Do You Approve of TV Networks Excluding Candidates from Presidential Debates?

Always
10% (236 votes)
Usually
19% (441 votes)
Sometimes
30% (710 votes)
Almost never
14% (322 votes)
Never
28% (661 votes)
Total votes: 2370
Topics:

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

See Ralph Nader The Rocky

January 11, 2008 - 02:21 ET by wiwf

See Ralph Nader

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

sometimes

January 11, 2008 - 03:03 ET by scotth

When their name is Ron Paul .. YES.

I voted wrong.  I meant

January 11, 2008 - 03:15 ET by tracheostomy

I voted wrong.  I meant "always".  I think some sort of system should be installed which would determine the winner of the first debate, and that would then determine their progress to participate in the next.

But I heard it was possible to tamper with American Idol, so. . .I could be way off.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07 

Always approve

January 11, 2008 - 03:54 ET by Lame Cherry

The problem is the networks do not exclude enough of these goofballs from the debates.

No one takes Kucinich serious as all he does is make money running for president and never serves his district in Ohio.

Look at the kooks around Ron Paul acting like brownshirt Nazi harrassing people like thugs.

The networks should toss half the "candidates" out of the box as they are cranks making a retirement account or are supported by cranks looking to tear down America.

Candidates should get one debate off network at one of these geezer rallies and if they can't pull in 10 percent of the vote.....the networks should toss em as they just get in the way.

Right now I want Kucinich taxed on his presidential running income and I want Ron Paul to be held criminally responsible for the tactics his people "he has no control over" harrassing people.
That garbage does not fly with the IRS with normal people and that garbage does not fly with the FBI as they have numbers of skin heads in prison for just running websites that had people going out and assaulting others.

So yeah, the networks should bar the cranks and the cranks can go on Jeff Rense and rant about "stolen New Hampshire elections and filing suits".

This is pure garbage and has stepped over the line as it is inciting sedition.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Keep Ron Paul

January 11, 2008 - 04:06 ET by Cool Arrow

It may be uncomfortable, but Ron Paul serves to remind us how far we've drifted from the Constitution.  Both Dems and Reps. 

Not the chance of a snowball in hades, but he's gonna make us think.

I ♣ My Seal

True CA...

January 11, 2008 - 04:28 ET by Sua Sponte 75

but just because he makes a couple of good points should not make us look past all the other garbage that's been presented. There is a lot we have drifted from as a country, just not willing to forego the asshattery to go back in that direction.

http://newsbusters.o...

http://newsbusters.o...

http://newsbusters.o...

http://newsbusters.o...

http://newsbusters.o...

http://newsbusters.o...

http://newsbusters.o...

http://newsbusters.o...

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Not to mention he and Don

January 11, 2008 - 04:33 ET by wiwf

Not to mention he and Don Black are in cahoots.

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

Same logic

January 11, 2008 - 04:37 ET by Cool Arrow

Same logic dictates we accept that all Republicans are in cahoots with David Duke.  I don't buy that either 

I ♣ My Seal

And that's my point

January 11, 2008 - 04:34 ET by Cool Arrow

I'm not a Paul fanatic, but he forces another viewpoint America refuses to acknowledge.

We do need to address our outlandish spending on a major scale, and he's just tapping in on the anxiety a younger generation feels.  Otherwise we'll force them to vote money for themselves.

I'm in disagreement with those who trivialize his message just because we don't see the prudence in his isolationist retreat theory. 

I ♣ My Seal

You're correct...

January 11, 2008 - 04:40 ET by Sua Sponte 75

he brings about another point followed by ten points of nuttiness. Lots of people have things to say, lots of people have good points, lots of people say what I'm thinking, but that doesn't justify the end package. It goes waaaay beyond only his isolationist view.....

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

To correct the record

January 11, 2008 - 04:51 ET by Cool Arrow

I didn't mean to convey I thought his isolationist theory was prudent, but that they don't see what he sees as prudent. 

