DescentBB

"In each debate, according to the agreement, "the candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/ ... index.html

So much for debating.

Here is Kerry's chance to make some ground, or lose it. A weak argument from Kerry will favor the challenger. It's time for him to step forward if he wants to float, and give a clear and decisive speech.

*edit* What do you think about the candidates not being able to ask each other questions? It dissapoints me.

Why would they want to come out of their protected shells and subject themselves to questions that require real answers instead of pat responses?
Aren't their cute little catch phrases and over-used expressions good enough to satisfy the American viewer?
Isn't it ironic? To politicians, something as simple as a debate doesn't really mean debate.

Par!

As someone who debated competitively for 3 years, this disgusts me.

How does this compare to presidential debates in previous years? Have candidates traditionally been able to ask each other questions, and could they 4 years ago?

If this is out of the norm, then I'd have to say it bugs me... but if this is the same thing as we had 4 years ago, why complain? As long as all the right questions get asked, who cares if they come from the candidates themselves or from news anchors?

Birdseye wrote:*edit* What do you think about the candidates not being able to ask each other questions? It dissapoints me.

Something about herding cats.

Its supposed to look like a debate, so letting the particpants, especially this set, ask each other questions would just turn into bad Fox.

its not a debate, its equal-oppurtunity campaigning.

I don't recall past the 1992 debates (hey I was only born in 1982), but I believe this is the standard. I was pretty young then, so I could be wrong.

If this is out of the norm, then I'd have to say it bugs me... but if this is the same thing as we had 4 years ago, why complain?

So if something bad happened for a number of years but it was the status quo you'd accept it? So if black people had seperate drinking fountains for as long as anyone could remember, why complain right?

I'm using an extreme example and not implying racism in any way, only for exemplory purposes. Just because something is the standard, doesn't mean that it is acceptable.

As long as all the right questions get asked, who cares if they come from the candidates themselves or from news anchors? -lothar

Because that's what they do on a daily basis, except not face to face and in a compact form. The debates should be an actual debate, where people at least can ask each other a single direct question!

We're not allowed to ask the 'right' questions. The anchors can only ask certain questions, and the candidates know not to answer them. Pretty convienient, eh. Pick your posion.

Birdseye wrote:The debates should be an actual debate, where people at least can ask each other a single direct question!

And *all* the candidates should be in the debate.

Haha, like the public could handle that, Will

The VP debate should prove interesting. At least that one is more a contest of intellectual equals.

Birdseye wrote:So if something bad happened for a number of years but it was the status quo you'd accept it?

No, of course not.

In this case, though, there's nothing inherently "bad" or "good" about candidates debating each other in the traditional argument-counterargument-response-response-Q&A debate style vs. the answer-questions-from-the-moderator style. I don't think you get information that's particularly better in the first style vs. the second. In either case, the main thing you're testing is who's better at answering questions within the format laid out -- not who has the best ideas. Also, in the argument-counterargument form, you risk having someone come up with an extremely cleverly worded question that really can't even be fairly analyzed, let alone answered, in 5 minutes. That can be a good thing (exposing the fact that your opponent hasn't thought about a particular issue, or has weak ideas) or a bad thing (exposing the fact that you're really good at creating ridiculously complex leading questions that make your opponent look bad -- you have some skill in this area, Birds.) So I don't see any reason to prefer one type of debate over the other.

So the only reason this would bug me is if it was intentionally changed from previous formats -- because that would mean that somebody this year decided there *was* a reason to prefer the other type, and that would introduce a possible source of bias or tampering.

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

Now, with that said... one thing I would like to see would be both candidates isolated for 8 hours and given a list of a few questions from the other candidate and from news anchors, and asked to formulate responses by the end of 8 hours. I think that would give both candidates a chance to really shine -- to get their thoughts on a particular issue organized, and really explain what they thought about those issues.

It might be even more interesting to have the presidential and VP candidates, plus a selected few expected cabinet members, all in a room together so they could discuss those issues. Have a camera in each room, and at the end, show a few of the more interesting exchanges between the pres and his (expected) staff, and then have all of the answers from both candidates posted on a website.

But, again, I'm not going to complain that this isn't the case. They've got a particular format they're used to, and they have websites we can read, so I think both candidates have ample opportunity to let us know what they think themselves and let us know what questions they think the other candidate needs to answer.

Aren't the debates controlled by a board of Republicans and Democrats together anyway? If that's the case, they've been plotting what's best for their canidates for quite a long time now. Questions could harm either canidate. Who knows, allowing questions might hurt Bush now, but might hurt a Democratic canidate later on.

My main problem with it now is that the questions are probably going to be screened, and regardless, all we're going to hear is stump speeches on issues. Anyone who's been remotely interested in their positions on issues has been able to hear their speeches and read their positions already. I'm not really excited about hearing more poltical rhetoric from the pulpit. This was a chance for us to hear something different from the candidates, as opposed to the same old pre-rehearsed jibberish.

Actually, all the debates are sponsored by some beer company in St. Louis. Thats why every election year there is always at least one debate in st. louis.

Lothar wrote:Have candidates traditionally been able to ask each other questions, and could they 4 years ago?

I don't know about tradition, but I'd swear Bush and Gore shot questions at each other during the 2000 debates.

The greater question - if a candidate is too gutless to answer impromptu questions in a debate, why should one believe he has the guts to run a country?

Face it

when the election is a choice between two complete morons. you have to look at who their advisors are, cause that is who you are voting for.

Agreed Sickone.

I was listening to the radio today and i heard a sliver of the first debate. it concentrated on the war on iraq (naturally) and what I heard was interesting. Kerry was asked for reasons why bush lied, and gave them. Bush turned around and instead of refuting the claims Kerry made, he instead attacked Kerry's flipflopping.

it was pretty gay.

That was debate? These two are what all the fuss is about? How embarrassing.

PM's question time at the house of commons happens every week...i'd so love to see Tony Blair have a debate with one of those two cardboard cutouts.