The Official Presidential debate thread
 

Well, since I go to the Univeristy of Miami, I figured it would be only right that I start the thread for the first debate :D . Things on campus are crazy right now. All the news stations (local and national) have set up shop ALL OVER campus, and it is all one big mess. By 9 AM there is no partking anywhere to be found. This has to do with the parking lots that were closed for security reasons. Its actually a real exciting atmosphere though. The air smells of politics and I love it...

Just wanted to share...

BTW, I have a feeling this thread will reach gigantic proportions in the coming days :laugh:

~Alex

Oh, and I will be watching the debate from a Republican party with spoecial guests Tommy Franks, Jenna and Barbra Bush, Guiliani, Ann Coulter, and Dissention ( :laugh: ). I'll lket you guys know how that goes too, even though most of you will verbally incinerate me :xoxo:

~Alex

Get this--Fox will be operating the cameras for this debate.

No better network to handle the task :nod: :thumbsup:

~Alex

Senile old fool. Was rarely even told what was going on in Iraq...and rarely asked.

Verbally-challenged drunks with no manners.

Exploits 9/11 for political gain, both for him and Bush. Opposes free speech and helped the NYPD in covering up murders.

A liar and a fraud. Is having a torrid affair with Sean Hannity. Large Adams Apple leads me to believe that she is a transexual, or an unconvincing transvestite.

Glad to know you have at least one sane truth-teller in the bunch. Otherwise, the toxicity would kill you.

I think any Bush supporter has it coming to them. And they call us the ideologues. Ha. :laugh:

Oh, and you're only missing O'Lielly. You could have asked him how his latest porn novel was coming!

AND - there will be a ten second delay in the feed. :eek:

here we go
 

Networks balk at Bush-Kerry debate agreement
Several indicate they will not be bound by limits on cameras



(CNN) -- Although the Bush and Kerry camps have meticulously crafted an agreement on the rules for this year's presidential debates, the television networks broadcasting them refuse to go along with the plans.

Specifically, the networks object to provisions in the agreement that place limits on their cameras, including prohibitions on shots of one candidate while the other is answering questions.

"Because of journalistic standards, we're not going to follow outside restrictions," said Paul Schur, a spokesman for Fox News, which is manning the pool camera for the first debate Thursday in Miami, Florida.

"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."

Also, at least two of the television journalists chosen to moderate the debates -- ABC's Charles Gibson and CBS's Bob Schieffer -- have not signed the agreement on ground rules hammered out between the two campaigns, according to their networks.

The other two moderators are Gwen Ifill and Jim Lehrer, both of PBS, which has not yet commented.

Under terms of the agreement reached last week between the Bush and Kerry campaigns after lengthy negotiations, moderators who refuse to sign the document can be replaced.

The 32-page agreement sets out the rules for the debates with great specificity, down to details such as the temperature of the hall, what kind of paper can be used to take notes and who can stand in the wings.

Monday, the Commission on Presidential Debates, the independent group that plays host to the debates, said it would agree to enforce the rules reached in the agreement between the Bush and Kerry campaigns and that there "will be no departure from the terms" unless there is "prior consultation with, and approval by, the appropriate campaign representatives."

However, the commission did not formally sign the agreement, and its co-chairman, Frank Fahrenkopf, told The New York Times that the restrictions on what the networks can show are unenforceable.

"We don't control the feed, so we don't know what the networks are going to show," said Fahrenkopf, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. "That's not within our purview."

The New York Times also reported that the commission may balk at a provision in the agreement setting out the make-up of the audience for the town hall debate between Bush and Kerry on October 8 in St. Louis, Missouri.

The campaigns agreed that the audience would be divided between people leaning toward Bush and those leaning toward Kerry. The debate commission wants the hall full of undecided voters in neither camp.

Under terms of their agreement, either the Bush or Kerry campaigns could opt out of the debates, or seek another sponsor, if the commission does not sign on to their terms. There is no indication either camp is contemplating such a move.

The document does not address what might happen if the television networks refuse to abide by the rules.

