- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,825
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Time's Mark Halperin has made himself useful for once by obtaining, and publishing,a copy of the 21-page memorandum of understanding that the Obama and Romney campaigns negotiated with the Commission on Presidential Debates establishing the rules governing this month's presidential and vice presidential face-offs. The upshot: Both campaigns are terrified at anything even remotely spontaneous happening.
They aren't permitted to ask each other questions, propose pledges to each other, or walk outside a "predesignated area." And for the town-hall-style debate tomorrow night, the audience members posing questions aren't allowed to ask follow-ups (their mics will be cut off as soon as they get their questions out). Nor will moderator Candy Crowley.
Most bizarrely, given the way the debates have played out, the rules actually appear to forbid television coverage from showing reaction shots of the candidates: "To the best of the Commission's abilities, there will be no TV cut-aways to any candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question or to a candidate who is not giving a closing statement while another candidate is doing so." The "best of the Commission's abilities" must be rather feeble, seeing as how almost every moment of the two debates so far was televised in split-screen, clearly showing shots of a "candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question."
Thanks to Time's Mark Halprin, we can now have a glimpse in the inner workings of the presidential and vice-presidential debates that have been taking place this October.
The agreement, signed by the Obama and Romney campaigns, outlines what each candidate can and cannot do during the presidential debates. They are explicitly detailed, and even talk about where the candidates can walk during the Town Hall-style debates that will be taking place tonight.
As Gawker puts it, it seems like both candidates are really afraid of anything remotely unplanned happening during the debates. "They aren't permitted to ask each other questions, propose pledges to each other, or walk outside a "predesignated area." And for the town-hall-style debate [tonight], the audience members posing questions aren't allowed to ask follow-ups (their mics will be cut off as soon as they get their questions out). Nor will moderator Candy Crowley."
Source: Presidential Debate 2012: Obama And Romney Debate Agreement Leaked, What Are The Rules? [PHOTO] - International Digital Times
Everything is scripted - just like the presidency.
They need to bring back good ole' Lincoln/Douglass debates! Give em 3 hours and little rules.
Of course now days Lincoln would get laughed off the stage with his high toned effeminate voice.
I would LOVE to see this.They need to bring back good ole' Lincoln/Douglass debates! Give em 3 hours and little rules.
Duuuuude. That is ****ing brilliant. It's giving me a semi just thinking about it.I would LOVE to see this.
Here's how the Velvet Elvis-style Debate would go down:
* Obama and Romney sit at a table. Moderator is off to the side.
* Obama and Romney must face each other. They don't need to face the crowd because that's what TV monitors are for.
* The event contains a set number of questions (let's say...10)
* Note taking is not allowed. Everything is off-the-cuff and from memory. If a candidate can't debate like this, then they don't know their stuff.
* No time limits. If the Government can blow money on bridges to nowhere, they can afford enough air time.
* Questions survive as long as there is meaningful exchange, and/or when both candidates agree to move on.
* Candidates ask the questions directly to each other. Only rules are: No unsubstantiated claims. Nothing personal. Questions must be on topic.
Moderator: "A flip of the coin has Obama asking the first question. The topic is: Health Care [or whatever topic is first]."
Obama: [Asks first question based on topic]
Romney: [Responds]
Obama: [Retorts]
(rinse and repeat until both candidates agree to continue on through all the questions)
(Alternate rule: Each candidate takes two shots before the debate, and another shot of their favorite booze before each question so we can see the "real" candidate towards the end of the debate)
I would LOVE to see this.
Here's how the Velvet Elvis-style Debate would go down:
* Obama and Romney sit at a table. Moderator is off to the side.
* Obama and Romney must face each other. They don't need to face the crowd because that's what TV monitors are for.
* The event contains a set number of questions (let's say...10)
* Note taking is not allowed. Everything is off-the-cuff and from memory. If a candidate can't debate like this, then they don't know their stuff.
* No time limits. If the Government can blow money on bridges to nowhere, they can afford enough air time.
* Questions survive as long as there is meaningful exchange, and/or when both candidates agree to move on.
* Candidates ask the questions directly to each other. Only rules are: No unsubstantiated claims. Nothing personal. Questions must be on topic.
Moderator: "A flip of the coin has Obama asking the first question. The topic is: Health Care [or whatever topic is first]."
Obama: [Asks first question based on topic]
Romney: [Responds]
Obama: [Retorts]
(rinse and repeat until both candidates agree to continue on through all the questions)
Exactly. When Romney got in Obama's face and kept asking if he'd seen his portfolio, then dammit I wanted Obama to answer!! Enough with that empty "roads and bridges" crap! Either answer like a man, or cower like a puppy. Either way, we learn something about him. Same goes for Romney. Let Obama directly ask Romney what he meant with the "47% remark." Let Romney put up or shut up. No time limits...we'll just sit here and wait for you to answer, or Obama's gonna call you a [female dog] for failing to step up to that criticism.If the candidates were asking each other the questions the odds would be much higher that we would break new ground.
You mean he didn't sound like Daniel Day Lewis?
I would LOVE to see this.
Here's how the Velvet Elvis-style Debate would go down:
* Obama and Romney sit at a table. Moderator is off to the side.
* Obama and Romney must face each other. They don't need to face the crowd because that's what TV monitors are for.
* The event contains a set number of questions (let's say...10)
* Note taking is not allowed. Everything is off-the-cuff and from memory. If a candidate can't debate like this, then they don't know their stuff.
* No time limits. If the Government can blow money on bridges to nowhere, they can afford enough air time.
* Questions survive as long as there is meaningful exchange, and/or when both candidates agree to move on.
* Candidates ask the questions directly to each other. Only rules are: No unsubstantiated claims. Nothing personal. Questions must be on topic.
Moderator: "A flip of the coin has Obama asking the first question. The topic is: Health Care [or whatever topic is first]."
Obama: [Asks first question based on topic]
Romney: [Responds]
Obama: [Retorts]
(rinse and repeat until both candidates agree to continue on through all the questions)
(Alternate rule: Each candidate takes two shots before the debate, and another shot of their favorite booze before each question so we can see the "real" candidate towards the end of the debate)
(Alternate rule: Each candidate takes two shots before the debate, and another shot of their favorite booze before each question so we can see the "real" candidate towards the end of the debate)
Why can't we just have politicians duke it out on camera for a few hours without trying to regulate the debate to death? If it's scripted that's so unbelievably fake.
This has been going on for quite a while.
Ever since the league of women voters protested the debate agreements when they ran the debates.
They inadvertently allowed the vacuum to be filled by something worse.
Political parties controlling the debates.
So according to this, the candidates aren't allowed to ask each other direct questions. Does that change anybody's thoughts on whether Crowley was justified in interrupting Mitt Romney as he flagrantly violated that rule?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?