I ♣ My Seal

Ron Paul makes the other

January 11, 2008 - 12:18 ET by BD

Ron Paul makes the other candidates look sane and in touch with reality in comparison.....

Even a broken watch is

January 11, 2008 - 06:34 ET by Gary P Jackson

Even a broken watch is right two times a day. That's the charitable way to describe Ron Paul.

He is very negative. I want to hear about the bad stuff and the problems we have discussed, but I also want to hear something positive. NOTHING in Paul's message is positive.

Past that, he is quite insane. I don't know about the White Supremest BS going on. I do know he has every whack job imaginable following him. He was asked, point blank, in the debate, if he would denounce the 9/11 truthers. He danced around that for a few minutes, he hem and hawed around, then said he couldn't help what someone else is doing. That's a damned weak response. A true leader would have been very decisive one way or another.

I would have respected the guy if he had said: You know, I agree with the truthers, as well as everything Alex Jones has to say about black helicopters and the Bilderbergs! No, he just did a little tap dance. Don't trust the guy as far as I can throw him!

I agree, he brings out a

January 11, 2008 - 06:57 ET by USA4freedom

I agree, he brings out a few points but.. then he comes up with a black helicopter/ tin hat line.

I would guess that when he does, quite a few supporters just cringe.

The real question is 3rd party or not? If so, is it enough to kill our candidate?

He is.. entertaining. BUT I am not looking to be entertained. I am looking for the next leader of the free world!

That goes for bass playing/ sit downs with- late night shows, shows that make fun of conservatives from the view on down to Bill Maher. Its time to make it serious again. I don’t want tears, I don’t want funny, I don’t want someone that can play a guitar or sax. I just want a good solid man to run this great country in a TRUE CONSERVATE WAY. Not Democratlite, but a tax cutting, spending cutting, strong defense, build the%$#*&@#$  fence kind of guy!!!

 

 

 

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

He'll stay in party

January 11, 2008 - 07:17 ET by Cool Arrow

He'll stay in party, but if Iowa gave him 8%, just wait and see what the redneck states do.

He will have a say in the platform, and I don't see all this tinhat talk is productive when the guy has a significant following we shouldn't anger with our endless taunts.

I ♣ My Seal

Excuse me but...

January 11, 2008 - 09:43 ET by NCConservative

"He'll stay in party, but if Iowa gave him 8%, just wait and see what the redneck states do."

I don't mean to pick fights, but what exactly does this mean?  What qualifies as a "redneck" state?  On the surface it seems like an elitist comment one might expect from John Kerry.

NCConservative

January 11, 2008 - 10:02 ET by fossten

Oh, come on.  All you see in this forum is "Paulnuts, Paulbots, he's quite insane, the man's a kook, he's negative, he's a wacko, ad nauseum," and you're blowing up over "redneck states?"

If you're going to object to pejoratives, please do so for ALL of them.

Some people can dish it out but cannot take it.  It's okay to use pejorative language when you're talking about Ron Paul, but not otherwise.  /sarc

Forget 911, I dial 10MM.

Fossten - first of all, Ron

January 11, 2008 - 10:25 ET by NCConservative

Fossten - first of all, Ron Paul is a candidate and a public figure.  Some of the comments made about him are over the line, but he has put himself in the situation to be critiqued.  All of the candidates have.  Those living in "redneck states" are not candidates for public office.

Second of all, you somehow seem to insinuate that I have made comments about Ron Paul or his followers.  I challenge you to provide any evidence that I have made insulting comments about him or those who support him.  You won't find them because they are not there.

Third, I am not Ron Paul's spokesperson.  There are many individuals around here to defend anything said about him.  There are no guidelines requiring that I address Ron Paul before I address another topic.

You use the phrase "some people" but it is certainly directed at me, and your frustration is entirely misplaced.

Edit:  I would also hardly categorize my post as a  "blow up." 

Redneck States

January 11, 2008 - 10:30 ET by Cool Arrow

I'm a native Texan and proudly accept the mantle of redneck.

