Do presidential candidates usually pay for debate time?  Was Mondale paying as well?  If he was, then what was Reagan complaining about?
124181
It wasn't in a debate with Walter Mondale. It was in a debate with George H.W. Bush during the New Hampshire primary in 1980. The debate was meant to be attended by Reagan and Bush only as the frontrunners  and was originally organised by the Nashua newspaper but due to Federal financing regulations, Reagan's campaign offered to pay for it.\n\nReagan sent out an invitation for the othher Republican candidates -Bob Dole, Howard Baker, John Anderson, and Phil Crane - to attend. Jim Baker, Bush's campaign manager refused to participate if the other candidates took part. Reagan sought to explain to the crowd when an executive from the Nashua Telegraph said "I'm paying for that microphone, Mr Breen". The crowd cheered the line and Ronald Reagan went on to win the New Hampshire primary , the Republican nomination and the US presidency.
661162
The budget takes years to develop.  It started way before Bush was President, and yes Bush did add to it but it was already in a crises when Clinton was President.  As for asking a silly question as that maybe you should have been giving Clinton the BJ since you are so infatuated with it instead with the real facts.
139248
This site does make for some interesting reading, he has some good stands even on the things that I would disagree with him on.  The most important thing that a campaign of this type could do for this country is actually educate the voters on Special Interest and the money it spends to gain for their interest which is not always ours.  Every few years you need someone to come along and shake things up a bit.  He could do it, he is a well known face and name and that is half the battle in politics.
390140
Hypocricy runs rampant in both parties. You know what would be a better way to select our canidate by having actual facts as to how the voted on any and all issues when they were in government. This way you know if this person is voting the way you want them to on the issues that are important to you. What was their absent record. \nAfter all aren't we all their bosses to some extent we put them in office. \nYou know what irks me the most it's the wonderful raises they give themselves. If there is something that should be put in the ballot it's rather or not they should have a pay raise. After all where else can you go to work and decide gee I am giving myself a payraise.\nHowever it's all a bunch of propaganda with mudslinging.
275618
Work in the Republican primary campaign for his top challenger, and if he is nominated work for the Democrat in the general election campaign!
499302
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=114\n\nhttp://www.lexisone.com/news/ap/ap012904b.html\n\nhttp://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/debate96.html\n\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1468301.stm
396138
Clinton spent more than anyone in any senate campaign ever, outspent Spencer by at least 10 to one. I think I heard 16 million on TV last night.  The republican party gave nothing to Spencer, they knew he had no chance.  Clinton didn't have to spend akll that money to win, but she wanted to win big to set her up for a run at the presidency.
652598
That's interesting. Really.\nI didn't look through the whole site.  So government funding advertising and campaign, with no private donations or little if using a match system.  It may work, but there are possible problems.  \nHow much money\nCould any candidate qualify with signatures, I'm not trying to be totally exclusive, but I also don't want any moron with a few signatures using taxpayers money to run a stupid campaign that endorses some stupid agenda, like wicans or something.\nAnd there's an extra commission or committee every year to determine equity in the funding.\nAnd it is kind of socialist.  Just kind of, don't get mad.\nI'm not trying to be negative, just thinking of pitfalls.\n\nIt is something to think about.
672859
Here's how the Conservatives "debate":\n\n.... "Arguing without Listening"\n\nLiberal Lie: "We rushed to war on false pretenses."\nEducated Response: "You Hate America!"\n\nLiberal Lie: "The Constitution isn't a political tool."\nEducated Response: "Read the Bible!"\n\nLiberal Lie: "The Clear Skies Initiative raises pollution."\nEducated Response: "America Hater!"\n\nLiberal Lie: "There is no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda."\nEducated Response: "Traitor!"\n\nLiberal Lie: "The tax cuts clearly benefit the wealthy."\nEducated Response: "Stop hating America!"\n\nLiberal Lie: "They turned a surplus into a deficit."\nEducated Response: "It's Clinton's fault!"\n\nLiberal Lie: "The 2000 Election was a sham."\nEducated Response: "You hate, Hate, HATE America!"\n\nLiberal Lie: "I don't hate America."\nEducated Response: "Flip-Flopper!"\n\nRemember, it's not about being right.... it's about winning!
347521
Whoa!!!!\nClinton was not born of money, but he sure gained privilege.\nHe got lots of help to dodge the draft, live his whole life off taxpayers, and make a fortune in corruption.\nBill Clinton is the only president that never held a job for even one day in his life.\nReagan and Nixon grew up poor.\nThey both worked menial jobs, not live off the taxpayers like Clinton did.\n\nGood Question if you had your facts correct.  You missed it on Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon.
574788
I don't know. I suppose you are referring to politicians...because given the number of democratic citizens out there I'm sure one has used it in a debate w/ a fellow citizen sometime this week.  Though they do tend to mudsling. \n\nThis is all I could find online for you. Sorry...(below)\n\nBest of Luck!
452150
The Dems always do this at election time.  Their true views are far too extreme to be voiced outside of Malibu or New York City.  For a good laugh, tune in Phil Angelides campaign ads -- hilarious, especially when you know his record in public office.  I particularly enjoy the part where he attacks Arnold for taking special interest money, when Andelides' entire campaign is being financed by the two biggest special interests in California, namely, the teachers' union and the public employees' union.  But I'm sure THAT money would never influence any decision of his.  Typical Dems.
593237
well... as it often seems, both parties seem weak for candidates... I like Edwards, Obama and Warner, but to put them up there with FDR and JFK... that's a bit much...\n\nBut I don't see any Reagans around the corner for the Republicans either, so it could be a little messy...\n\nBut at the same time... I doubt anyone was really thinking FDR or JFK would go down as great presidents two years before they were elected either...\n\nEDIT: Mark Warner, Gov. of Virginia\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner
248015
Ronald Reagan was the first president I ever voted for. Love him or hate him, he did one thing very well, appeal to other parties. Hence the term Reagan Democrat.\n\nI'm not sure I'd vote for him again if he were still alive. But with the grim choices both parties have been giving us the last few election cycles, maybe.\nEdit:\nThe first, for those of you who don't know, is prostitution.\nEdit:\nCottonmouth: Some Reagan facts: When Reagan left the White House, the deficit amounted to 2.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product, after having hit 6 percent of GDP in 1983. The economy grew out of the 1982 recession and by the end of Reagan’s presidency the unemployment rate was 5 percent, less than half what it was in 1982.\n\nI can't believe I'm actually DEFENDING a Republican...
424012
Yes, and i still bring up this argument when talking politics with an avid Reagan/bush/bush fan. It is hard not to forget that Reagan plunged the national debt to levels previously unheard. But let us not forget that the economy took a horrible hit as well, with FIFTY percent of farmers(just mentioning one of the hard it economic groups) nation wide going bankrupt thanks to his trickle down economics. Lets us learn from one of the worst presidents ever and try not to vote another one in...uh...wait..damn, to late.
543620
As long as these two parties bitchin each other, the media and the political pundits can make lots of money. LoL.
467363
Ah, what's to debate...?\n\n"It is unnecessary to present both sides of an issue when one side is obviously a load of crap." - Bill Maher