Presidential Debates Already Rigged

[Pink Spider]

By James P. Tucker Jr.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/debates_rigged.html

The Republican and Democratic parties, fearful of issues promoted by third parties, have rigged the so-called presidential debates, experts told a Washington press conference Sept. 7.

“For the last 16 years, the general election presidential debates have been controlled by a private, tax-exempt corporation—the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)—that has deceptively served the interests of the Republican and Democratic parties at the expense of the American people,” their report said.

The report was a project of 11 voter advocacy groups, including the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Judicial Watch and the Center for Voting and Democracy.

In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees agreed for the “parties to take over the presidential debates” and subsequently created the CPD, headed by each party’s national chairman, the report said. They “seized control of the debates from the genuinely nonpartisan League of Women Voters,” it said.

“Behind closed doors, negotiators for the national parties jointly draft debate contracts,” it said. They “dictate precisely how the debates will be run—from decreeing who can participate, to selecting who will ask the questions, to ordaining the temperature in the auditorium.”

Candidates who “voters want to see are often excluded, such as Ross Perot,” the report said. “Issues the American people want to hear about are often ignored, such as free trade and child poverty. The debates have been reduced to a series of glorified bipartisan news conferences, in which the Republican and Democratic candidates exchange memorized sound bites.”

Because of this, “debate viewership has plummeted; 25 million fewer people watched the 2000 presidential debates than watched the 1992 presidential debates,” the report said. “Walter Cronkite called the CPD-sponsored debates an ‘unconscionable fraud’ and accused the major party candidates of ‘sabotaging the electoral process.’ ”

In 1996, Republican Bob Dole got Democrat Bill Clinton to agree to keep Perot out of the debates, believing Perot would take more votes from him, the report said. Dole, in exchange, agreed to cancel one debate and to hold the other two opposite the baseball World Series, because Clinton wanted the smallest audience possible.

[ELVIS]

It doesn't matter...

Undecided people who will watch the debates don't know anything about issues anyway...

These debates will be a side-by-side comparison of character, of which Bush will clearly be the winner...

[DrMaddVibe]

If you're watching the debates to form your opinion then you truly are a moron!

Religion isn't the opiate of the masses as Marx wrote...TV is!

[Big Train]

Pink,

Vote for Ralph and get him his 5%, then the party has a voice next lap....Done.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
If you're watching the debates to form your opinion then you truly are a moron!

Religion isn't the opiate of the masses as Marx wrote...TV is!

I agree with you 100% on both parts.

But, that still doesn't change the fact that there should be more than two candidates up there.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Big Train
Pink,

Vote for Ralph and get him his 5%, then the party has a voice next lap....Done.

How does a candidate get 5% in modern times without being a billionaire to buy airtime from the corporate media? Even that is not a given into getting time to get a message across.

I'm not entirely set on voting for Ralph either, so that's not the point.

And which party would that be? Ralph is an independent.

[DrMaddVibe]

If they're on the ballot nationwide then they have every right to be included in a nationally televised debate.

I'm still not watching!

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
If they're on the ballot nationwide then they have every right to be included in a nationally televised debate.

I'm still not watching!

That would make more sense than the absurd 15% rule.

You may not watch, but I would. Watching Kerry and Bush being decimated at every level would be a beautiful thing.

[Big Train]

Jeez, Pink, how does anyone ever do anything?

Pick an independent party. Vote for it. Get 5% of the population to do it. If there truly are so many disaffected voters, 5% is possible. Hell, Ralph had 3% last time.

I completely agree about the way it is now,which is bullshit, but in order to change it, this is what needs to happen.

[Pink Spider]

5% and then what?

That still doesn't cover the bipartisan CPD's 15% rule which is an unrealistic goal.

Abolishing the CPD and establishing media rules for some sort of equal candidate coverage would be the first step. The people would agree to that. The Democrat and Republican politicians wouldn't, of course.

[FORD]

Getting rid of the BCE is step 1. Restoring the Fairness Act and breaking up corporate media monopolies is step 2. Real campaign finance reform is step 3.

