Kerry Camp: Nix Debate Lights

Printable View

September 30th, 2004, 06:45 PM
travelinman

CORAL GABLES, Fla. ? Sen. John Kerry to debate organizers: Let's go light on the lights.

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.

Bush's campaign accused Kerry, known for favoring long sentences and statements, of trying to violate debate rules against windy answers.

An angry exchange between representatives of the Kerry campaign and the Commission on Presidential Debates (search) took place just hours before the candidates were to meet at the University of Miami for the first of three debates, according to several officials familiar with the meeting. Kerry's team threatened to remove the lights when they visit the debate site with the candidate later in the day.

"We'll do what we have to," Kerry strategist Tad Devine (search) said after his meeting with the commission. But he also suggested the dispute will pass once Kerry's team makes its point. "We'll beat them over the head a little bit, then we'll see what happens."

The commission's executive director, Janet Brown, did not return a call from the AP seeking comment.

It's not unusual for the campaigns to haggle over the smallest debate details, but not so close to the event.

The commission placed the lights on the lecterns in clear view of the television audience and those in the auditorium.

An agreement between the Kerry and Bush campaigns required camera-mounted timing lights for each candidate "positioned in his line of sight." It also specified that timing lights "shall be placed such that they are visible to the debate audiences and television viewers."

Mark Wallace, deputy campaign manager for Bush, said Democrats sought the change "because they don't want the American people to know that Sen. Kerry can't follow the rules."

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.

The Bush team pushed for the lights in negotiations with Kerry advisers. "The Bush teams wants to debate about things like this to distract from the real issues," Devine said.

The commission is a nonprofit and nonpartisan corporation that has sponsored all the presidential debates since 1988.

source
September 30th, 2004, 07:10 PM
jumper69

If you have a clear message, things like lights don't matter.

When you're hoping to debate with fluff, then little things like lights DO matter.

Both Bush and Kerry are fucking butt weasels (sorry sluggo)!!
September 30th, 2004, 09:40 PM
cincygreg

I dunno Jumper, I'm kinda in favor of anything that keeps politicians from rambling on and on and on and on.

Short, sweet and to the point.

Maybe they should skip the debate and have a hot dog eating contest or something more entertaining like that.

How about a potato sack race. LOL!

[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
September 30th, 2004, 10:48 PM
LAKE

How about Jell-o wrestling?

Seriously, I'm not surprised that Kerry doesn't want lights. Did you see his interview with Diane Sawyer? Talked and talked and didn't say a thing. Tonight will be the end of his candidacy, he couldn't debate himself out of a paper bag. Dubya's going to make mincemeat out of him.
October 1st, 2004, 02:05 AM
Raven Soul

Trav you posted it, what are your opinions on it?
October 1st, 2004, 10:23 AM
reason

I happened to be distracted by the lights, but more telling is that Kerry for the most part abided by the time limit. I did notice that Bush on several occasions had time left over, which is interesting because he repeatedly requested the additional 30 seconds to rebut Kerry.

I think Bush looked exceptionally bad in this debate. The polls reflect a 20 point gap among independents in favor of Kerry.

Bring on the next debate. I can't wait.

[ October 01, 2004 07:25 AM: Message edited by: reason ]
October 1st, 2004, 10:52 AM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by Jigsaw:
Trav you posted it, what are your opinions on it?

The lights didn't bother me at all, both went over at times and when they ended before the red light came on, the both looked as if they had nothing to say.

I turned it off half way through. There was nothing new, everything they said has already been said. Bush looked nervous and is not a great speaker, Kerry was an outstanding debater in collage. So what.

Does the fact that being a good debater in collage where you have to debate both sides of the same issue make you a good President? Not at all.

Does not being a good public speaker make you a bad President? Not at all.

An interesting fact is that after the Kennedy/Nixon debate, people who listened on the radio thought Nixon won and people who watched on TV thought Kennedy won. Why is this? Nixon won the intellectual part of the debate, but his handlers didn't understand the impact of television. Nixon had a heavy beard and tended to have bags under his eyes, Kennedy was tan and fit looking and wore makeup.

Like my Father, I need to shave at least twice a day while someone with light hair and a light complexion would only need to shave once a day. What does this have to do with our abilities?

