US debates - how fair and how staged?

[I, Brian]

Interesting article here by Connie Rice:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4052162

[littlemissattitude]

Stuff like this is why I usually don't watch the debates.

Personally, I think they should have to field the hard questions, and they should have to answer them, not fall back to their "message" after saying just a couple of words about the actual question.

I also think each candidate should have to subject themselves to a three or four hour call in talk show on either radio or tv at least twice in the month before the election. And they should have to answer - really answer - the questions they are asked. And the questions shouldn't be screened ahead of time.

I just think this whole 32-page contract thing, regulating everything, even the temperature of the room the debate is held in, is ridiculous. And my admiration to the tv folks who refused to follow the rules of what they could and couldn't show during the debate.

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Interesting article here by Connie Rice:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4052162

Fascinating article - although I knew most of it. To answer the title - fair, yes - to the two major candidates, not to the other parties out there. Staged - 100%, right down to Bush's "change" to the rules during one question to add another 30 seconds to each answer.

Wish we could have a "none of the above" option at times, which would throw out all current candidates and start over with another set.

[Kaspar]

With those sort of regulations you really don't need any debating skills.

That must be why George Bush is so inarticulate when he talks.