Do those three things and then and only then (short of a violent revolution) will there be a level playing field for all candidates.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by FORD
Getting rid of the BCE is step 1. Restoring the Fairness Act and breaking up corporate media monopolies is step 2. Real campaign finance reform is step 3.

Do those three things and then and only then (short of a violent revolution) will there be a level playing field for all candidates.

I think breaking up the FCC would be better idea. There would be less restrictions for starting up new media outlets. Or no restrictions for jamming stations owned by companies like Clear Channel. :)

[Big Train]

5% gets them federal matching funds for the next time out. Which is huge in that it makes them harder to ignore and the feds have given them some sort of recognition. It isn't all about money, Nader lost it on his own. Nobody expected him to win, but he didn't bring home the 5% the party was counting on.

If he did, they would be making a lot larger racket than they are now, as they have become pussywhipped defeatists, who the dems have convinced to throw their vote their way. If people would get some goddamn spine, it could be done.

[Pink Spider]

You leave out the media's influence. The Greens did all they could in 2000 to back Nader. Nader didn't get 1% of the coverage of Gore or Bush. To get 3% of the vote was a miracle. They still have a candidate running so I don't know how you can say that they are defeatists.

The harsh reality is that media makes, breaks or ignores campaigns. You can't ignore their influence of pushing Democrats and Republicans and virtually ignoring everyone else. They obviously have more profit interests tied into having a Democrat or Republican winning the election. It shouldn't be that way, but it's what's happening. You should look at the problem instead of blaming the victim.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
I think breaking up the FCC would be better idea. There would be less restrictions for starting up new media outlets. Or no restrictions for jamming stations owned by companies like Clear Channel. :)

The FCC would be a good thing if they did their job. They won't do so with Colin Powell's kid in charge, or without the Fairness Act backing up the non consolidation of media.

Your proposal might encourage the things you mentioned, but it would also leave the doors to media consolidation even more wide open than they are now, and as long as the corporations have the advantage,it would be hard for indies and "pirate" operations to get any piece of the airwaves.

[Big Train]

Pink,

They should all just lay down and shoot themselves in the head then, huh. Your so positive.

Of course it's an uphill climb and of course they have everything going against them, but they can do it. 2% can be gained by grassroots stuff, they did get 3%, no?

I'm not ignoring the problem, I acknowledge it, but sitting back and whining helps nothing. None of what you propose is gonna happen and you know it. So they are going to have to take it. Taking it involves nutting up and figuring out what they have to do to get it. They have to be relentless and they will get it.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Big Train
Pink,

They should all just lay down and shoot themselves in the head then, huh. Your so positive.

Of course it's an uphill climb and of course they have everything going against them, but they can do it. 2% can be gained by grassroots stuff, they did get 3%, no?

I'm not ignoring the problem, I acknowledge it, but sitting back and whining helps nothing. None of what you propose is gonna happen and you know it. So they are going to have to take it. Taking it involves nutting up and figuring out what they have to do to get it. They have to be relentless and they will get it.

Where did I say that something shouldn't be done? I'm pointing out that the problem exists, not "whining about it". Who else bothers to point this stuff out?

Everything I said can be done. I have no doubt of that. It takes work, seeing the problems and making solutions. There's nothing defeatist about that.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by FORD
The FCC would be a good thing if they did their job. They won't do so with Colin Powell's kid in charge, or without the Fairness Act backing up the non consolidation of media.

Your proposal might encourage the things you mentioned, but it would also leave the doors to media consolidation even more wide open than they are now, and as long as the corporations have the advantage,it would be hard for indies and "pirate" operations to get any piece of the airwaves.

Consolidation keeps happening no matter who's in charge. I don't see how the FCC is a "good thing" in any shape or form when it helps to stifle opposing views instead of creating more freedom for those views to be heard. You're right that corporations would try to take advantage, but they have a total advantage now. The internet not being so regulated is proof that regulation is bad in the freedom to get information. I don't see a downside.

[ELVIS]

You do tend to come across pretty negative at times, Pink...

[Switch84]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
If you're watching the debates to form your opinion then you truly are a moron!

Religion isn't the opiate of the masses as Marx wrote...TV is!


:D They didn't nickname it the "boob tube" for nothing! LOL