Support NeoGAF

[goodcow]

http://www.livejournal.com/community/2004_elections/303901.html

Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates
After weeks of political wrangling, Sen. John Kerry and President Bush will square off for the first of three key presidential debates. Both camps have agreed to an elaborate, 32-page contract that spells out everything from the size of the dressing rooms to permitted camera angles.

But the controversy over the debates threatens to overshadow the events themselves. Some citizen groups complain that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) isn't as non-partisan as it should be, and that Kerry and Bush won't be pressed on urban issues. Commentator Connie Rice says that's just the tip of the iceberg, and she's got another Top 10 list -- this time: Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates.

(10.) They aren't debates!

"A debate is a head-to-head, spontaneous, structured argument over the merits of an issue," Rice says. "Under the ridiculous 32-page contract that reads like the rules for the Miss America Pageant, there will be no candidate-to-candidate questions, no rebuttal to your opponent's points, no cross questions or cross answers, no rebuttals, no follow-up questions -- that's not a debate, that's a news conference."

(9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.

"The League of Women Voters ran these debates with an iron hand as open, transparent, non-partisan events from 1976 to 1984," Rice says. "The men running the major campaigns ended their control when the League defiantly included John Anderson and Ross Perot, and used tough moderators and formats the parties didn't like. The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates -- the CPD -- in 1986."

(8.) The "independent and non-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates is neither independent nor non-partisan.

"CPD should stand for 'Cloaking-device for Party Deceptions' -- it is not an independent commission on anything. The CPD is under the total control of the Republican and Democratic parties and by definition bipartisan, not non-partisan. Walter Cronkite called CPD-sponsored debates an 'unconscionable fraud.'"

(7.) The secretly negotiated debate contract bars Kerry and Bush from any and all other debates for the entire campaign.

"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," Rice says. "We need a new criminal law for reckless endangerment of democracy."

(6.) The debate contract effectively excludes all other serious presidential candidates from participating in the debates.

"This is what I call the Obstruction of Democratic Debate Rule, which sets an impossibly high threshold for third-party candidates... Where are we, Russia? Isn't Vladimir Putin wiping out democracy in Russia by excluding all opposing candidates from the airwaves during his re-election campaigns? Most new ideas come from third parties -- they should be in the debates."

(5.) All members of the studio audience must be certified as "soft" supporters of Bush and Kerry, under selection procedures they approve.

"It's not enough to rig the debate -- they have to rig the audience, too? The contract reads: 'The debate will take place before a live audience of between 100 and 150 persons who... describe themselves as likely voters who are soft Bush supporters or soft Kerry supporters.' We should crash this charade and jump up in the middle to declare ourselves hard opponents of this Kabuki dance."

(4.) These "soft" audience members must "observe in silence."

"Soft and silent... In what I'm calling the Silence of the Lambs Clause of this absurd contract, the audience may not move, speak, gesture, cough or otherwise show that they are alive and thinking."

(3.) The "extended discussion" portion of the debate cannot exceed 30 seconds.

"Other than the stupidity of the debate contract, what topic do you know that can be extendedly discussed in 30 seconds?"

(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.

"Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics," Rice says. "For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare."

(1.) Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD's co-chairs are corporate lobbyists.

The CPD is run by Frank Fahrenkopf, a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist, and Paul Kirk, a top gambling lobbyist," Rice says. "And the biggest muliti-national corporations write the checks that fund the CPD -- Phillip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and dozens more. The audience may have to be silent and motionless, but the corporate sponsors can have banners, beer tents, Budweiser girls handing out pamphlets protesting beer taxes -- a corporate-sponsored circus to go along with the Kabuki Debates. Could we get a more fitting description of our democracy?"

 

[Kon Tiki]

"Soft and silent... In what I'm calling the Silence of the Lambs Clause of this absurd contract, the audience may not move, speak, gesture, cough or otherwise show that they are alive and thinking."