It's not at all a slur as far as I'm concerned.  Sorry you think it's pejorative. 

Besides, If John Kerry were to call me a redneck, why should I feel uncomfortable with it? 

I ♣ My Seal

"Pejorative" was not my word...

January 11, 2008 - 10:35 ET by NCConservative

CA - I guess this may be a case where "tone" doesn't translate well online.  Thanks for not jumping down my throat.  I can see I misunderstood where you were coming from.

No Problem NC

January 11, 2008 - 10:30 ET by Cool Arrow

I was just musing that the Redneck States have a lot more mavericks than Iowa and New Hampshire.

To my way of thinking, Rednecks (right or wrong) hold to a code of right and wrong that doesn't change much over time. 

I ♣ My Seal

He's tried the third party

January 11, 2008 - 07:49 ET by Gary P Jackson

He's tried the third party way before with the results you'd expect. He says he's not gonna do it, but if he did, it wouldn't effect our side as much as you think. It's hard to take time to vote when you are smokin' a doobie, and looking for something to munch on! Besides, if you leave the basement, the black helicopters will follow you everywhere!

Like you, I don't want no bass playin' ex-preacher either. Any of the rest of them will be OK.

Oh wait, I don't want McAmnisty either.

So I guess that makes it any of the three left, that will be fine!

 

Wait just a cotton pickin' minute

January 11, 2008 - 08:04 ET by Cool Arrow

Bishop Romney doesn't play bass, does he? 

I ♣ My Seal

No, that would Gomer

January 11, 2008 - 08:10 ET by Gary P Jackson

No, that would Gomer Huckabee.

OK

January 11, 2008 - 08:13 ET by Cool Arrow

Just checking to see which preacher you were talking about 

I ♣ My Seal

Didn't know Romney was ever

January 11, 2008 - 18:16 ET by Gary P Jackson

Didn't know Romney was ever a preacher, at least in the classical meaning of the word.

I have several problems with Huckabee and his being an ex-preacher. But mostly I have problems with the fact that, at best, he is a liberal Republican. I still think he is running for the wrong party's nomination, but that's just me.

I don't like it because it

January 11, 2008 - 08:05 ET by LighthouseJ

I don't like it because it removes the candidates' ability to run the campaign they want. Take it on a small scale: if you were Kinko's and 5 candidates wanted to make school posters and you said to one kid, "sorry kid, you aren't popular enough. it'll just go to waste". Further, it'll give an out to the candidate to blame the network for their loss.

Sure the TV network is subject to boycott but I can't remember the last effective boycott.

"Boats are safe in the harbor, but that's not what they're made for." -- Maritime quote

For the most part -

January 11, 2008 - 08:31 ET by true_texan

They should be allowed to participate if they are running for the presidency until they officially call themselves out.  If they had snubbed Ron Paul again, we would've missed some great entertainment!!  But where was Duncan Hunter??  Did I miss him withdrawing from the race??

Always.  By all means,

January 11, 2008 - 08:51 ET by Ruths husband Ben

Always.  By all means, exclude all the candidates.  That would leave more time for those long and meandering questions to be asked.  I always forget what the question was anyway after five minutes of bloviation, so the answer is irrelevant.

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. - Ben Franklin

At the end of the day, the

January 11, 2008 - 09:19 ET by Bruzilla

At the end of the day, the purpose of a debate is to inform and educate the voters on how the candidates will deal with issues. By having an army of every guy who wants a vanity check by running for President up on stage, and limiting the time for discussions, a debate is nothing but a multi-person press conference.

When debates first came back into vogue, we had two or three of them per election. Now we multiple ones before each major phase of the election. There is no reason that every candidate has to be invited to every debate. I think we need to cap the number of candidates who can be at a debate at three, and if there are more than three, split the debates amongst them.

