The Debate That Didn't Happen

http://billayers.wordpress.com/biography-history/

http://education.uic.edu/directory.cfm?page=faculty_info&netid=bayers

http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/end-the-war/#comment-2578

A Better World for Better Blogging.

So a lot of people learned last night what silly trivia passes for news and issues amongst our elite journalist and Beltway insider types.

Thanks Karen. May I might add. We posters here give all of you a really hard time, but after last night I just have to say this. You guys at least try and for that I think you.

Science is elitist.

WTF. I meant I thank you. And I must thank you because sometime you really don't know how bad it really could be.

This probably explains why ABC is getting such a high level of negative feedback.

Yeah... it's not a journalist's job to make candidates "uncomfortable", or pelt them with rocks and garbage to see if they can handle it. It's their job to hold them accountable for things they've actually done.

I mean, if Obama hasn't hung out with any unsavory characters, that doesn't mean you're obligated to run with Sean Hannity's oppo-research. If he didn't associate with 60's radicals, why is it your obligation to claim he has? Is this really the worst thing you can find? Yet the people who actually do things that ought to land them in imfamy, if not jail, get off scott free -- even when they don't wear 9/11 pins.

In a healthy Democracy, the candidates would rather be at the science debate tomorrow than last night's atrocity -- but what price has the Bush White House paid for the politicization of fact-gathering agencies? If you hold Dems to the same standard, why would they depoliticize it when they get carte blanche to make intelligence and science their own tax-funded PR agencies? If you don't, you're hypocritical shills.

Science debate question: Do you believe the planet is more than 5,000 years old?
You do?
Why do you both hate God?

Obama 2008 Campaign provides debate transcript (abridged)...

Oh say can you see and hear me now, my fellow tenured Amnesians?

What I said, and have electoral college hope too, Pizza & Just Ice small mall franchise people, that one fine day I might carry a single NRA member state in the South or Midwest, and all that other buzzy buzz buzzword bogus news jazz from Old New York, as we are gathered here today in [name any empty AAFL arena] to dedicate our sadly non-union forces if not my own cute unemployable union constituents to the impending invasion of virtually tankless Canada.

Mind you, we can forgive Canuckistan their marginal comedy contributions to border security at Horseshoe Falls, that has kept Al Queda from rolling over the Martin Lawrence Seetheway into the bedrooms of Vermonters visiting mostly French relatives a tad north of Burlington's biggest political blowhard since OVM dropped their football program, but be ever mindful as the sun shines grayly through the massive winter snows of this awful Global Upstate Warmup season, that our men and gayer men in Clinton-era hot hot uniforms will do their Kerry duty fastest, just as so many future Kennedy kinsmen have done before, from the steamy shores of Paris to the steamy shorts of Hyannisport, but for the benefit of corn rows and corn stills alike, Allah Allah In Come Free Amen.

NAFTA is not a four-letter noun perhaps, but when splitting legal semantics and skipping floor votes I've learned through about a year of actual day job experience not federally EEOC funded for fans of Rezko Realty, that there's nothing like talking when action only seems to get in the way, and by my blessed Koran fed fealty of Farrakhan quiet rioting I will lead our shrill, strident shortly All Lesbian Armed Forces and their stunning Stirrup Pants Brigade, mightily helped by SecDef Dean and Ambassador to Rural America Oprah, in a media rousing, ever loud even foray for five minutes or so until we can relent to the sortie of metroshizzle feel good times that form the thin-skinned cornerstone of my borderline cowardly and certainly populist pinhead campaign.

Taking back Toronto from the Jews and Chinese may not make the world go away, but as Hillary so boldly showed us in Waco and Christina Airport, it does tend to keep poodle people from speculating on such sally matters as fiscal restitution, troop hemp readiness, blowout tax policy, freeish market growth, South Boston reparations, sustainable eco-families, and female facial hair.

I ask you all to partially pray for the remaining officers and senior NCO's that won't bolt from the Army and Marines the second I'm voted American Idle, and their bi-sexual next of California union dolt kin, as we move across the Manitoba wheat killing fields, into the rink dangers that are Winnipeg, and on to swishy Vancouver to once and for all trounce the many poor examples of late 70's architecture and gangling paved public parks, that have for too long been the bastion of undertaxed out of state freeloaders not on eBay skimming the profits from the vital public access medical channels that our Take A Number killer nurse mavens can't wait to replicate for total financial ruin, during my shining First 100 Days in incompetence and AARP collusion.

