May 31, 2004
Presidential Debate Fraud - Pt.1
Subtitle: Why Bush & Kerry’s debates will be a waste of viewer time. Would you be surprised to learn that the Presidential debates are conducted by a private corporation? Would you be surprised to learn that the Presidential Debate Commission is controlled by the Democratic AND Republican Parties? Would you be shocked to learn that funding for the Presidential debates comes from major corporations and your taxpayer dollars? If the answer to any of the above is yes, you probably want to read on.
A little history. On November 26, 1985, a memorandum was issued and signed by both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, hereafter, referred to as the Joint Memorandum. Contained in the Joint Memorandum, is a bipartisan agreement which states:
It is our bipartisan view that the primary responsibility of each major political party is to educate and inform the American electorate of its fundamental philosophy and policies as well as its candidates' positions on critical issues. One of the most effective means of fulfilling that responsibility is through nationally televised joint appearances conducted between the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees of the two major political parties during general election campaigns. Therefore, to better fulfill our parties' responsibilities for educating and informing the American public and to strengthen the role of political parties in the electoral process, it is our conclusion that future joint appearances should be principally and jointly sponsored and conducted by the Republican and Democratic National Committees.
Now with that Joint Memorandum a conspiracy was set in place by the two major parties to prevent competition from any other parties or candidates outside the two major parties. President Reagan set the precedent when he refused to appear at any debate in which an Independent was to be included (John Anderson). Since then, candidates like Ross Perot, Buchanann, Nader and others have been denied access to the Presidential debates, and effectively prevented from informing and educating the public of alternatives on policy issues, value systems, government priorities, other parties and other candidates. In fact, the debate format has evolved at the hands of the two parties to one of not even being a debate anymore, but rather, to equal time stump speeches by their respective candidates. This safeguards their candidates from embarrassing questions or issues which they are ill prepared to respond to or may not even have a clue about.
On Feb. 18, 1987, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in a (PDF) joint news release announced "RNC and DNC establish Commission on Presidential Debates". That news release states:
The 10 member commission is a bipartisan, not profit, tax exempt organization formed to implement joint sponsorship of general election presidential and vice presidential debates, starting in 1988 by the national Republican and Democratic committees between their respective nominees. ... By jointly sponsoring these debates ... we can institutionalize the debates, making them an integral and permanent part of the presidential process.
What in fact they did, was to rig the entire debate system in the favor of their two presidential candidates with all decisions concerning the debates, including format, participants, moderators, panelists, questions etc., made by the two parties and their candidates. One only need to quickly scan their Memorandum of Understanding to see that controlling and restricting information disseminated to the public, not educating or informing the public, was the primary purpose and goal of the bipartisan corporate Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).
Now, debates were the province of the League of Women Voters (LWV) prior to the two major parties taking over, and the LWV did want to educate and inform the public. However, power being what it is - corrupt - the two major parties stole the debates from the LWV and shaped it to their own ends, with polite thanks to the LWV for having laid the groundwork for the two major parties. The League of Women Voters announced in a (PDF) press release on Oct. 3, 1988 that they were withdrawing their support from the final presidential debate "because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetuate a fraud on the American voter..." And the fraud upon the American voters has grown and increased ever since.
(To be continued.)
Posted by David R. Remer at May 31, 2004 12:01 PMIf Karl Rove is as smart as people say he his, he’ll demand that Nader take part in the debates.
Do you think Nader has it in him to refuse? Kerry would protest, but the Bush camp could just play the old “what, you refuse to debate” card that Kerry has played himself.
In such a debate, Nader would relentlessly attack Bush and the war while Kerry hummed and hawed, and this would likely attract huge swaths of anti-voters to Nader. I for one would find it a beautiful sight.
Posted by: Martin at May 31, 2004 12:44 PMDavid- I completely agree that we should have 3rd party candidates in these debates (I would love to see Michael Badnarik take down Bush- i am SO happy that the LP didnt nominate Nolan). The question is how do we avoid the problem that happend with the democratic party debates this year, where there were way too many candidates, and it turned into an even bigger sound-bite fest that a regular president debate is. While i understand the importance of having all kinds of view represented, there must be some sorting mechanism, dont you think?
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at May 31, 2004 01:03 PM> Would you be surprised to learn that the
> Presidential Debate Commission is controlled
> by the Democrat AND Republican Parties?
I think you meant to say the “Democratic” Party, no?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at May 31, 2004 01:08 PMMartin, lest you forget, Kerry and Nader have reached out to each other for common cause. If they are to appear together, there would be coordination and cooperation most likely between them, much as there always has been between the Rep. and Dem. candidates.
I certainly hope your right and Nader is invited. But, you can count on Rove and Bush to reject such a debate just as Reagan did with John Anderson.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 31, 2004 01:17 PMMisha, I absolutely agree. Minimum requirements IMO should be qualifying for federal matching funds and achieving ballot status for a percentage of states (perhaps 1/2 or 60%). Nader has met the matching funds threshhold and will no doubt achieve the 2/3 state ballot level as well.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 31, 2004 01:24 PMDavid:
It truly is a travesty isnt it? I agree with the idea of limiting it to the top candidates, with some type of winnowing out as you and Misha suggested.
I tend to not believe much of what I hear in the later campaign season. It seems most often that candidates have learned what voters want to hear, they’ve let loose most of their trial balloons, and are pretty much down to canned speeches by that time. I’m not even sure THEY believe what they are saying, and I know that I dont believe what they are saying.
