If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Moderators for the Presidential and VP debates have been announced. Two debate veterans and two rookies will be doing their best to keep the candidates on topic   (content.usatoday.com) divider line 192
    More: Interesting, Candy Crowley, VP debate, CNN, human beings, Jim Lehrer, Bob Schieffer, Martha Raddatz, NewsHour  
•       •       •

2096 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Aug 2012 at 2:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



192 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-13 04:44:48 PM

phalamir: simplicimus: incendi: Party Boy: Limeys do a better job of that.

I would love it if we adopted something similar to "the Prime Minister's Questions" here for the President to answer to the Senate. It'd be too much of a ruckus to do it in the House.

I enjoy watching the Prime Minister's Questions, even though most of the time I have no idea what's being discussed. We could do that in the senate, but what would be the large book the President consults?

The thing is, the Prime Minister is a member of Parliament, while the President is not a member of Congress. In the Us, the President and Congress are co-equal; having him called to the carpet by Congress, especially on a regular basis, is saying Congress is his boss, which is not how the system works. The PM, while holding much of the executive power in Britain, is still part of Parliament, and having him answer to his colleagues is perfectly in line with his place in the legislative part of the British government.

Also, in the Westminster system, the PM is (usually) a sort of theoretical dictator. His party (or coalition) holds a majority of seats in Parliament, and his people hold most of the ministerships. In theory, he can pass what he wants, when he wants, and no power can do anything about it (especially now that Lords has had what balls it had left lopped off). Tradition and fear of voter reprisals tends to keep this in check, but the questioning also serves a purpose by making the PM have to explain himself. the panto mummery of it all is because they all realize this is a form of public shaming to keep the PM in check, and that he could - in theory - just ramrod everything he wants through by main force and/or have the opposition purged from Parliament (looking at you, Pride). So he makes a big deal of being magnanimous enough to take it, his supporters and opponents cheer, boo, and hiss at the appropriate times and in the appropriate manner for their sides, people get to air grievances (real and im ...


OK then, the Vice President. He's sort of a member of the Senate.
 
2012-08-13 04:49:25 PM

Rwa2play: Coco LaFemme: "President Obama, why did you campaign in 2008 as a liberal, when you never governed as one the last four years?"

Notsureifyourserious.jpg


Obama may have done some liberal stuff (ok he did) but his record on civil rights is right of Bush. some will say that he couldn't get congress to go along with closing gitmo or the new york terrorist trials and there is some truth in that. but the expansions of all the warrantless shiat and the expansion of FISA , etc etc. has been more than disappointing.
 
2012-08-13 04:51:39 PM

NewportBarGuy: Party Boy: Lehrer and Schieffer?

Not too shabby.

I like them both, but I'd prefer to see David Gregory in there as well. It looks like he's going to be in that slot (MTP) for quite some time and he's going to need to get into the fray at some point. However, I assume they'll want to keep him away from the debates in case he asks a tough question and the handlers boycott appearances on his show.

It's tough, they want to maintain access by being "nice" to the politicians... Though, that leaves us with these kind of weak questioners that won't press hard enough to answer the question.

I miss Sam Donaldson being a total dick to all parties in his interviews. Sometimes, that's exactly what we need.


david gregory? this guy here? clowning himself for his piper, karl rove

http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=KdvHwtRdg_I
 
2012-08-13 04:52:08 PM

Hobodeluxe: I would love to see this woman get a chance to ask questions and them be forced to answer hooked up to a lie detector


Shhhhh! Ix-nay on tha addow-May, that's just begging for another WTF thread...
 
2012-08-13 04:54:04 PM

Wendy's Chili: KingPsyz: Honestly though, I would pay to watch a roundtable with Rmoney, Rand...i mean Ryan, Biden and Obama led by Ghostface Killah, Method Man, and the RZA

RZA: Aight, the first question is for President Ob--

Method Man: Legalize it!

RZA: Be cool, man. We'll get to that.

Ghostface Killah: The f*ck you smilin' at, white boy? Yeah you, Eddie Munster. How bout I come over there an' slap that f*ckin smirk off your face?

RZA: Gentlemen... Please try to control your outbursts. We're trying to have a serious dicussion.

Ghostface Killah: I'm seriously about to slap that muthaf*cka.

Method Man: He do look like Eddie Munster.

RZA: (sigh) I knew I shoulda brought Deck and GZA.


See? BRILLIANT!
 
