Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States

pudge's Journal: Money and Mouths 8

Journal by pudge

You don't like the Presidential debates? Did you know the political parties secretly collude with the Commission on Presidential Debates to exclude third parties, in violation of federal law? Did you know that since the CPD took over the debates, viewership has consistently declined? Have you read my previous journal entries?

Don't like it? Put your money where your mouth is, and donate to Open Debates. Also, watch the news conference, if you have some time. It's a Real stream from C-SPAN, so it might be busy today, though. Something is sorta going on that a lot of people are watching.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Money and Mouths

Comments Filter:
  • c-span (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JDizzy (85499) on Wednesday March 24, 2004 @11:51AM (#8657368) Homepage Journal
    Ok I admit it, I'm a c-span nerd. I watch it as I drone on the computer at home. But honestly sometimes watching congress spin its' sprockets is fascinating, and at the same time seriously boring. It is nice that I can get the same live coverage as with the major networks, but with out commercials, talking heads, and minus the political rhetoric of the major networks.

    Anyhoo... you said something about an organization, possibly part of the federal government, which is sponsoring/maintaining the political debates? That does indeed sound fishy, but will donating to the open-debate really change anything? I mean, is it strictly money driven, or some sort of political nasty?

    Sponsoring a truly unbiased debate forum seems important enough to me, considering the behavior of some of the people on TV who seem totally biased, utterly incapable of asking appropriate questions, and they don't yielding enough time to the folks in the debate.

    Jokingly, I'd say we should toss the candidates into some IRC channel, and let them have a flame war. I wonder if Bush can type faster than Kerry?
    • by pudge (3605) *
      Anyhoo... you said something about an organization, possibly part of the federal government, which is sponsoring/maintaining the political debates?

      The CPD [debates.org] is a private, "nonpartisan" (read: bipartisan) organization that has sponsored every Presidential and Vice Presidential debate since sometime in the 80s (1988 I think). The two chairmen of the CPD were, at the time of the start of the CPD, the respective chairs of their political parties! It is a bipartisan organization that serves to provide debates
      • Are you sure it goes back as far as 1988? I'd be surprised, as that would place Ross Perot in some of their debates.
        • by pudge (3605) *
          Are you sure it goes back as far as 1988?

          Yes.

          I'd be surprised, as that would place Ross Perot in some of their debates.

          Each candidate thought Perot would hurt the other guy. Perot had no say in the negotiations over the debate rules, dates, or venues, and was only allowed in because Bush insisted on it. OpenDebates' George Farah cites documents proving this in the press conference on the Real stream, and they may be on the web site (I assume they are in the book).
  • I think the real problem has to do more with the FEC itself. The CPD is just a symptom. The FEC is staffed with nothing but RNC and DNC appointees and has no incentive to fix these sorts of problems nor to include third parties in the election process. As political appointees, they are much more subject to allegiance to their party rather than fair enforcement of the law. As long as we have a bipartisan rather than nonpartisan organization overseeing elections, the system will likely never be just.
    • Complain to the FEC, feh

      Your subject implies you don't know a complaint has been filed with the FEC.

      As long as we have a bipartisan rather than nonpartisan organization overseeing elections, the system will likely never be just.

      This statement implies you didn't read or care about my subject. Put your money with your mouth is.
      • My subject implies that I don't believe complaining to the FEC is likely to amount to much. They already have no incentive to include, support, nor encourage third parties in the election process. And I certainly care deeply about this subject, my money and time has gone to causes and candidates that support FEC reforms for nearly eight years now. Don't get me wrong, I like what OpenDebates is doing, and I could see how it would be useful to a fight against the FEC if the FEC were to outright reject thei
        • My subject implies that I don't believe complaining to the FEC is likely to amount to much. They already have no incentive to include ...

          And if they reject it, you take them to court.

          And try to relax a little, your abrasiveness doesn't help your cause.

          *My* abrasiveness? Look in the mirror and tell me what you're smoking.

We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.

Working...