Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Master Debaters
10-17-2012, 02:20 AM
#1
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Master Debaters
Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards
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."
Which means some of the rules below that both campaigns stipulated to in a desperate attempt to wring any serendipity out of the events may be honored in the breach:
"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates."
"The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges."
"At no time during the October 3 First Presidential debate shall either candidate move from his designated area behing the respective podium."
For the October 16 town-hall-style debate, "the moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate...."
"The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience member's microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions."
"[T]he Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut-off the microphone of any...audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement different than that previously posed to the moderator for review."
"No candidate may reference or cite any specific individual sitting in a debate audience (other than family members) at any time during a debate."
For the town-hall debate: "Each candidate may move about in a pre-designated area, as proposed by the Commission and approved by each campaign, and may not leave that area while the debate is underway."
Here's the full document:
The 2012 Debates - Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns
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."
Which means some of the rules below that both campaigns stipulated to in a desperate attempt to wring any serendipity out of the events may be honored in the breach:
"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates."
"The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges."
"At no time during the October 3 First Presidential debate shall either candidate move from his designated area behing the respective podium."
For the October 16 town-hall-style debate, "the moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate...."
"The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience member's microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions."
"[T]he Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut-off the microphone of any...audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement different than that previously posed to the moderator for review."
"No candidate may reference or cite any specific individual sitting in a debate audience (other than family members) at any time during a debate."
For the town-hall debate: "Each candidate may move about in a pre-designated area, as proposed by the Commission and approved by each campaign, and may not leave that area while the debate is underway."
Here's the full document:
The 2012 Debates - Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns
Reply
0
0
10-17-2012, 02:26 AM
#2
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Here's more - a contract that they won't debate any 3rd party candidates.
Secret Debate Contract Reveals Obama and Romney Campaigns Exclude Third Parties, Control Questions
Secret Debate Contract Reveals Obama and Romney Campaigns Exclude Third Parties, Control Questions
Reply
0
0
10-17-2012, 07:29 AM
#3
Cpt. Slow
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 14,175
Total Cats: 1,129
How does that make them sniveling?
The rules make total sense to me, and seem to be aimed toward fairness. I would screen audience questions before hand, and follow up questions would be the candidates arguing with an audience member, not each other. The TV shots rule makes sense too, the point is to listen to the candidate's response, not hope for a weird face from the other.
You've gone and made me break my rule of staying the **** out of this section.
The rules make total sense to me, and seem to be aimed toward fairness. I would screen audience questions before hand, and follow up questions would be the candidates arguing with an audience member, not each other. The TV shots rule makes sense too, the point is to listen to the candidate's response, not hope for a weird face from the other.
You've gone and made me break my rule of staying the **** out of this section.
Reply
1
1
10-17-2012, 09:11 AM
#4
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
The rules seem to be aimed toward avoiding situation which require junior high level debate skills or even general intellignece. Both of these "candidates" are so bad they cannot even engage in a dialogue, nor a worthy opponent.
Reply
-1
-1
10-17-2012, 09:24 AM
#5
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
How does that make them sniveling?
The rules make total sense to me, and seem to be aimed toward fairness. I would screen audience questions before hand, and follow up questions would be the candidates arguing with an audience member, not each other. The TV shots rule makes sense too, the point is to listen to the candidate's response, not hope for a weird face from the other.
You've gone and made me break my rule of staying the **** out of this section.
The rules make total sense to me, and seem to be aimed toward fairness. I would screen audience questions before hand, and follow up questions would be the candidates arguing with an audience member, not each other. The TV shots rule makes sense too, the point is to listen to the candidate's response, not hope for a weird face from the other.
You've gone and made me break my rule of staying the **** out of this section.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2012, 09:42 AM
#7
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Okinawa Japan
Posts: 320
Total Cats: -7
I mean... I understand how this could have been implemented to begin with.. but honestly, after reading this... it gets way to restrictive to the point that it's no longer a debate, it's a planned, categorized discussion. Facts have already been drawn up for the candidates, they are warmed up for the questions (which were idiotically cupcake status) and any sort of movement by any of the candidates to put either of them into a mental checkmate was squashed. (Although... as an observationalist... I'd have to say Romney is a more dominate force on the debate floor... even if he's spewing factually inaccuracies)
I say feed them poisioned ****** and eliminate the electoral college (although that honestly... won't change much)
And these backpocket networks need to stop too...
Reply
0
0
10-17-2012, 09:59 AM
#10
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Okinawa Japan
Posts: 320
Total Cats: -7
Vote for someone you genuinely believe is right. An informed vote matters... and setting the example will simply lead others to be better informed on subjects and policies.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2012, 10:26 AM
#13
The one person I found myself aligning with viewpoint wise... backed one of the idiots recently and is really a lost vote. This isn't helping me.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2012, 10:36 AM
#14
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Here's more - a contract that they won't debate any 3rd party candidates.
Secret Debate Contract Reveals Obama and Romney Campaigns Exclude Third Parties, Control Questions
Secret Debate Contract Reveals Obama and Romney Campaigns Exclude Third Parties, Control Questions
and here's how they wont:
Green Party candidate arrested outside debate site
Reply
0
0
10-17-2012, 11:06 AM
#15
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
It's the same fundamental tactic which candidates themselves employ to create artificial fear / conflict and steer conversation away from productive vectors.
Eg:
If Robomney is elected president he will (do something which you are strongly opposed to, yet which the president doesn't have the authority to actually do.)
I was really floored by a brief segment I heard on NPR about a week ago. They were interviewing a couple of women on the subject of "women's rights" (whatever that means) and one of them, who self-identified as being pro-murder (aka pro-choice), actually said "Look, these people who are claiming that Romney will overturn Roe-v-Wade... The president simply can't overturn a court decision."
NPR is one of only three broadcast news agencies which I actually sort of trust a little bit, and this is coming from a broadcaster.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2012, 02:16 PM
#17
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
At least some of them probably do. But the ones who post things like this thread in an attempt to concoct discord and confusion are hedging on the assumption that most people are probably unfamiliar with the process.
It's the same fundamental tactic which candidates themselves employ to create artificial fear / conflict and steer conversation away from productive vectors.
Eg:
I was really floored by a brief segment I heard on NPR about a week ago. They were interviewing a couple of women on the subject of "women's rights" (whatever that means) and one of them, who self-identified as being pro-murder (aka pro-choice), actually said "Look, these people who are claiming that Romney will overturn Roe-v-Wade... The president simply can't overturn a court decision."
NPR is one of only three broadcast news agencies which I actually sort of trust a little bit, and this is coming from a broadcaster.
It's the same fundamental tactic which candidates themselves employ to create artificial fear / conflict and steer conversation away from productive vectors.
Eg:
If Robomney is elected president he will (do something which you are strongly opposed to, yet which the president doesn't have the authority to actually do.)
I was really floored by a brief segment I heard on NPR about a week ago. They were interviewing a couple of women on the subject of "women's rights" (whatever that means) and one of them, who self-identified as being pro-murder (aka pro-choice), actually said "Look, these people who are claiming that Romney will overturn Roe-v-Wade... The president simply can't overturn a court decision."
NPR is one of only three broadcast news agencies which I actually sort of trust a little bit, and this is coming from a broadcaster.
Mitt Romney’s next Supreme Court nomination could quite possibly really **** this country over for a very long time.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2012, 02:41 PM
#19
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
B) That assumes a number of other justices agree with Romney's nominee's stance on any given issue.
In summation: in no way will any one individual be able to overturn Roe vs Wade or any other Supreme Court precedent.
* Ya know, like Bork didn't.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2012, 03:27 PM
#20
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
A) That would be his nominee... that has to clear Congress*... not Romney.
B) That assumes a number of other justices agree with Romney's nominee's stance on any given issue.
In summation: in no way will any one individual be able to overturn Roe vs Wade or any other Supreme Court precedent.
* Ya know, like Bork didn't.
B) That assumes a number of other justices agree with Romney's nominee's stance on any given issue.
In summation: in no way will any one individual be able to overturn Roe vs Wade or any other Supreme Court precedent.
* Ya know, like Bork didn't.
Reply
0
0
