A thread for the Kerry / Bush debates

who remembers "FUZZY MATH"?

kerry comes off worse than either of those two

I think you're wrong.

Bush may have come off better because they "misunderstimated" him (can't really speak for Richards, but clearly Gore did). I doubt that Kerry will make the same mistake.

xpost

(sorry, that wasn't very helpful really was it? NEITHER ARE TELEVISED POL DEBATES OF THIS SORT!!!)

maybe because he ran an oil company?

xpost

i think kerry has been coming off better than before, yes. i saw him on pbs a few months ago and he was deadly--speaking in a near-monotone.

my entire problem with the presidential race is that i cannot, for all my efforts, quite fathom why people will vote for george bush (except those obviously aligned w/his radical-right program), or why they find him appealing. sure, i have a sort of theoretical framework for understanding it, but i don't really empathize in the way i feel is somehow necessary.

there was a piece along those lines in a recent boston review, but i'm not sure i'm sold.

right. expectations are so low that he's probably going to do great tonight.

Um, x-post.

"we'll be the morals of decorum" -- victor maclagen in fort apache (best line ever)

This better not have anything to do with Kerry being a good five inches taller then Bush.

VS.

http://altura.speedera.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/200000/204700/204720/Products/3500713.jpg

I mean, for real.

oh dear, won't THIS be a fun one...

Kerry agreed to the debates right away, Bush didn't. I don't know that Bush negotiated format to agree to appear (I don't even know if that can be done), but I don't know that he didn't, either. I don't see any reason to think Kerry looks better sitting down.

-- Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (jdsalmo...), August 16th, 2004.

"what's your stance on blondies? you see, they're like brownies, only not brown."

Can he be beaten in a debate that he doesn't show up to?

I can think of ways to do this

Are These Debates or Synchronized Swimming?

...By the time any given debate is over, viewers may conclude they have just watched a puppet show, not a policy argument by the two men who want to be president for the next four years. The 32-page guidelines for the debates -- negotiated by the Bush and Kerry campaigns along with the Commission on Presidential Debates -- limit follow-up questions, restrict audience participation, and prohibit even certain camera shots. Candidates may not move about the stage as they orate, nor may they question each other. Basically, each debate will unwind as a series of 60-second statements and 30-second rejoinders. During the lone "town hall" debate, all questions from the audience will have to be submitted beforehand and reviewed by the moderater, ABC's Charles Gibson. No audience member may ask a follow-up question...

So, it's not really a "debate", i guess.

say! i know! what if we just had two soundboard programs running, and a tech on up on stage to click on the appropriate line?

also, the Prohibited Camera Angle thing is funny. It must suck be be like half-a-foot shorter than your opponent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6115913/site/newsweek/

Go Kerry, though.

The participants of the town-hall debate have to submit their questions to the moderator in advance. The moderator then picks the people who get to ask their question live by the content of their submitted question.

If anyone starts to ask something that isn't related to what their submitted question was, the moderator is supposed to cut them off, and then their microphone goes dead.

They are then led to a back alley behind the convention center where their tongue is amputated.

Two things come to mind: 1) the idea that insurgents are fighting for Iraqis is bullshit. 2) the idea that Bush has anything under control is equally bullshit.

There's a scene in the cult favorite The Big Lebowski in which Walter, the addled veteran, incensed over possibly losing a bowling match, seizes on a technicality to disqualify his opponent, screaming: "This is not 'Nam! There are rules! ... Am I the only one who gives a shit about the rules?"

There's a bit of Walter in George W. Bush this week. Deathly afraid of being challenged on his unraveling Iraq policy, Bush demanded--and won--a series of bizarre rules governing tonight's debate. There will be no rebuttals allowed, for instance. No follow-up questions, no movement about the stage, no audience interaction, no props, no split-screen TV shots, no moderator discretion. The perspiration-prone Kerry was even denied a chilled room. Worst of all, the rules forbid Kerry from asking Bush any direct questions, a prohibition that constrains Kerry's options and makes a mockery of our civic process precisely when open debate matters most.