Responding to the media's recalcitrance, Kerry campaign spokeswoman Christine Anderson said "every time you have something like this, there are going to be small details to be worked out. They are being worked out."

The Bush campaign declined to comment directly on the networks' objections. However, spokesman Scott Stanzel described the president's camp as "looking forward to all of the debates."

"We are pleased the commission said they would follow the terms of the agreement of the campaigns," he said.

The debate commission has not commented on the media's objections to the rules.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html

C'mon, you don't honestly believe that. Buy Outfoxed, man. The facts in that film cannot be refuted.

Perhaps true, but with the CBS scandal, it appears CBS is biased the other way. So, yin and yang to me!!!!! :cool:

I would have preferred Diane Sawyer. Or even Cynthia McFadden (I've had a crush on her for years :eek: ).

I really like Cynthia - she has a very nice way about her, her cadence, manner, effect, etc.

As for Diane - she is okay, but can you say the Michael Jackson interview :laugh:

He tells me your signed copy is in the mail...LOL! :D

~Alex

No way. I will not even attempt to dissect the CBS controversy because they were completely wrong, but there are no media watchdog reports from before the document scandal that suggests that they were liberally biased in the past year.

Faux is GOP swill, always has been.

Along with Lynne Cheney's latest lesbian opus. :rolleyes: :xoxo:

Such hypocrites.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I just can't stand Gibson. He makes me nervous with all that shaking he does. :nod:

Hey, if that does it for you :laugh:

~Alex

You know, theres a fairly good possibility this thread could reach 10 pages before the debate tomorrow...

~Alex

True, but the producer (a big wig at the network) has according to all sources never been shy about making it obvious she wanted to take Bush out. And - Rather has yet to admit the doc.'s were frauds and contained fraudulent information. He just said he was sorry they used them without validating them (I mean really).

So, yes, CBS was not invented to be the liberal mouthpeice a la Fox News (conservatism) - but clearly CBS is just that.

So, the beat goes on :laugh:

Yes, but for some people denile is not just a river in Africa...

~Alex

Alex - this could beat that 20+ pager we had about a year ago AND it is on the same topic!!!! :cool:

OMG! Remember that one?! lol!!!!

Serious nostalgia here!

~Alex

A producer for 60 Minutes II does not a big-wig make. I think what you meant to say was that she was a big-wig when it came to that particular program, not the whole news faction of the network. ;)

Roger Ailes does not hide his conservatism.
Ted Turner did not hide his liberalism.
Why should this producer for 60 Minutes II hide her political leanings? The majority of TV news people do not hide their beliefs from the public, Jason. You're going to ahve to explain to me what the big deal is over this particular producer. Yes, she was wrong in pushing a story simply because it would make Bush look bad. But that's it. Show me other 60 Minutes II segments she produced that were liberally biased. The pundits and investigators haven't found any so far. :shrug:

Hardly. One producer for 60 Minutes II does not make CBS a liberal mouthpiece. Again, show me the studies that suggest CBS was a liberal mouthpiece before this scandal. I submit you cannot and you know this.

You, as a Republican, should know. :wavey:

My whole thing with CBS is, unlike the people you mentioned, they are claiming to be unbiased. When Fox does it, people scream BS. So, I think after this, when CBS does, it is the same BS. Again, Rather has not denied the information in the document, which I just cannot believe and for which there is no rationale explanation IMO :shrug: Moreover, they have not fired that big wig (all reports I read suggest she is a high level person). I mean she called the Kery campaign and alerted them to this source and did so in an effort to help get another reluctant source to come forward and provide different information. I do not think she extended the Bush campaign the same courtesy and let them know what she was using her network to do. Then, the only reason CBS fessed up is the other networks crucified them. Are we really expected to believe CBS "suddenly" discovered the questionable integrity of these docs, which Rather, again, has yet to denounce as fraudulent, despite almost all experts agreement that they are. So, to me, that screams bias!!!!!!

So, I am just saying that both networks are guilty of the same thing in my eyes. Does Fox do it more? Probably - who can say for sure IMO. But, CBS can really no longer claim it does not at all - at least not as long as those two are still there. But, I suppose people will see it differently and I really do not want to get into it for the next five pages :laugh: because I am never gonna change my mind, etc. :cool:

But I find fault with your whole premise. She was not a high-level person in CBS News. One rogue producer for a rather lowly rated show does not speak for the entire CBS news organization. It's as simple as that. There is a clear distinction between what that one producer did and what Faux News does. CBS does not send out memos that instruct their staff on how to make a candidate look bad. Faux does. The list goes on, Jason. While I am with you in that what this producer did was abhorrable and completely undermines the profession of journalism, I don't think you can even begin to make such sweeping generalizations about CBS like "They're a liberal mouthpiece." The evidence does not support that conclusion. What does it support? That this one producer for 60 Minutes II decided to greenlight a suspect story in order to make Bush look bad, thereby making 60 Minutes II her liberal mouthpiece. That's it.

The Bush campaign was called about the story and refused to comment; this comes from Scott McClellan's own mouth. Personally, I don't give a **** whether Bush or Kerry was called first. The Kerry campaign didn't want anything to do with it when they were called about it. Again, they were called by the staff of Sixty Minutes II under the direction of the producer. Why has Rather not denounced the content of the documents? Because the while the documents were unverified and probably fakes, numerous sources have corroborated the content of them.

So, while I agree that there was a bias, it was on the part of the producer of the segment, not the institution that is CBS News. To say that there was is ridiculous and unsupported in reality. CBS News, up until this scandal, was the ONLY news organization that was truly doing a decent job in covering the news, along with the WaPo.

Well...
 

I will be missing it since it is scheduled during the ONLY TV time I seem to enjoy these days (South Park). Maybe I could record it with my new DVD burner, But nahh...The burner is for music trading purposes only!

Btw, The Oklahoma Democratic US Senate candidate Brad Carson is pulling way ahead in the latest polls over Repub Tom Coburn (Which could be major since this election could give the Demos control of the US Senate)...Kinda funny, But Coburn is going to lose for only one reason, He's from Muskogee...Hehehehe, Nuff said (I grew up there...We OKIES are ALL LOSERS!!!)

Hell, Even Kerry-Munster has reduce the 40% gap to a mere 31% with Shrub within a weeks time.

Brian j.

Well...

http://www.fair.org/activism/cbs-niger.html

ACTION ALERT:
60 Minutes: Shelving a Story to Boost Bush?
CBS puts Niger expose on hold as boss endorses Republicans

September 28, 2004

In an outrageous politicization of journalism, CBS announced it would not air a report on forged documents that the Bush administration used to sell the Iraq war until after the November 2 election (New York Times, 9/25/04). A network spokesperson issued a statement declaring, "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election."

The 60 Minutes segment was ready to air on September 8, but was bumped in favor of the now infamous report that relied on supposed National Guard memos whose authenticity CBS now says it cannot confirm. The furor over the Guard memos has created a situation where CBS executives say "the network can now not credibly air a report questioning how the Bush administration could have gotten taken in by phony documents" (Newsweek online, 9/22/04).

Of course, what's really inappropriate here is CBS allowing its PR problems to suppress a news report on an important issue until after it no longer matters. The shelved 60 Minutes story deals with the origins of documents purportedly showing that Iraq under Saddam Hussein tried to obtain uranium from Niger-- documents that turned out to be forgeries. The story, according to the Newsweek online report, asks "tough questions about how the White House came to embrace the fraudulent documents and why administration officials chose to include a 16-word reference to the questionable uranium purchase in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech."

Though such questions are clearly relevant to a presidential campaign that largely revolves around Bush's decision to invade Iraq, CBS intends to keep the answers to itself until the election has passed. Could there be more than the embarrassment over the Guard story behind this decision?