2012-08-13 04:54:13 PM

Satanic_Hamster: I want to see a debate with Colbert and Stewart moderating.

At min, Biden and Ryan should appear on Colbert together for a mini-debate.


I would watch this.
 
2012-08-13 04:54:30 PM

theknuckler_33: simplicimus: CNN just put a strange spin on the VP debate: one side of the Catholic Church vs the other side. Hint, the council of Bishops is not supporting Ryan.

I don't know about that because, you know, abortion.


The abortion debate is like talking about outlawing hurricanes. It's legal and will take a Constitutional amendment to change the law.
 
2012-08-13 04:59:13 PM

firefly212: oldass31: A Presidential debate moderated by Fareed Zakaria would be fascinating.

not gonna happen, he's already suspended for a month for plagiarism... there just isn't time for him to recover his reputation for that.


Shoulda been permanently if you ask me.
 
2012-08-13 04:59:24 PM
They couldn't get this chick?

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-13 05:04:20 PM

keithgabryelski: Maybe get a foreign correspondent from Al Jezeera to ask a tough foreign policy question


and do it on a fox news debate. you could hear heads asspolding all over the USA.
 
2012-08-13 05:11:12 PM

wookiee cookie: david gregory? this guy here? clowning himself for his piper, karl rove


that was what started me not liking david gregory.
 
2012-08-13 05:11:43 PM

dickfreckle: FishyFred: Cletus C.: "President and Exalted Leader Obama, has a meter been created that could accurately capture the stratospheric level of your awesomeness?"

"Rmoney, could you be more evil?"

Have you ever watched her show? She often lays into Obama for not being liberal enough.

Not just for not being liberal enough, but for his actual non-partisan fark-ups. When someone spends most of their time openly mocking Republicans, it doesn't make you a default Obama acolyte.

The difference between liberal commentators and their Fox brethren is that people like Maddow routinely tear Democrats a new one on their show, while Hannity finds ways to defend the indefensible. "Paul Ryan discovered raping a 7 year-old boy. Was he framed by Democrats? We'll talk about it after the break."


Oh yeah. But speaking of Fox, Bill O'Reilly also is critical of Republicans at times. Perhaps we have found two voices of moderation who will lead us safely from this quagmire of political partisanship.
 
2012-08-13 05:12:14 PM
Three Presidential Debates.

1) Domestic policy not related to healthcare
2) Domestic policy related to healthcare--including impact on the debt
3) Foreign policy

That'll boil down to

1) Taxes and EPA regulation (and MAYBE alternate fuel sources)
2) Obamacare v Romneycare, most socialism or most socialism evar?
3) Israel's role in the Expanding American Hegemony

But at least it will highlight the core differences between the candidates.
 
2012-08-13 05:15:42 PM

palelizard: The SS might catch that one first.


Very likely. The question is, would they feel any obligation to tell their protectees?
 
2012-08-13 05:22:42 PM

Party Boy: incendi: Party Boy: Limeys do a better job of that.

I would love it if we adopted something similar to "the Prime Minister's Questions" here for the President to answer to the Senate. It'd be too much of a ruckus to do it in the House.

We'd probably do with a smaller vocabulary, and there would be more f-bombs. But yeah, I could see giving that a trial run.


I like the idea of Prime Ministers Questions. If you can't handle being grilled on current events by your own countrymen for an hour out of each week then maybe you're not the right person to represent your country on the world stage.
 
2012-08-13 05:25:36 PM

abb3w: palelizard: The SS might catch that one first.

Very likely. The question is, would they feel any obligation to tell their protectees?


Obama, definitely. Romney... eh, maybe not so much. And I think Obama'd roll with it.

Romney: "You're supposed to protect me! How could you let this happen?"
SS Detail Head: "The Secret Service is not your personal scheduling secretary, sir. When apprised of the situation, we felt physical security would be at its highest nearest the President. That was our primary concern."
Romney: "But what about my political security?"
SSDH: "Then maybe you shouldn't have given my mother cancer, sir." Into sleeve mike: "Okay, Rich Mitch is ready to go, moving to motorcade."
 
2012-08-13 05:26:33 PM

Cletus C.: Oh yeah. But speaking of Fox, Bill O'Reilly also is critical of Republicans at times


I'll give you that. I just wish ORLY wasn't such a tool the rest of the time. But I've watched his show enough, and have seen him interview with the regular media, to know that he's not a complete assbag.