Bruzilla,

January 11, 2008 - 09:49 ET by Agnostic

While I agree with your sentiments toward that vacuity of the debates as they are currently staged I don't believe that limiting the opportunity for good ideas to be expressed is in the interest of the country. While a person like Hunter never had much of chance he was able to put out good ideas and perhaps that could get him a nod for VP or a position where he could impliment his ideas. However, I agree that the 'press conference' style debate is very limiting. I believe we should have rounds of one-on-one debates which would have a better opportunity to express the positives and negatives of the candidates. Plus, IMHO, this would limit the number wanting to debate since how many politicians really want the spot light shown on their policies. It is one thing to go into an interview, even a hostile one, because in general the politicians can evade or they actually know more than the interviewer about a given subject but against another candidate with the same level of access to information the weaker candidates would stand out for their lack of leadership and ability at critical thinking.

It's censorship

January 11, 2008 - 09:36 ET by c5then

the media already are biased in their coverage or non-coverage of the candidates, why should the public be prevented from hearing, learning about and listening to candidates in the various forums and "debates"?

If it were up to the current media, there would have been no Lincoln-Douglas debates, only the Douglas interview. The media are so keen on saying that they use the polls to decide "who is viable" yet we've seen over the last few years that the "polls" can be wrong and in some instances VERY wrong. Mainly because many of the polling organizations are pundits trying to affect an outcome.

 

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

Anyone who says they

January 11, 2008 - 09:53 ET by kathleenirish

Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar. 

 

Debates are annoying wastes of time and are a joke of a distraction from what really matters.  On the other hand, it's the only way for some candidates to be seen at all.  Considering the way they've been conducted by the LibMSM, I hate them more than ever, though.

Let the Parties Choose

January 11, 2008 - 10:24 ET by pilsener

It's impossible to have a serious debate with 9 candidates on stage. Having ratings-driven networks conduct those debates gives us the excrement that we got this year.

I believe the parties should put on and moderate the debates during the nominating process. When we are down to a Republican and a Democrat, then the networks can jump in. If there is a VIABLE 3rd party candidate they should be included. 

not letting some in the debates

January 11, 2008 - 10:28 ET by Delsa

Actually, I wish the republican debates would have only 5 people

MxCain,Romney,Thompson,Giuliani,and Huckabee. Although i could personally due without Huckabee.

For me, it's

January 11, 2008 - 11:35 ET by Hero Squad

For me, it's not about "who" gets dropped. Debates overrun with candidates get so bogged down in equal time that no one ever has enough time to say anything substantive.

Personally, I think it'd be great to break down the debates. Set up a series of head-to-head matchups and switch the candidates around. Now they can face off against one another, get more time to talk, and really focus on what their candidacy is all about.

Oh, and what happened to Alan Keyes?

*****

"There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions." - Chris Berman 

sometimes the wrong people get excluded

January 11, 2008 - 12:33 ET by candance

If people like Paul and Giuliani stopped hogging up the time by talking over the bell and picking a fight for five minutes with an enemy, more time could be given to the others.

Back in November when Hunter still did have a chance (he had Ann Coulter and James Dobson endorsing him) he'd show up for a 2 hour debate and get asked 3 questions. Right from the start Paul got more face time than he did.

 

No body in the media, nor

January 11, 2008 - 14:18 ET by bassndude

No body in the media, nor any little meeting in any television medium should decide who will be allowed into a debate and who will not. This is a way in which the media manipulates the vote and the candidates. The exclusion of any person from any office should be left up to the voting public, and any candidate that has not withdrawn from the race should be invited to any and all debates. Other wise, we allow the media to pick our candidate. I dont know about everyone else, but I sure dont want the MSM to give me a choice of who to vote for. Whoever that is, it will be the MSMs pick. 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

"The exclusion of any

January 11, 2008 - 17:57 ET by ckc1227

"The exclusion of any person from any office should be left up to the
voting public, and any candidate that has not withdrawn from the race
should be invited to any and all debates"

Better build a bigger stage then, and block off 2 days for each debate with all these people who are or were running. And this is just on the Republican side.