PDA

View Full Version : Kerry changes his mind on debate terms



km gresham
09-30-2004, 01:27 PM
Kerry Aide Threatens to Remove 'Time Up' Lights for Debate
NEWSMAX.COM

Democratic candidate John Kerry's campaign demanded Thursday that the lights signaling when a speaker's time has expired during debates with President Bush be removed from the lecterns because they are distracting, but the commission hosting the debates refused.

An angry exchange between representatives of the Kerry campaign and the Commission on Presidential Debates took place just hours before the candidates were to meet at the University of Miami for the first of three debates, The Associated Press learned.

Kerry's team threatened to remove the lights when they visit the debate site with Kerry later in the day.

``We'll bring a screwdriver,'' said a Kerry aide familiar with what several people called an angry exchange. The commission did not return a call seeking comment.

The commission placed the lights on the lecterns in clear view of the television audience and those in the auditorium.

An agreement between the Kerry and Bush campaigns specified that timing lights ``shall be placed such that they are visible to the debate audiences and television viewers.''

However, Kerry's team contended that the agreement doesn't specifically say where the lights should be placed, and it said putting them on the lecterns creates a distraction.

The Bush team pushed for the lights in negotiations with Kerry advisers.

The commission is a nonprofit and nonpartisan corporation that has sponsored all the presidential debates since 1988.

[ 09-30-2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

Kev Smyth
09-30-2004, 02:28 PM
So, would this be the "flip" or the "flop" part of the process? I get soooo confused! tongue.gif :D

km gresham
09-30-2004, 02:31 PM
I can't keep up anymore. ;)

alteran
09-30-2004, 02:38 PM
Maybe Kerry has "seen the light"!

ljb5
09-30-2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by km gresham:
An agreement between the Kerry and Bush campaigns specified that timing lights ``shall be placed such that they are visible to the debate audiences and television viewers.''

However, Kerry's team contended that the agreement doesn't specifically say where the lights should be placed, and it said putting them on the lecterns creates a distraction.
The agreement also included a diagram of the lecterns which did not include the lights. In other words, the lights were put on the lecterns in violation of the agreement. Kerry is demanding that they stick to the agreement.

Bush is demanding something other than what was agreed upon.

So it is, in fact, Bush who has changed his mind on the terms of the debate.

But we don't expect Karen to let a little thing like a fact disrupt her smear fest.

[ 09-30-2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

km gresham
09-30-2004, 04:28 PM
LOL

Kev Smyth
09-30-2004, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by ljb5:
The agreement also included a diagram of the lecterns which did not include the lights. In other words, the lights were put on the lecterns in violation of the agreement. Kerry is demanded that they stick to the agreement.

Bush is demanding something other than what was agreed upon.Your logic is faulty and riddled with assumptions. For it to be true, you'd need to show that the location of the lights was specified, and that the specified location was other than on the lecterns. It looks to me more like the Bush team out-smarted the Kerry team, and now the whining has begun. :D tongue.gif

We await documentation substantiating your accusations,... or your apology.
:eek: :rolleyes:

[ 09-30-2004, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Kev Smyth ]

Alan D. Hyde
09-30-2004, 04:38 PM
Don't hold your breath, Kev... :D

Alan

km gresham
09-30-2004, 04:39 PM
It's that tricky Karl Rove again! :D

swanko
09-30-2004, 04:57 PM
lights, schmights!

what the hell kind of debate is this anyway???

these two boobs are throwing a scripted press conference at us and we are supposed to believe it's an exchange of ideas on the "issues".

It's really about who is going to look better under the lights. My prediction: both will look nervous, flaccid, and glad that it's over. What bullcrap.... and we accept it.

the complexity of the issues that face us going forward are extraordinarily difficult to deal with and will require leadership. and the decision of who that leader will be fulcrums upon vanity TV appearances. oh brother!

George.
09-30-2004, 05:15 PM
What a sad state of affairs.

Our hyperpower has two presidential candidates who are too chicken**** to even hold a real debate!

Let's see them allowed to interrupt each other, and ask each other questions! Let's see them allowed to talk until they either make their point or sound like idiots!

But NO, they have to have the whole thing scripted by marketeers and regulated by lawyers.

And whoever wins will run the "free world," and the occupied buts of the rest... enough to make anyone sigh like Al Gore...

alteran
09-30-2004, 05:39 PM
"But we don't expect Karen to let a little thing like a fact disrupt her smear fest."

From Lbj5, master of smear, inuendo, spin and evasion.....

Hilarious:)))))))))

ljb5
09-30-2004, 11:48 PM
Kev,

I assumed you saw the AP article carried by USAToday (and linked by Matt Drudge) about the memorandum of understanding.

Not only was there a diagram of the lecterns without the lights, but nowhere in the written portion does it say that there will be lights on the lectern. Exactly what part of that agreement do you think Kerry changed his mind on?

High C
10-01-2004, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by George.:
Let's see them allowed to interrupt each other, and ask each other questions! Let's see them allowed to talk until they either make their point or sound like idiots!We have Al Gore to thank for the restrictive nature of these "debates". His bizarre and innappropriate behavior at the 2000 debates surely led to the stiff format we witnessed tonight.

It hardly matters anyway. Far from being interesting policy debates, these things only serve as potential traps, a possible source of gaffs to be used against one man or the other for the duration of the campaign. Kerry delivered a big one tonight, his "global test". Not much else happened.

[ 10-01-2004, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: High C ]

Kev Smyth
10-01-2004, 12:18 AM
:confused: LJB- show me where I said Kerry changed his mind about anything related to the lights/lectern issue. :rolleyes:

You're losing it.

ljb5
10-01-2004, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Kev Smyth:
:confused: LJB- show me where I said Kerry changed his mind about anything related to the lights/lectern issue. :rolleyes:

You're losing it.Okay then, what did you mean by this:


So, would this be the "flip" or the "flop" part of the process?Colloquially, the terms "flip" and "flop" refer to a person changing their mind.

Since this entire thread is about the lights issue, it seemed clear that you were saying he changed his mind about the lights.

However, as we've seen with you before, you often say bizarre and contradictory things for no reason. So if your defense is simply that the words you use don't have any precise meaning, then you ought not to use them.