Edwards "debated" alone as no other candidate bothered to show up for a real debate...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

There is a lot of talk about the audacity of Edwards calling for a better debate format. The implication is that this is a crass political move for political gain, given the intense damage to the Edwards candidacy the campaigns of certain candidates are doing. :crazy: The truth is John Edwards actually cares about improving the state of the political debate in America. He was the only candidate who accepted an invitation from Democratic icon Mario Cuomo, a three term governor of New York, for a real debate in the Cooper Union Dialogue Series. What is this? It is an idea devised by Governor Cuomo and Newt Gingrich and modeled on Abraham Lincoln's famous 1860 address at New York City's Cooper Union. The purpose of this is to force candidates to truly discuss the issues and their views, not merely recite 30 second rehearsed sound-bites. Only John Edwards stepped up to the plate to accept this challenge among Democrats. On the Republican side Rudy Ghouliani has stated he is willing to engage in an actual discussion of issues (hey, there is a first time for everything!). Cuomo and Gingrich also have proposed that there be nine debates leading up to the general election next year with each debate focusing on a single topic.

==This was not a fundraiser or a stump speech for the former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee. Edwards came to talk policy.

Outside the confines of sound bite-driven national debates, he took the opportunity to introduce policies he would implement as president to protect low- and middle-income families.

This was the spirit of the event. Like presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Bill Clinton, Edwards took the stage to engage in serious discourse about the policy behind the rhetoric.

Cuomo and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) kicked off the Cooper Union Dialogue Series in February and sent an open invitation to every presidential contender to speak or debate. Edwards was the first to RSVP. Cuomo noted that other candidates were welcome to debate Edwards, but nobody had taken the challenge.==

Read the rest at http://www.cityhallnews.com/news/128/ARTICLE/1200/2007-06-28.html

[pnwmom]

1. What excuses did the other candidates offer for not showing up? n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. Apparently they do not like the idea of having to go beyond sound bite answers nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. Here is what Mario Cuomo himself said

"Let me make it clear why not (why Edwards was the only one at the event). John Edwards is prepared to debate anybody. We went and we spoke to people, John Edwards is prepared to debate. Would you like to debate? We couldn't get anybody to debate him."

http://www.scribemedia.org/2007/07/02/waiting-for-john-edwards-with-mario-cuomo/

[pnwmom]

10. How odd. It wasn't a Fox production, was it? n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. No, it was only on C-Span I believe. Just a candidate, ideas, and many reporters nt

[iamjoy]

2. Very Interesting

I respect concerns that limiting the debates is limiting democracy, but to my way of thinking, having eight to ten candidates on a stage hurts democracy because the winner is not the really the best candidate or one with the best ideas, but rather the one with the best sound bites and stump speech.

You want to really find out what candidates are made of and how well they know their stuff? Have a town hall forum - where you don't pre-screen attendees. Have two people go head to head with minimal rules (sufficient to avoid the sort of shouting matches we often see between pundits on political television shows).

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. That is a good idea too. Did you see the Kerry-Gingrich debate a few months ago?

That was a great one as well, a real debate between the two as they delved into the details and philosophical underpinnings of various ideas, as opposed to merely reciting 30 second sound-bites they rehearsed over the weekend.

[stellanoir]

3. How does one debate with oneself. . .?

Oh wait. . .I do that all the time.

I even asked someone last year. . ."I'm having an inner argument. . .do you care to referee. . .?"

[w4rma]

7. Why did Kucinich decide not to show up? (nt)

[jsamuel]

8. affraid to debate the "imperial candidate" I guess

[John Q. Citizen]

19. You guess ?

[Mz Pip]

9. He was on TV complaining

about the plot to exclude him from debates. :shrug:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[CarolNYC]

21. Not sure he was invited...

Mario said he invited "all of the top candidates", Democrat and Republican, not naming any names...Maybe Mario doesn't consider Dennis a top candidate? I can't imagine Dennis would ignore the opportunity to debate. He showed up for the Biden all-Iraq one which Edwards ignored.

[AlGore-08.com]

12. I think they should try to do virtual debates - - all of them speaking from video feeds

That way, they don't have to all be in the same space to debate, they just have to clear the same time from their schedule. So Edwards could come to the debate from New Hampshire, Clinton from Iowa, Obama from South Carolina, etc...

They could all use the same portable green screen as their backdrop (costs less than $100) and whoever organizes the debate gets to pick the background that's used for all of them.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. umm... a debate

with no opponents is properly called a "speech".

