[Orion27]

Kucinich said today boycotting Fox Debate insult to voters:

http://kucinich.us/node/3532

......"Kucinich said “it’s an insult to the voters, and the height of cynicism, for candidates to refuse to take the public stage and subject themselves to public scrutiny.”"

“Whatever their excuses, some candidates are clearly trying to avoid any head-to-head public debate where they will have to answer tough questions -- questions about their votes in favor of the Iraq war, their votes in favor of trade policies that have wiped out millions of American jobs, their votes in favor of abridging Constitutional rights by approving the Patriot Act, and their collaboration with insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations to deny Americans adequate health care protection.”

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I got an infraction some time ago for quoting an article on a subject, without adding "my opinion." I assume you'll get the same, since you've apparently started a thread which has no topic or focus or personal comments.

greg

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I got an infraction some time ago for quoting an article on a subject, without adding "my opinion." I assume you'll get the same, since you've apparently started a thread which has no topic or focus or personal comments.

greg

I think Kucinich is right. Democrats are avoiding national publicity which would spotlight how out of touch they really are.

[OldManMac]

Correct. I got one a little over a week ago, for the same thing, even though I did express an opinion on what I posted. I couldn't sleep for nights.

[mac128k-1984]

I wouldn't blame the party as much as candidates that feel that they have more too lose in a debate then the negative publicity in avoiding the debates

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I think Kucinich is right. Democrats are avoiding national publicity which would spotlight how out of touch they really are.

Ummm, in case you didn't notice, the Democrats took back both houses, and many local and state houses as well, in the last election. An issue that reasonates with most people is health insurance for everyone, as most polls show; the Democrats have favored that for years. Most Americans don't want Roe v. Wade overturned; the Democrats agree. Americans are getting fed up with issues like the Walter Reed scandal, the politics behind terminating prosecuting attorneys, one of whom was fired because Sen. Domenici didn't like it that he wasn't investigating a Democrat fast enough for his liking, how Karl Rove was asked to ensure that a prosecuting attorney was fired for political reasons, the disclosure that the FBI has been abusing its powers to spy on American citizens, and Attorney General Gonzales' failure to understand the difference between being George Bush's lawyer, and being the defender of the Constitution, which he clearly fails to grasp the concept of. I think you should stop watching so much Faux News, as it's quite obvious that you're the one who's out of touch.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Ummm, in case you didn't notice, the Democrats took back both houses, and many local and state houses as well, in the last election. An issue that reasonates with most people is health insurance for everyone, as most polls show; the Democrats have favored that for years. Most Americans don't want Roe v. Wade overturned; the Democrats agree. Americans are getting fed up with issues like the Walter Reed scandal, the politics behind terminating prosecuting attorneys, one of whom was fired because Sen. Domenici didn't like it that he wasn't investigating a Democrat fast enough for his liking, how Karl Rove was asked to ensure that a prosecuting attorney was fired for political reasons, the disclosure that the FBI has been abusing its powers to spy on American citizens, and Attorney General Gonzales' failure to understand the difference between being George Bush's lawyer, and being the defender of the Constitution, which he clearly fails to grasp the concept of. I think you should stop watching so much Faux News, as it's quite obvious that you're the one who's out of touch.

Let me know when the Democrats actually gather enough nerve to walk the walk instead of wasting time with non-binding resolutions. And as far as defending the Constitution what part was Clinton defending when he sent Sandy Berger to remove documents form the National Archive? As a ten percenter, abortion would be high on your agenda. Less you would be compelled to share. That's the reality.

[macintologist]

Kucinich is a little nutty, plus there is this

Daily Kos: Why I say "ugh" on Kucinich

But I like his opposition to the drug war among other so called "extreme positions" that most mainstream politicians wouldnt touch with a 10 foot pole.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Let me know when the Democrats actually gather enough nerve to walk the walk instead of wasting time with non-binding resolutions. And as far as defending the Constitution what part was Clinton defending when he sent Sandy Berger to remove documents form the National Archive? As a ten percenter, abortion would be high on your agenda. Less you would be compelled to share. That's the reality.

Let's take a look at your original statement, and I'll show, quite easily, how it's absurd on its face.

You stated: "I think Kucinich is right. Democrats are avoiding national publicity which would spotlight how out of touch they really are."

So, according to you, the Democrats are avoiding national publicity. Please tell me how they're going to expect to win the White House in 2008 by "avoiding national publicity," as if that's something they could do in the first place. Are they going to get people to believe their philosophy and points by transmitting them via secret telepathy? Are they going to call every voter and say, "I'm sorry to bother you, but we're trying to avoid national publicity, but we sure would like your vote."? Are they going to walk to every voter's residence, and ask for their vote personally, because they're trying to "avoid national publicity?" Man oh man, where do you come up with this stuff?

And then of course, you have to bring up Clinton, because everybody knows that two wrongs make a right, don't they? As usual, you can't debate issues, so you have to drag up something from the past, and attempt, feebly, to use it to to bolster a position with which it has nothing to do.

I also happen to be against abortion, but I don't believe it's the state's business to tell a woman what to do with her body. If you profess to be a Christian, which most Americans do, even though they don't act like one, then they will have to answer to their god when they reach that point. It's none of the state's business.

As quoted in this thread, http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ew-religion/4/
in a reply to Shortcut to Moncton (who has spent a great deal of time in researching the subject of the thread and who debated issues on points and not just generalization), you said: "I haven't read such drivel in a long time. Even in these illustrious threads. Sober up!"

