Who hijacked U.S. presidential debates and why
Excerpt, editing by
Carolyn Bennett
Carolyn Bennett
Exclusive
and excluding, discriminatory, censoring Republican-Democratic-party Commission
on Presidential Debates and its stranglehold on presidential “debates” is harmful
to democracy and antidemocratic, dishonest, misinforming, propagandistic, narrow-minded
and productive of narrow-mindedness. The CPD’s restrictive formats allow
participants to recite memorized sound bites and avoid true debate.
“True debates, rather than parallel interviews of the Commission on Presidential Debates model, would offer depth, variety, and unpredictability to counter the scripted nature of the candidates’ political consultants” ─ consumer advocate, former independent candidate for U.S. presidency Ralph Nader
The nearly 30-year- old Commission on Presidential Debates
(CPD) poses as a “nonpartisan” institution but runs debates in the exclusive interests
of the national Republican and Democratic parties ─ not in the interests of the American people, says a challenging
organization, Open Debates.
Open Debates, according to its website, informs the public,
the news media and policy makers about the antidemocratic conduct of the Commission
on Presidential Debates (CPD). “Open Debates does not advocate the general
inclusion of any candidate [but] advocates
that the debates reflect the wishes of the American people.”
 |
| Hijackers |
Debate Hijacked
For almost ten years (1976-1984), the League of Women Voters
served as an excellent and genuinely nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor.
The League courageously included popular independent
candidates and prohibited the major party campaigns (and campaigners) from
manipulating debate formats.
Because the nonpartisan League served well the public
interest, the two-party partisans created their exclusive and restrictive Commission
on Presidential Debates.
“The Republican and Democratic parties did not want a debate
sponsor that would include popular third party candidates and employ
challenging formats,” Open Debates, says. “Rather, the major parties wanted the
presidential debates under their control, so that they could exclude any
third-party candidate or debate moderator.”
Conspirators in fraud on American voter
 |
| Hijackers |
1985: Democratic
National Committee chairman Paul Kirk and Republican National Committee
chairman Frank Fahrenkopf exclusive “Party Builders,” authors of one-page
Memorandum of Agreement on Presidential Candidate Joint Appearances, said:
It is our bipartisan [Democratic
and Republican] view that a primary responsibility of each major political
party [Democratic and Republican] is to educate and inform the American
electorate of [the Democrats and Republicans’] fundamental philosophy and
policies as well as [their] candidates’ positions on critical issues.
One of the most effective means of
fulfilling that responsibility is through nationally televised joint [Democratic and Republican] appearances
conducted between the presidential and vice-presidential nominees of the two
major [Democratic and Republican] political
parties during general election campaigns.
Therefore, to better fulfill our
parties’ [exclusively Democratic and Republican] responsibilities for educating
and informing the American public and to strengthen the role of political
parties [exclusively Democratic and Republican] 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.
1986: the Democratic National Committee and the Republican
National Committee ratify agreement ‘for the [exclusively Democratic and
Republican] parties to take over presidential debates.’
1987: Republican Fahrenkopf and Democrat Kirk create the Commission
on Presidential Debates designated an exclusively Democratic and Republican taxpayer
supported ─
Bipartisan, non-profit, tax-exempt
organization formed to implement joint [exclusively Democratic and Republican] sponsorship
of general election presidential and vice-presidential debates, starting in
1988, by the national Republican and Democratic committees between their [exclusively
Democratic and Republican] respective nominees.
 |
| League of Women Voters |
1988: The League of Women Voters and CPD compete for sponsorship
of the presidential debates but the League refuses to participate in a “fraud
on the American voter.”
The George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns hand the
League a predetermined “secretly negotiated Memorandum of Understanding, a
contract [dictating],” Open Debates reports, “every detail of the debates, from
the selection of panelists to the color of lights on the podiums.… even mandating
that the League withdraw invitations from civic group leaders and replace them
with a handpicked partisan audience.”
October 2, 1988: the League of Women Voters’ trustees issue
a unanimous decision to pull out of sponsorship of the debates and in an October
3 press release give their reasons ─
[t]he demands of the two campaign organizations
[exclusively Democratic and Republican] would perpetrate a fraud on the
American voter.
It has become clear to us that the
candidates’ [exclusively Democratic and Republican] organizations aim to add
debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance,
spontaneity and answers to tough questions.
 |
| Jill Stein Green Party |
The League has no intention of
becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
Debates 1988: The Commission on Presidential Debates becomes
the lone presidential debate sponsor and conducts these debates on the same
terms the League deemed fraudulent.
Without any kind of challenge in format or ideas or
candidates, this Commission [exclusively Democratic and Republican] from 1988 forward
has maintained a stranglehold on U.S. presidential debates.
Open Debates org challenges fraudsters
 |
| Rocky Anderson Justice Party USA |
In view of clear evidence that “presidential debates are
controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties through a private corporation
called the Commission on Presidential Debates” and exclude “challenging formats
and popular independent candidates” and hold “fewer debates,” the organization Open
Debates, “a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization,” has been established,
according to the group’s website, “to reform the presidential debates” so that
these debates “better serve the interests of the American people.
“Open Debates is engaged in a campaign to inform the public,
the news media and policy makers about the antidemocratic conduct of the
Commission on Presidential Debates.”