So is Bush going to be there or not?

 

[tt_deeb]

Wait, there are rebuttals...aren't there?

 

[robochimp]

Yeah there were rebuttals

 

[Socreges]

The debates in Canada were MUCH less restrictive. There were four candidates and they all had many opportunities to address one another. The problem became, however, that there was too little control and they'd break into bitch fests. It was more irritating than educational.

Still, the lesser of two evils. Debates like the one tonight can be controlled and manipulated so well that they become remotely effective. And, like the article argues, third parties/independents don't get their voices heard whatsoever.

 

[BigJonsson]

The Canadian debates were awesome because the candidates actually fought passionately for what they believe in and made everything seem more important

 

[warabi-mochi]

The debates here in Canada were horrible. Sure, they spoke passionately. Sometimes anyway. It was rarely of any more substance than anything the American debate produced tonight though.

On top of that, most of the passion came across more as the yapping of back alley mutts than anything else. I mean, the moderator is supposed to be just that. A moderator. Instead we got some sort of after school shouting match from a bunch of people who should have known better.

 

[Pimpwerx]

This is the reason I didn't bother tuning in last night, although I did listen to the NPR feed for about a half hour before going to bed. It's scripted responses to presubmitted questions. Campaign speeches redux. It's no wonder we have a complete moron running the country now, and a doofus challenging him. No one gets to see these guys for what they really are. PEACE.

 

[Makura]

And what is unreasonable about any of this? All debates have rules. Sheesh, for some people I guess anything short of not being able to yell hysterical slander like BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED!!!! is likened to a Nazi-like gestapo crushing dissent. The left really needs to grow up.

 

[sc0la]

And what is unreasonable about any of this? All debates have rules. Sheesh, for some people I guess anything short of not being able to yell hysterical slander like BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED!!!! is likened to a Nazi-like gestapo crushing dissent. The left really needs to grow up.

You think kerry would have said that? I don't mind that the audience should be quiet, they should be absolutely quiet. but the pre-emptive damage control, or rather damage limiting by excessively controlling the debate environment is ridiculous. If the candidates cannot engage the topics at hand with a living being then neither should be president.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

It's scripted responses to presubmitted questions. Campaign speeches redux.

The questions weren't screened ahead of time. However, given that they knew the topic and that there would be a finite number of questions, they could probably guess what they'd be answering about pretty easily.

And what is unreasonable about any of this?

Stifling other voices, stifling questions, stifling further debate, control of the commission by the two parties. Bad Things.

 

[LizardKing]

This is the reason I didn't bother tuning in last night, although I did listen to the NPR feed for about a half hour before going to bed. It's scripted responses to presubmitted questions. Campaign speeches redux. It's no wonder we have a complete moron running the country now, and a doofus challenging him. No one gets to see these guys for what they really are. PEACE.

That's what I thought it was going to be like too. But it really wasn't like that at all. There was actually rebutting and interaction.

 

[DrLazy]

Yeah I thought it was going to be lame with the rules, but the debate was hardcore. I think it took Bush by suprise.

 

[Pimpwerx]

I still thought it was lame. Iraq was the main topic. Iraq isn't the biggest issue. This played to Bush's hands b/c it limits the amount of damage he'd take from his absolutely crummy administration. There are a lot of attack points for this administration. Healthcare, deficits, corporate corruption, etc. And Bush is an idiot who can't debate shit. If the topics were open (as they should be), he's be a sitting duck. He couldn't prep for that many questions and he'd look ten times worse when put on the spot. It's no coincidence that ALL of his public appearances are scripted. He doesn't stump speak unless he's at one of his RNC-sponsored town halls where all the cons in the crowd butter him up with softball questions. Look at O'Reilly fellating him with softball questions the other night, and even giving his responses for him on ocassion. If you can't see this, you're lost. Bush is clueless, and these restrictive debate rules are lame as hell and deprive the public of seeing the true character of BOTH of the candidates.