He correctly replied, "Thanks for the constructive addition to this thread. Your ability to logically point out the flaws in your opponents' arguments and respond with your own rebuttals is, I'm sure, warmly welcomed."

Now it's your turn to call me a sad, bitter little old man.

[Dakar²]

I think a debate almost a year before primaries is insane.

[OldManMac]

Of course it is. All of this posturing also shows the American people the lack of coherence in either party, especially when people are tossing their hat in the ring, who haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. That, however, is how it works, good, bad, or otherwise.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

[slightly off-topic, slightly inebriated comment]
I think the massive increase in democratizing American politics in the last 40 years will result in the downfall of that system. Eliminating the "old boys' club" of elite representatives has put public opinion at the forefront of political life, not what's best for the public. This focus on "public scrutiny" – which apparently now starts years in advance – has left us with an ineffective government which is unduly influenced by lobby groups and is powerless to make strong decisions when it needs to, such as cutting the funding for a myriad of projects which outlived their usefulness 20+ years ago.

Uhhhhhh...well, that was random.

greg

[/slightly off-topic, slightly inebriated comment]

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I think a debate almost a year before primaries is insane.

The longer a candidate is on record articulating and refining positions, the better we are able to make informed decisions come election time. Candidates should have a record and be challenged on it. Your position allows the candidates a free pass. The vetting process should be a lot more rigorous. Debate is an important assessment tool, especially if a candidate debate history.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The longer a candidate is on record articulating and refining positions, the better we are able to make informed decisions come election time. Candidates should have a record and be challenged on it. Your position allows the candidates a free pass. The vetting process should be a lot more rigorous. Debate is an important assessment tool, especially if a candidate debate history.

I don't object to a more rigorous vetting process or more debates. I object to them starting over a year and half from election day. Any flaws in the quality of the canididatorial process don't stem from the amount of time involved.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I don't object to a more rigorous vetting process or more debates. I object to them starting over a year and half from election day. Any flaws in the quality of the canididatorial process don't stem from the amount of time involved.

Well just what is your objection? What is the problem with early and frequent debate?

[Dakar²]

We've just entered the second half of the president's second term and it seems that the focus, politically, is already on who will replace him.

Edit: (i.e., he's an even lamer lame duck)

Do you think starting earlier will help the canididatorial process?

[OldManMac]

The candidates should be doing their jobs, in their disticts. It shouldn't take over a year and a half to find out where they stand on issues. As it is now, we're paying them to campaign, when they should be working.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

We've just entered the second half of the president's second term and it seems that the focus, politically, is already on who will replace him.

Edit: (i.e., he's an even lamer lame duck)

Do you think starting earlier will help the canididatorial process?

The primary in February is only 11 months away. That Candidates need to be debating the issues now.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The primary in February is only 11 months away. That Candidates need to be debating the issues now.

That's way more time than the presidential nominees campaign for. It's not necessary.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

That's way more time than the presidential nominees campaign for. It's not necessary.

My impression is the candidates don't wish positions questioned until the 11th hour. Certainly no a recipe to insure an informed electorate. Perhaps that's why some are surprised the candidates elected are not what they initially appeared to be.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

My impression is the candidates don't wish positions questioned until the 11th hour. Certainly no a recipe to insure an informed electorate.

Bingo. I don't know what your thinking is, but mine is that we could give them an extra month or an extra year, but it wouldn't cause them to give us any more significant information.

They know how to get us information, and more importantly, they know how to avoid giving it, too.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Bingo. I don't know what your thinking is, but mine is that we could give them an extra month or an extra year, but it wouldn't cause them to give us any more significant information.

They know how to get us information, and more importantly, they know how to avoid giving it, too.

Great strategy for asessing candidate. Wait for them to feed us information knowing they know how to avoid giving us any. Are we puppets on a string? I'd prefer we confront the cadidate with hard questions and those who run and hide won't get our votes.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I'd prefer we confront the cadidate with hard questions and those who run and hide won't get our votes.

So would I. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

So would I. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.

The usual format is the debate, attended by the press, on National Television. We can then debate the substance of the debate. Open press conferences would be another format to ask pointed and direct questions. Candidates should not be allowed to duck the press or debate.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The usual format is the debate, attended by the press, on National Television. We can then debate the substance of the debate. Open press conferences would be another format to ask pointed and direct questions. Candidates should not be allowed to duck the press or debate.

That's all well and good, but I see no part of that being affected by 6 extra months of primary campaigning.

[OldManMac]

We don't need a year to find out where candidates stand on issues. We can also look at their records, which often show that what they say and what the do are out of sync in any event. When you have the three top candidates on the Republican side preaching family values, while they've had eight wives amongst them, and the leader on the Democratic side saying whatever she thinks the particular audience she's addressing wants to hear, we already have clear a picture of what's going to transpire. Do we really need more?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

That's all well and good, but I see no part of that being affected by 6 extra months of primary campaigning.

Well, then I assume you are willing to give them a free pass until just before the primary.
I think that road is less corrobative and confirming of a candidate and invites superficiality. The vetting process should be more rigorous.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Well, then I assume you are willing to give them a free pass until just before the primary.

You'd be wrong. They can start in October/November which is still a whole 6 months from now.

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I think that road is less corrobative and confirming of a candidate and invites superficiality. The vetting process should be more rigorous.

Yes, I heard you the first time. Time isn't the issue here.