Presidential Debates Set

The debates are set, there will be four of them: Sept. 30, Oct. 8, and Oct. 13, and Oct. 5 for the VPs. All are at 9 p.m. Eastern. Get more details and read the memorandum of understanding (it is unreadable in Preview for me, I had to use Acrobat). There's not much different in here than in previous years. Says CNN: "A senior Kerry source said the Bush campaign was 'hung up' over whether a light or something audible like a buzzer would be used to tell the candidates when their time is up. A Bush official acknowledged that last-minute questions, mostly over the time cue issue, held up the agreement." In related news, it appears the first debate proposed by the truly nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission, scheduled for this Wednesday in Columbus, isn't going to happen.

Comments

bush is hard to beat

[the_unknown_soldier]

All this about bush being stupid, but Kerry was on the faily show and he said 'bush has never lost a debate he has been in'

It should be an interesting battle. I doubt kerry will win

Re:bush is hard to beat

[N3WBI3]

Perhaps but it has more to do with someone assuming because he mispronounces something he is stupid (never mind the Harvard MBA). The guy is not the brightest president we have but I very much doubt he is actually below average, let alone stupid. He debates well because he is focused and knows what he believes, Kerry will have to stop trying to cover his ass on every issue (take both sides) if he hopes to do well.

Re:Go Citizens' Debate Commission!

[Veridium]

Unfortunately it looks like they aren't going to be attending a Citizens Debate Commision event. Assuming I've read everything right.

They say this:
"The debates will provide an opportunity for President Bush and Senator John Kerry to have a serious discussion about the important issues to be decided in this election," a joint statement from the campaigns said. "Both President Bush and Senator Kerry are pleased with today's announcement and look forward to the debates."

and then we find out the format is this:
In each debate, according to the agreement, "the candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions."

Could somebody please tell me how you have a serious discussion about important issues to be decided in this election through the use of rhetorical questions when a rhetorical question is by defintion "one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply". Don't you guys on the right and left get it? This is the wool being pulled over your eyes.

Maybe the townhall "debate" will be interesting. Yeah, who am I kidding. This is a joke and a sham.

2 sides, same coin. Democrats and Republicans. Donkey tails they win, Elephant heads we lose.

Re:useless - Kerry is already kebabized

[dario_moreno]

at least get your sentence in french correctly

"les français sont des singes capitulards mangeurs de fromages".

As Dave Berry said, the French on the opposite think that the Americans are overweight burger munching trigger happy ignorant religious zealots driving gas-guzzling SUVs, and like all nationalistic clichés, this is also true.

Re:useless - Kerry is already kebabized

[N3WBI3]

As Dave Berry said, the French on the opposite think that the Americans are overweight burger munching trigger happy ignorant religious zealots driving gas-guzzling SUVs, and like all nationalistic clichés, this is also true.

And I dont even think we should whine they are racist for saying that

Re:Too late to decide

[l4m3z0r]

In my mind, the "undecided" voter is just about the most foolish creature on earth.

The person who can tell the difference between the two is the most foolish creature on earth in my book. Knowing who you want means that you believe the lies of one above the other. A true grasp of this situation means you have no clue who you want to vote for because not a single candidate would make a good president.

Re:What part of the movie didn't you like?

[N3WBI3]

I did not like the part where moore edited out the part where a Minnesota senator told him that his son was too young to enlist but his nephew was.

That stupid stunt (will you enlist your kid) is typical of moore who in bowling for columbine snipped part of different heston speaches together to make it look like he told the famlies to take their grief and shove it.

Do you think that the Congress actually did read the "Patriot" Act before passing it?

I dont think congress reads allot of stuff before passing it, thats not bushes fault.

and a brother of Osama bin Laden

Maybe Fahrenheit 9/11 is not expressed in a way you would like, but most of the problems it discussed are real, without question

It was as accurate as any political commercial, take a few facts see them through very biased eyes and edit them to make your point.

Re:F9/11 is by far the most popular documentary.

[N3WBI3]

It is by far the most popular documentary of all time, in the entire world.

My problem, is its not a documentary, it was nowhere near objective. His editing style make his moves more about entertainment and political knee padding than anything else.

ut it is very difficult to present all that he did in just 2 hours.