Faint not no more cold Wiscasset lager and cigarette crowds expecting a moral miracle, your selfish self-imposed hell of a whining suburban PTA period will soon be over, as the Grand Army of the Pelosi fords Hamilton Beach and Molson Wetlands, to unify the forces of mental goop, and rid ourselves of the Axis of Ice that empowers few but enshowers nuns when they get the new blue line rules, such rules being something we might soon assimilate whether we need to or not, for the goal being not just goals but excessive goals paper pusher burrocrat stockpiles speaking, so forever may it legal hack rain.

Give Me A "B", Give Me An "O", thanks for coming today and remember to vote for meesa and VEEP nom Cindy Shiite on November 14th against that old war hero Surge guy, singing off Stevie Wonder until free supper, Yours Truly Senator Q-Tip.

The science debate....

This seems like a good place to note that when it comes to politics, not every viewpoint is equivalent. While I know many reasonable people who nevertheless consider themsleves Right wing or Republican, there is a significant movement within the Republican party who's agenda is literally to deny reality. This is one situation where having significant numbers or even a majority agreeing with you doesn't mean a thing.

Debate over evolution is just a symptom of the problem because the simple truth is that if your not willing to accept it as the way the world works, then you aren't willing to accept the idea of an objective, discoverable reality.
At which point, I'm incredibly uninterested in your opinion on interest rates or trade policies.

One of the many maddening things about that record ABC viewership is that a lot of people watched this debate who have not watched any other debate. Despite the snark, most of usassume the ABC folks were misguided but not malicious. But if we're wrong, or if sometime there are questioners who really do have an agenda for one or another candidate, it easy to see how two journalists can/could swing an election. That's frightening. There has to be a better way. Tom Shales deserves enormous credit today. Journalists seldom call out their fellow travelers this clearly.

P-NNTO. You're so right. Obama was very careful in the Compassion Forum about how he answered what was essentially this question. Didn't see Hillary's answer.

A science debate would have been a great idea.

Legitimate question here - I don't know the answer. What would happen if one of the candidates accepted this debate and the others did not? Perhaps the others would then feel pressured to accept. Perhaps it would be a boost for the one to accept. Perhaps enough Americans hate science that it would actually hurt the one to accept. Or perhaps no one would cover the story at all, and it would have no effect. (I suppose that last one is my guess.)

I'm mostly trying to figure out campaign motivation. Granted, mostly they probably figure they can't afford to spend time on this. But surely it would still be in some one's interest to volunteer, if only because their opponent also spends time if the debate happens.

What Karen said. Well done, Ms. T. (In case you haven't heard, they're trying again, this time in Oregon.)

Oops. If that wasn't clear I was talking about the science debate, not the ABC one.

Re-read Margaret Carlsons idiotic comments and last night makes more sense if you understand that these 'people' view these elections as their own personal amusements, elections are nothing more than a big ole X Box for elitist journalists.

"Gore’s fabrications may be inconsequential—I mean, they’re about his life. Bush’s fabrications are about our life, and what he’s going to do. Bush’s should matter more but they don’t, because Gore’s we can disprove right here and now…You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas. But it’s really easy, and it’s fun, to disprove Gore."
-Margaret Carlson

"I actually happen to know people who need government and so they would care more about the programs, and less about the things we kind of make fun of…But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we can’t disprove these other things."
-Margaret Carlson

"Hillary, too, could talk anyone into the ground. One night very late in New Delhi, Joe Klein, then at Newsweek, and I got a joint interview with the First Lady. She used up our time with chatter about the Taj Mahal and the ambassador’s gardens—all about as newsworthy as someone showing you slides from their summer vacation. About midnight, an aide showed us the door, literally. Our time was up. Valiantly, Klein reeled her back in with a question about health-care reform. As we descended into the swamps of single-payer insurance and Klein’s very own plan for universal health care, I leaned against the open door—and fell asleep. I woke up when my notebook clattered to the floor, embarrassed that jet lag had struck so hard, but unworried that any news had been committed."
-Margaret Carlson

Cincinnatus, excerpts from Margaret Carlson's book always make me think they are from a Kitty Kelley hit piece.
That she admits to being that lousy of a reporter always makes me laugh.

