Slashdot Mirror
10 Things To Know About The Upcoming Debates
jSpectre writes "Connie Rice writes an interesting article about the 'Presidential Debates' found on NPR's web site. Did you know it's illegal for the candidates to debate anywhere other than CPD ('Cloaking-device for Party Deception') officially santioned debates? Read on for her 'Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates.'" Read more CPD criticism at Open Debates.
Ok, there is a contract that says you will not do something. This doesn't make doing it Illegal (as in congress passes a law, and an executive signs it) subject to criminal penalties - it is a negotiated term in a contract, that if/when you violate it you are subject to civil penalties specified in the contract.
I'll agree with the spirit of what is being said in this article - but the author really needs to tone down and report on facts as they are, not as they want them to be
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Or is this news story too soon? I'd really be interested if the CPD has any response to this at all- and maybe we need to be addressing congress to make contracts between the major parties illegal to begin with.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If breaking a contract was legal how would a court impose penalties for doing so?
The fact that a court can impose a penalty means that it was against the law. If it was not against the law to break the contract there would be no way a court could enforce the document.
George Farrah, author of no debate was on NOW with Bill Moyers to discuss the history of presidential debates and how they've turned into bi-partisan press conferences.
You can read the transcript here.
...but its too bad that the only people willing to reform are locked out of the system by those who are terrified of losing their monopoly on the system. And those who oppose reform are the ones who would have to create reform.
IRV voting. Open Debates. Truly non-partisan moderators. Proper polling, or none at all. Safe, secure, open-to-the public electronic voting. Are all these things really too much to ask? Are all these things really IMPOSSIBLE to discuss?
I really hope that in 20 years when my generation is coming up through the ranks, when the geek inherit the earth (come on guys, get some people skills! Think of the people!), they remember the early 21st Century fiascos.
Moo.
That's not what CPD stand for. CPD is the Commission on Presidential Debates.
I don't know how the submitter got it so wrong, it's hard to get their name wrong. This egregious mistake should be corrected and noted by slashdot.
Lots of good information here
The local PBS affiliate, KLVX, has been excluding 3rd-party candidates from all of their televised debates. They made up some rule that you have to pull at least 5% in the last election for that same office. In other words... you have to run for the same office over and over before they'll let you in.
In 2002, I was out with a group of people from my party picketing the station. We challenged the candidates to refuse to go on unless they had our candidate on as well. They, naturally, politely declined. We then showed up to protest a 2nd non-televised debate, one that had a lot of newspaper reporters around. They let him in after 10 minutes. He ended up being the only candidate that answered questions instead of talking about how tough he is. (We created the David Roger Drinking Game based on this debate.)
No matter where you go, the monopoly is enforced.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
Congress will never change the laws regarding the two party duopoly until some thrid party congress members are elected. Same thing with a national initiative or term limits. We're farked.
Dalbert
A more detailed analysis that backs many of the points made in the NPR article.
The worst part of this is that it puts incumbants and poll leaders in a great position. The underdog wants the chance for the other guy to screw up. The leader of course doesn't want this to happen, but doesn't want to look afraid to debate.
This year it puts Kerry in a tough spot. He needs the media exposure as much as he needs the President to screw up. The Bush campaign could have easily walked away from it without serious reprecussion. Instead they used Kerry's needs to sanitize the affair. Kerry gets a gamble made worse by the negotiations, and America gets another boring infomercial where two guys stand up and declare how awesome it is to be them, and how awesome America will be if you BUY NOW!
Of course, if this is treated in any way like the Conventions, media coverage will be irrelevant. Most of the cable news channels featured Chris Matthews or Ron Reagan or Larry King or Bill O'Reilly talking over the majority of the convention. They're already fighting over how to present the debates; the networks want cut-aways that show one guy talking and the other listening.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
I'll be playing Doom3 or Painkiller during the structured news confrence often called a debate.
Nearly all of campaigning is an insult to intelligent voters who keep abreast on important issues. Both sides are full of shit, and most of us know it.
Apple free since 1990!
For a really good grilling the candidates should field questions from first grade kids, and be required to answer each one. Let's see how well they stand up under the constant stream of "Why?", "I don't get it", "Is this some grownup thing?", "Why?", "What's a 'recovery'?", "Why?", etc. Especially if "because I said so" is not considered to be an acceptable answer.
I'm not debating whether there was a "takeover" of the LWV moderated debates, just wondering if anyone knows what Ross Perot's role was in any LWV moderated debates prior to 1986, as it seems to me that Rice is trying to state that, based on her info, the LWV lost the presidential debates, in part, due to the admission of Ross Perot into the debates. The CPD, not the LWV, admitted Perot to the 1992 debates, and according to Rice's own timeline, CPD was in charge then.