Not if you leave anything that does not fit your political message on the cutting room floor its not.

Re:Alcoholics: Often likable, not good speakers.

[N3WBI3]

"profitist" is accurate in a way, it's like the American spin on fascism, well put.

Or a good way to describe the UN Oil for Food scam..

Re:The debates could be very good for Kerry

[Keebler71]

He's a much better speaker than Bush, and if he comes out directly with solid goals for when he becomes president, he could raise undecided voters' passion quite a bit.

I don't quite agree with you here. Sure, Bush is well-known for mis-speaking and mis-pronouncing things on a regular basis. However, the masses, for whatever reason seem to have given him a pass on this [non]issue.

Kerry on the other hand is a seasoned Senate orator... one would think that he should trounce the word-fumbling president much like Gore in 2000(who also was a senator) ... but whoops! That didn't happen, the debates ended up hurting Gore. From Daily Kos (I can't believe I am citing daily Kos but what the hell,... here's to trying to be impartial):

The first presidential debate was held on October 3 and despite the fact that Gore was widely considered the winner (by an average of 9%), his behavior at the debate coupled with media coverage that labeled him an exaggerator, denied Gore a bounce. The race was a statistical dead heat leading up to the second debate on October 11. This time, Bush was the clear winner (by an average of 9%) and did receive a bounce. Bush was leading by an average of 4% leading up to the third debate on October 17, of which there was no clear winner (people favored Gore slightly).

Moreover, I have read a few articles like this one expressing concern for Kerry's 'meandering' speaking style. Personally, I think Kerry is a fine communicator, but then again maybe I am overestimating the listening comprehension of the average American.

he could raise undecided voters' passion quite a bit.

I think more interestingly will be the tone of the debates. This election is different than most. I don't believe that anyone is really 'undecided' given the polarization of the electorate. As opposed to past debates where the focus was on woo-ing undecideds (which has to be done somewhat gently and positively), I think that this series will be more about shoring up the base voters and trying to scare the decided but not stolid supporters on the other side. In other words... I think it will be quite ugly as debates go.

What the Bush campaign got changed

[elwinc]

ABC News' TheNote has a lovely nugget about what the Bush campaign got changed from the original debate proposal:

Although Anne Kornblut's Boston Globe framing of the conclusion of the debate about debates is typical LINK ("Despite tussles over the timing and format, the 90-minute debates will take place more or less as initially proposed; only the subjects of the first and third debates have changed."), in fact, James Baker, by accepting all four debates (3 presidential and 1 veep), seems to have gotten some other key, little-Noticed changes in return.

What the Bush campaign got changed:

1. The first widely watched and covered debate will be on foreign policy and national security, rather than domestic policy.

2. No direct engagement between the candidates is allowed -- the Commission's proposed plan had actually encouraged such dynamic-changing contact.

3. As "Miss (Nicolle) Devenish" told the Washington Times : "the agreement reached yesterday also will make 'very clear whenever the candidates attempt to filibuster or grandstand. There is a light that will flash for TV audiences when that happens -- a historic first,' she said. 'Moderators have to sign on and say they agree with the rules, or we'll find new moderators.'"

4. The voters at the town-hall debate won't be undecideds, but, rather "soft" supporters of each side -- and we have yet to figure out what that means or why Team Bush prefered that -- but Baker got it.

5. The candidates can't address each other with "proposed pledges" (although rhetorical questions are allowed!!).

6. The town-hallers can't ask follow ups or participate after they ask their one question -- avoiding any prospect of a "Richmond" moment.

The Commission itself and the moderators have not been heard from, but our guts tell us two things:

A. This deal will stick.

B. If George Walker Bush already owed James Addison Baker big time after Florida, he owes him bigger time now.

So how do these changes benefit Team Bush? Your comments are welcome. I think (1) will benefit Kerry, because the truth is Iraq is a mess, and Kerry can highlight that sixty ways from sunday. I think (2) is toothless; the candidates can always take time out of a current answer to lambaste the opponent's previous comment. I can see the benefit of (6) in that the candidate doesn't have to answer the question and won't get called on it.