But Kerry does have an amazingly simple way out of the predicament imposed by this last rule: He can ignore it. Americans have a right to ask tough questions of their president. So does the Democratic nominee. You might say that asking tough questions is the moderator's job. But the mainstream journalists who run these debates almost always serve up softballs. And time and again in this campaign, the media has abdicated its duty to press Bush on the Iraq war. Don't expect Jim Lehrer to do any differently tonight.

Challenging Bush directly would expose a rich vein for Kerry to mine politically. The public doesn't think Bush is being entirely truthful on Iraq. And Bush has demonstrated a stubborn unwillingness to explain otherwise. Kerry needs to flesh out this idea by putting Bush on the defensive. Moreover, hard-nosed questions on Iraq will shift the focus away from Kerry's inconsistent positions and onto Bush's consistently disastrous ones. Many voters sense (correctly) that Bush has built a rock-hard shell of denial around the facts on the ground. A direct confrontation could expose the extent of Bush's self-deception.

Plus, Bush can be rattled by persistent questions, growing patronizing and, occasionally, mean. That's how John McCain succeeded against him during a debate in 2000. With any luck, Kerry could replicate the feat.

Would breaking the rules backfire on Kerry? I doubt it. Imagine that toward the end of a response, Kerry turns to Bush and says: "Mr. President, Iraq is on the verge of civil war. Entire towns are under the control of terrorists. A thousand American soldiers are dead. Yet you say peace and freedom are on the march. How do you explain this?" Bush would be put instantly on the defensive, and any answer he gives would be filtered through Kerry's question--not whatever softball Lehrer subsequently lobs in. If Bush completely ignores Kerry's query, it would only solidify the idea that Bush is ducking reality. If either Bush or the moderator challenges Kerry for breaking the rules, a handy line would turn the tables right back: "This isn't about rules," Kerry could say. "It's about the right of our soldiers' families to have answers." Kerry becomes the candidate prioritizing patriotism and honesty; Bush becomes the one hiding behind legalese.

Would Kerry pay a price for such a breach after the debate? It's hard to see how. Conservatives would call him a "cheater" but that would only distract from their single-minded drive to portray him as a flip-flopper. (Maybe he flip-flopped on the rules!) Moreover, Kerry's rejoinder is easy enough: "If Bush can't handle a simple question, how can he handle Al Qaeda?" Republicans earn no traction whining about the rules. The real danger is that, as a result of Kerry's heresy, Bush could pull out of the rest of the debates. But, having already agreed to two more debates, Bush would risk looking like a wimp. And the media, which invests a great deal in these events, would go apoplectic.

Of course, Kerry needn't completely break the rules. Bending will do fine. For instance, Kerry could ask rhetorical questions ("Why won't Bush admit Iraq is on the verge of civil war?"). Or he can pose questions to the American people ("I want those watching to ask themselves: Why won't Bush admit a mistake? Are you hearing the honesty you need from a President?"). And if all else fails, Kerry could bring up the rules themselves. Most Americans can recognize them easily enough as a travesty. ("Mr. President, you demanded we not question each other in these debates. What are you afraid of?")

With some tact, this could be a major theme of the evening: Bush's woeful and continued refusal to confront reality in the Middle East. It certainly fits with other aspects of his presidency: the lack of press conferences; his initial refusal to meet with the 9/11 Commission, and then only with Dick Cheney in tow; ignoring foreign leaders who don't say what he wants to hear. Plainly, this is a president hiding from the world. It's about time Kerry called him on it--rules be damned.

"They don't want reaction shots," said Fox News spokesman Paul Schur told Reuters. "We're not going to bow to outside pressure. We're not going to follow these restrictions."

from http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6370562

Kerry agreed to the rules. This is a man who once had to put up with William Weld telling him to tell the widow of a dead policeman in the audience why he didn't want to put her husband's killer to death. And who says that the temperture won't be cool?

And Fox is operating the cameras, but the feeds from each camera will available to each network. If CNN wants to go to Camera 3 while Fox stays on Camera 1, they'll be able to do it.

I'm not sure which is the bigger farce.

-- n/a (nu...) (webmail), September 30th, 2004 2:04 PM. (Nick A.) (later) (link)

totally. i wouldn't be surprised if rove et al set the rules, and then bush breaks them strategically to seem macho. (even if most of the tv audience doesn't know about the rules and who had asked for them, bush could appear manly for casually breaking them.)

Good luck, people.

In any case, look no further than The Note for a distillation of everything you need to know about tonight's Clash in Coral Gables:

Kerry has to "win" the debate to win blah blah blah.

Kerry has a tough challenge — to go on the attack but still be someone Americans want in their living rooms for four years blah blah blah.

Both these men are champion debaters blah blah blah.

What the news coverage says immediately after the debate is just as important — maybe more important — than what happens in the debate itself blah blah blah.

Kerry will acknowledge that he's changed his mind occasionally and can be unclear at times, but will needle Bush by saying it's better to be flexible when things go wrong than to be stubborn blah blah blah.

This is the first time both candidates will appear together before the American people free from the influences of handlers and aides blah blah blah.

The President — after acting confident for days — will "surprise" everyone (and de-fang Sen. Kerry) by being suddenly contrite and yielding — less "times are tough," or, even "mistakes were made," than "I have made mistakes" blah blah blah.

In a nation of several hundred million people, why does Jim Lehrer get to keep moderating these things blah blah blah.

It will be interesting to see if the candidates choose blue or red ties blah blah blah.

How they look and act will matter as much as what they say, blah, blah, blah.

John Kerry sure better have a good and tight answer to that Iraq question, blah, blah, blah.

Boy, Republicans are more organized and on message than Democrats are blah blah blah.

Al Gore lost the first 2000 debate by losing the post-debate spin wars blah blah blah.

How about those wacky, restrictive, detailed campaign-negotiated rules that make this less a debate and more a joint appearance blah blah blah.

The first debate historically has the largest audience blah blah blah.

John Kerry must sound more bar room than Brahmin blah blah blah.

Ralph Reed really HAS been to the fountain of youth (or perhaps DID make that deal with the devil) blah blah blah.

And most important, as Democratic pollster Paul Maslin — with characteristic understatement — told the Los Angeles Times about John Kerry:

"If he can make this election about Bush, Bush in all likelihood will lose. If this election is about Kerry, then we've got a rougher row to hoe."

And there isn't any blah blah blah about that.

It's coming out better but it doesn't make sense
Is that a head on your shoulders
or something you use for ornamentation...

BUSH: Yeah, I agree. I just -- I think there has been -- some of the scientists, I believe, Mr. Vice President, haven't they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? A profound scientist recently made a different --

MODERATOR: Both of you have now violated -- excuse me. Both of you have now violated your own rules. Hold that thought.

GORE: I've been trying so hard not to.

MODERATOR: I know, I know. But under your own rules you are not allowed to ask each other a question. I let you do it a moment ago.

BUSH: Twice.

MODERATOR: Now you just -- twice, sorry. (LAUGHTER)

GORE: That's an interruption, by the way.

MODERATOR: That's an interruption, okay. But anyhow, you just did it so now --

BUSH: I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Vice President.

MODERATOR: You aren't allowed to do that either, see? (LAUGHTER) I'm sorry, go ahead and finish your thought. People care about these things I've found out.

BUSH: Of course they care about them. Oh, you mean the rules.

MODERATOR: Yeah, right, exactly right. Go ahead.

BUSH: What the heck. I -- of course there's a lot -- look, global warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously. But science, there's a lot -- there's differing opinions ...

...it's clear that there's a developing consensus in the news media that its own judgment about who "won" the debate is more important than anything the candidates actually say up on the stage.

But there's something weird about these acknowledgments by members of the press that they are as much players as they are observers. To a man, they seem to treat "the media" as if it were some external force, over which the speaker him or herself has no control. Never do these same commentators seem willing to consider that that they are in fact, talking about themselves -- that it is they who are integral to keeping this juggernaut of spin in motion...