On the surface, it appears to be a simple error, an oversight of copy and pasting, and one that makes me question the rest of "Secret # 9" accuracy and Rice's sincerity and attention to detail about the facts.
Is this really 'Politics for Nerds'? or simply bitching?
Monday, I got an email from them saying,
To all recipients on this list:
The Commission on Presidential Debates appreciates your interest in covering the debates. However, at this time, your application has been denied. Applications are declined due to security concerns, space limitations, or other reasons.
Thank you,
The Commission on Presidential Debates
To the best of my knowledge, CPD didn't give credentials to any other Indy Media reporters either. So that means that we can't cover it, because we won't even be admitted to the event.
Searched high and low only thing Perot did around 1986 was resign his position at GM. He did openly critize Bush Sr. though for failing to look for POWs.
"Under what I call the Debate Suppression and Monopolization Clause of the contract, it is illegal for the candidates to debate each other anywhere else during the campaign,"
Are we really talking about something that is Illegal, or are we talking about a contract to protect a financial stake in the "Official" debates?
Would they be arrested and tried if they debated on Nightline or would they be sued for breach of contract?
I suspect that, since we're talking about a contract with CPD, it's the latter.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This is the sort of thing that is beginning to bother me. I will vote for George W, and I am somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan... But this debate agreement stuff is no better than the scripted CNN Clinton/Albright Town Hall meetings. How to make this stuff better... Could it be that campaign finance reform had the right idea, even though it's toothless feel-good legislation? Something tells me that the founding fathers wouldn't go for much of this stuff. Maybe I just need some sleep. I'll be back to my old fascist self in the morning.
That happened in 1988, and 1986 isn't mentioned in that interview. John Anderson is mentioned, but not at all related to Perot. Perot is mentioned, but not in 1986 or anywhere until the 90s as you would expect.
So I have no idea what she is talking about. It sounds to me like she might just be mixing up dates and stories.
7d9e63e9501751ff4bf9307989d5623d *SheepHead
"Connie Rice writes an interesting article....
Is it this Condoleeza Rice?
Probably not, but damn, what an unfortunate name for a political commentator.
-dameron
------
DailyHaiku.com, saying more in 17 syllables than Bill O'Reilly says all day.
Double Bullshit. The author of the article attempted to make it sound like it would be a breach of a criminal law. You trying to invoke some obscure usage of the word is just a bad.
Anyone who read the article knows full well that the author intended to mislead readers.
Obscure usage? No, the terminology is common:
In chess, it is an illegal move to move the opponent's pieces.
In boxing, hitting below the belt is illegal.
If I were you, I'd be a bit more concerned about the state of your democracy than rabidly working conspiracies into an editor's choice of words.
True, the candidates may blame their unwillingness to debate outside the forums on the contract, but hopefully most rational voters would see this as a smoke and dagger exercise.
Questions to ask about such a contract:
Is it enforceable - is your right to free speech as American citizens not inalienable?
If enforceable, does it provide specific sanctions for breach of the contract? If these are too onerous, for example allowing an injunction to stop the alternative debate, they may not be enforceable on rights grounds, common-law courts preferring damages claims over specific performance.
How can the CPD prove it has suffered any contractual loss (and quantify it) if further debates take place? - the alternative debates might easily further public interest in their own debates.
Of course, I say this from the perspective of a country where the Prime Minister fields questions from the leader of the Opposition and the leader of third party on a weekly basis for the duration of Parliament, so what do I know?
You don't play that game like I do...
Would you accept a Cheney bashing comment? How about Cheney bashing Cheney? I found the following on andrewsullivan.
You can find the full context of the quote here and some newspaper spin here. Now personally, I don't have a problem with a person changing his mind. To me it's often a sign of common sense. But over in GOP-land it seems to be some kind of mortal sin! Or maybe only when a democrat does it...
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
The same writer has an very good new article (that link is from 2000) that presents a much more fact-based, but no less damning critique than Rice's: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/bi-pa rtisan_appearances_real_debates.html
I found this article clarifying the Perot story http://www.commondreams.org/views/100100-103.htm
The same writer has an excellent current analysis that present a much more fact-based, but no less damning critique of the CPD and, more importantly, introduces a real plan for change: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/bi-pa rtisan_appearances_real_debates.html . Some interesting background links follow the article.
This article lost its merit. I started watching the debates, and yes they are debates. A question is asked of one candidate, he answers, and then the other candidate has a rebutal, and then sometimes there is more back and forth on the question. So where did rice get her info????