Who is running the debate CSPAN is televising Monday?

[sailingaway]

I'm wondering if they are friend, foe, or neutral.

Also, when is the 'Good For Bunning' retirement spectacular dinner?

Thanks.

[Sine Die]

I'm wondering if they are friend, foe, or neutral.

Also, when is the 'Good For Bunning' retirement spectacular dinner?

Thanks.

Kentucky Educational Television is running the debate on Monday. They are neutral.

The Bunning dinner is tonight.

[sailingaway]

Kentucky Educational Television is running the debate on Monday. They are neutral.

The Bunning dinner is tonight.

Thank you! I thought the dinner was tonight, and saw references on Rand's site to a dinner, but I wasn't sure it was the same one.

[JohnG]

Rand is debating again on monday? Vs Grayson and no-one else? Can you watch it from outside US? Will Rand carry those sunglasses he looks so cool in?

If the answer to all four questions is Yes, that just made my day ;)

Which time is it?
/John

[itshappening]

it's going to be Rand, Grayson and the 3 others - complete waste of time and another worthless debate

they have been a real let down because they insist on having the non-viable candidates

[JohnG]

Oh no :( I want to see Rand get angry again, that was the coolest thing I've seen in years ;)

Anyway, which time is the debate? Any idea whether it could be watched from outside US?

/John

[Malachi]

This will be this most professional debate by far. The host is a regular on TV and very well respected.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Can't believe they're letting those other three in again. Thank God it is almost over and they'll be gone.

Wish I had an extra $500 laying around so that I could use it to become a "candidate" and get on television to talk about my personal pet issues. Anyone who has seen any of these things knows John Stephenson is using this race and the debates as just a pulpit to preach.

[sailingaway]

Oh no :( I want to see Rand get angry again, that was the coolest thing I've seen in years ;)

Anyway, which time is the debate? Any idea whether it could be watched from outside US?

/John

I don't know, can you get CSPAN overseas? I usually watch them on line, but haven't tried from overseas. I read somewhere that CSPAN is going to cover it, though.

[Inkblots]

Anyway, which time is the debate? Any idea whether it could be watched from outside US?

Not sure if it can be streamed in Europe, but the debate will be broadcast live on C-SPAN1 at 8 pm EST on Monday May 10.

[TruthisTreason]

Should be able to stream here too http://www.ket.org/

[JohnG]

I just went to CSPAN's website, and I could watch it live. I hope I can watch the debate as well, no reason why it shouldn't work :)

[chiefsmurph]

I don't see how people can be frustrated that there will be the non-viable candidates at the debate. The others are polling at 3%. Remember how frustrated we were when Ron Paul was polling at 5% and not allowed at the debates. Does that two percent really make or break it?

[sailingaway]

I don't see how people can be frustrated that there will be the non-viable candidates at the debate. The others are polling at 3%. Remember how frustrated we were when Ron Paul was polling at 5% and not allowed at the debates. Does that two percent really make or break it?

Access is good. Besides, I like the old guy who warns about the fed. If Rand weren't in the race....

[Tinnuhana]

What time is the debate? I'm Z+9 here (13 hours ahead of the east coast).

[Dreamofunity]

Not sure if it can be streamed in Europe, but the debate will be broadcast live on C-SPAN1 at 8 pm EST on Monday May 10.


What time is the debate? I'm Z+9 here (13 hours ahead of the east coast).

8 pm est + 13 hours = 9 am the next day

That is, if inkblots is correct on the original time.

I'm sure it'll be recorded on Cspan to watch again later though if you want to sleep in :P

[mc_RP2008]

it's going to be Rand, Grayson and the 3 others - complete waste of time and another worthless debate they have been a real let down because they insist on having the non-viable candidates


Can't believe they're letting those other three in again. Thank God it is almost over and they'll be gone.

These kinds of statements upset me. This is the mentality that had Ron Paul excluded from the Fox News debate in 2008. It's because the media deemed Ron Paul "non-viable", that his views were not aired to the public... had they been, he may have won the nomination over McCain. The majority already has a voice, it is the minority that needs one.

People should not voting for the horse they think is going to win, they should be voting for the candidate that best reflects their values. "Viable" or not, access to the debates should be open to all candidates.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

These kinds of statements upset me. This is the mentality that had Ron Paul excluded from the Fox News debate in 2008. It's because the media deemed Ron Paul "non-viable", that his views were not aired to the public... had they been, he may have won the nomination over McCain. The majority already has a voice, it is the minority that needs one.

People should not voting for the horse they think is going to win, they should be voting for the candidate that best reflects their values. "Viable" or not, access to the debates should be open to all candidates.

Not even remotely comparable. Ron Paul was a sitting Congressman who had a campaign staff, a campaign manager, a national campaign office, offices in early primary states like New Hampshire, was running ads, was campaigning on the ground, holding rallies, doing multiple interviews, raising money, etc. At the specific debate of which you speak; Ron Paul had finished ahead of one candidate (Giuliani) in the previously-held Iowa caucus and was polling better than another (Thompson) in the state they were having the debate: New Hampshire, and they (Giuliani and Thompson) were both included. Also Ron Paul had raised the most money from donors of any GOP candidate in the fourth quarter before that January 2008 debate.

These three, on the other hand, are doing nothing. They have no campaign. Have they run a single commercial or made a bumper sticker between the three of them? They're not even trying. How are these guys "candidates"? Just because they had an extra $500 to plop down on a filing fee? Can anyone with $500 be allowed in? Maybe I should file here for Governor and then demand entrance into all the debates to talk about how great Ron Paul would be as President in 2012, in-between doing absolutely nothing but sitting on the couch campaign-wise.

