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.
It wasn't a mistake. They were making a point about the legality of the debates by changing what the organization's abbreviation stands for.
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
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.
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.
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
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