America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

if you want to lead the world, get on stage and debate. don't start with that it is kerry's fault. i don't care whose fault it is. these candidates are like children.

Networks balk at Bush-Kerry debate agreement
Several indicate they will not be bound by limits on cameras

(CNN) -- Although the Bush and Kerry camps have meticulously crafted an agreement on the rules for this year's presidential debates, the television networks broadcasting them refuse to go along with the plans.

Specifically, the networks object to provisions in the agreement that place limits on their cameras, including prohibitions on shots of one candidate while the other is answering questions.

"Because of journalistic standards, we're not going to follow outside restrictions," said Paul Schur, a spokesman for Fox News, which is manning the pool camera for the first debate Thursday in Miami, Florida.

"This is a news pool, and we are not subject to agreements between candidates," NBC News spokeswoman Barbara Levin said. "We will use pictures as we see fit."

CNN spokesman Matthew Furman said the network "reserves the right to make our own decisions about coverage during the debate, just as we always have."

ABC News and CBS News are also objecting to the limits, with a CBS spokeswoman insisting that "we will utilize any shots the pool makes available."

Also, at least two of the television journalists chosen to moderate the debates -- ABC's Charles Gibson and CBS's Bob Schieffer -- have not signed the agreement on ground rules hammered out between the two campaigns, according to their networks.

The other two moderators are Gwen Ifill and Jim Lehrer, both of PBS, which has not yet commented.

Under terms of the agreement reached last week between the Bush and Kerry campaigns after lengthy negotiations, moderators who refuse to sign the document can be replaced.

The 32-page agreement sets out the rules for the debates with great specificity, down to details such as the temperature of the hall, what kind of paper can be used to take notes and who can stand in the wings.

Monday, the Commission on Presidential Debates, the independent group that plays host to the debates, said it would agree to enforce the rules reached in the agreement between the Bush and Kerry campaigns and that there "will be no departure from the terms" unless there is "prior consultation with, and approval by, the appropriate campaign representatives."

However, the commission did not formally sign the agreement, and its co-chairman, Frank Fahrenkopf, told The New York Times that the restrictions on what the networks can show are unenforceable.

"We don't control the feed, so we don't know what the networks are going to show," said Fahrenkopf, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. "That's not within our purview."

The New York Times also reported that the commission may balk at a provision in the agreement setting out the make-up of the audience for the town hall debate between Bush and Kerry on October 8 in St. Louis, Missouri.

The campaigns agreed that the audience would be divided between people leaning toward Bush and those leaning toward Kerry. The debate commission wants the hall full of undecided voters in neither camp.

Under terms of their agreement, either the Bush or Kerry campaigns could opt out of the debates, or seek another sponsor, if the commission does not sign on to their terms. There is no indication either camp is contemplating such a move.

The document does not address what might happen if the television networks refuse to abide by the rules.

Responding to the media's recalcitrance, Kerry campaign spokeswoman Christine Anderson said "every time you have something like this, there are going to be small details to be worked out. They are being worked out."

The Bush campaign declined to comment directly on the networks' objections. However, spokesman Scott Stanzel described the president's camp as "looking forward to all of the debates."

"We are pleased the commission said they would follow the terms of the agreement of the campaigns," he said.

The debate commission has not commented on the media's objections to the rules.

i used to look forward to debates as a chance to finally get down to the nitty gritty on issues. now it's like an overblown hollywood production.

they're arguing over the friggin room tempurature -- kerry tends to sweat at over 72 degrees, and both sides want to either raise or lower the temp on stage because of that.

i understand that perception is important, but COME ON. the candidates can't address each other now. they have to be over 10 ft. away so kerry doesn't appear to tower over the much shorter GWB. questions are axed and limited to only what the candidates WANT to talk about.

this isn't a paid advertisement, dammit. this is OUR TURN to finally get off-the-cuff answers from the candidates running for the highest office in this nation -- some would say in the world.

this is ridiculous. it's cheating us, john and jane q. citizen, out of what used to be about the most honest forum we'd see candidates in. now it's just more postured crap..

I agree.

It's coming across like a "beauty pageant" w/well-rehearsed short answers.

I guess that we'll grade them on posture, timbre (voice), and how they "carry" themselves. Kinda like a cotillion w/white gloves.

Some (undecided) people will select their candidate based on this.
Pretty scary.

