You know its bad when Dems ban audio/video from debates

[mirstnkim]

Be it right or left, if you are requesting not to have media available, then you are a bit nervous of the outcome of the debate.
If one was so sure of their point of view and the decisions that they stand behind, then why not shout it out with all that you have?
That is the true purpose of why their is a ban on the audio/video of some who are debating.  And for the record, I have no doubt that the Repubs would do the same if in the same shoes.  As of late, I see very little difference between most.
When you look at spending, it did not happen alone.  When you look at pork, the right are guilty as well.  In fact, I find them far more guilty.  They were elected to be a leaner working government, not an open check book.

[BT]

There are a couple of points that may be pertinent to this issue.

One: Spratt has Parkinsons

and Two: He is much more comfortable in a townhall style debate and might be holding out for that.

McCain also preferred townhall debates, so did Bush if I recall correctly.

I picked that info up from a discussion about the issue at the Huffington Post, so it is apparently on the liberal punditry radar also.

[sirs]

Ahh, so you picked up levels of defense for the act, from the liberal punditry, and not the criticisms'/condemnation I indicated were transparently absent.  Kinda reinforcing my point all the more

[BT]

Ahh, so you picked up levels of defense for the act, from the liberal punditry, and not the criticisms'/condemnation I indicated were transparently absent.  Kinda reinforcing my point all the more

Actually what i picked up was commentary on the issue. In the same thread on HuffPo not only was there discussion of the reasons for the desire to ban television and audio broadcasting of the event, but also remedies up to and including withdrawing from the race due to health reasons. What i found was an open minded approach to the issue, which to use your phrase was transparently absent from your characterization of the issue.

BTW you can watch the debate here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/jlbetsch#p/c/4F6B00DBB6626E28/0/azYaKkYyE-4

[sirs]

Strange, since what I found in your postings was precisely the opposite of what i had referenced.  Instead of criticisms for attempting to circumvent an honest open debate on the issues for all to see, we find justifications & defense for it.

And that's meant to be an "open minded approach".  wow, not sure I want to see what a close minded approach is

[BT]

And that's meant to be an "open minded approach".

Yeah . All issues are not black and white. There can be mitigating circumstances that make lockstep mindless criticism of the "others" as just plain shortsighted. Especially when your team has done the same damn thing.

McCain held out on the presidential debates for a townhall setting, not because he wasn't a good podium speaker, but because he wanted to get Obama off script.

[sirs]

Yes, you are right, there can be rationalizations for such an egregious act of denying a forum for the electorate to see and hear a candidate's positions, in an honest debate.  I never claimed otherwise. 

Merely criticising it, and observing how the left largely ignores it, or with your example, even defend it

And your use of McCain holds no water since it was still a debate, open for all to see and no limitations in audio or video taken

[BT]

Yes, you are right, there can be rationalizations for such an egregious act of denying a forum for the electorate to see and hear a candidate's positions, in an honest debate.

I did not know the public was barred from attending. I did not know the press was barred from reporting on the event.

Because that would have to have taken place in order to commit "an egregious act of denying a forum for the electorate to see and hear a candidate's positions".

[sirs]

Strange, I did not know I put that people were banned from attending in the thread title.  You need to work on these software glitches that apparently keep changing the point you keep claiming I'm making

The egregiousness is that it was a forum were only a fixed # of people could attend.  My guess is that was a mere fraction of the voting electorate. 

Then again, I think you know that as well

[BT]

The egregiousness is that it was a forum were only a fixed # of people could attend.  My guess is that was a mere fraction of the voting electorate. 

The room where the debate was held was standing room only? That usually isn't the case with congressional elections. I fail to see how folks were denied attendance to the debate. And any limitations on crowd size would be determined by the fire marshal, not the candidates. But in either case you failed to make your case that anyone was denied the right to attend the debate.

[sirs]

U.S. Rep. John Spratt will debate his Republican challenger Mick Mulvaney on Tuesday, but the only people who will get to see any of it have already bought tickets to the sold out dinner at a South Carolina Lions Club

I just did.......again.  If this were a GOP candidate, it would be MSM attention, with no rationalization efforts, outside of those spokepeoples intimate to the candidate

Your defense of the egregious is duely noted, however

[BT]

Ah they sold tickets to the debate. That is a whole different story. Do you think the candidates should have provided free tickets to those who chose not to buy them on their own?
Is there like an entitlement to pay per view?

The Lions do good charity work for the blind. Glad to see they benefited.

[sirs]

Must have missed the part about the banning of video & audio as the crux of this issue, that makes your inquiry moot

Then again, what must be defended, apparently must be defended     

[BT]

If you are selling tickets to an event, scarcity makes the price higher. And since the blind benefited from these higher prices, your callousness is duly noted. I'm surprised you are in the health field with an attitude like that.

[sirs]

Wow...I didn't realize that elections have now become part of the entertainment business.  Here I thought they were about running Government, and who the electorate wishes to have represent them.  Break out the disco balls

(and FYI, looking forward to you demonstrating any of my posts that declare my opposition to charging for the event.  Another deflection effort I'm afraid.  Almost bordering on misrepresentation.  Remember that practice what you preach recommendation I was making earlier?  Bears repeating apparently)