If you've been around Fark long enough you've undoubtedly heard someone say, "It's pretty damn sad when Bill O'Reilly is the voice of reason at Fox News." He is, as far as the pundits go. Much like Maddow is to MSNBC. I tried watching whomever that insufferable douchebag who precedes/follows her (can't recall because I never watched again, and it was essentially Hannity in an alternate universe. I absolutely despise that sort of thing even when I agree with the sentiment.
 
2012-08-13 05:26:57 PM

sprawl15: imontheinternet: I wouldn't mind seeing a debate with two hyper-partisan moderators, one for each candidate. Let Keith Olbermann ask Romney questions, while Sean Hannity asks Obama questions. It wouldn't exactly be the model of decorum, but it would certainly reflect the modern political landscape quite well.

That would be a total clusterfark. I'd watch it for the hilarity, but I really don't know what possible value anyone would get out of it.


It would be a massive shiatshow.

"Why are you on the wrong side of history?"

"Do you wake up hating America or does that come about over the course of the day?"

"When did you decide you were too good to go by Barry?"

"When did you decide you were too good to go by Willard?"

"Will you show the American people your foreskin(or lack thereof) right now?"
 
2012-08-13 05:33:24 PM

Sybarite: Call me when they go back to being actual debates run by an independent body rather than carefully managed stage show the RNC and DNC agree to put on every four years.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

/thread over
 
2012-08-13 05:33:26 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Party Boy: incendi: Party Boy: Limeys do a better job of that.

I would love it if we adopted something similar to "the Prime Minister's Questions" here for the President to answer to the Senate. It'd be too much of a ruckus to do it in the House.

We'd probably do with a smaller vocabulary, and there would be more f-bombs. But yeah, I could see giving that a trial run.

I like the idea of Prime Ministers Questions. If you can't handle being grilled on current events by your own countrymen for an hour out of each week then maybe you're not the right person to represent your country on the world stage.


I'd love to at least have that with the Speaker of the House.
 
2012-08-13 05:48:37 PM

dickfreckle: Cletus C.: Oh yeah. But speaking of Fox, Bill O'Reilly also is critical of Republicans at times

I'll give you that. I just wish ORLY wasn't such a tool the rest of the time. But I've watched his show enough, and have seen him interview with the regular media, to know that he's not a complete assbag.


O'Reilly IS a complete assbag, but he is so assured of his own superiority (or at least requires that level of commitment) that nobody can tell him what to do.
 
2012-08-13 06:03:47 PM

dickfreckle: Cletus C.: Oh yeah. But speaking of Fox, Bill O'Reilly also is critical of Republicans at times

I'll give you that. I just wish ORLY wasn't such a tool the rest of the time. But I've watched his show enough, and have seen him interview with the regular media, to know that he's not a complete assbag.

If you've been around Fark long enough you've undoubtedly heard someone say, "It's pretty damn sad when Bill O'Reilly is the voice of reason at Fox News." He is, as far as the pundits go. Much like Maddow is to MSNBC. I tried watching whomever that insufferable douchebag who precedes/follows her (can't recall because I never watched again, and it was essentially Hannity in an alternate universe. I absolutely despise that sort of thing even when I agree with the sentiment.


The only voice of reason on Fox News is Shep. O'Reilly has his moments, but Shep has no problem calling something ridiculous when it is.
 
2012-08-13 06:07:27 PM

EnviroDude: Nabb1: Sybarite: Call me when they go back to being actual debates run by an independent body rather than carefully managed stage show the RNC and DNC agree to put on every four years.

No kidding. I am sick and tired of these dog and pony shows.

I would love to hear some hard hitting questions. Like, for Obama - why haven't you released your college transcripts?

for Romney - Why do you adhere to a religion founded by a false prophet?


Indeed. Put them on stage and eviscerate them.

/question them as well if you just have to.
 
2012-08-13 06:07:41 PM
Best way would be let each candidate ask the other a question and moderator only acts as a referee to determine if they actually answered the question.
 
2012-08-13 06:12:27 PM
Looks like we all like a rousing English style parliamentary grilling.
 
2012-08-13 06:12:47 PM

meat0918: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Party Boy: incendi: Party Boy: Limeys do a better job of that.

I would love it if we adopted something similar to "the Prime Minister's Questions" here for the President to answer to the Senate. It'd be too much of a ruckus to do it in the House.

We'd probably do with a smaller vocabulary, and there would be more f-bombs. But yeah, I could see giving that a trial run.

