I've written many times about the problems with our presidential debates. This year, as before -- but unlike 2004 -- the debate contract between the two campaigns is being kept secret.
Long story short -- and you can find out much more at Open Debates -- a private, nonpartisan organization called the Commission on Presidential Debates is given control of the debates by the candidates of the two parties, and the CPD decides how the debate will be run.
Well, that's what they want you to think. In fact, the CPD was started in 1986 by the RNC and DNC (it's still co-chaired by then-chairs of the DNC and RNC, Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf, today) to take away control of the debates from the League of Women Voters, and it is the candidates' campaigns themselves that come up with all the rules.
So, for example, when Ross Perot was kept out of the debates in 1996, it was because Dole's campaign demanded it, and Clinton's campaign agreed. The candidates are the ones who agree on everything -- from the number and format of debates, to who will moderate each one, and even the size of the podiums and number of TVs in the dressing rooms -- and the CPD just rubber-stamps it. If you feel like the debates are set up to be commercials for the campaigns ... you're absolutely right.
Bush and Kerry made their memorandum of understanding (PDF, 7.3MB) public in 2004. The MOU negotiated by Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Rahm Emanuel for McCain and Obama, unfortunately, has not been made public.
Of course, making the MOU public is just one small step. Really, control of the debates should be relinquished to an actual independent party, such as the League of Women Voters.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 08, 2008 10:35 PM | Email ThisVery interesting post about the structure of the CPD.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on September 8, 2008 11:09 PMRead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Women_Voters
Specifically, read the section titled "Program and Action." They may limit the scope of their political agenda and activities, but they are NOT independent. They claim to be non-partisan (which has some merit, while still debateable), but they are VERY political, and admittedly so. Further, their national organization is different from the chapters, many of which (like Seattle) just operate as the social hour for uppity liberals.
Posted by: AD on September 9, 2008 03:09 AMStuttter, stutter, stutter, er, hum haw, "just not too often and only at the place of my choosing and under my conditions:".
When Obama first came to light last fall, I was totally impressed he was a gymrat BB player. Being of that genre before back surgery and a MCL tear, it was good to see someone like that.
But now, I am wondering. When I was playing, there were two types of ballers- those that were pretty, stayed outside, never rebounded, never passed and just shot and then there were the blue collar types who rebounded, passed and worked hard. The second type had short careers as gymrats due to the injuries. Obama is still playing so my guess he was of the prissy first type who never broke up a sweat. Not blue collar after all.
As for the boasting, that is also gymrat. Talking trash. That seems to be all he knows, because the first time he gets challenged, he backs down just like Beta males do at gym challenges. He seems to be of that wimpier mode.
As for time committment, I bet, but have no proof, that most of his community organizing was spent at the gym during the early afternoon hours when the good ballers were out playing. Again, this is not responsible.
Hopefully, Obama gets vetted quickly and maybe my opinion of him will go up.
Posted by: swatter on September 9, 2008 07:55 AMYes, the LWV is independent. I did not mean "independent" as "not politically biased," I meant it in the sense that it is not beholden to or affiliated with any party or parties.
The LWV had for many years put on perfectly good and fair debates, and they were biased to the left at the time, too. Absence of bias is not a prerequisite for being able to put on a good debate.
Maybe the LWV could no longer do today what they did 20+ years ago. If not, fine, pick someone else.
If that didn't work, we could re-address the question later. The CPD uses an average of national polls in addition, I believe, to being actually able to win, but they set the percentage too high, IN ORDER TO exclude candidates like Nader and Perot.
Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 09:39 AMOops.
Actually public financing comes with the added incentive of a bunch of $$$$, which still isn't enough.
Posted by: Bruce on September 9, 2008 10:46 AM(BTW, I voted for Harry Browne in 1996 because I was angry at Bob Dole for blocking Perot from the debates. Plus I lived in MA and Dole had no chance in MA. But still.)
Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 11:26 AMThe CPD excludes third parties, and this is just what the D's and R's want.
By the way, glad to hear that Pudge has voted Libertarian in the past! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 9, 2008 09:40 PMWhat upsets me more is the RNC and DNC having giant weeklong partys/commercials at tax payer expense and excluding candidates like Paul from speaking and telling supporters who they can support and not allowning all votes to be counted.
Posted by: Lysander on September 9, 2008 09:55 PM