Archive for the tag 'Mitt Romney'

Stein: Romney attorneys trying to get debate lawsuit tossed

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein said in a campaign email that “lawyers for Mitt Romney are trying to get our lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) thrown out. Our lawsuit, supported by both Greens and Libertarians, makes the case that the CPD violates antitrust law by excluding independent candidates, essentially giving the […]

Romney attorneys respond to Green, Libertarian debate lawsuit

The National Law Journal reports that attorneys for 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney have filed papers seeking dismissal of a federal lawsuit brought by the Green Party and Libertarian Party over their nominees’ exclusion from the presidential and vice presidential debates that year. The lawsuit, which also names the Commission on Presidential Debates, Barack […]

Harvard Crimson runs feature on Stein

Harvard University’s Harvard Crimson has a feature on alumnus Jill Stein, who is seeking the Green Party presidential nomination for the second time. The Crimson writes that when Stein ran in 2012, “she was arrested at a national debate. While fellow Harvard graduates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama took to the stage, Green Party candidate […]

Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards

Time‘s Mark Halperin has made himself useful for once by obtaining, and publishing,a copy of the 21-page memorandum of understanding that the Obama and Romney campaigns negotiated with the Commission on Presidential Debates establishing the rules governing this month’s presidential and vice presidential face-offs. The upshot: Both campaigns are terrified at anything even remotely spontaneous happening.

They aren’t permitted to ask each other questions, propose pledges to each other, or walk outside a “predesignated area.” And for the town-hall-style debate tomorrow night, the audience members posing questions aren’t allowed to ask follow-ups (their mics will be cut off as soon as they get their questions out). Nor will moderator Candy Crowley.

Most bizarrely, given the way the debates have played out, the rules actually appear to forbid television coverage from showing reaction shots of the candidates: “To the best of the Commission’s abilities, there will be no TV cut-aways to any candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question or to a candidate who is not giving a closing statement while another candidate is doing so.” The “best of the Commission’s abilities” must be rather feable, seeing as how almost every moment of the two debates so far was televised in split-screen, clearly showing shots of a “candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question.”

Which means some of the rules below that both campaigns stipulated to in a desperate attempt to wring any serendipity out of the events may be honored in the breach:

  • “The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates.”
  • “The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges.”
  • “At no time during the October 3 First Presidential debate shall either candidate move from his designated area behing the respective podium.”
  • For the October 16 town-hall-style debate, “the moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate….”
  • “The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience member’s microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions.”
  • “[T]he Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut-off the microphone of any…audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement different than that previously posed to the moderator for review.”
  • “No candidate may reference or cite any specific individual sitting in a debate audience (other than family members) at any time during a debate.”
  • For the town-hall debate: “Each candidate may move about in a pre-designated area, as proposed by the Commission and approved by each campaign, and may not leave that area while the debate is underway.”

Here’s the full document:

The 2012 Debates – Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns

Mitt Romney won’t be the only Massachusetts resident on the presidential ballot

By Matt Viser, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON – Mitt Romney isn’t the only Massachusetts resident to recently clinch his party’s nomination for president.

Jill Stein – a Lexington resident who actually has experience debating Romney before a televised audience – on Tuesday in California secured the delegates needed to win the Green Party nomination.

One of her chief rivals for the nomination was comedian Roseanne Barr.

“Voters will not be forced to choose between two servants of Wall Street in the upcoming election,” Stein said in a statement on Wednesday. “Now we know there will be a third candidate on the ballot who is a genuine champion of working people.”

Stein, a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Medical School, ran for governor in 2002 and participated in debates with Romney. She received a surprising 3.5 percent of the vote, which wasn’t enough to change the outcome. But she participated in several statewide debates with Romney, rarely shirking from criticizing the future governor but not always making an imprint.

During one, Romney turned directly toward Stein and said, “Carla, I agree…” before correcting himself. “I’m sorry, I’m sorry. Excuse me, Dr. Stein.” (He apparently mistook her for Carla Howell, a Libertarian in the race.) 

Stein is a suburban mother and doctor who became a public health and political activist and has been running for various offices since 2002 (2004 as state representative, 2006 as secretary of state, 2010 for governor).

She’s expected to become the formal nominee of the Green Party at their convention next month in Baltimore.

%d bloggers like this: