Saturday's debate format altered, Kucinich files complaint against ABC

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
Dennis Kucinich is making a fuss about being excluded from the New Hampshire debate, but as much as I love and support third party and fringe candidates, I'm kind of glad.

No matter what happens tomorrow, we all know Kucinich will be at home talking in 2009, not much different from 2005. There is a major need for the viable candidates to distinguish themselves.

How should debates be held generally? Everyone hates the current format, where the moderator hurredly moves through every candidates allotted time, during which they give stump speeches and sometimes respond to what another candidate has said-- often at their first opportunity after having been called upon, by which time the moderator has asked another question and possibly changed the topic.

So viewers are forced to stitch all that together coherently, with nearly a dozen people up there pursuing their differing agendas, answering whatever they wanted to answer as opposed to the question. It's nothing close to a debate.

But excluding candidates means less choice. We already have less choice in a lot of areas before that point-- candidates who can't raise money cannot compete generally-- and the media coverage-- and bias-- in which candidates they cover (and how they cover them) already has so much impact.

But this race is already decided, to an extent. It's decided that the winner won't be Kucinich or Dodd, so as a viewer I think I am-- and the general public is-- better off seeing some form of interaction between the viable candidates, the ones who haven't already had their campaigns aborted by other circumstances.

So tomorrow it's Obama vs. Edwards vs. Hillary (and Bill Richardson, who managed to meet standards that Kucinich didn't. He's lame and will contribute less than Kucinich would, but it is what it is).
-----------------------------------

Kucinich files complaint on ABC debate
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
1 hour, 8 minutes ago

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich filed a complaint with the FCC on Friday after ABC News excluded him, fellow Democrat Mike Gravel and Republican Duncan Hunter from its prime-time debates on Saturday.

Kucinich argued that ABC is violating equal-time provisions by keeping him out of the debate and noted that ABC's parent Walt Disney Co. had contributed to campaigns involving the four Democrats who were invited.

"ABC should not be the first primary," the Ohio congressman said in papers filed at the Federal Communications Commission.

ABC said the candidates left out of the debates failed to meet benchmarks for their support that were outlined to each campaign prior to the Iowa caucus. Kucinich did not complain about these rules ahead of time, said spokeswoman Cathie Levine, who had no further comment since she hasn't seen the FCC filing.

ABC said it hoped to encourage more conversation and interaction among the candidates during the debates, which will both be moderated by Charles Gibson. The stakes are high as candidates take the stage three days before the New Hampshire primary.

The Republican debate will include Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. It starts at 7 p.m. EST.

Shortly after that 90-minute forum, Democrats Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson will take the stage at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H.

The network set rules to narrow the field. Candidates had to meet at least one of three criteria: place first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys.

Democrats Joe Biden and Chris Dodd took some of the pressure off ABC by quitting the race Thursday night.

"In previous debates where the stage was more crowded you had to make sure all of the candidates got fair time," said David Chalian, ABC News political director. "Here you will have more time to go in depth on the issues."

ABC said it believed its rules were inclusive, while also ensuring viewers get a thorough look at the probable next president.

"We're regretful that we're not going to be in it," said Roy Tyler, a spokesman for Hunter. "We're just going to keep working. I think it's a mistake on their part to exclude any viable candidate at this point." (Bold from Costanza-- he ain't viable.)

Fox News Channel is sponsoring a debate in its mobile studio Sunday that excludes Paul and Hunter. Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and McCain have been invited.

Each debate will be divided into two parts. During the first 45 minutes, Gibson will select three prominent issues to promote a dialogue. The candidates will be seated and encouraged to talk to each other, and not just to the cameras, Gibson said.

"If I have any personal prejudice against these debates, it's that you see too much of the moderator," Gibson said. "I want to see less of the moderator and more of the candidates."

There won't be any buzzers or lights on the stage to mark time limits for talking, putting the pressure on Gibson to limit filibusters and promote fairness.

The second half of the debate will be a more traditional format, with Gibson and WMUR-TV political director Scott Spradling asking questions on a variety of topics. Candidates will be asked to keep their answers to a minute, Chalian said.

Gibson said he hoped to have a few minutes where both Republican and Democratic candidates are on the same stage, to promote the idea that despite differences, all are Americans hoping for the best for their country. The auditorium will be quickly emptied between debates and a new audience brought in.

Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos will lead ABC's coverage. Three hours of live debate with both Republican and Democratic candidates represents a grueling on-air test for Gibson, ABC's chief news anchor.

"I didn't volunteer," he said. "It's something new, it's something different. I can fail miserably at this and may well do so but we're looking for some ways to do something different."

___
ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Co. Fox is a unit of News Corp.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080105/ap_on_el_pr/abc_debate
 
bushtantrum-740348.jpg


like that jakass had a chance anyway....
 
bushtantrum-740348.jpg


like that jakass had a chance anyway....
I'm sympathetic with him. Everybody wants to applaud him when he says real shit, but they castigate politicians for never changing anything, and then laugh at this guy or, even worse, boo him for getting in the way.

How many jackasses really have a chance? More importantly, if it's determined who has a chance and who doesn't BEFORE FOURTY-NINE STATES EVEN VOTE, what choice do we have?
 
the debates are wack anyway. how can you get to know someone in one hour. the debates should be longer, and people from the audience should ask all the questions instead of the typical expected questions from the moderator. we all know that will never happen though.
 
