Welcome to Bennett's Study

From the Author of No Land an Island and Unconscionable

Pondering Alphabetic SOLUTIONS: Peace, Politics, Public Affairs, People Relations

http://www.bennettponderingpeacepoliticssolutions.com/

http://www.bennettponderingpeacepoliticssolutions.com/author/

http://www.bennettponderingpeacepoliticssolutions.com/buy/

UNCONSCIONABLE: http://www.unconscionableusforeignrelations.com/ http://www.unconscionableusforeignrelations.com/author/ http://www.unconscionableusforeignrelations.com/book/ http://www.unconscionableusforeignrelations.com/excerpt/ http://www.unconscionableusforeignrelations.com/contact/ http://www.unconscionableusforeignrelations.com/buy/ SearchTerm=Carolyn+LaDelle+Bennett http://www2.xlibris.com/books/webimages/wd/113472/buy.htm http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/08UNCONSCIONABLE/prweb12131656.htm http://bookstore.xlibris.com/AdvancedSearch/Default.aspx? http://bookstore.xlibris.com/Products/SKU-000757788/UNCONSCIONABLE.aspx

http://todaysinsight.blogspot.com

Showing posts with label Commission on Presidential Debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commission on Presidential Debates. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Colluding journalists lock step with one-view “debaters” silencing difference ─ and Americans call this “democracy”?


Blinding ideologues pandering to power, agreeing upon lies and half truths spewed to a command audience in exclusive settings where substance and debate are denied ─ these do not add up to something called democracy. They only destroy what little democracy there is.
Editing and commentary by 
Carolyn Bennett


P
ress and Partisans push “ideological claims benefitting narrow elite class”


I.                   DEBATE ISSUE/QUESTION: IRAN

Glenn Greenwald comments this week at the Guardian (UK)

“The very idea that Iran poses some kind of major ‘national security’ crisis for the United States – let alone that there is ‘really no bigger national security’ issue ‘this country is facing’ – is absurd. At the very least, it is highly debatable.

“The United States has Iran virtually encircled militarily.

“Even with the highly implausible fear-mongering claims earlier this year about Tehran’s planned increases in military spending, that nation’s total military expenditures are a tiny fraction of what the United States spends.

Iran has demonstrated no propensity to launch attacks on U.S. soil,
has no meaningful capability to do so, and
would be instantly damaged ─ if not (as Hillary Clinton once put it) ‘totally obliterated’ ─ if they tried.
Even the Israelis are clear that Iran has not even committed itself to building a nuclear weapon.

 
Glenn Greenwald continues a focus on fact and consequences of journalists in lockstep with Washington. “Establishment journalists, creatures of a highly ideological world … often cause ideology to masquerade as neutral fact”


II.                DEBATE ISSUE//QUESTION: MILLITARISM

U.S. drone war on Somalia

“It is often noted that the Catholic Church stridently opposes reproductive rights but it is almost never noted that the Catholic Church just as stridently opposes U.S. militarism and its economic policies that continuously promote corporate cronyism over the poor.

“Too much emphasis on that latter fact might imperil the bipartisan [singular] commitment to those policies, and so discussion of religious belief is typically confined to the safer arena of social issues.

U.S. corporate Washington
drone weapons
offensive wars
“The Catholic Church’s decades-long denouncement of the U.S. government’s military aggression and subservience to the wealthiest ─ is almost always excluded from establishment journalistic circles, even as its steadfast opposition to abortion and gay rights is endlessly touted.

J
ournalists entrenched in the Washington Beltway culture assume Washington’s narrow, ideological desires and equate them with neutral facts, a false or fake journalistic neutrality.

Quoting Jonathan Schwarz, Greenwald concludes: Whether by design or otherwise, this is what the faux journalistic neutrality always achieves.

It glorifies highly ideological claims that benefit a narrow elite class (the one that happens to own the largest media outlets which employ these journalists) by allowing that ideology to masquerade as journalistic fact.

Establishment journalists are creatures of the [Federal] Washington, D.C., and corporate culture in which they spend their careers and thus absorb and regurgitate all of the assumptions of that culture.  This may be inevitable.

But having everyone indulge the ludicrous fantasy that these journalists are ‘objective’ and ‘neutral’ is most certainly not inevitable.



W
HAT IF there were no corporate media-government collusion and lockout of substantive ideas and real difference

The group Open Debates recalls that leading up to the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election, Minnesota public radio and the Minnesota chapter of the League of Women Voters, which alternated sponsorship of the eight gubernatorial debates, insisted that third-party candidate Jesse Ventura be allowed to participate in the debates.

Six weeks before that election, the Star Tribune reported Reform Party candidate Ventura at 10 percentage points in the polls. Three debates later, on October 20, without having aired a single television advertisement, he was at 21 percentage points.


On Election Day, Jesse Ventura captured 37 percent of the vote and the governorship of Minnesota.

2012 U.S. Presidential candidate
Rocky Anderson
Justice Party U.S.
“I was allowed to debate,” the Governor said, commenting on his victory.

I proved that you could go from 10 percent to 37 percent and win if you’re allowed to debate.  Rest assured these two parties [Democrats and Republicans] don’t want to ever see that happen again.

“This is what happens,” Open Debates comments on its website, “when pro-democracy institutions committed to the voters’ interests run debates.”

But a current corrupt system wrapped around the status quo and onerous power vested in the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) dedicated to singular viewpoints, pandering to exclusive interests of the Republican and Democratic parties prohibits democratic openness, difference in person, presentation or viewpoint and precludes substantive, insightful, wide-ranging  debate.

2012 U.S. Presidential candidate
Jill Stein
Green Party
“The CPD excludes independent and third-party candidates that a majority of Americans want to see ─

even though those candidates would raise pressing national issues,
have a chance of winning the race, and
certainly increase voter turnout and debate viewership.


H
istorically, third party candidates (many of their issues later taken up by major parties) have played critical roles in U.S. democracy by introducing popular and groundbreaking issues and institutions for the common good. Among them ─

Abolition (of slavery)
Woman suffrage (women’s right to vote)
Social security
Child labor laws
Public schools
Direct election of senators
Paid vacations
Unemployment compensation
Labor unions 

 
But when their voices, different voices, substantive-issue voices are silenced, when they are locked out of public forums and debate platforms, third-party candidates and independents cannot dislodge, uproot or break through the ideological wall, the propaganda and lies, the entrenched Democratic/Republican (corporate media) conspiracy of silence on issues which are [often] at odds with most Americans; and more importantly issues and difference that Americans must hear in order to establish, reaffirm and preserve this Union, the republic, and the enabling instrument of democratic process.




Sources and notes

“Martha Raddatz and the faux objectivity of journalists ─ Establishment journalists are creatures of a highly ideological world and often cause ideology to masquerade as neutral fact” (Glenn Greenwald), October 12, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/12/raddatz-debate-objectivity

Open Debates: the issue, http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/overview.html http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/exclusionofpop.html




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

Sunday, September 9, 2012

“Fraud on American voter” ─ LWV characterized DemRepub debate scripting


Who hijacked U.S. presidential debates and why
Excerpt, editing by
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

_________________________________