Why the FU@K are we watching debates this early for??!!

[MUAD_DIB]

I mean really people.

Do we really need to see the candidates going at it this early?

Enough is enough.

[Captain Hilts]

1. I watched the Sox-Yanks game Sunday night. nt

[Redneck Socialist]

2. Yeah, me too.

Unless one of the candidates strips naked and starts clucking like a chicken, not much that happens at a debate is going to influence my vote.

Watching them as political theater is one thing, actually expecting to learn something, well, not so much.

[Egnever]

3. Cause we are are political junkies?

I know I am its way better than any reality TV if you are paying attention. I listen to these guys talk if its election season or not , but then when is it ever not election season.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Why? To distract us from real news? Oh, no , our media

would never do that.

:sarcasm:

Think Anna Nicole Smith. What was of national importance about her squabble with her dead husband's son (who actually died during the squabble, so I guess he was pretty old himself) OR about her daughter's birth OR her son's death OR her own death OR the resulting squabbles over where she should be buried OR who the biological father of her daughter was?

TV exists to get us thinking about things, but rarely the things we should be thinking about.

[On the Road]

5. Maybe

Presidential debates should start before fundraising or nationwide polling.

[TeamJordan23]

6. Simple Answer: Fundraising

To keep the money flowing in.

[xultar]

7. Things are so bad now people need something to look forward to.

[leftofthedial]

8. for the teevee tells me so

[SteppingRazor]

9. How is this any different than 2004?

The first debates of that presidential primary took place only about a week later than the first debates of this primary season, and in 2003, the first TV commercials — Howard Dean's — began airing in June.

So, what's different here?

Indeed, given the fact that the election days have been moved forward in many states, one could make an argument that this primary season is actually shorter than the last few, not longer.

[T Wolf]

10. Because Americans love fake reality shows.

Noticed the ratings for a couple of weeks ago - top four spots to two of the reality shows Idol and ???), neither of which I have ever seen. It was only at #5 that Lost (season finale), the highest-rated creative show appeared.

Speaks volumes about the sorry state of the union.

[oldgrowth]

11. Cheap media coverage and they can pick who would be best for them!!

[Czolgosz]

12. Personally, I watched the debates because I was interested in what the candidates had to say. If

someone forced you to watch the debates against your will, I sympathize with you. If not, you can just elect to not watch the debates.

My sister likes to have her Christmas shopping done before Thanksgiving. I don't get it, but it's not a hardship on me. The early debates seem like a similar deal.

[MUAD_DIB]

13. Does your sis Christmas shope a year in advance?

[SteppingRazor]

16. Actually, the primary elections are about half a year away, not a year...

As I said above, compared with previous election seasons, there's really nothing unusual about the timng of this one.

[Czolgosz]

18. Even if she did, it wouldn't be a hardship on me.

[AndyTiedye]

14. I Was Out Mountain Biking

[fishnfla]

15. 3 words

campaign consultants
money

[Nimrod2005]

17. Debates should be on-going, all the time, issues need to be debated...

That's the only god damn time we have a discussion about crap, AND THEY PUT TIME LIMITS!!!

[bunnies]

20. I'm with you.

The more debates the better.

[Nimrod2005]

21. Welcome to DU...nt

[CRH]

19. I've wondered why the change in status quo, and when it was decided, ...

and by who?

Was the corporate media responsible? With all the extra money entering their coffers, I could understand some of the reasoning.

Was it the two major parties?

And the biggest question, Why the change?

I wonder if someone before midterm 06 elections saw the change of power in the congress, and realized there needed to be a diversion away from investigations of 911, PNAC influences on government, doctored intelligence, preemptive war, the Geneva Convention war crimes, torture, signing statements, unitary presidents, regulatory riot, and other administration and bi-partisan scandals. If any of this really was investigated with a saturation of mass media reporting, and few distractions, Impeachment would be an acceptable and responsive action.

That a significant portion of the democrat party enabled, sometimes encouraged, and other times helped block remedial measures to many of the above abuses, helps to explain why both parties would encourage a more costly more exclusive election process to divert attention away from obvious needs of political reform.

The impeachment of the President and Vice President of the republican party would also weaken the inroads of the right wing DLC an Blue Dog types, (enablers) in the democratic party, allowing a shift to the left of the over all party platform. This would be discouraged by both party leaderships and the corporate media as well. As it is now, the left has been marginalized, and without big corporate bucks others cannot afford to pay to play.

The ultimate winner of an impeachment, and the impeachment of a bi-partisan direction our politics have taken, would be the people.

Anybody have a clue as to the Who and Why of this historic change in politics?