I like the idea of Prime Ministers Questions. If you can't handle being grilled on current events by your own countrymen for an hour out of each week then maybe you're not the right person to represent your country on the world stage.

I'd love to at least have that with the Speaker of the House.


Now that we got rid of that skinny biatch with the entitlement complex, I would agree with you.

/pass it to read it and then blow it out your bony twat.
 
2012-08-13 06:19:36 PM
The debate can be improved with just three words:

In a cage!
 
2012-08-13 06:21:19 PM

violentsalvation: FlashHarry: FishyFred: I don't think she's a wingnut, though. What are you basing that on?

i've watched her for years on cnn. she's always carrying water for conservatives while being much harsher on liberals. this is just based on my own anecdotal evidence, though; your mileage may vary.

I've never seen her carrying water for conservatives, or be all that harsh on anyone, but that is my own anecdotal evidence.


She got a horrible reputation in certain circles for her presidential campaign coverage in 2000 and 2004 -- treating Bush very kindly, even fawning over him, blushing and giggling when Bush called her "Dulce", crying on election night when the race had been called for Gore for a few minutes, and so on.

And, yeah, look to Google for proof of this and you'll find blog and forum posts, mostly, but it's how I remember her coverage being back then.
 
2012-08-13 06:28:35 PM
...but then again if you search for Candy Crowley fawning, you find conservatives' blog posts accusing her of being an Obama-worshipper. I dunno, maybe she's easily bought with gifts of delicious pastries.
 
2012-08-13 06:37:35 PM

NeoCortex42: The only voice of reason on Fox News is Shep. O'Reilly has his moments, but Shep has no problem calling something ridiculous when it is.


Agreed, but I specified "pundit." Shep is OK in my book, too, but not part of that particular conversation.

/occasionally goes to freeperland whenever Shep says something not entirely in line with The Program, especially when he looks someone in the eye and actually calls bullsh*t. It's farking hilarious (and sad).
//Harnessing freeper outrage is how we'll eventually ween ourselves from foreign oil
 
2012-08-13 06:45:42 PM

JerkStore: The debate can be improved with just three words:

In a cage!


After the VP debates last year, I'd love to see an actual beatdown. TWO MEN ENTER. ONE MAN LEAVES.

Can we photoshop Biden into/near a V-8 Police Interceptor?
 
2012-08-13 06:45:51 PM

dickfreckle: NeoCortex42: The only voice of reason on Fox News is Shep. O'Reilly has his moments, but Shep has no problem calling something ridiculous when it is.

Agreed, but I specified "pundit." Shep is OK in my book, too, but not part of that particular conversation.

/occasionally goes to freeperland whenever Shep says something not entirely in line with The Program, especially when he looks someone in the eye and actually calls bullsh*t. It's farking hilarious (and sad).
//Harnessing freeper outrage is how we'll eventually ween ourselves from foreign oil


Fair enough. I'd have to agree that O'Reilly is the closest to sanity as far as the pundits go.
 
2012-08-13 06:50:50 PM
Debate moderators are the pro-wrestling referees of the

They're not there to enforce the rules. They're an integral part of the theater of it all, whose purpose is to be knocked down at the appropriate point so that one of the participants can showboat unimpeded, and to be constantly distracted by the heel team's antics while Robert Gibson jumps up and down in the corner trying to get the hot tag.

My metaphor may have gone off track near the end there.
 
2012-08-13 07:30:19 PM

NeoCortex42: Dwight_Yeast: So we're getting a total of four debates this year -two Presidential and two Veep?

Well, that sucks on wheels.

3 Presidential (one of which is town hall style), 1 Veep


Ah, so after Biden dismantles Ryan, he doesn't get a second debate to do a glory lap.
 
2012-08-13 07:42:11 PM

Party Boy: Just in case anyone isn't aware of this
[1988] The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.


Republicans today would boycott debates run by women voters, just like women voters are going to boycott Republicans at the polls.
 
2012-08-13 07:58:11 PM

Dwight_Yeast: NeoCortex42: Dwight_Yeast: So we're getting a total of four debates this year -two Presidential and two Veep?

Well, that sucks on wheels.

3 Presidential (one of which is town hall style), 1 Veep

Ah, so after Biden dismantles Ryan, he doesn't get a second debate to do a glory lap.


Nope, just some donuts in his Trans-Am out in the parking lot afterwards.
 