..if you understand that these 'people' view these elections as their own personal amusements..

Bread and Circuses, without so much bread...

Science debate question: Do you believe the planet is more than 5,000 years old?
You do?
Why do you both hate God?
Posted by Paul-no not that one

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080417/od_afp/swedennatureoffbeat_080417131817

Have you about the 10,000 year old tree they found in Sweden today?

Creationists say scientists must have "planted" it.

Paul-no not that one, I have an SNL skit in my mind w/ Daryl Hammond doing his Tweety impression and surrounded by MSM pundits discussing haircuts, flag pins, the meaning of 'cling', who's enough of a 'regular guy' to be president, which candidate we wanna have a beer with...then the camera pulls back and we see the pundits are in a crumbling room in a bombed out building surrounded by smoking rubble, maybe a mushroom cloud in the distance, piles of bodies and then cut to Tweety/Hammond saying 'that was fun, but where we gonna sleep tonight, should we start a fire or will that attract the mutants?'.

Interesting that the oldest known tree is from the general area of the world associated with the World Tree. Clearly this is not just evidence that the creationists are wrong, but that the Norse were right.

But more seriously, haven't the Creationists been Poo-Poohing carbon dating for years? It's proven that lots of things (admitedly not still alive) are older than 5000 years.

Here's the debate that didn't happen:

Gibson: Mr. Obama, does Wright love America as much as you do?

Obama: Does Chris Matthews suck as much as you do?

G: You didn't answer the question.

O: You didn't answer my question.

G: Wright is an issue very much on people's minds at the moment.

O: No, I believe the suckage of current moderators is very much on people's minds.

G: I'm the one who asks the questions, Senator...

O: That's the problem. If you asked better questions, I wouldn't have to be doing your job for you.

G: Don't you think your choice of pastor reflects on your campaign?

O: No, I think it reflects on your campaign to keep our discourse sucking. The question is whether or not it sucks as much as Chris Matthews show. Yes or no?

G: I...

O: Answer the question! Does this debate, or does it not, suck as badly as Chris Matthews show? Just answer the question!

The LA Times:

Democrat Barack Obama said today that last night's contentious debate, where he was peppered with questions about his words and associations, was a preview of Republican tactics against him in the fall election.

"That was the rollout of the Republican campaign in November," he said at a town hall meeting in Raleigh, N.C. "They will try to focus on these issues that don't have anything to do with how you're paying your bills at the end of the month." Saying that he has shown "some restraint" in running against a rival Democrat, the Illinois senator said, "If the Republicans come at me, I will come right back at them.... I won't have as much restraint with the Republicans."

Obama expressed annoyance at the debate -- "It was 45 minutes until we started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people," he said -- and said he just had to "let it kind of ..." as he brushed off his suit shoulder.

At a town hall meeting in Raleigh, N.C., Obama said that rival, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "looked in her element, taking every opportunity to get a dig in there." Calling her campaign "a textbook Washington game," Obama said, "That's her right, to kind of twist the knife in a little bit."

To laughter from the audience, Obama quipped, "It does not get much more fun than these debates." But he won applause when he said personal attacks would not work. "Not this time," he said, predicting voters are "not going to be confused."

...Earlier in the day, all three presidential candidates came off the campaign trail to meet with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown during his visit to Washington.

In meetings of about 45 minutes each, spaced over three hours, Obama, Clinton and John McCain talked to the British leader about Iraq, the economy and global warming at the British ambassador's residence.

Iraq, the economy, global warming, what does it take to get the networks to actually freaking focus on these issues somewhat during a national debate? Are these kids with ADHD, or what?

A science debate would've been nice.

So would a debate that asked a single question on the housing crisis, trade pacts, the environment, energy policy, terrorism, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. etc.

Too bad we had to spend a full f***ing hour on the really important issues like Hillary's Bosnia memories and how Obama's second cousin twice removed's third wife's brother-in-law once said something bad.

We did learn one thing. There are clueless elitists out there, and they're running the news.

To be fair with all this gotcha nonsense:

Someone should ask McCain whether he trusts oncologists who are Darwinists or those who are creationists.

...elections are nothing more than a big ole X Box for elitist journalists.

Well said, Cincinnatus.

Karen:

Why?

What reason did the campaigns give for blowing off the science debates?

Let me guess...schedules?
No, really--why did they decide it wasn't worth their time? What's the real reason?

