September 29, 2004

American Presidential Debates! Ha! Ha!
posted by pete_best 19 years ago
  • Walter Cronkite called CPD-sponsored debates an "unconscionable fraud." There you go.
  • Christ. Is this true? I despair.
  • i'm having friends over for the debates. we're pondering a belt of scotch every time either candidate says "terrorism."
  • OBEY. Ahem, I mean, with the level of discourse being so low in this country, is it any wonder?
  • (fuming)
  • hee Hee!! yes my pretties! rant all you like! There's *nothing* you can do about it!! Hahahahaha!! Nothing!! SideDish: I'd say everytime "security" or "homeland" comes up, everyone drinks. sorry, just in a cynical mood today. One of those "Kurt is dead and I'm hungover" type of moods
  • America: defining democracy down since 1776 or America: two-party rule - it's not great, but it's better than dictatorship.
  • Wow...I guess I really ever knew the details. It would be interesting to know how control was wrestled from the league of women voters.
  • here's a 1986 story, tire... August 12, 1986 Women Voters Group Complains Parties Trying To Steal Presidential Debates BYLINE: By SANDY JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer DATELINE: WASHINGTON BODY: The League of Women Voters said Tuesday the Republican and Democratic national committees are trying to "pull the rug out from under us" and steal sponsorship of 1988 presidential debates. League president Nancy M. Neuman said Democrats pressured House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill into withdrawing as co-chairman of the league's 1988 presidential debates advisory committee and the Republicans tried but failed to talk Sen. Charles Mc. Mathias out of being co-chairman. But spokesmen for both Mathias, R-Md., and O'Neill, D-Mass., said the word "pressure" was inaccurate. Mathias opted to remain as co-chairman, hoping the league and the national committees "will be able to work something out without all this raising of hackles," spokeswoman Ann Pincus said. "The league has done a good job in the past and it's important to have these debates, regardless of who has them."O'Neill withdrew after finding out Monday that the league does not want the national parties involved in the 1988 debates. "He does not share the position the party should be excluded from the debate process," spokesman Chris Matthews said. Added DNC spokesman Terry Michael, "If anybody thinks the Democratic National Committee can pressure the speaker of the House they don't understand the political process. It was nothing more than simply pointing out the agreement that had taken place last year."The chairmen of the two major parties, Democrat Paul Kirk and Republican Frank Fahrenkopf, signed an agreement to sponsor future presidential debates, endorsing an earlier report from a bipartisan commission that said party sponsorship was the best way to institutionalize the debates. The league is determined to maintain control of presidential debates, its most visible function. It sponsored most of the debates in 1976, 1980 and 1984. "Sometimes I think this gets down to a form of sexism. The parties unfortunately still appear to be run by a few men," Ms. Neuman told a news conference. The league's membership of 110,000 is still overwhelmingly female. "This incident raises serious issuess for the American public because it gives a small taste of how the parties would conduct the debates if indeed they could pull it off: power brokers in smoke-filled back rooms making decisions based on private interests with no regard for the voters," she said. She said the league is the best sponsor for the debates because "we don't play favorites.""Their goal is to elect their candidates. Our goal is to educate the voters," she said. Ms. Neuman said the league would go forward with its plans to sponsor four debates during the primary campaign, the first in New Hampshire, others in the South, Midwest and West, and up to four debates during the general election campaign.
  • Interesting... The CPD is co-chaired by a former RNC chair (Frank Fahrenkopf) and a former DNC chair (Paul Kirk). Do you think they'll ever let a third party debate again?
  • *tips hat to SideDish*
  • What?!? The U.S. presidential election is just a big media stunt?? *horrified*
  • Christopher Buckley has a Python-esque take on it at The New Yorker.
  • Thanks for the article SideDish
  • glad to be of service! sidedish hearts nexis
  • The following terms are specifically forbidden and may not be used until after each debate is formally concluded: “girlie-man,” “draft dodger,” “drunk,” “ignoramus,” “Jesus freak,” “frog,” “bozo,” “wimp,” “toad,” “lickspittle,” “rat bastard,” “polluting bastard,” “lying bastard,” “demon spawn,” “archfiend,” or compound nouns ending in “-hole” or “-ucker.” Well shit. "security" or "homeland" then.
  • no follow-up questions? awesome! RIP, lincoln/douglas.
  • Commission on Presidential Debates official website.
