I was wondering what exactly happened in 2004 whent "they" decided to NOT have the League of Women voters host the debates, as they had done in years prior. Did this have to do with only two parties being represented?
2006-08-27 06:29:42 · 5 answers · asked by mems 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
*thanks for all of the winning replies. you obviously have no idea...
2006-08-29 07:36:20 · update #1
They decided to not have League of Women voters host
the debates cuz Bush's back bulge machine was in the
shop being fixed and there's no way Bush could debate
without his Rove/back bulge...
2006-08-27 06:38:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why should the league of worthless sweat-hogs have anything at all to do with the debates in the first place?
I think Karl Rove pushed for some responsible people to be in charge of the debates so the lib-tards collective heads would explode in anger and stupidity...LOL!
2006-08-31 07:30:52 · answer #2 · answered by juandos 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The league of women voters, don't have th right to hold every debate!!!
2006-08-27 14:24:36 · answer #3 · answered by alfonso 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who cares?... and who gave the League an exclusive franchise to hold the debates anyway?
2006-08-27 14:50:32 · answer #4 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Umm this is 2006. Did you wake up from a coma?
2006-08-27 13:33:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