Political TV Debates As Utter Bullshit

As we all know the entire field of Democratic Presidential contenders, at least those who have announced, were on TV Sunday on CNN. Here’s a quote from WaPo about the ‘debate’:

Although all eight Democratic candidates participated, debate sponsors deliberately put Clinton, Obama and Edwards next to each other, and they took much of the limelight.

In other words…screw everyone that isn’t already a major player. CNN made the choice…but why didn’t the others bring it up and throw it in their faces? Were they afraid of being banned or did they agree before the broadcast? Who knows?

And then there were the idiots….in the forefront, Dennis the Menace insisting:

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), an antiwar protest candidate, said Congress has the power to end the war. “Just say, ‘No money, the war is over,’ ” he said.

Hey Dennis….have you studied your Congressional research enough to realize that even with a funding cut-off, a complete and total funding cut-off, the DoD has enough money for full-operations for 4 months and an unlimited time to continue combat operations, under Presidential orders, by implementing massive state-side cutbacks? Sorry, Dennis, you’ve become the Harold Stassen of modern Presidential politics. Time to get off stage, buddy. Ross Perot couldn’t make the overly simplistic answer work either. And he even had graphs….

About ‘who voted for what when’….here’s the best comment:

I expect more entrants on both sides. Wait for it. I fear this election is by no means in the bag for The Democratic Party.

When we do get new people, hopefully more courageous and demanding of the media, I hope they are treated more fairly by all concerned. These debates are ‘soundbite bullshit’. What a shame. sigh…..

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Political TV Debates As Utter Bullshit

  1. Darrell Prows says:

    Everything is just too unwieldy this time. The candidates would do us all a public service if they would agree to some sort of a coin toss format to get the numbers down to no more than three per side.

    We might not have the same people in the general, but there is nothing to indicate that the next president will be any worse than would have been the case.

  2. Buzz says:

    I agree, Darrell Prows. The format of these debates is in deperate need of revamping.
    The debates should be limited to three, very maximum four, contenders. It is not fair to the candidates or the public to limit their responses to quick sound bites. The three, or four, debating should be decided by a random coin toss, not predetermined. There should be at least two moderators, who ask alternating questions. About the last 20 minutes of the broadcast should be devoted to questions which have been randomly selected from the studio audience. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure these arrangements out, why can’t the broadcast stations? Oh yes, those not randomly selected for the first debate would have their chance in a subsequent week.

  3. Robert Stein says:

    In the real world after six years of Bush, some of the Democrats don’t look all that bad:

    http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/06/debate-instant-replay.html

    If you want to see bad, watch the Republicans tonight.

  4. alrudder says:

    Folks, in defense of the system…there is a method to this madness. Don’t expect an exchange of ideas. It is a dramatization of their leadership style and personality under pressure.

  5. I must admit I haven’t watched any of the debates yet. I’m still not ready to get excited!

    But I think the process as it is kind of fruitless.

    We got stuck with the guy folks wanted to have a beer with and we all wanted the smart guy.

    Maybe if the candidates get a chance to show their smarts we’ll get a smart one this time out.

  6. battlebob says:

    The problem is, all eight have vocal supporters. This was not a valid debate. It was a press meeting with only the big three really attending.

    And Dennis is correct. End the war by ending the funding and force Bush to spend what few dollars left getting the troops out.
    The Repubs tried to get us out of Bosnia sooner and the courts ruled that once authority is given; it can’t be resinded.
    The only authority Congress has is the power of the purse.
    There were other options to consider:
    1 – Follow Murtha by stating only fully equiped troops can be deployed. Troops never take their own stuff. They use the equipment already there. If the equipment is worn out then the troops are screwed.
    2 – Make exceptions for new equipment. The new bomb-resistant Hummer is really needed.
    3 – Put deadlines that are variable if progress is being made.
    4 – Renounce the bases.
    5 – Renounce the oil.

    Dems caved in because the WH seized he initiative and the cowardly Dems caved.

    Dennis was correct and should be praised. It his detractors who are weak.

  7. Battlebob

    Do you think Dems in the Senate would have caved if they had ENOUGH votes to stop Bush from vetoing? I don’t think they would have.

  8. To learn more about the Democratic presidential candidates, including voting records, issue positions, speeches, and campaign finance information, please go to: Democratic Presidential Candidates

    For more information on Democratic presidential candidates’ positions please visit Project Vote Smart or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.

  9. battlebob says:

    Pam,
    Dems didn’t have to cave.
    By vetoing a bill with more then the requested money, Bush is the one not financing the troops.

    Before the vote took place, good old Obama cracked by saying it didn’t matter; the troops would get the money.

    If we want the troops out, cut the funding.
    Allow enough to get them out. It will take 60-90 days anyway.
    This forces Bush to talk with the different Iraq factions and the neighbors.

    If we want them to stay and be targets then fund them. Save some of the money to buy more flags for funerals.