Journal pudge's Journal: Debates Not Open for 2008 7
I've written many times about the problems with our presidential debates. This year, as before -- but unlike 2004 -- the debate contract between the two campaigns is being kept secret.
Long story short -- and you can find out much more at Open Debates -- a private, nonpartisan organization called the Commission on Presidential Debates is given control of the debates by the candidates of the two parties, and the CPD decides how the debate will be run.
Well, that's what they want you to think. In fact, the CPD was started in 1986 by the RNC and DNC (it's still co-chaired by then-chairs of the DNC and RNC, Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf, today) to take away control of the debates from the League of Women Voters, and it is the candidates' campaigns themselves that come up with all the rules.
So, for example, when Ross Perot was kept out of the debates in 1996, it was because Dole's campaign demanded it, and Clinton's campaign agreed. The candidates are the ones who agree on everything -- from the number and format of debates, to who will moderate each one, and even the size of the podiums and number of TVs in the dressing rooms -- and the CPD just rubber-stamps it. If you feel like the debates are set up to be commercials for the campaigns
Bush and Kerry made their memorandum of understanding (PDF, 7.3MB) public in 2004. The MOU negotiated by Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Rahm Emanuel for McCain and Obama, unfortunately, has not been made public.
Of course, making the MOU public is just one small step. Really, control of the debates should be relinquished to an actual independent party, such as the League of Women Voters.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Well... (Score:1)
...a great JE, until the end there when your brain malfunctioned. NOW calls themself "non-partisan" too, so I guess they'd also be a great candidate org for ensuring fairness in the debates.
Or were you trying to make us reach the conclusion for ourselves that there *is no* independent, disinterested third party political org to run these, so may as well leave 'em in the hands of one RNC dude and one DNC dude.
Re: (Score:2)
...a great JE, until the end there when your brain malfunctioned. NOW calls themself "non-partisan" too, so I guess they'd also be a great candidate org for ensuring fairness in the debates.
Hm? Are you referring to my mention of the LWV? The LWV put on the debates for years, and did a very good job. Just because they are biased to the left doesn't mean they can't put on a good debate. And yes, that was 20+ years ago: if they can no longer put on a good debate, fine, pick someone else then. But to exclude them for being biased when they have already proven themselves is silly.
The obvious answer (Score:2)
Troll? Insightful? You decide.
That is very easy to fix: vote against it. (Score:2)
That's a great idea, but overall, we are against it. Who makes that decision? Two parties and their candidates. Who approves of the candidates' position on this? The voters. I predict that a lot of people are going to vote for Obama and McCain, thereby approving of keeping the debates the way they are.
We could demand integrity in the process, and people who don't play ball wouldn'
Re: (Score:2)
Really, control of the debates should be relinquished to an actual independent party, such as the League of Women Voters.
That's a great idea, but overall, we are against it.
Who is this "we"? Based on what? Private, independent organizations put on debates all the time. It's only the presidential debates that are different. All the primary debates, the candidate forums, and general election debates at all other levels of government are done by independent organizations.
Who makes that decision? Two parties and their candidates. Who approves of the candidates' position on this? The voters. I predict that a lot of people are going to vote for Obama and McCain, thereby approving of keeping the debates the way they are.
You can't believe that. You cannot believe that just because I vote for McCain that I approve of the CPD. That makes not a lick of sense. And further, most people have NO CLUE who runs the presidential deb
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HA!