In today's politics Abraham Lincoln would never have gotten out of Illinois and George McClellan would have won the Presidency.

[ October 01, 2004 07:56 AM: Message edited by: travelinman ]
October 1st, 2004, 11:06 AM
reason

Quote:

Does not being a good public speaker make you a bad President? Not at all.

I think Ronald Reagan proved the value of public speaking and good communication for a president.

As I've said before, one of Bush's major failings is to adequately articulate satisfactory reasons why we are in Iraq and his plan for victory.

To stand up on the podium and repeatedly say "This is HARD WORK!" doesn't cut it. We've got over 1,000 dead in an increasingly dangerous situation. I don't need someone to tell us it's "HARD WORK." I need someone to tell us how we're going to win. He didn't do that.

[ October 01, 2004 08:06 AM: Message edited by: reason ]
October 1st, 2004, 11:23 AM
travelinman

True, but neither did Kerry.

Does Kerry really expect us to believe that Europe is going to come into Iraqi and help. Please give me a break.

You need to look at history.

Do you think FDR had a plan to win when he declared war on Japan? It was not until three years later that we started winning and I doubt that FDR developed that plan. That's what Generals are for.

Using your logic and going back to the Civil War. Lincoln should have not won a second term and McClellan should have been the president because approximately 620,000 men-360,000 Northerners and 260,000 Southerners-died in the four-year conflict. Lincoln didn't have a plan until he gave Grant command and while Grant was a successful General he was an terrible President.

Actually I would have liked McClellan to win. He would have hemmed and hawed and appeased until Bobby Lee Kicked his ass and I could be living in the CSA.
October 1st, 2004, 11:44 AM
jumper69

My thoughts on the debate:

Number 1#: Bush got his clock cleaned!!!

I consider myself an independent. Today I also count myself as one of the 20 percentage points favoring Kerry.

Trav said one doesn't have to be a good speaker to be a good president. Unfortunately, I don't get to sit with W in the oval office and see his command of things. I only know what of him what I see. And what I saw was a deer in the headlights, confused, stumbling, inarticulate, wishing he were anywhere but there president.

I agree with reason, you cannot keep repeating "it's hard work" and expect that to resonate with anyone but the terminally stupid....or oklahoma! [img]wink.gif[/img]

IMHO, if you have the strength of your convictions and the absolute belief in your purpose; that you did the right thing, then you shouldn't have any problem answering those softball questions Leherer threw out last night.
October 1st, 2004, 12:21 PM
reason

Quote:

Number 1#: Bush got his clock cleaned!!!

Amen. Thank you.
October 1st, 2004, 12:24 PM
reason

Quote:

Does Kerry really expect us to believe that Europe is going to come into Iraqi and help. Please give me a break.

But at least he understands that being the world's only superpower doesn't mean we are omnipotent and do everything alone.

Resolve is one thing. Resolve mixed with a huge dose of arrogance and lack of understanding and planning with regards to what you're getting into is quite another.
October 1st, 2004, 06:34 PM
jumper69

Quote:

Seriously, I'm not surprised that Kerry doesn't want lights. Did you see his interview with Diane Sawyer? Talked and talked and didn't say a thing. Tonight will be the end of his candidacy, he couldn't debate himself out of a paper bag. Dubya's going to make mincemeat out of him.

I'm guessing right about now you're wishing you could take this statement back huh?

Dubya couldn't make mincemeat out of...um....mincemeat! [img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img]
October 1st, 2004, 07:05 PM
Fallyn Angel

I couldn't agree more with Bush getting "a good ole fashioned passionate arse whipping". Had it been on a playground Kerry would have then proceeded to take his shoes and coat.
October 1st, 2004, 07:23 PM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by Jigsaw Jr.:
I couldn't agree more with Bush getting "a good ole fashioned passionate arse whipping". Had it been on a playground Kerry would have then proceeded to take his shoes and coat.

I disagree, while Bush looked tense and angry. Most of the BS Kerry was saying were lies. I would have gone over and decked him.

Stop listening to the liberal BS and get some real news.
October 1st, 2004, 07:40 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jigsaw Jr.:
I couldn't agree more with Bush getting "a good ole fashioned passionate arse whipping". Had it been on a playground Kerry would have then proceeded to take his shoes and coat.

I disagree, while Bush looked tense and angry. Most of the BS Kerry was saying were lies. I would have gone over and decked him.

Stop listening to the liberal BS and get some real news.<hr /></blockquote>What lies?

That North Korea has nuclear weapons and is more of a threat than Iraq?

That Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is more of a threat than Iraq?

That Bush took all the resources from Afghanistan and devoted them to Iraq, leaving Afghanistan mostly governless?

That Osama bin Ladin is more of a threat than Saddam Hussein, yet we are focussing 99% of our expenditures on Iraq?

That our troops are unprepared for the mission to which they are assigned?

That most of the Humvees in Iraq aren't armored to offer the protection they should?

That the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, and we haven't committed the necessary resources to do the job?

trav...these are not lies. I'd call Bush a liar except I don't think he even understands.

All he understands it that it's HARD WORK! Yes, that's it - HARD WORK! Hard work is something Bush doesn't know anything about.

[ October 01, 2004 04:41 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
October 1st, 2004, 09:01 PM
gae

I'd like to point something out about oratory skills.

My last husband was a very smooth talker, but he ws a liar and cheat and a very dishonorable man. He's also a failure in life.

Trav will call me out of the shower to check his spelling on a post. He's truthful, faithful and honorable. He's a success.

If my ex and Trav were to debate, superficially, the ex would win. Because he's all talk and no substance. Trav would win on content.

I'm not casting aspersions at John Kerry. I'm just saying that because one is not a silver tongued devil one is not stupid or incompetent.

Personally, I'm always suspect of someone who has the "right" answer and doesn't sweat under pressure. To me, that's a consumate politician, not a person.
October 3rd, 2004, 03:51 AM
Gunslinger

Quote:

Stop listening to the liberal BS and get some real news.[/qb]



Quote:

What lies?

That North Korea has nuclear weapons and is more of a threat than Iraq?

That Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is more of a threat than Iraq?

1)Nuclear weapon development for these countries started under the Clinton Admin.

2) Six nation talks are underway with N. Korea. We are also in negotiations with Iran.

Quote:

That Bush took all the resources from Afghanistan and devoted them to Iraq, leaving Afghanistan mostly governless?

How are they governless when they are about to have elections?

Quote:

That Osama bin Ladin is more of a threat than Saddam Hussein, yet we are focussing 99% of our expenditures on Iraq?

Osama Bin Laden is persona non grata now and has been for some time.

Quote:

That our troops are unprepared for the mission to which they are assigned?

That most of the Humvees in Iraq aren't armored to offer the protection they should?

This is mostly due to the liberals in Congress not backing the troops with the money they need to get the job done and to give them the necessary equipment needed.

Quote:

That the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, and we haven't committed the necessary resources to do the job?

1)See above answer.

2) Yet if we do give the necessary resources, the dems start whining that we are taking things away from home.

3) I have spoken with some Marines who have been there. The situation is not as bad as the media portrays it. 80 - 85% of the country is secure, new schools are being built as are new hospitals. The country is well on its way to being revitalized, yet all the media sees fit to tell us is all the bad stuff.

Quote:

trav...these are not lies. I'd call Bush a liar except I don't think he even understands.

All he understands it that it's HARD WORK! Yes, that's it - HARD WORK! Hard work is something Bush doesn't know anything about.

Yes it is hard work and it cannot be accomplished overnight. Why can't the liberals understand that.
October 3rd, 2004, 07:16 PM
Raven Soul

[quote]Originally posted by Gunslinger:
[QB]

Quote:

Osama Bin Laden is persona non grata now and has been for some time.

I like how this guy has practically recieved a "Get out of jail free card" from people trying to somehow come up with a way to justify Iraq. The man is responible for thousands of deaths and the Bush administration is like.. eh.

Hilarious.
October 3rd, 2004, 10:01 PM
travelinman

[quote]Originally posted by Jigsaw:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gunslinger:
[QB]

Quote:

Osama Bin Laden is persona non grata now and has been for some time.

I like how this guy has practically recieved a "Get out of jail free card" from people trying to somehow come up with a way to justify Iraq. The man is responible for thousands of deaths and the Bush administration is like.. eh.

Hilarious.<hr /></blockquote>He is living in cave running for his life, can't sleep in the same place two nights in a row.