I harp on Bush b/c he's the one who stands to lose the most in a real debate, mostly b/c he's a fucking moron. It goes well beyond poor public speaking. There are poor public speakers who can still cobble together a coherent thought, even if the language is broken and jumbled. But Bush will stutter and stammer and then produce a vague, rambling response that makes no sense. I wish there was a real debate, I'd like to see him reduced to tears. The guy couldn't win a high school debate....seriously.

What I saw in the debate was that there was some room for rebuttal, but the topics were very restricted, and both candidates got away without giving details. It's embarassing that these are the only times we can see the candidates debate each other, and it's gonna be on a script. Democracy is fading. PEACE.

EDIT: Put it this way. Tony Blair stands in front of a madhouse on a weekly basis and debates, argues and defends his positions perfectly. National leaders should have a good head on their shoulders, regardless of what their viewpoint is.

 

[pestul]

Dude, it was only the first debate (of three).. and the topic was foreign policy. Look for those other issues you touched apon in the upcoming debates.

 

[Pimpwerx]

pestul: You think so? It didn't happen in 2000. :? PEACE.

 

[LizardKing]

pestul: You think so? It didn't happen in 2000. :? PEACE.

Actually that is the format. The first debate was about foreign policy, second is about domestic issues, third is a town hall format where people ask the questions.

 

[shoplifter]

opendebates.org

(yes i know i keep pimping it)

 

[Pimpwerx]

Actually that is the format. The first debate was about foreign policy, second is about domestic issues, third is a town hall format where people ask the questions.

Cool beans. The town hall one has some silly rules too. That's where the Q's are screened, and the rules require the moderator to cutoff the person asking the questions if they change the question. As Jon Stewart said, the town must be Stepford. :lol PEACE.

 

[KingV]

I agree that the debates are underwhelming. They are more talking points and thinly veiled insults rather than true discussion. It's more of a Dirty Dozens approach to debating where everyone can go "Oooh, Bush/Kerry OWN3D Kerry/Bush here!" than a true debate.

 

[DarthWoo]

I watched the debate in a room full of other Democrats; it was a party sponsored by the Temple Law School Democrats. If you didn't know what we were watching, you would have thought, based on our responses, that we were watching standup comedy. The debates can be pretty fun to watch with the right people. I wonder if they'll hold another such party for the next two. Can Bush go through the domestic affairs debate without his message basically boiling down to: "Lookie me! I'm a good Christian and I think everyone else should follow good Christian rules!"?

 

[KingV]

Cool beans. The town hall one has some silly rules too. That's where the Q's are screened, and the rules require the moderator to cutoff the person asking the questions if they change the question. As Jon Stewart said, the town must be Stepford. :lol PEACE.

Welcome to modern politics, seriously. With so much money and media coverage all over every candidate, everything they say and do has to be carefully planned. Look how much flack Bush gets for mispronouncing nuclear, or how out of shape the Kerry campaign got for Kerry getting ribbed for looking funny in the clean suit at NASA? Both of these instances are relatively minor in the scheme of things, but they made national news and opinion columns. The modern nature of politics has set it up where one miscue or stupid comment can completely bomb the election for you, if its bad enough. Allowing for unmoderated answers scares both parties to the point of crapping themselves, because it leaves the election up to, God forbid, the candidates.

It's sad, really, but it's a fact of modern politics.

 

[Nerevar]

And what is unreasonable about any of this? All debates have rules. Sheesh, for some people I guess anything short of not being able to yell hysterical slander like BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED!!!! is likened to a Nazi-like gestapo crushing dissent. The left really needs to grow up.

you're even dumber than you come on, Makura, if you think it's the "left" that is complaining about this. Almost all of these complaints come from the Nader-loving independents because these debate rules effectively limit the current presidential race to the established 2 parties.

 

[evil ways]

I though one of the secrets was gonna be that both candidates had fluff girls under their podiums.