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. Hence the quotation marks in the thread title...

It is a shame there was no debate because no one else bothered to show up for a real debate...

[MonkeyFunk]

15. no

it's not a "real debate" until people show up. It's a shame your guy wasted his time.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Semantics...They did not want a real debate so they did not show up. They prefer sound bite farces

The debate was based on a format that forced candidates to go beyond merely reciting 30 second sound bites. That is what I refer to when I say it would have been a "real debate" (apparently one Mario Cuomo agrees...). As far as wasting his time, it certainly was not a waste of time. He was able to expound on his views, vision for the country and got a fair amount of press coverage for it. The only reason it may appear to be a waste is because you may not have heard of the event spoken as a would-be debate. The articles about it revolved around him returning to his "Two Americas" theme. I posted this thread in order to counter the myth that Edwards is not truly interested in serious debate and was merely trying to get rid of candidates at 0-2% in the polls (as if that would affect him).

[MonkeyFunk]

17. I see

so Edwards is all for open debate, and the rest aren't. idiotic.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Everyone can reach their own conclusions. The main thing is putting all the facts on the table

Some have been trying to promote the meme that Edwards does not care about improving debates but only wants to exclude some candidates from the debates (no evidence exists to support this meme). This thread provides context to Edwards' position.

With respect to your Hannity-style twisting of what I said, I have not said the others are opposed to open debate. They just seem to prefer sound bite "debates." Such debates are still open.

Here is what Mario Cuomo, who organized the event, had to say: "John Edwards is prepared to debate anybody. We went and we spoke to people. John Edwards is prepared to debate. Would you like to debate? We couldn't get anybody to debate him."

Any comments on Gov. Cuomo's statement? Does MonkeyFunk disagree with Mario Cuomo?

[CarolNYC]

22. So if someone doesn't show up when invited to a debate, they prefer sound bite farces?

Does that hold for Edwards as well, who did not show up when invited to the all-Iraq debate? Or is that designation only for those not named John Edwards?

I agree he didn't waste his time showing up...He got to give a speech and didn't even have to counter any of the other candidates responses to his ideas...and he didn't even have to mention Iraq....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. That is my opinion. Others can reach their own conclusions as to why they did not show up

I know some think Iraq is the only issue but there are several issues facing the nation and world. You can't compare a single issue debate with a comprehensive debate, especially under the Cuomo-Gingrich format.

==He got to give a speech and didn't even have to counter any of the other candidates responses to his ideas==

As Mario Cuomo himself said, they were given an opportunity to debate but they elected to not debate John Edwards.

==and he didn't even have to mention Iraq....==

Nice try. Mario Cuomo barely mentioned it as well when he spoke. Why don't you tell Duers why this is the case? Once again you are providing half the information to push people to a particular conclusion. The concept behind the Cuomo-Gingrich Cooper Dialogue Series is to get candidates to move beyond sound bites. One key way to achieve this is to have them focus on a couple of topics, not spent 30 seconds on 20 topics. Edwards--like Cuomo--opted to speak on issues on which he is distinguished more from other candidates and leaders instead of saying what essentially everyone else was saying on Iraq, aside from calling for Congress to not cave in to *. He, like Cuomo, made the right call. You make it seem as if he nefariously avoided Iraq...

[CarolNYC]

20. As I said in the other thread....

Yet, when he actually had a chance for a serious debate that other candidates agreed to (although not the 'top tier' ones), he declined as did Obama and Clinton.

Maybe it was the one issue thing he didn't like...Maybe he wants more substantial discussions, but not that substantial? Maybe he only agrees to attend when he knows the others will decline? :shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. He is running for President, not Secretary of State

Maybe he prefers comprehensive debates that covers several issues, instead of a single issue debate set up so Joe Biden could highlight his strength (why hasn't Biden called for a single issue debate on any other topic? ;) ).

Since you keep mentioning the single issue John Hopkins debate, it should be noted that the people on that stage are the same people who are still scheduled to appear in the Faux debate.

==Maybe he only agrees to attend when he knows the others will decline?==

Unless he has the powers of telepathy he had no idea that the others will not show up. As Mario Cuomo said, Edwards was the first to RSVP.

[usregimechange]

23. kick

[Byronic]

24. C'mon......

Joe Biden turning down the chance to talk?

No chance.

Must have been a scheduling conflict.

All I know is the only ones who turned up for the Iraq debate were Kucinich, Gravel and Biden.