Im glad hes speakin up about this, Dodd, Biden, and Gravel don't get the equal time either.
I was impressed by Biden's mocking sarcasm with regard to this in the debate at Las Vegas two months ago. Wolf Blitzer, after opening the debate with several questions trying to instigate shit between Clinton and Edwards/Obama and Clinton, finally asked Biden a question and he yelled out "No!!! Don't do it, don't make me speak!!!!"

Then he started to answer the question and Wolf Blitzer cut him of pretty quickly. He didn't fight; he stopped suddenly, bowed his head, and said "you're right," and everyone got the point. It was a funny ass "Fuck You" moment.
 
the debates are wack anyway. how can you get to know someone in one hour. the debates should be longer, and people from the audience should ask all the questions instead of the typical expected questions from the moderator. we all know that will never happen though.

Most of them are longer than an hour, but you have to factor in the Nintendo playing public-- how many people are going to sit through that shit?

As for your second point, again, consider the Nintendo playing public or the ignorant ass public in general (because I said Nintendo above referring to generational attention defecits, but there are a lot of plain ignorant motherfuckers who were born long before Nintendo came along). People ask dumbass questions. John Edwards was taking questions and he had a supporter who was worried about Obama and focused his question around the O.J. verdict. :confused:

cletus.gif

"I have uh quest-un fuh Mr. Edwards."

I have problems with the prescreened questions-- serious problems-- but if you just open things up, you are going to get repetitive and dumbass questions.

I'm not exactly sure how it should be-- I'm hoping somebody who thinks they have things more figured out will contribute. But I know there are downsides to a lot of alternate proposals.
 
I'm sympathetic with him. Everybody wants to applaud him when he says real shit, but they castigate politicians for never changing anything, and then laugh at this guy or, even worse, boo him for getting in the way.

How many jackasses really have a chance? More importantly, if it's determined who has a chance and who doesn't BEFORE FOURTY-NINE STATES EVEN VOTE, what choice do we have?


As long as we have a 2 party system with kingmakers in both parties (who wont listen to you unless you're a multi-millionaire, or have the ability to raise millions of dollars)... a lot.:smh:

these debates are a joke, politically speaking. with more and more voters declaring themselves independent, party debates don't matter to this rapidly growing voter segment.
 
I have problems with the prescreened questions-- serious problems-- but if you just open things up, you are going to get repetitive and dumbass questions.

IMO The media and the moderators of the debates don't ask the right questions, and often times they actually lie spewing the bullshit they say is fact. Like for instance they keep talking about iran and how iran is the one funding Insurgents in Iraq, yet they never talk about the Hundreds of Thousands of Weapons that the Military lost. There using our own weapons against us and that never gets discussed because it makes the Military look bad.:smh:

You notice questions don't get asked like why are we even over there in the first place and not in Afghanistan which is supposed to be one of the places Bin laden is hiding.

All the questions are based on talking points which leads to answers that don't mean shit, so basically the more right questions that are asked the less the candidates will be able to pull bullshit answers out there ass, and they'll be forced to answer questions honestly, and if they can't give honest answers the public will be able to pick up on that.
 
The Republican debate will include Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. It starts at 7 p.m. EST.

Shortly after that 90-minute forum, Democrats Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson will take the stage at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H.

Hmmm, if my local listings are correct, ABC is running this on tape delay on the west coast, presumably not to compete with the NFL.

That's something.
 
As long as we have a 2 party system with kingmakers in both parties (who wont listen to you unless you're a multi-millionaire, or have the ability to raise millions of dollars)... a lot.:smh:

these debates are a joke, politically speaking. with more and more voters declaring themselves independent, party debates don't matter to this rapidly growing voter segment.

I'm an independent myself, but I have an opportunity to register as a Democrat the day of the primary, which I'm considering.

Party debates matter to any voting segment as long as parties matter as much as they do.

Young voters can declare themselves whatever they want, but as long as the older structure stays in place... We can either conform (as I'm considering w/ registering with the Dems) or have no say in the system at all.

Ralph Nader gets the same hate Kucinich gets for "being in the way." That's what some people view opposition as now-- simply getting in the way. As if that's not a necessary part of "opposing."

So this is definitely tied in with the tired, faulty two-party system. Where what Nader represented was more of a direct challenge to it, Kucinich is a challenge from within. The worse the struggle within goes, the more need there is for direct challenges. Kucinich is laying the groundwork for the next Naders in a way.
 
The truth is that Dennis is saying some real S***. The greater American public can't handle what this cat is spitting. If Obama, Hillary and Edwards were not afraid to marginalize themselves and tell the real truth they would sound like Dennis and probably not be in the lead right now (sad to say). Dennis deserves to be heard.
 
I think its too early to be eliminating people from debates. At the very least wait for a few more caucuses to be decided before trimming away every candidate.
But what is really wrong with these debates is that the format sucks.
Instead of trying to cram a question about every topic known to man each debate should be about two or three specific topics...that would allow time for each candidate to illustrate his platform and also try and pick apart his competition.
 
Dennis Kucinich speaks the truth, he would bring real change to American unlike the other candidates who might bring alittle change. He is the opposite of status-quo.
 
Back
Top