God, will someone tell me Im dreaming

Mark Moran · Post by **Mark Moran** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:53 am

This is from teh NYT today:

The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday.
At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.
McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums.
Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the two vice-presidential candidates. On Wednesday, the commission unanimously rejected a proposal sought by advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, to have the moderator ask questions and the candidates answer, with no time for unfettered exchanges.

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:59 am

how is this an affront to the democratic process?

If you expected that there wouldn't be any gamesmanship in negotiating terms for the debates, then yes, you were probably dreaming.

Valerie Molinski · Post by **Valerie Molinski** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:00 pm

What a wuss move. So your candidate isnt so good at the game? Change the rules.

It's really sad to me, IMO. If she is so ready to lead the country, she should be able to handle answering questions off the cuff and answer to the issues with her own words instead of coached soundbites.

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:03 pm

back in school, we started a drinking game. Every time a candidate said something 100% accurate, we did a shot.

I've still got the same unopened bottle of liquor from 1988.

Mark Moran · Post by **Mark Moran** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:03 pm

[quote="Bret Callentine"]how is this an affront to the democratic process?

im speechless.

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:06 pm

What a wuss move

does that evaluation apply to Obama choosing not to take part in the series of joint town hall meetings that McCain proposed?

Valerie Molinski · Post by **Valerie Molinski** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:13 pm

The debates are a long standing occurence. It is a neutral field. Why would you expect one candidate to take up the other's offer to meet on his home field?

Also, that invite was prior to the nominations, so no one was under any obligation to meet. It would have been premature at best to do the town meetings with McCain.

Mark Moran · Post by **Mark Moran** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:15 pm

Bret Callentine wrote:
What a wuss move

does that evaluation apply to Obama choosing not to take part in the series of joint town hall meetings that McCain proposed?

Possibly so. But he's not dodging a debate, and he's been open---wide wide open--to highly invasive press scrutiny for as long as he's been running.

What does your answer have to do with the conscious, deliberate effort to shield a candidate from having to have her inexperience, ignorance and shallowness exposed before people allow her to be the vice president?

Or, to put it in a way that doesnt automatically expose me to the inevitable "elitist" tag: What does your answer have to do with the conscious , deliberate effort to keep a candidate from having the chance to reveal her intelligence, depth and ability to articulate complex thoughts on her own about important matters of public policy?

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:22 pm

so a town hall meeting where both candidates openly discuss their policies is a home court advantage for McCain?

You lost me on that one.

And if I'm not mistaken, McCain has continued to keep the town hall offer on the table throughout this election.

Debates are a long standing tradition, the formats of those debates, however, have always been a matter of debate in and of themselves.

Valerie Molinski · Post by **Valerie Molinski** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:26 pm

I know it isnt unusual for each candidate to have rules and terms by which they will sit down to debate. That's not what I am most annoyed with. I'm just amazed at how brazen they are about it. "Our VP candidate is out of her depth as far as debates go, so we're just going to change the format to suit her." Wow. But, Why are debates even a source of negotiation? They should be legally OBLIGATED to debate for the public.

There shouldn't be any of this, "well, we won't participate unless it is on our terms" bullsh_t -- from either side. If you want to run for President, you should by default pretty much agree to sit down anytime, anywhere and answer any questions we damn well want to ask. The commission should have held fast to the usual format, with no change, and leave it up to the candidates to participate or not. I'm betting the McCain/Palin would have caved and attended anyway.

From http://www.debates.org/pages/about.html

Our Mission
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.

Valerie Molinski · Post by **Valerie Molinski** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Bret Callentine wrote:so a town hall meeting where both candidates openly discuss their policies is a home court advantage for McCain?

You lost me on that one.

And if I'm not mistaken, McCain has continued to keep the town hall offer on the table throughout this election.

.

To me, they are because they were suggested and set up by McCain...his idea, his home court. It would be a lose lose for anyone. If you say no, you're side stepping. If you say yes, it's because your challenger goaded you into it.

And I don't recall the town hall offer still on the table. I think once it got into specifics, McCain shut it down.

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:35 pm

Is she dodging the debate????

They are just pressing for a shorter response period.

How much time does Biden need to try to express his superiority? two minutes? ten minutes? half an hour?

What does your answer have to do with the conscious , deliberate effort to keep a candidate from having the chance to reveal her intelligence...

Maybe they are merely suggesting that she can get her point across in a shorter period of time than her opponent?

Your initial post does nothing to suggest what the time limits were, or changed to, so how do we all the sudden jump to the conclusion that whatever the parameters became, are not adequate to cover the topics?

In my opinion, there is nothing here worthy of the level of indignence that is suggested.

ryan costa · Post by **ryan costa** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:34 pm

Here are my predictions on how the debate will go. Its based mostly on what i saw in previous presidential debates and campaign commercials and read from some of their pundits.

McCain will accuse Obama of having been against the "Surge". Obama will not respond satisfactorily to most of the public. He will not question that historically it was quite common in times of war to occasionally move or increase troop numbers in a particular place a few ten percent increments without turning the entire thing into a marketing campaign.

McCain will bring up Obama being hesitant to sign blank check bills "for the troops". Obama will not explain whatever conditions or contexts or lack thereof were attached to the bill, at least in anyway that convinces most suburban wal-mart americans.

McCain will accuse Obama of "raising taxes". Obama will not explain how Republicans have been raising income taxes on most americans for decades.

McCain will throw out some cookie cutter slogans about tax cuts for economic growth. Obama will not be prepared with very basic information from Ravi Batra's The Great American Deception or Greenspan's Fraud. very basic information about trade policy, rates of investment in capital relative to capital gains tax rates, corporate tax rates, and top tier income tax rates.

McCain will accuse Obama of wanting to raise the gasoline taxes. Obama will not have facts about the cost of building and maintaining roads and highways. Obama will not boldly and directly declare the invasion of Iraq was over Oil, so Oil should be paying for it or tax increases on the rich and corporations should be paying for it: like in every other major war in U.S. history.

neither McCain or Obama will have any facts or statistics about how government and private sector leaders promoted conservation, car pooling, simply not driving much, and public transit during world war II, and how great that worked. We weren't at all dependent on imported oil back then, but it did free up a lot of our own oil to export to the war effort.

McCain will bring up Obama's hesitance to ok offshore drilling. Obama won't say anything about how we'd probably just squander the next big batch of oil faster than the last batches we had. no one will mention the net failure of political, business, and cultural leaders to promote smaller cars and trucks: everyone is waiting for someone else to legislate "tighter efficiency standards". Obama will not mention how Alaska gets a big cut of revenue and issues taxes on its oil, and how coastal states in the U.S. should have similar opportunities.

McCain might mention Nuclear Power and how it works so great for France. Obama won't mention France using about 2/3 the electricity per capita as the U.S., despite industry being a larger component of their economy than the U.S. at least, that's what the figures at the CIA world factbook added up to last time I looked.

Obama will not challenge McCain to be as fiscally responsible as President Eisenhower. He won't even challenge McCain to be as fiscally responsible as Nixon. Even Nixon made Reagan and both Bush Presidents look like wall street coke heads. Obama won't draw any comparisons.

McCain will accuse Obama of voting to "raise taxes" x amount of times. Obama will be unable to respond which taxes these were or how many votes were for the same tax raises in bill and committee. He will not have the same information collected about McCains voting history.

Obama will not suggest the post-industrial economy is based on subsidizing and speculating on sprawl, taking the floor out of any possibility of the hypothetical free market functioning in most small towns and old urban centers.

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:45 pm

I would pay money to have Ryan Costa sitting in the foreground (ala Mystery Science Theatre 3000) of the televised coverage of the presidential debates.

Flank him with a robot version of Eisel and O'Bryan and we're talkin' PAY PER VIEW HEAVEN!!!!!

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:00 pm

Bret Callentine wrote:I would pay money to have Ryan Costa sitting in the foreground (ala Mystery Science Theatre 3000) of the televised coverage of the presidential debates.

Flank him with a robot version of Eisel and O'Bryan and we're talkin' PAY PER VIEW HEAVEN!!!!!

I agree.

Flank him with a robot version of Eisel and O'Bryan and we're talkin' PAY PER VIEW HEAVEN!!!!!

I vote zombie versions. To liven up the mood and all. ;-)