If there were a Dean vs. Bush Presidential debate tonight

[Michigander4Dean]

What kinds of questions would you expect to be asked?

Do you think Jim Lehrer would be the moderator?

If you were the moderator, what kind of questions would you ask?

How would you expect Dean to respond? What about W?

I'd expect these questions:

"Governor Dean, in light of the high terror alert warning issued yesterday, you have criticized Mr. Bush for failing to protect America. You have argued that America is hardly any safer now than after September 11, 2001. Could you be more specific?"

"President Bush, as somewhat of a follow-up question, you have accused Mr. Dean and Democrats in general of being 'soft on terrorism.' Could you explain that?"

“Mr. President, how does Saddam’s capture make us safer?”

"Governor Dean, you've said the economy is not improving, even though the GDP has risen at record rates, the major market indices have all risen sharply this year, and the unemployment rate has dropped. How is the economy improving?”

“Mr. Dean, Mr. Bush has accused you of not supporting the ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act, saying you want to repeal it. How would you respond?”

“Mr. Bush, to say the least, Mr. Dean has lambasted your environmental record, saying that you choose ‘special interests over the people’s interests.’ How would you respond?”

“Mr. Dean, you have stated that you would repeal the income tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 to pay for your healthcare plan. Why would you do that?”

“Mr. Bush, the Medicare bill you supported and recently signed has come under heat from not only Mr. Dean, but also from seniors. How does this benefit them?"

[ohiosmith]

1. I'd watch Monday Night Football!

[IndianaGreen]

2. We better hope the League of Women Voters is sponsoring the debates

We must take the Presidential Debates away from the DNC & RNC Chairs

I remember when the Presidential Debates were real debates, with a real impartial moderator, and a distinguished panel of journalists, in which candidates were given the time to answer and expound on their views on major issues. There were no Judys, or Paulas, or Timmys trying to get their KO punch and the soundbite.

When the political machines of the 2-major parties took away the debates from the League of Women Voters, it did a disservice to the American people. Debates were won by the best prepped and coached candidate, not by the better candidate.

It is our fault that we allowed American democracy to degrade to the point that it has. The outrageous abuses of the Bush government are the culmination of years of neglect by us, the American people, of the liberties and democratic values that so many sacrificed their lives for.

I don't care what a candidate's favorite book, or philosopher, or artist happens to be. I don't care how tall or short the candidate is, or whether he is single or divorced. I don't care to hear how well rehearsed the candidate was in giving the TV audience a bland and safe answer on a thorny issue. I do care what the candidate's values are, and what he is going to do if elected.

There are Americans from all across the political spectrum that would like to change the way presidential debates are organized and conducted. I ask that you give them a fair hearing.

The Issue

The Presidential debates are the single most important event in the process of selecting a President. They have traditionally given the American people an opportunity to see all the viable candidates discuss important issues in an unscripted manner.

Presidential debates were run by the civic-minded and non-partisan League of Women Voters until 1988, when the national Republican and Democratic parties seized control of the debates by establishing the bi-partisan, corporate-sponsored Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Posing as an institution committed to voter education, the CPD has continually and deceptively run the debates in the interest of the national Republican and Democratic parties, not the American people. The CPD, co-chaired by the former heads of the Republican and Democratic parties, has insulated the major party candidates from challenging questions, difficult issues, and popular third party and independent candidates. As a result, under the CPD's control, the debates have been reduced to "glorified bi-partisan news conferences," where the major party candidates merely recite prepackaged soundbites and avoid discussing many important issues.

Open Debates is working to establish a nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission to sponsor presidential debates that are rigorous, fair, and inclusive of important issues and popular candidates. The higher values of democracy and voter education will be restored to the presidential debates by the Citizens' Debate Commission.

http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/

OPEN DEBATES APPLAUDS REP. KUCINICH

Open Debates, National Press Building, 529 14th St. NW, Suite 1201, Washington, DC 20045
November 25, 2003

OPEN DEBATES APPLAUDS REP. KUCINICH

WASHINGTON, DC -- Open Debates commends Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for calling for open debates as part of his presidential campaign platform. "I believe in the power of open debates to restore higher values of democracy and voter education to the American political process," stated Rep. Kucinich.

"We applaud Rep. Kucinich's call for open debates," said Open Debates' Executive Director George Farah.

The bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has sponsored the presidential debates since 1988, when it seized control of the debates from the non-partisan League of Women Voters. The CPD is a private corporation that was established by the chairs of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee.

"CPD sponsored presidential debates have been little more than glorified press conferences, where candidates recite prepackaged sound-bites, and avoid discussing many important issues," said Farah.

http://www.opendebates.org/news/pressreleases/06252003.html


Originally posted in DU on December 15, 2003 at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=918376

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. You are absolutely correct.

The only reason the media whores were able to say Junior "won" the 2000 debates (Which anyone with a brain who watched them would have disagreed with anyway) is because they weren't debates to begin with.

Any of the 9 candidates - even the ones I don't like very much - would kick Junior's moronic ass in an honest debate. We need to insist on REAL debates in 2004. No easy passes for the moron in thief. If he's really up to the job, he should be able to handle it, right? ;)

[anti-bush]

4. Ugggh....

This borders on Karl Rove territory.

"If Howard Dean were convicted of murdering single moms, who do you think his lawyer should be?"

Phrasing hypothetical questions like this only shows how blinded you are.

Why don't you focus on things that are constructive. If somebody else wins the race, this question is pointless.