Real Presidential Debates 700
slithytove writes "As many of us are aware, the presidential debates are currently controlled by an organization called the Commision on Presidential Debates. As anyone who's seen a presidential debate recently could guess, the CPD does just what our two major parties want: exclude third parties and impose rules that make the event more of a joint press conference than a debate. Non-establishment candidates Michael Badnarik and David Cobb will be having an actual debate this Thursday. After debating each other, they will be rebutting the points Bush and Kerry make in their pseudo-debate. Free Market News will be streaming it and providing a download afterwards."
15% (Score:2, Insightful)
Free speech and democracy at its best.
what are your objections (Score:3, Insightful)
How true (sadly) (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, I'll watch, if only in the hopes that Bush will stumble badly over a fact or two.
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately it will be worthless. Yeah, it may be interesting, but it will have little to no bearing on the main parties' campaigns, their strategy, or their eventual actions while in the White House.
The Republicans and the Democrats have little interest in what is going on outside of their only little world because no one in the majority really gives a shit either.
Until third party candidates actually have a shot at winning the elections (which will likely never happen in our lifetimes) their outlook on politics, the world, and everything else is utterly useless.
Re:"Real" debates (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Real" debates (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't expect Kerry to actually answer any of the points presented by Bush this week anyway.
Do you -know- how many candidates there are? (Score:5, Insightful)
The opinions of people like Mr. Larry J. Schutter [64.233.161.104] of the Turtle Party [aol.com] and Darren Karr [darrenforpresident.com] of Party-X [party-x.org] are every bit as valid as those of Badnarik and Cobb. Likewise, they all share the same chance of winning said office. What makes Badnarik and Cobb more deserving of a debate than any of the other "Dark Horse" candidates?
Elimination of the Federal Reserve (Score:4, Insightful)
Non-troll content is low (Score:5, Insightful)
The "official" debates are highly flawed, but to call them pseudo-debates because you don't like them is absurd. They are real debates, with real moderation and real issues. Many complain that there's really one Republicrat party with the same ideals, but I suggest that it only seems that way if your own interests swing wildly to one end of the political spectrum. Wake up, radicals, most people congregate somewhere near the center. It's generally only the unstable nations with strong factions at the extremes. I grow weary of people who demand instant change, and don't care if it's against the public will or good because they're sure they're right. That kind of thinking got us the Alien and Sedition acts and Prohibition.
That being said, I'm happy to see an alternate party debate and hope it is a success.
Re:Flip-Flopping (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you are talking about the Department of Homeland Security (was against it, then for it)
Unless you are talking about a comittment smaller government (has ran at least three times on that platform) yet created ANOTHER cabinet seat.
Unless you are talking about fiscal conservativism (and ran up the deficit).
Face it: Bush and Kerry are the same in more ways than they are different.
Republican: a Democrat without guilt.
Re:15% (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simple, if you make the ballot in enough states to possibly win the elections, you should be part of any debate. Since you can get on enough ballots simply by mobilizing regular citizens, that would open up the debates to anyone with actual grassroots support across america.
Re:"Real" debates (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Flip-Flopping (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Real" debates (Score:4, Insightful)
My own thoughts on the debate are as follows:
- Bush will answer questions pointing to what he believes he's done well, and will generally skirt around some issues to avoid fibbing or outright lying. Expect that some legalese (i.e. responding to the exact words vs. their intended meaning) may be used to skirt around some questions.
- Kerry will answer every question by promising the moon, even if his promises are contradictory.
As for this whole dual-party setup of the debates, consider this: The panel did allow Ross Perot into the debates, and it was enough to prevent Bush Sr. from winning the election.
Re:15% (Score:5, Insightful)
Really. This is what happens: smaller, single-point parties get swallowed up by the whole. This is how the Republican party came about, in fact, but at that time they were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives! Don't believe me? See what party Abraham Lincoln represented when he entered office.
Re:"Real" debates (Score:3, Insightful)
Which means he would be following the rules of the "debate." In the structure of the dog-and-pony show, the candidates will not be allowed to talk to/at each other, ony to the audience/cameras, and the only questions that can be asked are those prepared by the system, agreed upon by both sides, and asked by the people designated to do the asking (who are not the candidates).
About the only "answer" to "any of the points presented" by the other side allowed by the system is the gasping, huffing, hawing and incredulous looks Al Gore did during the '00 debate, perhaps with the occasional "Nuh-uh!" depending on the tolerence of the moderators.
Re:15% (Score:2, Insightful)
Why?
Limiting the discussion is helpful in what way?
"That guy" has just as much experience running the US government as Bush had in 2000.
What makes you believe a person who has been President necessarily makes him an authority on all topics, even the most important?