This is an hour-long debate that is probably going to feature a combined twenty minutes of John Stephenson singing and preaching and Gurley Martin taking thirty seconds to finish a short sentence. It's not allowing more voices to be heard, it's just a disservice to the public that'll in a small way help ensure a less informed primary electorate.

[low preference guy]

Not even remotely comparable. Ron Paul was a sitting Congressman who had a campaign staff, a campaign manager, a national campaign office, offices in early primary states like New Hampshire, was running ads, was campaigning on the ground, holding rallies, doing multiple interviews, raising money, etc. At the specific debate of which you speak; Ron Paul had finished ahead of one candidate (Giuliani) in the previously-held Iowa caucus and was polling better than another (Thompson) in the state they were having the debate: New Hampshire, and they (Giuliani and Thompson) were both included. Also Ron Paul had raised the most money from donors of any GOP candidate in the fourth quarter before that January 2008 debate.

These three, on the other hand, are doing nothing. They have no campaign. Have they run a single commercial or made a bumper sticker between the three of them? They're not even trying. How are these guys "candidates"? Just because they had an extra $500 to plop down on a filing fee? Can anyone with $500 be allowed in? Maybe I should file here for Governor and then demand entrance into all the debates to talk about how great Ron Paul would be as President in 2012, in-between doing absolutely nothing but sitting on the couch campaign-wise.

This is an hour-long debate that is probably going to feature a combined twenty minutes of John Stephenson singing and preaching and Gurley Martin taking thirty seconds to finish a short sentence. It's not allowing more voices to be heard, it's just a disservice to the public that'll in a small way help ensure a less informed primary electorate.

+1000

Post of the month.

[mc_RP2008]

Not even remotely comparable. Ron Paul was a sitting Congressman who had a campaign staff, a campaign manager, a national campaign office, offices in early primary states like New Hampshire, was running ads, was campaigning on the ground, holding rallies, doing multiple interviews, raising money, etc. At the specific debate of which you speak; Ron Paul had finished ahead of one candidate (Giuliani) in the previously-held Iowa caucus and was polling better than another (Thompson) in the state they were having the debate: New Hampshire, and they (Giuliani and Thompson) were both included. Also Ron Paul had raised the most money from donors of any GOP candidate in the fourth quarter before that January 2008 debate.

These three, on the other hand, are doing nothing. They have no campaign. Have they run a single commercial or made a bumper sticker between the three of them? They're not even trying. How are these guys "candidates"? Just because they had an extra $500 to plop down on a filing fee? Can anyone with $500 be allowed in? Maybe I should file here for Governor and then demand entrance into all the debates to talk about how great Ron Paul would be as President in 2012, in-between doing absolutely nothing but sitting on the couch campaign-wise.

This is an hour-long debate that is probably going to feature a combined twenty minutes of John Stephenson singing and preaching and Gurley Martin taking thirty seconds to finish a short sentence. It's not allowing more voices to be heard, it's just a disservice to the public that'll in a small way help ensure a less informed primary electorate.

While I understand your frustration, I repsectfully disagree.


Can anyone with $500 be allowed in? Maybe I should file here for Governor and then demand entrance into all the debates to talk about how great Ron Paul would be as President in 2012, in-between doing absolutely nothing but sitting on the couch campaign-wise.

Short answer, Yes. If you are on the ballot, you should be allowed in the debates.

[low preference guy]

Short answer, Yes. If you are on the ballot, you should be allowed in the debates.

Let's raise $5000, put 10 additional candidates, and make all the debates useless. What a great idea!

[ljwestmcsd]

Don't worry if you can't see it live. Sometime after the show airs, you can watch a replay at http://www.ket.org/publicaffairs/

Right now, they have replays available for the Democratic Senate candidates as well as some of the Congressional candidates.

In regards to "not running a campaign," we don't know what all the candidates are doing. For example, in its endorsement for Louisville Mayor today, the Courier-Journal stated that Burrell Farnsley was not running a campaign, but I listened to his campaign speech -- what he does is travel on city busses explaining to bus riders his transportation plan, which is obviously pro-bus (to a captive audience that is also pro-bus), then he gets off the bus (presumedly to get on another one). If I was a Dem., I'd probably vote for him.

Besides, if Rand wasn't in the race, I would consider voting for Gurley based on his debate answers -- How could you not vote for someone who answers a question "Horsefeathers."

That being said, I can't recall any other election that had so many minor candidates in Kentucky, even back when the filing fee was only $20 prior to 1994.

[sailingaway]

Don't worry if you can't see it live. Sometime after the show airs, you can watch a replay at http://www.ket.org/publicaffairs/

Right now, they have replays available for the Democratic Senate candidates as well as some of the Congressional candidates.

In regards to "not running a campaign," we don't know what all the candidates are doing. For example, in its endorsement for Louisville Mayor today, the Courier-Journal stated that Burrell Farnsley was not running a campaign, but I listened to his campaign speech -- what he does is travel on city busses explaining to bus riders his transportation plan, which is obviously pro-bus (to a captive audience that is also pro-bus), then he gets off the bus (presumedly to get on another one). If I was a Dem., I'd probably vote for him.

Besides, if Rand wasn't in the race, I would consider voting for Gurley based on his debate answers -- How could you not vote for someone who answers a question "Horsefeathers."

That being said, I can't recall any other election that had so many minor candidates in Kentucky, even back when the filing fee was only $20 prior to 1994.

I'd definitely vote for Gurley over Trey. G had quite a bit to say about the folks from Jeckyl Island as well.

[JohnG]

So, it's on tonight in about seven hours? right?

[TruthisTreason]

So, it's on tonight in about seven hours? right?

Yes. :cool:

[Nathan Hale]

Tubes?