[CarolNYC]

25. only the "top candidates" were invited to this....

Who knows who Mario considered the "top candidates", which is who he said he invited...May have been only Clinton, Obama and Edwards....I can;'t imagine Biden turning down and opprtunity to talk either....

[Byronic]

26. Ah,

Didn't realise it was one of those elite events. The guest list was no doubt very exclusive.

Bet Joe had his white tie and tails all pressed and ready to go too.

And he would have come in through the Tradesman's Entrance and doffed his cap at the appropriate time to the 'top tier' candidates.

[CarolNYC]

27. Yep, I think the only ones we can be sure were invited....

and chose not to attend were Obama and Clinton. I can't imagine Mario would not consider those two "top candidates". The others, I don't know. I haven't heard him speak on the 'tiering' of the candidates....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. That is flat-wrong. EVERY presidential candidate was invited

==Cuomo and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) kicked off the Cooper Union Dialogue Series in February and sent an open invitation to every presidential contender to speak or debate. Edwards was the first to RSVP. Cuomo noted that other candidates were welcome to debate Edwards, but nobody had taken the challenge.==

http://www.cityhallnews.com/news/128/ARTICLE/1200/2007-06-28.html

[CarolNYC]

37. Every Presidential 'contender', according to the article you site....

Who's to say who the writer of the article considers a "contender'?

According to this NY Daily News article - "Cuomo said he asked all the top candidates - Democrats and Republicans - to participate in debates because he feels there is a distinct lack of details being offered on the campaign trail at the moment." In the article he then goes on to talk about Clinton and Obama but none of the others....although, who knows, he may have brought them up in the conversation but the reporter chose to leave that out.

I know there are some here who have no problem with making assumptions, based on nothing more than the way they'd like things to be or the way they'd like others to think things to be, and stating them as indisputable facts. I am not one of them. That is why I said there was no way of knowing if anyone other than Obama, Clinton and Edwards were invited for the Democrats. I just don't know who Cuomo is thinking is a "top" candidate.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. You are distorting what Cuomo is trying to do. Cuomo himself has said EVERY candidate was invited

==I know there are some here who have no problem with making assumptions, based on nothing more than the way they'd like things to be or the way they'd like others to think things to be, and stating them as indisputable facts.==

That is precisely what you are doing in this thread and did in the thread about Edwards and the Biden debate, even though you apparently knew of the Cooper Union debate held in your city. Why didn't you bother to mention this relevant fact in a thread claiming that Edwards is not serious about improving debates?

You are distorting what Cuomo is trying to do by playing the semantics game. Surely you don't really believe he would exclude candidates in an effort to improve the public debate?

Here is what Cuomo and Gingrich said--in their own words. This is not mere speculation.

==We're throwing out the current play book and having a 90-minute dialogue about America's future.

Our hope is that this kind of in-depth, unrestricted, but civil conversation will once again become the norm. To that end, we are inviting all the presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, to come to Cooper Union and to present their vision for America — just as Lincoln and several of his fellow White House aspirants did in 1860.

We believe that the simple act of bringing candidates and their supporters together in the same room will take at least half the poison out of our political system because the candidates would have to be less strident and more persuasive in their presentations. This will require more thought, more creativity, more substance, more solutions — and a whole lot less rhetoric.

America needs and deserves a better future. A better future requires candidates with better solutions to our challenges. And better solutions require a better format for dialogue and discussion. We're getting the ball rolling by offering one such model with this challenge to those running for president: Come to Cooper Union==

http://www.nysun.com/article/49402?page_no=3

[CarolNYC]

44. assumptions

I am not making assumptions anywhere, just asking questions and commenting on I've read, but you are making them all over the place...Good luck with that....and have a good day.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. Assumptions? Cuomo himself is on record stating the obvious about this

==just asking questions and commenting on I've read==

Sure. :eyes: That is why you posted a thread implying Edwards is a hypocrite and not interested in improving debates when you knew--but didn't bother to mention to DUers--the inconvenient truth about his participation in the Cooper Union Dialogue series....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. That is false, as post #33 and the OP show. All the candidates were invited

Moreover, Mario would never do that. Why? It would defeat the very purpose of the Cooper Union Dialogue Series. :crazy:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. They were obviously told of this well in advance and could have attended if they wanted to nt

[Totally Committed]

28. What a horrible missed opportunity for all the other candidates!

WEll, good for Edwards for showing up. I'm sure he was given ample apportunity to talk about his issues and plans at length. The stage surely wasn't so crowded, as to limit his ability to get his message across there!