Sumner Redstone, CEO of CBS's parent company Viacom, made an unusual political statement at a gathering of corporate leaders in Hong Kong (Asian Wall Street Journal, 9/24/04):

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry... but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people.... But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."
Redstone repeated these sentiments in an interview with Time (10/4/04):

"There has been comment upon my contribution to Democrats like Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is a good man. I've known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one."
According to a write-up by Forbes (9/23/04)-- the sponsor of the conference where Redstone issued his endorsement of Bush-- the CEO asserted that "he never gets involved in any aspects of the network's news coverage." But that claim, hard to believe when made by any media industry chief executive, seems particularly dubious given Forbes' report that ''Redstone said he has been talking daily to top CBS officials and to Viacom board members about the controversy'' over the Guard memos.

It is journalistically indefensible for CBS to withhold a story due to embarrassment incurred by another, unrelated piece. It is particularly unacceptable when the shelving of a story benefits a candidate that CBS's boss has just publicly endorsed. If CBS wants to restore trust in its news judgment, it can begin by applying journalistic standards, not political calculations, to the decision on when to air its report on the origin of the forged Niger documents.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just more proof that CBS is run by dishonest people - IMO.

I mean if "they" had gotten away with the forged and fraudulent docs. they got busted on, they would be running these other stories in a second. So, this is damage control. Of course, CBS could have been relying on unauthenticated docs. in these stories too :eek: :laugh:

Thus, I reiterate that I get that it was one person and the HEAD of CBS news :rolleyes: - but I say where there is smoke there is fire and CBS should go down for this. But, others disagree - HOW I will never know :laugh: :p :wavey:

Campaigns spin debate advantage
Will viewers see 'the heart and soul of the candidates'?



(CNN) -- As the much-anticipated first debate between the presidential candidates nears, the spin machines for both campaigns are working overtime, claiming that their man has an advantage going into the face-off.

"We feel like we're in a good position in this debate ... because the president knows what he thinks, why he thinks the way that he does, what he wants to do in the future, where he wants to lead the nation, and that stands in stark contrast to his opponent," said Mary Matalin, an adviser to President Bush's campaign.

Staffers in Sen. John Kerry's campaign said the Democrat's position -- currently behind in the polls -- is actually a good way to enter such a forum.

"I think it is always good to go into one of these high-profile debates as an underdog," said Kerry spokesman Mike McCurry.

"At the end, the important thing is you strip away all the negativity from the debate ... and you really get to look into the heart and soul of the candidates and say who really is going to get us to where we need to be as a nation and where are we going to be in the world at the end of the next four years after this president serves."

In recent days, both sides have also been careful to praise their opponents as skilled in the art of debating. (Special Report: America Votes 2004)

Joe Lockhart, a senior adviser to Kerry, said Bush has won every debate in which he has participated.

"Debates, in the modern political system, are not won by the person who knows the most information; they're won by the person who is most persuasive for their position," Lockhart said. "And George Bush has proven time and time again that he is a very persuasive debater. It does, of course, seem at times like he doesn't have all the facts straight, but he seems to do it in a way that gives you a sense of commitment and a sense of what direction he wants to go." (Stakes high heading into debates)

Dan Bartlett, White House communications director, emphasized Monday that Kerry is a skilled debater, pointing to the seven "epic debates" he had in 1996 with then-Gov. Bill Weld in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts.

The Democrat was an all-star debater in college and has honed his skills during 20 years in the Senate, Bartlett said.

The debates are considered a crucial point in what has been a lengthy campaign. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Monday showed that 18 percent of registered voters said the three debates would make a difference when they decided for whom they would cast their ballot in November. (Poll suggests Bush lead)

Kerry traveled Wednesday to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from Spring Green, Wisconsin, where he had been preparing for the debate. (Authorities warn of possible debate threats)

"He is focused; he is totally focused on this preparation and on this debate," said senior adviser Susan Rice on CNN. "It is an opportunity for the American people to see that he is a strong, smart, tough leader."

President Bush, who had been getting ready for the debate at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, flew to Florida on Wednesday and toured a hurricane-damaged citrus grove there. He plans to tour more storm damage Thursday.

The two men will come face-to-face under highly orchestrated rules at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, on Thursday for the first debate, which begins at 9 p.m. ET.

