Full Version: Presidential Debates '04
32 pages of rules will govern the 2004 Presidential debates; everything from room temperature to podium height. Some examples:
Even the audience has been planned and agreed-to. I think this one bugs me the most:
So, every single aspect of the debate has been carefully crafted, tweaked, massaged and adjusted. I haven't been able to discover whether the debate questions are pre-prepared and given to the candidates beforehand, but it wouldn't surprise me.
The reasons given for the strict structure is to “focus on the issues”.
My question is:
Have all the rules, conditions and preparations taken all the “juice” out of debates and made them just another version of the stump speech?
Should debates be more spontaneous so we can see what the candidate's true position on the subject is (without the pre-prepared, canned campaign...stuff) and how quick the candidate is on his feet?
Should there be limits on how many favorable conditions a candidate can request?
- Candidate cannot leave the podium to walk around (wasn’t it Clinton that did this to positive effect?).
- The pen or pencil used by the candidate has to be:
QUOTE
“precleared by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which will take custody of the devices and place them on the podiums.” Indy Star
- No “risers” to boost a candidate’s height.
- Candidates can’t talk to each other.
Even the audience has been planned and agreed-to. I think this one bugs me the most:
QUOTE
“It [the MOU] specifies that it [the audience] will consist of an equal number of “likely voters who are ‘soft' Bush supporters or ‘soft' Kerry supporters” — “soft” being a polling term for people who might be willing to change their minds. KC Star
So, every single aspect of the debate has been carefully crafted, tweaked, massaged and adjusted. I haven't been able to discover whether the debate questions are pre-prepared and given to the candidates beforehand, but it wouldn't surprise me.
The reasons given for the strict structure is to “focus on the issues”.
My question is:Have all the rules, conditions and preparations taken all the “juice” out of debates and made them just another version of the stump speech?
Should debates be more spontaneous so we can see what the candidate's true position on the subject is (without the pre-prepared, canned campaign...stuff) and how quick the candidate is on his feet?
Should there be limits on how many favorable conditions a candidate can request?
Have all the rules, conditions and preparations taken all the “juice” out of debates and made them just another version of the stump speech?
I completely agree. However the Lincoln v. Douglas debate (which is what these are model after) was full or rules and time regulation.
Should debates be more spontaneous so we can see what the candidate's true position on the subject is (without the pre-prepared, canned campaign...stuff) and how quick the candidate is on his feet?
Yes. Yet the idea that not everyone is fast on their feet, and some (BUSH) are poor debaters. Besides no matter how spontaneous you try to make it, the candidates will always prepare (BUSH is spending this week practicing)
Should there be limits on how many favorable conditions a candidate can request?
Not a limit, but an equal amount, or at least the opportunity to present an equal amount.
Yes, but then Gore made it worst. Sneaking up on Bush.
The questions from the commentaries are pre-prepared. However the questions by the candidates are not. Bush does not know what Kerry will ask and vice versa.
And the reason the temperature has to remain constant is because, rumor has it, Bobby Kennedy during the Nixon/Kennedy Debate, turned up the temperature to cause Nixon to sweat.
I completely agree. However the Lincoln v. Douglas debate (which is what these are model after) was full or rules and time regulation.
Should debates be more spontaneous so we can see what the candidate's true position on the subject is (without the pre-prepared, canned campaign...stuff) and how quick the candidate is on his feet?
Yes. Yet the idea that not everyone is fast on their feet, and some (BUSH) are poor debaters. Besides no matter how spontaneous you try to make it, the candidates will always prepare (BUSH is spending this week practicing)
Should there be limits on how many favorable conditions a candidate can request?
Not a limit, but an equal amount, or at least the opportunity to present an equal amount.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
Candidate cannot leave the podium to walk around (wasn’t it Clinton that did this to positive effect?).
Yes, but then Gore made it worst. Sneaking up on Bush.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
So, every single aspect of the debate has been carefully crafted, tweaked, massaged and adjusted. I haven't been able to discover whether the debate questions are pre-prepared and given to the candidates beforehand, but it wouldn't surprise me.
The questions from the commentaries are pre-prepared. However the questions by the candidates are not. Bush does not know what Kerry will ask and vice versa.
And the reason the temperature has to remain constant is because, rumor has it, Bobby Kennedy during the Nixon/Kennedy Debate, turned up the temperature to cause Nixon to sweat.
QUOTE
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
Candidate cannot leave the podium to walk around (wasn’t it Clinton that did this to positive effect?).
Yes, but then Gore made it worst. Sneaking up on Bush.
Anyone remember Lazio / Hillary Clinton in New York? He walked over to her in a surprise move and asked her to sign something, and it came off really badly, with this sort of implicit 'man threatens woman' tone to it.
QUOTE
And the reason the temperature has to remain constant is because, rumor has it, Bobby Kennedy during the Nixon/Kennedy Debate, turned up the temperature to cause Nixon to sweat.
I read somewhere that Kerry is a sweater. He had some beading on his forehead when he debated Weld. I'm sure Rove has the a/c sabatoged with this in mind.
I was unable to find the edit button to tack this on to my original post...apologies for the shorty here. I wanted to provide a link to the actual MOU between Bush and Kerry in regards to the debates (for those who are interested): Presidential Debate MOU
Have all the rules, conditions and preparations taken all the “juice” out of debates and made them just another version of the stump speech?
