Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

BlueSky · 02:56 PM

Advisers for the Democratic presidential candidate demanded Thursday that the lights signaling when a speaker's time has expired during debates with President Bush be removed from the lecterns because they are distracting. The commission hosting the debates refused.

Link

I understand that the Kerry camp wants to replace the lights with a flip-flop version:

itai195 · Sep 30, 2004, 02:41 PM

They shouldn't have ever agreed to the lights, since they're invariably going to go off more frequently for Kerry than Bush.

Atomic Rooster · Sep 30, 2004, 02:44 PM

I used to like camp.

The chick guides were mostly hot!

BRussell · Sep 30, 2004, 02:46 PM

I've seen this story several times now. It's funny because apparently Bush had a trillion details that his side demanded, like being far apart so people can't compare Kerry's height to Bush's, etc. etc., and yet one minor thing that Kerry wanted is making all the rounds. And actually, these lights were something that Bush wanted. Why isn't that the story, rather than Kerry saying he doesn't want them? Oh yeah, it's the massive Repub spin machine at work.

RAILhead · Sep 30, 2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
I've seen this story several times now. It's funny because apparently Bush had a trillion details that his side demanded, like being far apart so people can't compare Kerry's height to Bush's, etc. etc., and yet one minor thing that Kerry wanted is making all the rounds. And actually, these lights were something that Bush wanted. Why isn't that the story, rather than Kerry saying he doesn't want them? Oh yeah, it's the massive Repub spin machine at work.

Actually, Bush is the president so he OUGHT to get what he wants. Simple. As for your "trillion details," don't tell us who's spinning.

As a matter of fact, I don't think bush even needs to debate and he doesn't have to anyway. If I was him, you're darn right it'd be done on my terms.

Maury

itai195 · Sep 30, 2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Actually, Bush is the president so he OUGHT to get what he wants. Simple.

Yeah, and how dare the Democrats even put up a candidate for office! Those terrorist-loving bastards!

Dakar · Sep 30, 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Actually, Bush is the president so he OUGHT to get what he wants. Simple.

What's the logic in that? The debates should be non-partisan and standard. What the candidates what should be irrelevant. That's why you have more than 1 debate, so you can have it in more than one type of setting/set-up.

BRussell · Sep 30, 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Actually, Bush is the president so he OUGHT to get what he wants. Simple.

You can't be serious. He's the president so he gets to dictate the details of the debates?

[edit] heh, I can see others had the same reaction to this absurd statement.

Atomic Rooster · Sep 30, 2004, 02:59 PM

Railhead was only joking.

I think!?

Surely he's not comparing Bush to Castro?

Wiskedjak · Sep 30, 2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
You can't be serious. He's the president so he gets to dictate the details of the debates?

That rule only counts for Republican Presidents

RAILhead · Sep 30, 2004, 03:14 PM

Settle down kids, settle down -- everyone's startin' to get a bit too knee-jerky!

itai195 · Sep 30, 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
That rule only counts for Republican Presidents

Yeah it's in the Constitution, look up the section re: treason.

Dakar · Sep 30, 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Settle down kids, settle down -- everyone's startin' to get a bit too knee-jerky!

...so it was a joke?

RAILhead · Sep 30, 2004, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
...so it was a joke?

To an extent. I think the whole debate scenario is a joke anyway, so all of it is humorous.

Maury

spacefreak · Sep 30, 2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
And actually, these lights were something that Bush wanted. Why isn't that the story, rather than Kerry saying he doesn't want them?

Because Kerry agreed to them. When an agreement is made, both sides are expected to honor the terms.

If you want to blame someone, blame Kerry for putting together a crappy negotiating team, just like he put together not one, not two, but three crappy campaign staffs. How about that story?

Here we have an agreement, less than 2 weeks old, that Kerry is aleady trying to violate.

spacefreak · Sep 30, 2004, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
They shouldn't have ever agreed to the lights, since they're invariably going to go off more frequently for Kerry than Bush.

Yet another reason why the man is unfit for command - he can't negotiate AND he can't abide by agreed-upon rules.

Dakar · Sep 30, 2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by RAILhead:
To an extent. I think the whole debate scenario is a joke anyway, so all of it is humorous.

Maury

Fair enough, but there are voters out there who feel it's an important part of their decision making process. I have to say I enjoy seeing what they have in a face-to-face uniform setting.

RAILhead · Sep 30, 2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Because Kerry agreed to them. When an agreement is made, both sides are expected to honor the terms.

If you want to blame someone, blame Kerry for putting together a crappy negotiating team, just like he put together not one, not two, but three crappy campaign staffs. How about that story?

Here we have an agreement, less than 2 weeks old, that Kerry is aleady trying to violate.

In a spirit of bipartisanship, I'd like to point out that Kerry WAS, in fact, for the lights before he was against them. I guess he really *is* consistent like his followers say...