Open Debates also promotes “the creation of an alternative
presidential debate sponsor comprised of national civic leaders who are
committed to maximizing voter education.”
 |
| Independent Ralph Nader |
“True debates, rather than parallel interviews of the Commission on Presidential Debates model, would offer depth, variety, and unpredictability to counter the scripted nature of the candidates’ political consultants” ─ consumer advocate, former candidate for U.S. presidency, Ralph Nader
Sources and notes
http://opendebates.org/theissue/
LISTEN TO GEORGE FARAH ON COUNTERSPIN RADIO (09/09/12)
http://opendebates.org/theissue/strengthenmajorparties.html
http://opendebates.org/aboutus/
Open Debates: Phone: 202-688-1340; email: info@opendebates.org
Founder and executive director of Open Debates is George
Farah, an attorney at the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll; and author
of No Debate: How the Republican and
Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates.
Related: The Citizens’ Debate Commission Objectives (excerpt):
“Previous attempts to open the CPD events to deserving
candidates and excluded issues repeatedly have failed.
“Therefore, we reject attempts to persuade the CPD to serve
democracy and instead have helped initiate the Citizens’ Debate Commission
(CDC) in order to create substantive, fair and non-partisan debates.…”
Presidential Debate Criteria
The Citizens’ Debate Commission employs the criteria proposed
by the Appleseed Citizens’ Task Force on Fair Debates
Debate shall be open to all contenders who:
1. Meet constitutional requirements to hold the office;
2. Have qualified on enough state ballots to potentially win
270 electoral votes outright;
3. Possess a substantial level of popular support. To gauge
support, the CDC will independently commission polls of the general public or
work with established polling organizations that are willing to construct
unbiased polls (and ones not limited to habitual voters) 7-14 days prior to the
first debate. Candidates must meet one of the following two measures of
support:
A. The declared support of percent or
more of respondents; or
B. 50 percent or more of
respondents say they want to hear the candidate debate.
Candidates meeting either one of these criteria in the first
poll will be invited to participate in the first and second debates, after
which a new poll will be executed. Those who meet the same criteria in the
second poll will be invited to participate in the third and fourth debates.
Vice-Presidential Debate
The vice-presidential candidates on tickets meeting the
criteria to participate in the third and fourth presidential debates will be
invited to one debate among the candidates for vice-president. This debate will
occur after the second debate, but before the third.
CDC Aims and Strategy
CDC will offer the opportunity for debates presenting a
wider range of views than has occurred in any prior televised debates in
general presidential elections. An expanded range of discussion will be
facilitated regardless of whether or not more than two candidates qualify for
any debates. Empowering and encouraging moderators to ask challenging follow-up
questions, and allowing opportunities for genuine citizen participation are
examples of how this will be accomplished.
The CDC will:
- present the most widely viewed, covered and respected presidential debates;
- have all CDC debates televised by the major broadcast networks and independent media;
- attract all candidates for the presidency who meet participation criteria;
- further democracy through debates that will include a wider range of participants and ideas and structured to challenge and engage candidates and the audience to a degree not reached by CPD events.
CDC Structure and Governance
The CDC is a new non-profit organization separate from
ReclaimDemocracy.org and includes organizational representatives from across the
ideological spectrum. Decisions will be made by a board of directors
representing a variety of non-partisan organizations with broad constituencies.
The CDC is not a
forum for furthering specific political parties or agendas, but to promote
and present a debate series with democracy at its core and facilitate the
discussion of a broad range of issues that have been ignored in CPD debates.
Because the public deserves televised presidential debates
that operate unmistakably in the public interest, the CDC only will accept
organizational funding from entities that are non-partisan and non-profit.
Inaugural CDC Board of Directors:
John B. Anderson, former U.S. Congressman and Chair of the Center
for Voting and Democracy
Angela ‘Bay’ Buchanan, president of The American Cause
Veronica de la Garza, executive director of the Youth Vote
Coalition
Norman Dean, director of Friends of the Earth
George Farah, director of Open Debates and author of ‘No
Debate’
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch
Tom Gerety, director, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU
School of Law
Jehmu Greene, director of Rock the Vote
Alan Keyes, U.S. Ambassador
Jeff Milchen, director of ReclaimDemocracy.org
Larry Noble, former general counsel of the Federal Election
Commission
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council
Chellie Pingree, president and CEO of Common Cause
Randall Robinson, founder of TransAfrica Forum
Dan Stein, director of the Federation for American
Immigration Reform
Mark Weisbrot, co-director of Center for Economic and Policy
Research
Paul Weyrich, chair and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation
The Citizens Debate Commission official website:
CitizensDebate.org
_________________________________
Bennett's books are available in New York State independent bookstores: Lift Bridge Bookshop: www.liftbridgebooks.com [Brockport, NY]; Sundance Books: http://www.sundancebooks.com/main.html [Geneseo, NY]; Mood Makers Books: www.moodmakersbooks.com [City of Rochester, NY]; Dog Ears Bookstore and Literary Arts Center: www.enlightenthedog.org/ [Buffalo, NY]; Burlingham Books – ‘Your Local Chapter’: http://burlinghambooks.com/ [Perry, NY 14530]; The Bookworm: http://www.eabookworm.com/ [East Aurora, NY] • See also: World Pulse: Global Issues through the eyes of Women: http://www.worldpulse.com/ http://www.worldpulse.com/pulsewire http://www.facebook.com/#!/bennetts2ndstudy
_________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment