[Moogs]

The campaigns of President Bush and Senator John Kerry are putting forward their most seasoned and formidable proxies to take part in the quadrennial face-off over establishing the particulars of the presidential and vice-presidential debates. Never have the presidential debate teams been this big or this prestigious, say officials at the bipartisan commission planning the debates, the first of which is scheduled for Sept. 30.

...why in God's name does *either camp* have any influence at all over the debates? This is just total BS IMO and defeats the purpose of the whole thing. By allowing them to influence the subject-matter, the style of the debate, the number of debates, etc... they can rehearse their answers, etc. That's NOT what we need. As citizens we need to see how both of these guys respond to questions in an unrehearsed way. If they know which topics are coming, in which order, etc. etc... then it's nothing more than a thinly veiled speech.

I want some God-damned spontaneity in these debates for a change. I don't want the participants to know which subjects are going to be covered in which events, and in which order per event. I mean, I suppose if they want to have a say in how many (while not great) that's somewhat understandable if their reasoning is that they'd rather be on the campaign trail instead. That would be their choice, etc. But they should have zero to say about the content of the debates themselves.

This whole process has become so LA Law it's ridiculous. Embarrassing, to be honest. Shows how [warped] our elections process has become.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

You mean, I'm not the only one to notice the press' 'pointed questions' to the candidates are about as sharp and probing as a wadded up napkin? Then the candidates are allowed to vacillate for a few minutes, never even answering the original question.

If only the debate question writers didn't need a permission slip from the candidates to ask real questions and expect real answers.

[709]

I think both the potential Pres and VP from both parties...AND their wives and children...should be on a special 2-hour 'Fear Factor'. THAT would get more viewers than all debates combined.

....although Barb & Jen would probably kick ass in the drinking of bug juice....

[wretched]

hmm... seeing Dubya in a coffin filled with worms would be interesting... and fun... AND amusing...

[drewprops]

We all know that nobody is going to agree to an ambush, the 40+ years of televised debates has shown again and again that politicians shouldn't be allowed to wander far from their talking points because they'll undoubtedly contradict their stated platforms (or the laws of physics) at some point. But yes, I'd like to see candidates whisked away like pudgy middle-Americans on a makeover show, delivered into the hands of some devilishly inquisitive interrogators. This would, of course, be bad for either politician because they MUST be perceived as having those mythic, almost-royal, demigod-like characteristics associated with the office of the President. If I were a campaign manager you can bet your sweet bippy that I wouldn't allow my candidate within a mile of a sharp question.

[BuonRotto]

Let's face it, presidential candidates don't debate, they simply make their stump speeches with the other guy in the room. Questions are flat out ignored, or, at best, a seque is given into whatever it is they're told to talk about. Even the retorts are usually inane.

[psmith2.0]

The fact that these things are negotiated, bickered over, laden with "conditions", etc. all but strip them of any useful value. As stated above, it's just an excuse for each guy to recite their "vision", only with the other guy present (I guess numerous eyerolls and head-shaking are real ratings grabbers). There's no true debate. No fire or passion. Certainly no fireworks or sense that either guy is truly going all out for the job.

No chance to be spontaneous and give a truly heart-felt, passionate answer or statement, everything is so damn prepped and pre-canned.

These things are pretty much an unwatchable, mind-numbing waste.



And it's a shame, because it could - and should - be SO much more.

[alcimedes]

they should throw nader in the mix, he'd fire things up.

[SKMDC]

maybe the nader from a few years back....this year's model seems to be a senile old joke.

[drewprops]

I think that, in part, Nader's irrelevancy has to do with the repetition of Jimmy James' mantra that he's "senile" as much as the odd things he does. The people who might normally support Nader seem to have a more pressing agenda.

I say put Ross Perot in the middle of that fracas, loaded for bear with charts and graphs.

THAT would be a show.

Get Reverend Al in there too by golly.

Will we never again have witty reparte like we heard from Reagan? Or whats-his-name to Danny Quayle? We can only hope that the debates will deliver SOME cultural nugget.

[Moogs]

No chance to be spontaneous and give a truly heart-felt, passionate answer or statement, everything is so damn prepped and pre-canned. These things are pretty much an unwatchable, mind-numbing waste. And it's a shame, because it could - and should - be SO much more.

Agreed. I say let Chris Matthews or someone with some balls ask the questions and run the clock.

"No Mr. President, you didn't answer my question at all... please answer my question. We're not moving on until you do. "

"No Senator, you may not retort."

etc.

[thuh Freak]

my teacher was telling me (back around the bush v gore debates) that someone had asked a candidate a pretty surprising question years ago, and really flustered him. whoever it was did the gore v bush debate. it was somethign like "if ur wife was brutally and masochistally raped, would you want therapist to be executed" directed toward a very anti-death penalty candidate. cant really remember the details, but teacher implied that we'd be seing something like that in the debate of that night. well, we didn't.

candidates don't want to seem flustered or wrong or uninformed in front of a crowd, and particularly not infront of a t.v. audience. if moore is right in his implicit theory that bush is just an idiot and a puppet, then the president wouldn't be able to answer just about anything for the crowd. i don't think bush is that dumb, but without well rehearsed answers to questions the press will just show over and over again the stupid responses or non-answers. personally, i think that thinking on your feet is overvalued. when a decision is coming along for the c-i-c, he'll be able to mull it over with his advisors and lookup stats and relevant information and everything. at a debate, the candidate needs all that info up in his noggin.

[psmith2.0]

O'Reilly would be better suited for that than Matthews. He's the most impatient, short-fused guy on TV...and I love him for it because the very people who come on his show are these weasel handlers and policy wonk types who can never just give a simple, straightforward, easy-to-grasp answer to ANYTHING.

He blisters them for that, so I'd like to see him apply that same "answer the QUESTION!" approach to President Bush and Senator Kerry in a debate.

Although we all know damn well Bush or Kerry would never approve of someone like him as moderator. He's their worst nightmare, I'm betting.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by thuh Freak my teacher was telling me (back around the bush v gore debates) that someone had asked a candidate a pretty surprising question years ago, and really flustered him. whoever it was did the gore v bush debate. it was somethign like "if ur wife was brutally and masochistally raped, would you want therapist to be executed" directed toward a very anti-death penalty candidate. cant really remember the details

I believe that might've been President Bush 41 and Michael Dukakis, and that Dukakis who gave a wobbly, limp answer that struck people as wonkish and weak. That and wearing that helmet on that tank probably helped do him in.



I'm 85% sure it was during a Bush/Dukakis debate.

[Moogs]

Worst political miscalculation... EVER.

[Windswept]

How about Chris Matthews *and* Bill O'Reilly as questioners.

Wow. Wouldn't 'that' be interesting to see. heh

[billybobsky]

Originally Posted by Moogs Worst political miscalculation... EVER.

Leave my fellow swattie alone (although I agree completely)...

[Koodari]

It would be nice if people could submit questions on the net and vote for them (voting results would, naturally, only show when the candidates have already planted their butts in chairs so they can't rehearse answers).

That would be one more channel for people to get their question in, and I think the questions could potentially be better and more interesting than ones from the audience. (The audience would still ask questions, just not so many.)