Slashdot Mirror


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.

2 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What part of the movie didn't you like? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
  2. What the Bush campaign got changed by elwinc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    --- Often in error; never in doubt!