over and over again on every news bulletin so no-one could miss it. Refusing to take part in future debates for which dates have already been published might be possible, but again the other side would insist it was really because they had been beaten, not for some petty rule infringement and the person who refused would look much weaker than if they had never agreed to the debate in the first place.

I assume television companies will go along with these rules so that the board members avoid making enemies, but the idea of politicians boycotting television channels entirely - as opposed to specific programmes - seems to me rather unlikely.

Subject: BS: Don't fence him in? Prez debate rules
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 12:14 AM

From USA Today, Bush's advisors think he can pull way way ahead of Kerry IF he does well in the debates. To do this, they demanded the following:

to minimize the risk, Bush negotiators insisted on a format that's more a joint interview than a debate. They demanded that Kerry be confined to the space behind his lectern so he can't interact with Bush or the audience. They tried to win assurances that TV cameras won't show the other candidate's reactions when his rival speaks.

I found this part esp. chilling, "They demanded that Kerry be confined to the space behind his lectern so he can't interact with Bush or the audience."