2012-08-13 11:26:14 PM

imontheinternet: keithgabryelski: Hobodeluxe: [assets.rollingstone.com image 306x425]

I would love to see this woman get a chance to ask questions and them be forced to answer hooked up to a lie detector

I'm happy to have liberals with their own shows -- I think smart liberals should present our positions and defend them.

But neither Moyer nor Maddow should be the MODERATOR for a debate -- they can be on a panel that asks questions but moderation does not seem to be their strong point.

I wouldn't mind seeing a debate with two hyper-partisan moderators, one for each candidate. Let Keith Olbermann ask Romney questions, while Sean Hannity asks Obama questions. It wouldn't exactly be the model of decorum, but it would certainly reflect the modern political landscape quite well.


Substitute Brit Hume for Hannity and I think you've got yourself a deal.
 
2012-08-13 11:40:54 PM

lennavan: I_C_Weener: DamnYankees: Guys, big news - Mia Farrow is on board:

mia farrow @MiaFarrow
Good choice MT @AnnieLowrey: CNN's Candy Crowley to be the first female presidential debate moderator since ABC's' Carole Simpson in 1992.

Wasn't Gwen Ifil more recent than that?

She did the VP debate. And I came in here to express my sadness that Gwen didn't get chosen. She was by far the best moderator last time imo.


And got criticized at the time for not letting either candidate run roughshod over the format, which says to me she was doing a fabulous job.
 
2012-08-14 01:02:00 AM

Party Boy: kronicfeld: will be doing their best to keep the candidates on topic

Sorry, when in the recent history of alternating soapboxes debates has a moderator actually done this?

Limeys do a better job of that.


Seriously, I effing miss the days I used to do late night commuting and listened to the BBC World Report. Damn near every time while they were interviewing someone, if I said to myself "why the f--k don't they just ask them ___?", they inevitably did. But in a more restrained British way that allowed the interviewee to hoist himself/herself on their own petard

/Third time I've used a variation of "hoisted with his own petard" today
//gotta love the classics.
 
2012-08-14 01:05:55 AM

Cletus C.: Oh yeah. But speaking of Fox, Bill O'Reilly also is critical of Republicans at times. Perhaps we have found two voices of moderation who will lead us safely from this quagmire of political partisanship.


Me, I just chose to ignore cable news altogether. Keeps the blood pressure down anyway.

But yeah, Maddow and O'Reilly have had moments of insight. They've also been stupid shills too, both of them, even when I agree it's uncomfortable when it's so blatant.

I just gave up and started reading all my news. I can read faster than they can talk anyway. Plus make my own opinions, bonus.
 
2012-08-14 01:10:00 AM

NeoCortex42: but Shep has no problem calling something ridiculous when it is.


Which I do appreciate (SO's family and one of my uncles has Fox on constantly, so I can't avoid it completely). But then he cuts it with stuff like this...

Ok, I can't find the link, but basically asking what the hell the Mars Rover plans to find that would be relevant to us on Earth. Mourn the demise of science for sciences' sake.

/you know, E!, if you had more clips from The Soup online you could make profit off of them dammit
 
2012-08-14 03:28:59 AM

imontheinternet: I wouldn't mind seeing a debate with two hyper-partisan moderators, one for each candidate. Let Keith Olbermann ask Romney questions, while Sean Hannity asks Obama questions. It wouldn't exactly be the model of decorum, but it would certainly reflect the modern political landscape quite well.


The best evidence of the terminal degradation of political discourse in this country is the idea that only "hyper-partisans" can ask tough, specific questions. The best moderator neither panders to a candidate nor attempts to speak for the candidate's opponent. It would be more informative if the moderator were to challenge Romney from the right (on the similarities between his and Obama's healthcare reforms, or how much of his work on behalf of the Salt Lake City Olympics involved lobbying for what the Tea Party would consider pork-barrel spending--federal money for Salt Lake City's light rail line and luxury student housing at the University of Utah, for instance), then turn to Obama and ask him about the human rights aspects of our drone warfare in Yemen and Pakistan, backed up with verified numbers of civilian casualties. Then let Obama challenge Romney from the left and Romney challenge Obama from the right in their rebuttals.

One question I would love somebody to ask both candidates is what they plan to do to reverse the alarming rise in suicides among active and returning servicemen over the last decade. Is the government devoting enough resources to veterans' psychiatric treatment? Are multiple tours of duty by "volunteer" soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan proving so mentally unbearable that it will be necessary to institute a draft if we wish to maintain our military presence in the region?

Somehow, I doubt that question will come up.
 
Displayed 42 of 192 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report