BWJones's Journal: Presidential debate....

To my surprise and dismay, I just found out the Presidential debates are completely scripted...... Questions apparently have been agreed upon in advance so the candidates can practice their exact responses prior to the debate. I don't know if they have always been this way, and I am a little embarrassed for not knowing for sure whether or not this is protocol, but my impression was that debates were more spontaneous affairs that reflect your ability to think and respond dynamically and in real time to challenges to viewpoint and logic.

Apparently in each debate, the agreement between both parties was that "the candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions.".

This to me is absolutely ridiculous. I want to know how each candidate can respond to stress and answer questions without a cadre of handlers pre-approving and pre-answering questions for them.

Can anyone confirm or deny that this is the way Presidential debates have been handled in the past?

This is new

[js7a]

The ability to ask rhetorical questions is an improvement. There are no debate questions which are not rhetorical, as forensics is in the rhetorics.

Scripting the topics has always been in play. The rule is that it's considered fair if both sides are disclosed the entire script in advance. Extemporanous debate is frowned upon, but unavoidable in court, administrative hearings, or legislative debate such as presidential elections. The idea of "discovery" is to prevent the uncertainty of extemporanious d

I agree

[Otter]

I don't think this has been standard practice historically -- maybe it's been introduced before this election, though. Honestly, I don't see how much difference it makes as the candidates always used to vaguely acknowledge the question and then launch into some boilerplate about a key talking point. I never watch them as I find them too depressing.

Anyway, what's to know? The incumbent is a well-known quantity, for better or worse; the challenger is running on a platform of a) I'm not the incumbent and b) I

It's completely phony, I think.

[chadjg]

I caught a part of an interview on the public channel with an author that has researched this. The debates are run by a private, non-profit company called "The Commission on Presidential Debates," or something like that. They took over when the League of Women Voters refused to roll over to Republican and Democratic demands for a bunch of these insane rules.

Companies "donate" to the "Commission" in exchange for the right to pimp themselves and their causes at the venue.

It's about as much a debate as the M

Re:It's completely phony, I think.

[BWJones]

It's about as much a debate as the M1A2 is an efficient commuter machine.

I can only speak for the M1A1 from experience, but it is a fun ride at about 50MPH. A feeling of invincibility. The scary thing though is how fast you can actually stop a 68 ton battle tank.

Re:It's completely phony, I think.

[chadjg]

I can only speak about either one from looking and drooling. They must have some kind of "hand of god" brakes to stop that kind of thing. Wow!

I had a high school friend that went into the Navy and then got into a Guard unit as a loader on the M1A1 (odd switch to me) and his opinion seemed to be that the major limits on how much killing you could do with that machine was how much fuel you could get and how fast he could shove the shells into the breech. I don't know if that's realistic, but it's a darn impr

Re:It's completely phony, I think.

[BWJones]

Fuel is the major issue. A good friend of mine drove fuel trucks for the Army in Desert Storm and they were always playing catchup to the M1s and Bradleys who could actually drive faster than the fuel trucks on the initial flanking maneuver into Iraq.

Re:It's completely phony, I think.

[chadjg]

I don't think that'll change soon. It generally takes mass to stop KE type weapons, and mass takes energy to move. We might get incremental changes in armor quality and drivetrain efficiency, but not so much that it would change the prospects for fuel truck drivers.

I don't think we could make tanks fast enough to avoid the need for armor. I'm glad it isn't me that has to solve these problems!

Re:It's completely phony, I think.

[chadjg]

Hence the DARPA desert race for robotic drivers. Buying and storing a robotic 6x6 has to be cheaper than dealing with a cheap 6x6+several drivers.

My old volunteer fire fire department got a surplux 6x6 with a water tank from the army surplus, and I have to say that thing was an awesome, fun machine. We converted it into a brush rig and it would ford creeks and grind over small logs like they weren't hardly there. All you have to do is drop it into the low range, point the thing and let it grind! Not as goo

It's very common...

[evilviper]

It's been almost completely scripted for a long time now.

In this debate, they've just taken it a step further... Audience questions were always subject to approval, and were sometimes (usually?) disclosed to the candidates in advance, but they never before offically mandated that the person asking the question must be silenced immediately if they even slightly differ from the scripted question.

It's a shame, but it's not very unusual.

Advance

[pudge]

Questions apparently have been agreed upon in advance

Apparent to whom, and based on what? I've not seen any evidence of this, and I've read the Memorandum of Understanding (as well as the previous ones).

You should read the book No Debate. It spells out the entire history of this stuff. Find out more on Open Debates [opendebates.org]. It's the book chadjg is referring to (the author's name is George Farah, the director of Open Debates). It actually contains the previous, formerly secret, Memoranda of Understanding (th

Good article on party control of debates

[snjoseph]

I want to know how each candidate can respond to stress and answer questions without a cadre of handlers pre-approving and pre-answering questions for them.

Really? I can't imagine a situation where an acting president wouldn't have the benefit of his claque of spin-making flunkies.

In all seriousness, I found this article [everything2.com] on the Commission on Presidential Debates to be pretty sharp. For the two "traditional-style" debates, I don't think the candidates know the specific questions per se, although the top