TC

P.S. Why did the other candidates skip this event?

[Byronic]

29. Well, like CarolNYC stated

It was an exclusive guest list.

They couldn't let just any old hobbledehoy into the event.

Where would it all end?

Those in the audience don't get out of bed for anybody less than 10 percentage points in the polls.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. CarolNYC is wrong. All the candidates were invivted nt

[CarolNYC]

38. According to Mario, all of the "top candidates" anyway....

Who are the "top candidates" for Mario? As I've stated elsewhere, I don't know.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. That is false. Cuomo and Gingrich have said ALL presidential candidates were invited

What a lame attempt to use semantics to distort reality and what Cuomo is trying to do (which would not be served by inviting only some candidates--but you already know that...). :eyes:

Here is what Mario Cuomo and Gingrich said about the Cooper Union Dialogue Series: ==Our hope is that this kind of in-depth, unrestricted, but civil conversation will once again become the norm. To that end, we are inviting all the presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, to come to Cooper Union and to present their vision for America — just as Lincoln and several of his fellow White House aspirants did in 1860.==

http://www.nysun.com/article/49402?page_no=3

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. Probably because the format would force them to have to go beyond 30 second sound bites

;)

[Totally Committed]

39. That was my thought, too, but.... was it true not all the candidates were invited

like CarolNTC has said?

Is there a way to find out who was invited? Cuomo's not a man to exclude anyone who is serious about running, I would think.

TC

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. No that is false. CarolNYC is using semantics to confuse people as to what really happened

You are right. Cuomo would not exclude any of the candidates. CarolNYC knows this too... Why? Because it would defeat the very purpose of the Cuomo-Gingrich Cooper Union Dialogue Series. :crazy: Cuomo is interested in improving political discourse in America and to help foster discussion of real solutions to real issues. He is not playing some wizard who is seeking to rig the system for chosen candidates. To insinuate such is a stretch, at best, under ordinary circumstances but ludicrous given the mission Cuomo is on.

Consider the source. CarolNYC is hardly unbiased on John Edwards. Who is a reliable source? How about the people who created the Cooper Union Dialgoue Series? I cannot think of anyone else who would know more about the series than them. Here is what they said in an article they jointly wrote the day before the series was inaugurated:

==We're throwing out the current play book and having a 90-minute dialogue about America's future.

Our hope is that this kind of in-depth, unrestricted, but civil conversation will once again become the norm. To that end, we are inviting all the presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, to come to Cooper Union and to present their vision for America — just as Lincoln and several of his fellow White House aspirants did in 1860.

We believe that the simple act of bringing candidates and their supporters together in the same room will take at least half the poison out of our political system because the candidates would have to be less strident and more persuasive in their presentations. This will require more thought, more creativity, more substance, more solutions — and a whole lot less rhetoric.

America needs and deserves a better future. A better future requires candidates with better solutions to our challenges. And better solutions require a better format for dialogue and discussion. We're getting the ball rolling by offering one such model with this challenge to those running for president: Come to Cooper Union.==

http://www.nysun.com/article/49402?page_no=3

[dogman]

40. Was it the '08 Edwards vs. the '04 Edwards?

Who won on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act?

[dae]

46. Why not put Dem & GOP Candidates together in that one forum?

It may be crowded but talk about one subject, universal health care, stem cell research, or whatever, and let it all hit the fan.
I think it would get a few peoples attention.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. That is part of the Cuomo-Gingrich Cooper Union series

It is a good idea and I agree with you and Mario Cuomo on this. Here is what Cuomo and Gingrich said regarding this:

==Our hope is that this kind of in-depth, unrestricted, but civil conversation will once again become the norm. To that end, we are inviting all the presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, to come to Cooper Union and to present their vision for America — just as Lincoln and several of his fellow White House aspirants did in 1860.

We believe that the simple act of bringing candidates and their supporters together in the same room will take at least half the poison out of our political system because the candidates would have to be less strident and more persuasive in their presentations. This will require more thought, more creativity, more substance, more solutions — and a whole lot less rhetoric.==

http://www.nysun.com/article/49402?page_no=3

[dae]

48. Good on, hope they are successful. Just the nominees makes

it to partisan. With everyone there would be a better idea of what they truly wanted to project.

[jillan]

49. But he didn't bother to show up at a debate about Iraq earlier this month.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

50. That was addressed in this thread nt