Yes, Bob Dole and John McCain recounted their attendence at that event during their presidential campaigns.
I’d prefer a moderator armed to the teeth with facts ready to call out bullshit, rather than allowing candidates more time to spout theirs. Policy is a matter of opinion, but reality isn’t.
When the League of Women Voters was the managing organization for the presidential debates, things were a bit more cally-outy. [del]Then the party organizations and individual campaigns started refusing to attend the LWV debates[/del]
My apologies…what really happened after further research is that the LWV withdrew because the party orgs and campaigns were making so many demands for control of the debates that the LWV wanted nothing to do with it.
It’s clear, though, when a candidate wants to derail an issue, or just run the clock without really saying anything. They will do this for as long as they can get away with it, if it means that their opponent cannot get his/her message out.
(In the majority of the debates I have watched, most candidates can say what they need to say in fewer words, but they don’t.)
In either case, I don’t want to listen more than two minutes of that kind of horse apples. You can’t leave it up to moderator discretion, either, because then there will be allegations of favoritism and bias. So there is a preagreed upon time limit.
I don’t accept the premise that candidates really want to go beyond the talking points in the majority of issues that may get discussed. 
Some will have “pet” issues, and might like to go into details on those, but for the majority of other topics, no.
I have no idea.
Sometimes I think the candidates are too dependant on the National level party machines. They have to toe the party line, or risk losing the funding and access to the resources that the party can provide. This seems to squash individuality (like if a Republican wants to be pro-choice), and gives the party organisation a monolithic platform, and a huge influence in government (both electorally and legislatively). But this treads on freedom of speech and freedom of association issues, so I can’t recommend abolishing (or some other severly limiting regulation of) the party organisations. I wish I had a brain, 'cause then I’ld be rich.
:dubious: Are you implying something?
puff Wow, look at the time! Gotta go! Big speech to the Jaycees, can’t get out of it! Call ya, honey!
It’s not the parties’ fault that people respond to shallow jingoism and emotional appeals.
It’s their fault if they cater to that.
They were basically just pre-canned speeches though, weren’t they? Seems that thats the opposite of what the OP wants.
I actually think the current debate format does a decent job. At the end of the day, there isn’t really any way to force a candidate to get off their talking points, but by using a question-and-answer format (and moderators do seem to try and ask at least a few non-predictable questions), you can at least make it awkward for the candidates that just want to give a pre-arranged speech.
And the candidates to usually respond to each other, which also forces them to act somewhat extemporaneously.
Those that don’t cater to it lose. We get the government we deserve.
I question the premise. I have lived outside the US and even if there are televised debates between the candidates for an election (many times there aren’t) they aren’t any longer than in the US.
The OP is thinking about Question Time in the UK, which is not a debate between candidates at all.
The press sort of obliges.
As I understand it the debates are highly scripted events from the get-go and that includes types of questions to be asked and what the questioner can and cannot do. Pretty much the LAST thing they do is debate and I believe the questioner is just as scripted and unable to deviate as anyone else. The candidates negotiate the terms between themselves and then force it on the media.
No candidate wants to get burned on national TV so they make sure, beforehand, that it can’t happen (near as they are able).
Candidate debates, as they stand, are nearly worthless. They are a two hour infomercial for the candidates.
I’d pay money to see candidates forced into several college style formal debates or something akin to a Supreme Court argument where the justices grill the lawyer. THAT would be worth something.
The networks/cable news channels want to make money off of the debates just like anything else. I would imagine they get higher ratings for debates where the answers are kept short, so as not to bore the viewer with actual policy discussions, which most of the American viewing public is not interested in, if the paucity of such discussions on the regular political shows is any indication. Evidently, we are much more interested in whether a candidate uses a Blackberry or an iPhone, which prefers mild food to spicy, or Jay Leno to Conan O’Brien.
Yeah, but we are the ones hiring them. What job interview has applicants telling employers how the process will work.
The one where we get to choose between the giant douche and the turd sandwich who were handpicked by our corporo-feudal overlords and then primped, processed, coached and imaged within an inch of their lives?
I don’t think that accurately describes Ron Paul…
Okay, giant douche, turd sandwich and crazy old man.
Exactly. So we either deserve morons or liars. But while the morons may not be culpable for their words, the liars are. Sometimes you have both (think governors of large states). But I think some part of that is our lack of choice. Maybe I’m being absurdly optimistic and failing to underestimate the intellect of the American public, but I believe a politican who was actually informed, intelligent, and honest, could hold up against the useless choices we have. I don’t think either Obama or Clinton was elected based solely on their intellectual capacity, but instead they looked favorable compared to their opponents in the terms of the political game. But I do think it was a factor people recognized. GW was the great experiment of having a president who you want to have a beer with, and the experiment was a miserable failure. I think the election of Obama was something of a sign that people would look a little further than skin deep. Otherwise, I guess we don’t deserve better than we’ve had.
Do you think Ron paul was picked by some corporate overlord, groomed, coached, and processed into a evil minion? 
I read your post as saying we get to pick between this hand picked douche, that hand picked turd, and that hand picked crazy old man; as if they are ALL approved by some collection of corporate overlords.
[QUOTE=TriPolar]
I think the election of Obama was something of a sign that people would look a little further than skin deep. Otherwise, I guess we don’t deserve better than we’ve had.
[/QUOTE]
I think he won because of the “anything but Bush”, “throw the current bums out” sentiment. McCain did not do enough to make himself seem distinct and different from Bush.
Obama promised that, among other things, being an outsider as far as D.C. power-cliques goes, he would make government more functional again. (Endless partisan bickering.)
Obama was also more personable than McCain McGrumpyPants.
I don’t think he won because he seemed more intellectual than Bush.
Well, no, mostly because I’m talking about the two final candidates, not the primary crowd. Primaries will always have people who have absolutely no chance to actually become THE candidate. Ron Paul will never become THE candidate. His major corporate sponsorship consists of yard sign manufacturers, from what I’ve seen, and while he’s attractive to very conservative Republicans who want people to think they’re actually libertarians, his very few decent ideas are pretty much awash in a sea of loony.