A 32-page agreement reached last week between the two campaigns sets out the rules for the debates with great specificity, down to details such as the temperature of the hall, what kind of paper can be used to take notes and who can be standing in the wings backstage. (Networks balk at debate agreement)

No matter the rules, Matalin said, and no matter how great a debater Kerry is, the senator "will be disadvantaged in the debate."

"The problem for Senator Kerry is that he, his record and his campaign has been inconsistent ... and the challenge for Senator Kerry at this debate is to bring some clarity to his massive vacillation throughout this campaign, particularly on the issues most important to Americans, that is national security," she said. "He has been all over the board, I think he has 10 distinct positions on Iraq."

McCurry said the debate is an opportunity for the president to finally respond to some tough questions about the situation in Iraq.

"President Bush knows what he needs to do tomorrow night, but you know he probably won't do it, and what he really needs to do is answer questions that the American people have about where he would lead us in Iraq (and) how we deal with the consequences of his very wrong choices," he said on CNN's "American Morning."

A second debate will be October 8 at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and a third is scheduled for October 13 at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona.

A vice presidential debate will be October 5 at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html

I will be leaving class 15 mins early tonight just so I can make it home in time for the debate..This is the most exciting part of a presidential campaign IMO...Sure I know I know, it's not a "REAL DEBATE." Afterall they aren't supposed to address eachother at all...but it is always interesting, no matter the rules, to see these two mean--who have BASICALLY been talking behind eachothers' backs for months and months now--IN THE SAME ROOM, WITHIN FEET APART! It's a little harder to say something about someone if they are standing right next to you..
George Bush is a good debater...He knows how to win the people over, even without having much facts...someone said in Rolling Stone recently, people like Bush "because he's someone you would want to invite over for a BBQ, but shouldnt you hold the office of President to higher standards than someone who you would enjoy having a BBQ with?"
People like Bush often because he seems "normal" to them..."just like one of us." Kerry has a chance to prove himself, defend his record when questioned (because the problem with him is ,while he has a strong record---it has just been distorted, and it takes him 10 mins to defend it)--they dont have that long to talk on each mini-subject. I expect George to be basically the same as he was in 2000, smirking, giggling, being kind of condescending...but Kerry is no Al Gore, he is a much better debator..unfortunately I think in order for Kerry to be called the "winner" of this debate, he will have to dumb down what he says a lot...Lets face it, the average American voter could care less about all the figures, and the lengthy speeches...he needs to tell Bush how it is (even though he cant talk to Bush, he can say "My opponent needs to realize..." etc)...he needs to look strong..it will be fun to watch..cant wait!

Has any of the networks announced that they are going against the "TV rules" for broadcasting the debates? I know Fox is running the pool cameras, but several networks have said they didn't like the setup of the rules and were planning to use the feed any way they saw fit...

Just trying to find out ahead of time so I don't miss something flipping around!

Rumor has it that they are going to show the reaction shots. We'll see. I'll be flipping around.

Yo Nixxxed! CNN is breaking protocol with the camera shots! :]

Split screen on C-SPAN. Smirky is on the ropes! :woohoo:

ABC is split-screening too, and I've never seen Shrub look so uncomfortable or stammer so much (and that is really saying something).

Good think I prayed really hard today to send Kerry strength! I think he's doing great! :blob1:

:nod: He looks like a 5 year old who's being reprimanded.

Omigod, it's 7:oo here, i just turned it on, and bush appears to be sweating, Kerry just mentioned his daughters, and the leash...and then "learn new facts, put them to use...Bush not acknowledging the truth of the facts - stem cell, iraq..." OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHYEAHHHHH! It's perfect!
okay, then bush says "i will not change my morals for politics" yeah, cause you don't care about representing the people you govern... :rolleyes:
ok

600 + tons of unsecured nuclear waste in Russia... :mad:
(kerry) - "this president has secured less nuclear waste, than ..." YEAH! KICK THE SH** OUT OF IT, KERRY!!!!WAAAAHHHOOOOOOO! (this is why i don't follow politics extremely closely...it gets me all worked up, i swear... :p )
ok