What a shame for our system though.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2004 06:16 PMI agree with everything except the worthlessness of the current debates. Granted, they need to be changed. They need to be run in such a way that 3rd party participation is truly possible. But they do serve a purpose - they stand to semi-educate the voters who don’t pay attention to the situation until the debates… and in this election they will serve as the excellent public spectacle of Kerry beating the tar out of Bush. :)
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at May 31, 2004 06:55 PMI don’t think so Gaelen. If you read the links I provided, you will see that Bush and Kerry and their campaign managers and their respective party managers will all get together and hash out a nice safe panel of questioners, a mutually agreed upon moderator, a script of questions (and no others) all to insure that one candidate has no advantage over the other on the limited set of issues both will agree to discuss.
It is all rigged, and NO! Kerry will NOT trounce Bush, nor vice versa. It will be without surprise, save for something scripted, and the debates will leave each candidate comfortable with knowledge that nothing came up that would alienate their own constituencies or damage their chances with swing voters.
As for serving a purpose, there is some merit to your response. Those sheep who wake up on debate night to find out if their parties’ candidate does OK, or to read into the opposing candidate’s responses all manner of nefarious innuendo, will in fact, get what they came to see. That purpose will be served.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 31, 2004 07:09 PMDavid, I remember seeing Perot debate Clinton & Bush I. His VP even pulled the “…and you’re no JFK” on Quayle in a VP debate.
If Nader can pull the kind of polling numbers Perot did (20-30%), they’ll let him debate. If Nader can only pull less than 5% and is going around saying he doesn’t even want to be president, why should they?
Posted by: American Pundit at June 1, 2004 02:57 AMWhat a laugh ‘campaigns’ have become. Political debates are thesame as the WWF ‘rassling matches on TV. They are fixed and they try to get me involved (watch) them. “GET HIM!!!” “SLAM HIM” etc. The sad truth is that there is not a bit of difference between the two major parties, or very little. Their main is not me,or you, it is POWER and MONEY!!!
Posted by: Joe at June 1, 2004 04:05 AMAmerican Pundit, stay tuned for Pt. 2. There is a real life alternative that Nader and Kerry can use to change this whole ball game, if they and the American people choose.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 1, 2004 04:29 AMjoebagodonuts, you echo some of my sentiments about the campaign speeches and debates regardless of party. Getting the truth and committment from candidates is really a responsibility of the American people. If they demand it, they will get it for the most part. Part 2. of the article (coming shortly) offers an opportunity for that to occur.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 1, 2004 04:33 AMJoe, your view is echoed by 10’s of millions of Americans. There may be a way to change some of this though. Stay tuned.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 1, 2004 04:35 AMUS presidential debate is image driven fraud. Questions are restricted and unworthy of true debate. If you took the last ones at face value, you would believe that the only difference between Gore & Bush was abortion and personality. Disney knows, herding people is easier than sheep.
Posted by: bayviking at June 1, 2004 02:19 PMDavid:
I look forward to part 2——the “how to get the truth out of a politician” trick. If you pull this off, you belong up there with Houdini, Blaine etc.
Actually, though, there is a rather simplistic method. I tend to look at the larger picture of what a candidate wants…and I ignore much of the smaller stuff. For instance, the Republicans generally have certain traits, and therefore so do their candidates. So too with the Democrats.
So, the party affiliation is a broad brush approach to check where a candidate is coming from. Depending on where you are either party (right/left/center), you can get a basic idea of how a candidate fits in with your own thought process.
Then, its left to some degree to figure out how successful a candidate might be. For instance, someone might just love Nader, but its pretty obvious I think that he wont be able to mount a serious run at the Presidency. That’s not to say that winning is the only thing, since often campaigns can be influenced by non winners (see Dean, Howard).
David, I’m sure your version will be much more in depth than mine, and I look forward to it.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 2, 2004 10:39 AMMartin, Karl Rove might be taking a longer view of this, because sometimes alternative party candidates come out with a core constituency further to the right than Nader (e.g., Buchanan).
Misha, what I would like to see would be not just one debate, but several rounds of one-on-one debates between each party’s candidate, and each other party’s candidate, in succession. Libertarian versus Democrat; Libertarian versus Republican; Green versus Libertarian; and so on. And then the big collective sound-byte-fest at the end when all are present.
Gaelen, not to pick on you because I know a lot of people use violent imagery in debates, but I’d prefer to see a candidate make a good case for their party’s ability to lead the country, not “beat the tar out of” the other candidates, per se.
Bayviking:
“If you took the last ones at face value, you would believe that the only difference between Gore & Bush was abortion and personality”
That, and energy policy. I lean Kerry-wise on the few differences there are between them, but there is also wartime argument to make for “staying the course” (a la FDR in WWII), but that doesn’t mean I’m going to get sucked into the mainstream Borg party’s dogma, and not vote my conscience. The closest to that would be the LP in any established or known party, but if I can find a Libertarian who would also bend its philosophical rules for education, legal defense, and health care, they’ll be my knee-jerk write-in candidate in perpetuity. Or if the Democrats pull their heads out of their you-know-whats.
Posted by: Ciggy at June 2, 2004 03:35 PM“Misha, what I would like to see would be not just one debate, but several rounds of one-on-one debates between each party’s candidate, and each other party’s candidate, in succession. Libertarian versus Democrat; Libertarian versus Republican; Green versus Libertarian; and so on. And then the big collective sound-byte-fest at the end when all are present.”
that is a great idea, I hope that some thing like that happens in the future, but I won’t hold my breath.
Posted by: martiniwitz at June 2, 2004 04:50 PM