The debates do not mean anything one way or the other, as they have turned into full blown productions, with JfK wanting to look atheletic and tan and both of them being rehearsed as to what to say and when!

My favorite debate moment was when Al Gore was spouting on about hate crime legislation being needed in Texas and how the poor man was dragged behind a truck and the guilty parties were not tried for a hate crime and on and on! GWB looked at him and said, "They got the death penalty" isn't that enough?

Charlie

LMAO @ Charley... I remember that debate... and the look on Gores face just came back to me... he looked like he **** his pants LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

Hog

You guys are great! I love this! Makes all the campaign BS go away reading these humerous posts.

DRJ

JonR you're a funny guy!

JonR, If I'm the fly than you must the...

Rick, that was mean.

At the time of Pearl Harbor, Wayne was 34 years old. His marriage was on the rocks but he still had four kids to support. His career was taking off, in large part on the strength of his work in the classic western Stagecoach (1939). But he wasn't rich. Should he chuck it all and enlist? Many of Hollywood's big names, such as Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart, and Clark Gable, did just that. (Fonda, Wills points out, was 37 at the time and had a wife and three kids.) But these were established stars. Wayne knew that if he took a few years off for military service, there was a good chance that by the time he got back he'd be over the hill.

Besides, he specialized in the kind of movies a nation at war wanted to see, in which a rugged American hero overcame great odds. Recognizing that Hollywood was an important part of the war effort, Washington had told California draft boards to go easy on actors. Perhaps rationalizing that he could do more good at home, Wayne obtained 3-A status, "deferred for [family] dependency reasons." He told friends he'd enlist after he made just one or two more movies.

The real question is why he never did so. Wayne cranked out thirteen movies during the war, many with war-related themes. Most of the films were enormously successful and within a short time the Duke was one of America's most popular stars. His bankability now firmly established, he could have joined the military, secure in the knowledge that Hollywood would welcome him back later. He even made a half-hearted effort to sign up, sending in the paperwork to enlist in the naval photography unit commanded by a good friend, director John Ford.

But he didn't follow through. Nobody really knows why; Wayne didn't like to talk about it. A guy who prided himself on doing his own stunts, he doesn't seem to have lacked physical courage. One suspects he just found it was a lot more fun being a Hollywood hero than the real kind. Many movie star-soldiers had enlisted in the first flush of patriotism after Pearl Harbor. As the war ground on, slogging it out in the trenches seemed a lot less exciting. The movies, on the other hand, had put Wayne well on the way to becoming a legend. "Wayne increasingly came to embody the American fighting man," Wills writes. In late 1943 and early 1944 he entertained the troops in the Pacific theater as part of a USO tour. An intelligence bigshot asked him to give his impression of Douglas MacArthur. He was fawned over by the press when he got back. Meanwhile, he was having a torrid affair with a beautiful Mexican woman. How could military service compare with that?

In 1944, Wayne received a 2-A lassification, "deferred in support of [the] national . . . interest." A month later the Selective Service decided to revoke many previous deferments and reclassified him 1-A. But Wayne's studio appealed and got his 2-A status reinstated until after the war ended.

People who knew Wayne say he felt bad about not having served. (During the war he'd gotten into a few fights with servicemen who wondered why he wasn't in uniform.) Some think his guilty conscience was one reason he became such a superpatriot later. The fact remains that the man who came to symbolize American patriotism and pride had a chance to do more than just act the part, and he let it pass.

eleltea

thank you for filling in all that info. i have changed my mind slightly about the man.

i can understand his deferments as valid.

the thing that pissed me off was the hero medal that was awarded him by congress. he is not the great american hero and in an interview i heard, he made a reference that i won't go into, that showed his racism. that seems to be a part of a lot of his movies.

but all in all, you have cleared up a lot of my confusion.

now i am starting to read "fortunate sun." when i finish the book, if you want, i will explain why bush is an ****, a dolt, and a jerk, in detail.

Audie Murphy was a republican so Rick hates him!

Charlie

Rick attacking "The Duke"! Man, I cannot believe that one slipped by some of you. I have a buddy that would tear you limb from limb if he read that (LOL). Maybe I will send him the link and to one of the ones with your picture. This guy has the wherewithall to hunt you down for that comment.

And if Reagan deserves an Oscar for portraying a President, Clinton deserves the porn industries equivalent for his. I can hear that porn music eminating from the Oval office everytime that Monica entered. Do you think that ol' Al used to peek through the keyhole?

DRJ