Thousands of people wouldn't have complained so angrily if they realized these are the questions foremost on their minds.

We made them do it, people. Would the elite lie to us?

Check out the article “Barack’s “Underground” Friends” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=291

http://www.savagepolitics.com
brilliant writing plus it offers a great community in which to discuss. The editor actually takes time to answer and the political humor section is awesome!!!

This makes me really sad. Though I have to guess that either Clinton or Obama would be much better than any republican.

I'm disappointed none of them accepted that science debate invitation. It probably would have been the most substantive debate of the campaign.

Another interesting aspect of the debate was the fact that they dedicated a lot of time to Obama’s association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Once again, Obama made the fantastical claim that he was “never there when those types of comments were preached” and assured his supporters that he doesn’t approve of them. One telling moment in this exchange came when he mistakenly stated that he had “disowned” Wright, at which point he was abruptly interrupted and asked “you disowned him?”, forcing Obama to make the clarification that he DID NOT disown Wright but instead that he had disowned the particular comments which became the subject of controversy.

More Obama associations unveiled,
The facts point in a different direction and suggest that Obama is PURPOSEFULLY lying about his relationships with this man. Barack Obama was a director of the ‘Woods Fund’ board from 1999 to 2002, according to the Fund’s own website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000. This not-for-profit outfit, which Obama lead during those years, actually funded (with more than $40,000) the founding of the Arab American Action Network, a creation itself of Rashid Khalidi, who is an ex-spokesman for the PLO, and who is now professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia University. Khalidi himself, by the way, was the one responsible for the invitation of President Ahmedinejad (of Iran) to speak at Columbia University a few years back (and in which he was given a large forum to besmirch Israel and to dedicate many hours to his theories regarding the “Jewish role” in the domination of the world). The Woods’ funding of this individual clearly goes beyond an innocent charity, since Khalidi has openly and in countless times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings a natural response to “Israeli aggression.” He also dedicated his 1986 book, “Under Siege,” to “those who gave their lives … in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon.” Is it really possible to claim that they didn’t know about Khalidi’s views? What is the connection between Khalidi and Obama?

Most of the bloggers on here are so inflamed that this "debate is not about the issues", well before you can get down to the work of discussing issues, you first have to determine if someone has the CHARACTER to even debate on issues. Voters need a chance to see if an individual is credible enough to hold the office of the President of the United States. The voters need to determine if a candidate has the JUDGMENT that is required to effectively BE the President of the United States. Obama until this debate has flown under the radar of the LIBERAL press, who has given him a pass until now.

Something tells me that Mr. Obama has MORE skeletons in his closet, yet to be discovered.

Rev Wright / Obama '08, WRONG for America!!!!

You’re absolutely right about that lousy ABC debate. What a lot of crap, especially after the nonsense of that “values debate”. It made me so mad that, while ABC is busy patting itself on the back and commentators like David Brooks and Laura Ingraham talk about how “substantive” is was because it hit all the wing-nuts bullet-points, that we can’t get these schlemiels to do a real issues debates, on issues that will spell whether or not our nation, its industries and economic well-being, and very health of its citizenry survive in the remaining century and time forward. It's not too late for ScienceDebate 2008 to happen!

I’m not a scientist. I’m a cartoonist, science fiction and mystery fan, archaeology and science buff who cares about the present and future of this nation and the world.

It doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to recognize crisis points. The candidates did nothing about science, and that was the "curious incident."

Stu in Seattle,

Rustydog | April 18, 2008 6:33 AM

You're such a right-wing tool. You've swallowed the Fox narrative whole, and have to regurgitate it without noticing that the point of this article is the contrast to the proposed ScienceDebate 2008.

It's not true that none of the candidates responded affirmatively to the ScienceDebate 2008 invitation.

Three of the Green Party's contenders for our party's nomination for the presidential ticket would have eagerly participated, but were themselves snubbed.

I understand that Shawn Otto and other organizers are trying to reschedule. I would urge them to include these fine citizens in the debate- 1) because they are bonafide candidates and 2) because the major parties could not then refuse once again without getting egg on their face.

A growing segment of our nation is disenchanted with the 2-party system and view third party efforts as necessary to protect our democratic system. Respect the will of the people, even as the big 3 contenders who wish to assume leadership of our nation apparently don't respect our scientific leadership.