Maury

itai195 · Sep 30, 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yet another reason why the man is unfit for command - he can't negotiate AND he can't abide by agreed-upon rules.

I swear spacefreak, you spin better than the OS X 10.0 beachball. I really am quite impressed at your abilities. I'm sure Kerry will stop talking when the light goes off, as he agreed to... the point is he should've never agreed to that rule. I would agree that his campaign made a dumb mistake there.

RAILhead · Sep 30, 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
Fair enough, but there are voters out there who feel it's an important part of their decision making process. I have to say I enjoy seeing what they have in a face-to-face uniform setting.

I would too, but the "rules" BOTH agreed upon tremendously cripple any real interaction and actual debate, thus -- and I'm hope I'm wrong -- these "debates" will probably be nothing more than campaign speeches.

Maury

Atomic Rooster · Sep 30, 2004, 03:32 PM

spacefreak · Sep 30, 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
... the point is he should've never agreed to that rule. I would agree that his campaign made a dumb mistake there.

Well, that's your point, and a fair one at that. But realize that his campaign has made dumb mistakes regularly. I've often said that the US Presidential campaign is the ultimate proving ground for potential leaders, and with that in mind, Kerry just isn't strong enough as an organizational leader to be able to run our country effectively.

On the debate lights - my point is that since he agreed to it, he should honor it, and if he and his staff bitch about it now, they have nobody to blame but Kerry himself.

itai195 · Sep 30, 2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
But realize that his campaign has made dumb mistakes regularly. I've often said that the US Presidential campaign is the ultimate proving ground for potential leaders, and with that in mind, Kerry just isn't strong enough as an organizational leader to be able to run our country effectively.

Fair enough.

BRussell · Sep 30, 2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
I swear spacefreak, you spin better than the OS X 10.0 beachball. I really am quite impressed at your abilities. I'm sure Kerry will stop talking when the light goes off, as he agreed to... the point is he should've never agreed to that rule. I would agree that his campaign made a dumb mistake there.

From what the article says, they're not disagreeing over something that was in the agreement. They're disagreeing about the specific implementation being used:

Kerry's team contended that the agreement doesn't specifically say where the lights should be placed, and it said putting them on the lecterns creates a distraction. Devine said the agreement includes a picture of the lectern that doesn't include the lights.

spacefreak · Sep 30, 2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
I swear spacefreak, you spin better than the OS X 10.0 beachball.

That's a pretty good one!

I disagree, however, that I am spining. I don't doubt that my conservative values affect my take on things, but that's what values are for.

I really think the Dems chose the wrong candidate. Lieberman or Gephardt would have provided a stronger alternative to Bush, and even though Dean may have been a little too far left to compete, at least he was passionate and able to take firm stands on issues.

itai195 · Sep 30, 2004, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I really think the Dems chose the wrong candidate. Lieberman or Gephardt would have provided a stronger alternative to Bush, and even though Dean may have been a little too far left to compete, at least he was passionate and able to take firm stands on issues.

I wouldn't disagree with that either, as I've stated what my preference was. But I'd still take Kerry over Bush. The only Democrat I wouldn't take over Bush would probably have been Kucinich. I think Gephardt would've been a weaker candidate than Kerry, though. Lieberman would probably have cruised to victory in the general election.

spacefreak · Sep 30, 2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
From what the article says, they're not disagreeing over something that was in the agreement. They're disagreeing about the specific implementation being used:

Yup - more bitching and complaining from the left, with no alternate proposals in sight. No surprise there.

tie · Sep 30, 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yet another reason why the man is unfit for command - he can't negotiate AND he can't abide by agreed-upon rules.

LOL. spacefreak has it right on.

Maury, you gotta learn to keep your straight face.

Dakar · Sep 30, 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I'm hope I'm wrong -- these "debates" will probably be nothing more than campaign speeches.

That actually doesn't bother me because, for once, I can get the word straight from the source, without worrying about it being edited, disseminated, taken out of context, etc.

As far as I'm concerned this is do or die for Kerry. He can score some major points tonight if he comes out on topic and his answers aren't convoluted.

spacefreak · Sep 30, 2004, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
I think Gephardt would've been a weaker candidate than Kerry, though. Lieberman would probably have cruised to victory in the general election.

Gephardt, however, has a long history of putting together strong and focused teams. That's a big plus.

spacefreak · Sep 30, 2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
As far as I'm concerned this is do or die for Kerry. He can score some major points tonight if he comes out on topic and his answers aren't convoluted.

Historically, debates don't really affect the elections more than a point or two. It would take a Bush meltdown to help Kerry in any significant way.

RAILhead · Sep 30, 2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by tie:
Maury, you gotta learn to keep your straight face.