  • I want to see one of the candidates refer to the other as "my arch-nemesis" instead of "my worthy opponent." Also, this is sad. But hey, at least Kerry can talk about policy at the debates, and the media won't ignore him like they did before he started talking about Iraq.
  • At the bottom of this odd collection of texts you can read the full transcripts of the four 2000 debates. Maybe Kerry and Bush should just have a duel.
  • Sorry for all the posts, but Wow!... I think this is an extraordinarily important decision we'll make on November 7th. We're really going to choose between what I consider to be an old way of governing ourselves or a new course, a new era, if you will, of high levels of spending, high taxes, ever more intrusive bureaucracy. And Governor Bush and I want to offer that new course of action. - Dick Cheney, VP debate Oct. 5 2000 Bushisms? Pah! Mission accomplished, Dick!
  • what a Dick! from the CPD Spewer: The deadline for applying for media credentials has passed. In the case of last minute situations, there is limited capacity for credential changes on-site. Only full-time employees of news organizations are eligible, no stringers, freelancers, interns, students or family members will be credentialed. Media will be credentialed for only the media filing center. End of Line . . .
  • all 32 pages of the "memorandum of understanding" re: the debates. (pdf file)
  • Open Debates has a great report about how the CPD came about and how that has fucked the public: Deterring Democracy: How the Commission on Presidential Debates Undermines Democracy [via NOW with Bill Moyers]
  • Did anyone else get confused by the NPR article and think that Condi Rice was the commentator?
  • *raises hand*
  • (actually it's even funnier if you imagine condi rice reading it...)
  • Connie Rice would take her in straight sets. She's no fool, unlike W's oil company shill / wanna-be NFL commissioner / worst-attack-on-American-soil-in-history on-her-watch. thanks for the link Unkie.
  • big waste of time via wonkette My interpretation: The moderators obviously won't be asking your question, as it's not in their contract, but it'd be nice to flood them with requests to show that, while we're used to canned bs answers from politicians, we don't want to make things worse by tossing them canned bs questions.
  • Pete: I'm confused. What about asshat and cockpunch?
  • More debate crap here, featuring this lovely quote: ‘He’s a Sweater’: “He’s a sweater,” chortles a G.O.P. official about Kerry, “and women don’t like sweaters.” God save us.
  • Plenty of women love sweaters. You'll see, in about a month, lots of women wearing them.
  • boy tht picture of George the Elder is kinda scary huh? get out the pancake makeup! What drinking games are you monkeys going to play with the "debates" tonight? Whatever it is, remember if either one uses the term "asshat" or "cockpunch" you have to drink the whole thing.
  • George Bush profits from the "soft bigotry of low expectations." It's a left-wing rant, granted, but I find it true for all that. On the Daily Show last night Stewart played a clip of O'Reilly saying it was "impressive" that Bush had agreed to an interview without getting the questions beforehand and without setting restrictions on the subjects. Stewart's response was to yell, "NO IT'S NOT! It's not impressive! It's the LEAST you can do and still call it an 'interview'! Otherwise, it's scripted!" Never mind that he agreed to it on one of the most conservative shows this side of Limbaugh. Bush is right--you expect less, you get less. >:(
  • Ah, crap!!! I was sooooo looking forward to the debates tonight. WTF. What a bunch of clenched asses! This really bites. Thanks for the post, pete_best. I hadn't even given the actual rules of the debate, and I use that term lightly, any real thought. This totally takes the joy out of my day.
  • Kerry wins. And, surprisingly, there was some back-and-forth. But it occured to me that the TV angles may end up being the last bastion of 3rd-party influence until we somehow get the debates back . .
  • Oh c'mon there's *no* discussion of the debates on MoFi? It's like you people are all in some wild orgy thread or something. *pushes up glasses*
  • Yeah, I was actually surprised at the back-and-forth. I expected it to be more duelling stump speeches, and there was an element of that, but they got around the not-addressing-one-another by framing it in the third rather than second person. "My opponent is obviously having a cocaine flashback..." Also, I wasn't expecting the "extensions" which were, in fact, rebuttals. I was pleased with the substantive nature of the debate, and thought Leher did a good job moderating and asking the tough questions. (Bin Laden mentioned at the RNC, 0 times; Bin Laden mentioned at the debates--like, second or third question.) My favorite bits were when Bush repeated the catch phrase o' the moment for the third time and ran out of things to say, when the light hadn't even gone green. That was funny.