'
'Because the campaigns were given the debate topics ahead of time '

when I think of a script I think of a very specific account of words to use and actions and scenery

being given a topic is no more a script than reading the plot,,,,


just my opinion though, the topic of most of the 'debate' was the economy, and then ( I Think) , medicare, social security, and health reform

and that was the segway given by the commentator at each section

Im sure the candidates were pre informed of those topics, but I dont consider that being given a 'script'

The script is laid out down to what reporters are allowed (chosen by the candidates), the moderator (chosen by the candidates), the format (chosen by the candidates), the topics (chosen by the candidates), the questions (chosen by the candidates), etc, etc, etc.....

It's a contract signed by both and agreed to.

The League of Women Voters released the 1st scripted contract they offered for the debates (which the League refused as a scam on the American people, and released to the press for publication) and as a result the debates were hijacked by the 2 parties thru the power of money and political backers, forcing free debates to be a thing of the past, and the League to withdraw from sponsorship which they had maintained since the 1980's to 2000.

Public record

The original was 8 pages....2008 was 32 pages....this year.....groups are trying to get it released thru FOI processes because the "club" refuses to release it!

Well in advance to study up and be prepared?

everything on the internet is a 'public record', doesnt make it true

and I conceded already that Romney had better prepared, in his style and aggressiveness that would have been knocked as egotistic if it had been tried by Obama,,,,

They released it for publication!

The original was 8 pages....2008 was 32 pages....this year.....groups are trying to get it released thru FOI processes because the "club" refuses to release it!

My info was a "little" off....sorry, I wasn't given a script before posting

In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."[6]


Christopher Hitchens speaking at a September, 2000 third party protest at the Commission's headquarters.At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.[7]

In 2003, a 501(c)(3) called Open Debates was formed[8] to advocate debates that included third parties and that allowed exchanges among the candidates.[9] Criticism by Open Debates of CPD for the 2012 election include the secret contract between CPD and the Obama and Romney campaigns[10] and CPD informing the candidates of the debate topics in advance.[11]

In 2004, citing the CPD's 32 page debate contract, Connie Rice on NPR's The Tavis Smiley Show called the CPD debates "news conferences," and "a reckless endangerment of democracy."[12] On October 8, 2004, Green Party candidate David Cobb was arrested in an act of civil disobedience, breaking a police line while protesting the Commission on Presidential Debates for excluding third-party candidates from the nationally televised debates in St. Louis, Missouri. Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik also was arrested in the protest.

In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity labeled the CPD a "secretive tax-exempt organization." CPI analyzed the 2004 financials of the CPD, and found that 93 percent of the contributions to the non-profit CPD came from just six donors, the names of all of which were blacked out on the donor list provided to the CPI.[13]

In August, 2012 an informal group called Help the Commission on Presidential Debates, as a reaction to the CPD website having no contact information,[14] offered to print out comments sent to them and hand-deliver the printouts to CPD.[15] They claim success in getting the CPD to post an e-mail address,[16][17] but since then attempts to hand-deliver printed comments have been met with threats of arrest.[18]

Also in August, 2012 a second informal group called Occupy the CPD was formed[19] and a month later members visited Romney campaign headquarters in Boston dressed in chicken costumes carrying signs reading "too chicken to face [Green Party candidate] Jill Stein in a rematch" and presented a Romney staffer with "The World's Biggest Chicken Award."[20] Jill Stein had previously debated Mitt Romney during the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial election[21] after which The Boston Globe declared her "the only adult in the room."[22][23]

During the last week of September, 2012, three sponsors withdrew their sponsorship of the 2012 debates for not including third parties: BBH New York, YWCA USA and Philips Electronics.[24][25]

For the October 3, 2012 presidential debate, Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson and Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman plan a special live broadcast in Denver during the debate to rebut it.[20]

Well,as I stated, Goldman will give us a new face on our continuing problems instead of the real change we need.

When you have 2 horses in a race, and you own both of them, and don't allow another to enter, how can you lose?

Here's how freedom of choice works in that scenario....

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/16-critical-economic-issues-that-obama-and-romney-avoided-during-the-debate

http://www.naturalnews.com/037425_presidential_debates_Mitt_Romney_Barack_Obama.html#ixzz28NM9Ap8x

No truer words were ever spoken

On CNN right after, there was a poll that said, "Who did the debate make you more likely to vote for?" The results were:

18%- Obama
35%- Romney
47%- Neither

So 47% want someone else or would vote for someone else if they had that choice! The next day they changed it from "neither" to "no effect on vote."

Matt Larsen posted a video right after the poll to show the 47% don't want neither Obama or Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdWMug16ZdU

Now look how they reworded it in their next day PDF release. All the media outlets used this spun version. click the link, download the pdf and look on page 8.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/03/top12.pdf

I know to some its "so what," but I think its important to expose them on all the shite they are trying to pull.

well, he wont be trying to save an auto industry, and keep a depression from occurring, and losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month, or find osama bin laden, or weaken al queda,,,,

so Id say, his mess is considerably less,,,

another reason its important for him to win actually

because when the long term affects of the first term start kicking in, Id hate for some other knucklehead to sit there and take the credit for turning it around,,,

Many of these problems you say he won't have to deal with are about to intensify, Osama was a standing order, the auto industry should have been placed on the market, NOT bailed out, and AlQuaeda is now in more countries and growing stronger than before...and we are supporting them. The jobs market is growing weaker not stronger, as is the economy. The only thing he is good at creating is more debt, which is what gov't does best, so I guess you can say he is doing his job well on that point at least!

It's his policies which you are waiting to take affect that will finally drive our economy and our dollar over the cliff! After all, as he stated earlier in his term, he didn't plan on a second one....

Be careful what you wish for

you do the same, as we agree to disagree

my point was just that the 'mess' he inherited was much more intense than the 'mess' we are currently in,,,

A matter of opinion, so yes, we will agree to disagree....as usual

Don't kid yourself Ms H. long term effects like the prediction that stimulus would ensure that unemployment won’t exceed 8% - or saying he would put all legislation on the Internet for five days before it comes to a vote? Those are just two of many. I don't endorse the GOP or the Dems, but it's hard to sit back as you bend over backwards twice trying to defend this man.

The biggest problem and the one that will destroy our country is debt.

Obama and his supporters do not tell the truth about the debt.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/15723/obama-and-the-national-debt-president-misleads-public-on-his-role-in-exploding-the-national-debt

Not surprisingly, President Obama is blaming the Bush administration for the debt racked up under his own presidency. Recently, on 60 Minutes, the president was asked to respond to critics who point out that the deficit has gone up $5.2 trillion since he took office...

What was his answer?

I dont quite follow


how does failing to televise legislation ( a decision that doesnt belong exclusively to the executive office) or not keeping unemployment under 8%( does that mean EVER, from 2009 to eternity with no exceptions?)


have to do with whether there will be other long term BENEFITS That will occur because of other difficult decisions that were made,,,

What difficult decisions? I was pointing out that both statements were lies, and don't turn the question around so it looks as though I'm the crazy one. He said those things not me.