You mean I can't pop-off with sarcastic comments or post fun pics like

or

Maury
(who still thinks his "poop" pic is hilarious)

Dakar · Sep 30, 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Historically, debates don't really affect the elections more than a point or two. It would take a Bush meltdown to help Kerry in any significant way.

Well that''s about all it should take in the swing states.

smacintush · 04:22 PM

This is all distracting you from the REAL issue: when the light comes on it brings out Kerry's orange glow.

"I actually voted for the lights before I voted against them"

zachs · Sep 30, 2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Historically, debates don't really affect the elections more than a point or two. It would take a Bush meltdown to help Kerry in any significant way.

True, but this year, the elections being as close as they are, the debates could affect the election enough to swing it.

itai195 · Sep 30, 2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by smacintush:
This is all distracting you from the REAL issue: when the light comes on it brings out Kerry's orange glow.

Or maybe he's worried it would be detrimental to his ability to draw in the epileptic vote.

zachs · Sep 30, 2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by RAILhead:
You mean I can't pop-off with sarcastic comments or post fun pics like

Maury
(who still thinks his "poop" pic is hilarious)

Sure!

BlueSky · Sep 30, 2004, 04:19 PM

Oh well, what's the point. Who cares who says or does what tonight. We elect personalities, not ideologies, talking points or political parties. As long as W keeps up the swagger, "plain speakin'" and simian grin, he's got it in the bag and will have his contract renewed for another 4 seasons. It's just like reality TV, except for the "reality" part.

RAILhead · Sep 30, 2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Bluesky:
Oh well, what's the point. Who cares who says or does what tonight. We elect personalities, not ideologies, talking points or political parties. As long as W keeps up the swagger, "plain speakin'" and simian grin, he's got it in the bag and will have his contract renewed for another 4 seasons. It's just like reality TV, except for the "reality" part.

What a wonderful outlook you have regarding your country and the process therein. If it sucks so bad, why don't you start a grassroots effort and form a better party?

Maury

BoomStick · Sep 30, 2004, 04:29 PM

Kerry looks like a Jerk -O- Lantern.

I guess he's going agent orange for the nam vets.

OldManMac · Sep 30, 2004, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Well, that's your point, and a fair one at that. But realize that his campaign has made dumb mistakes regularly. I've often said that the US Presidential campaign is the ultimate proving ground for potential leaders, and with that in mind, Kerry just isn't strong enough as an organizational leader to be able to run our country effectively.

We haven't had a good president in decades, and Bush got "elected," so obviously the presidential campaign is not the ultimate proving ground for potential leaders. It is a good proving ground for the ultimate liars.

PacHead · Sep 30, 2004, 04:38 PM

What stance is Kerry going to take on Iraq & WOT tonight ?

Is he going to be Mr. Peace Activist/war protestor, or is he going to be Mr. Macho/G.I. Joe ?

Either way, the debates will be pure entertainment.

BlueSky · Sep 30, 2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by RAILhead:
What a wonderful outlook you have regarding your country and the process therein. If it sucks so bad, why don't you start a grassroots effort and form a better party?

ooooo...Mr. Social Conscience himself speaks out! I like that face. It sort of makes you seem...sincere. Sort of.

RAILhead · Sep 30, 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Bluesky:
ooooo...Mr. Social Conscience himself speaks out! I like that face. It sort of makes you seem...sincere. Sort of.

You're knickers sure do wad up fast, mien kapitan.

Maury

zachs · Sep 30, 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
What stance is Kerry going to take on Iraq & WOT tonight ?

Is he going to be Mr. Peace Activist/war protestor, or is he going to be Mr. Macho/G.I. Joe ?

Either way, the debates will be pure entertainment.

I'll sure be laughing if they ask Bush to talk about tribal sovereignty.

BlueSky · Sep 30, 2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
I'll sure be laughing if they ask Bush to talk about tribal sovereignty.

I thought it was "sovereigninity".

zachs · Sep 30, 2004, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Bluesky:
I thought it was "sovereigninity".

Whoops.

Gee-Man · Sep 30, 2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yup - more bitching and complaining from the left, with no alternate proposals in sight. No surprise there.

Who is this guy "The Left" I keep hearing about? Does he have a blog somewhere I can read? A lot of people here like to argue directly with him, he seems to get around a lot.

smacintush · Sep 30, 2004, 05:05 PM

"The left" is a single-minded collective, like "the borg" so addressing them as the left is proper.

Silky Voice of The Gorn · Sep 30, 2004, 05:10 PM

The RNC is brilliant. Really. They've reduced the campaign to single word memes like "flip-flopper", "waffle" and now "lights", that their supports can easily parrot back like lemmings.

Meanwhile, the Dems are always on the defensive, which forces long-winded responses, the likes of which do not lend themselves to easy sound-bites that the drooling masses can digest.

I'm quite literally in awe of the Republicans, they run a campaign that's a wonder to behold. I fully expect the "debate" to go like this, and for Bush to easily win in November.