Nothing more. The candidates can't speak to each other? How is it even a debate?
Should debates be more spontaneous so we can see what the candidate's true position on the subject is (without the pre-prepared, canned campaign...stuff) and how quick the candidate is on his feet?
I've been debating for years, what we Oregon speech kids call Public Debate. In PD you and your partner enter the room, make yourselves comfortable, and then you are given a topic. After this you have fifteen minutes to prepare yourself for an hours worth of debating. The idea is that neither side should have a pre-made case, thus creating an advantage. We are judged on our ability to think and argue objectively, and our ability to form cohesive argumentation within more-or-less impromptu speeches.
Lincoln Douglas debate is also offered. In LD, the topic is given out quarterly, so you go to several debate tournaments and debate the same topic all day. You prepare your speech as much as you want, but the rules create an atmosphere where both sides get directly confront the other in Q&A sessions designed point out weakness in the case. These sessions require impromptu defenses of your argumentation. Those who cannot give intelligent, well argued responses tend to lose.
The presidential debates are NOTHING like my debates in high school. They are ridiculous, and in no way reminiscent of real debating as I have known it.
Should there be limits on how many favorable conditions a candidate can request?
No candidate should ever get any favorable conditions. You sweat alot? So what, wear more deodorant, and maybe more make-up. Short people should only get boxes to stand on if their shortness makes it harder for people to see and hear them. These special considerations only prove that the debates are NOT about what is being said by the speakers. They are not about debating. They are about sticking to familiar rhetoric as closely as possible, and maneuvering your opponent to bobble on their memorized rhetoric. A sad state of affairs...
Nothing more. The candidates can't speak to each other? How is it even a debate?
Should debates be more spontaneous so we can see what the candidate's true position on the subject is (without the pre-prepared, canned campaign...stuff) and how quick the candidate is on his feet?
I've been debating for years, what we Oregon speech kids call Public Debate. In PD you and your partner enter the room, make yourselves comfortable, and then you are given a topic. After this you have fifteen minutes to prepare yourself for an hours worth of debating. The idea is that neither side should have a pre-made case, thus creating an advantage. We are judged on our ability to think and argue objectively, and our ability to form cohesive argumentation within more-or-less impromptu speeches.
Lincoln Douglas debate is also offered. In LD, the topic is given out quarterly, so you go to several debate tournaments and debate the same topic all day. You prepare your speech as much as you want, but the rules create an atmosphere where both sides get directly confront the other in Q&A sessions designed point out weakness in the case. These sessions require impromptu defenses of your argumentation. Those who cannot give intelligent, well argued responses tend to lose.
The presidential debates are NOTHING like my debates in high school. They are ridiculous, and in no way reminiscent of real debating as I have known it.
Should there be limits on how many favorable conditions a candidate can request?
No candidate should ever get any favorable conditions. You sweat alot? So what, wear more deodorant, and maybe more make-up. Short people should only get boxes to stand on if their shortness makes it harder for people to see and hear them. These special considerations only prove that the debates are NOT about what is being said by the speakers. They are not about debating. They are about sticking to familiar rhetoric as closely as possible, and maneuvering your opponent to bobble on their memorized rhetoric. A sad state of affairs...
Here's an interesting update. According to CNN, most of the networks that will carry the debate are refusing to follow the "prohibitions on shots of one candidate while the other is answering questions."
Like most of you ADers, I tend to be pretty cynical when it comes to the mainstream media. I admit, it's rather refreshing to see them show a little backbone in regards to this debate.
The rules, as set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, are terribly bipartisan and suppressive of third-parties as I outlined in this post: link. The fact that the candidates have made additional requests stifles the debate even more.
I am realistic and don't expect any Oprah-style honesty moments by either candidate. I just wish that both men could set aside their egos just a bit and act like 'real' people (you know, the ones they claim to represent
)
Edited to include link...oops!
QUOTE
"Because of journalistic standards, we're not going to follow outside restrictions," said Paul Schur, a spokesman for Fox News...
<snip>
"This is a news pool, and we are not subject to agreements between candidates," NBC News spokeswoman Barbara Levin said. "We will use pictures as we see fit."
CNN spokesman Matthew Furman said the network "reserves the right to make our own decisions about coverage during the debate, just as we always have."
ABC News and CBS News are also objecting to the limits, with a CBS spokeswoman insisting that "we will utilize any shots the pool makes available."
Networks balk at Bush-Kerry debate; CNN
<snip>
"This is a news pool, and we are not subject to agreements between candidates," NBC News spokeswoman Barbara Levin said. "We will use pictures as we see fit."
CNN spokesman Matthew Furman said the network "reserves the right to make our own decisions about coverage during the debate, just as we always have."
ABC News and CBS News are also objecting to the limits, with a CBS spokeswoman insisting that "we will utilize any shots the pool makes available."
Networks balk at Bush-Kerry debate; CNN
Like most of you ADers, I tend to be pretty cynical when it comes to the mainstream media. I admit, it's rather refreshing to see them show a little backbone in regards to this debate.
The rules, as set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, are terribly bipartisan and suppressive of third-parties as I outlined in this post: link. The fact that the candidates have made additional requests stifles the debate even more.
I am realistic and don't expect any Oprah-style honesty moments by either candidate. I just wish that both men could set aside their egos just a bit and act like 'real' people (you know, the ones they claim to represent
)Edited to include link...oops!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.