Have you evey been outside of Cincinnati? It's a big wide world out there.
October 3rd, 2004, 10:03 PM
Raven Soul

Surrounded by people that no doubt worship him.
October 3rd, 2004, 10:03 PM
Raven Soul

Surrounded by people that no doubt worship him.
October 4th, 2004, 01:42 AM
Gunslinger

Quote:

Originally posted by Jigsaw:
Surrounded by people that no doubt worship him.

And that number dwindles daily. 80% of his top people have been either captured or killed.

You know what amazes me. It is the fact that we would not be dealing with any of this if Bill Clinton had taken Bin Laden in 1998 when Sudan captured him and offered to turn him over to us for trial. What also amazes me is that this little fact seems to conveniently slip the minds of liberals whenever they say we haven't caught Bin Laden yet. The fact of the matter is this: we had him and then let him get away. Thank you Democratic Party.
October 4th, 2004, 11:41 AM
reason

Quote:

And that number dwindles daily. 80% of his top people have been either captured or killed.

That number is dubious, misleading, and dangerous.
October 4th, 2004, 11:42 AM
reason

Quote:

You know what amazes me. It is the fact that we would not be dealing with any of this if Bill Clinton had taken Bin Laden in 1998 when Sudan captured him and offered to turn him over to us for trial. What also amazes me is that this little fact seems to conveniently slip the minds of liberals whenever they say we haven't caught Bin Laden yet. The fact of the matter is this: we had him and then let him get away. Thank you Democratic Party.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Thank you, President Bush.
October 4th, 2004, 04:01 PM
jumper69

Yep, they were killed there too. So don't act all high and mighty when Bush does it and someone calls him on it...

Politicians are the same all over. They are very cavalier with other peoples lifes. Right now Bush is the one who fucked up. Clinton's no longer POTUS
October 4th, 2004, 04:05 PM
Gunslinger

Quote:

Originally posted by Jumper69:
Yep, they were killed there too. So don't act all high and mighty when Bush does it and someone calls him on it...

Politicians are the same all over. They are very cavalier with other peoples lifes. Right now Bush is the one who fucked up. Clinton's no longer POTUS

True, but if he had done his fuckin' job while he was POTUS, we wouldn't be in this situation at all.

Oh, BTW, my Eagle, Globe and Anchor give me the right to act all high and mighty.
October 4th, 2004, 04:09 PM
jumper69

Quote:

Oh, BTW, my Eagle, Globe and Anchor give me the right to act all high and mighty

Thank you for your service. Even though it was with the wrong branch! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
October 4th, 2004, 05:38 PM
Gunslinger

Quote:

Originally posted by Jumper69:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Oh, BTW, my Eagle, Globe and Anchor give me the right to act all high and mighty

Thank you for your service. Even though it was with the wrong branch! [img]tongue.gif[/img] <hr /></blockquote>Wrong service, I don't know about that. [img]wink.gif[/img]

Thank you as well.
October 5th, 2004, 03:37 AM
Gunslinger

Quote:

Originally posted by reason:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />You know what amazes me. It is the fact that we would not be dealing with any of this if Bill Clinton had taken Bin Laden in 1998 when Sudan captured him and offered to turn him over to us for trial. What also amazes me is that this little fact seems to conveniently slip the minds of liberals whenever they say we haven't caught Bin Laden yet. The fact of the matter is this: we had him and then let him get away. Thank you Democratic Party.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Thank you, President Bush.<hr /></blockquote>???????????????????????

What it the world are you talking about?
October 5th, 2004, 03:51 AM
jumper69

I think reason is alluding to the fact that Clinton had a chance at Osama and didn't take it. Bush has a chance ot Osama at Tora Bora and missed it.

Clinton diverted things with the whole Lewinsky thing. Bush is diverting things with Iraq. Only Bush is kiling my brothers...
October 5th, 2004, 03:58 AM
Gunslinger

Quote:

Originally posted by Jumper69:
I think reason is alluding to the fact that Clinton had a chance at Osama and didn't take it. Bush has a chance ot Osama at Tora Bora and missed it.

Clinton diverted things with the whole Lewinsky thing. Bush is diverting things with Iraq. Only Bush is kiling my brothers...

Oh, and I guess none of our 'brothers' were killed when Clinton sent us to Bosnia to take the attention off of his impending Impeachment hearing.