Re:C'mon Now (Score:5, Insightful)
If Badnarik and Cobb were invited to the debates, then people would know who they are and could hear them speak.
Maybe, if 3rd parties weren't so roundly shut out by the ruling oligarchy, more people would actually be interested enough to vote, and just maybe we could have some real change in policy, instead of six or one or half-dozen of the other.
Re:Flip-Flopping (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Real" debates (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that Bush has avoided press conferences and made attendees at his speech sign loyalty oaths, accusing him of ducking questions has some basis.
Kerry may give inarticulate, confusing, and stupid answers, and generally fail around like a dying fish. But I don't think an accusation of him ducking questions has much weight, though I'm willing to hear arguments. (It might have been better for his campaign if he'd learned some question-ducking.)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, there will be no value to the Bush/Kerry debate, other than to act as a launching platform for whatever catch phrases thier speechwriters want joe american to be repeating Frday morning.
And, btw, the reason they have such low chances of being elected is because they are excluded from the process. Not the other way around.
Re:what are your objections (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you joking?
* Exclusion of third-party candidates: This is a problem because, without appearing on debates and being otherwise shut out of the media, third-party candidates have a hard time getting their message across. Polls indicate that the majority of Americans want more views expressed and candidates present in our debates, but the commission denies them this.
* Under-handed questions: Not only are topics that are to be discussed known beforehand, but there are virtually no surprises or tough questions. Answers are therefore heavily scripted, repetative, and boring. Viewership for the debates has declined steadily over the years.
* "Taboo" subjects ignored entirely: I think it is important to hear the Greens/Libertarians/Independants view on the legitimacy of the multibillion dollar war on drugs, and to hear Kerry's/Bush's defense of it. How come this issue is not discussed? Oh, that's right - its off limits for some reason. The War on Drugs is just a drop in the bucket - there are many more issues that deserve thorough and diverse debate, but are ignored entirely.
The truth of the matter is that Kerry and Bush would have a hard time defending themselves against any of the three parties I mentioned. The "Commission" (which is made up of the two major parties) is really just protecting their interests by excluding them, at the expense of an informed American public. How anyone could continue to vote for the two major parties is beyond me...
Presidential Candidates (Score:4, Insightful)
All we have been able to do for years is to select the lesser of two evils.
We have become the government of the people, by the lawyers, and for the corporations.
The "powers in charge" will never to do anything to jepoardize their power in this country and the world.
It's also interesting that our choice this time is between two members of skull and bones.
Paul
Re:"Real" debates (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush won't, but maybe Karl Rove or Arty will. This may sound like another one from the tinfoil crowd, but keep a lookout for the wireless radio reciever. It's a small device used today by many in the broadcasting industry. It's nearly unnoticable fitting inside the ear, providing the wearer with crystal clear radio-based audio.
It's _highly_ probable that Bush will be wearing a wireless earpiece for the debate. Bush will no doubt have some of the best debate people the republican party can buy telling him what to say through such an earpiece. I suppose Kerry could use the same thing, but then again he probably wouldn't need it.
Republicans are too afraid to let Bush do his own talking(understandably), which is why he has no input on speech writing etc. Shouldn't the american people hear what thier president has to say, rather than what the people who hold his leash tell him to say?
Re:Nader opts out (Score:2, Insightful)
The Republicans disenfranchise thousands, Gore play some of the worst politics seen on the national stage in years, and it's Nader who should be afraid to show his face in Florida?
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:4, Insightful)
We're in a two-party system only as long as people believe we're in a two-party system. It's not a legal or constitutional arifact.
Re:"Debates" (Score:5, Insightful)
Words are cheap. You can say it many times, and you can be right. What's the difference between somebody who can't read, and somebody who doesn't read? Nothing. Your wisdom doesn't matter if it's not translated into action.
Why don't YOU start such a party? You say "we" which implies you and at least one other person. Start this party you speak of - get funding, find a candidate if not yourself!
See, the USA is politically "open source". Anybody can make their dent, and the rules are reasonably simple and apply to everybody.
Just as we have Microsoft ruling the computer technology scene as a Monopoly, the Right/Left wings grapple in
a Machiavelian struggle, swinging us "right" and "left" while moving us forward towards....?
Ross Perot almost did it [reformparty.org]. For a while, there, it actually looked as though he was going to win the presidency!
You could, too. We need an impassioned, trusted, charismatic, reasonable-sounding candidate who's willing to go the mile, and it would be a LONG mile.
I've considered joining the fray a few times, myself. Whether or not I'm "impassioned" enough or "charismatic" is an determination best left to listeners.
You have tremendous power in cable-access media. You can produce a broadcast quality show with a budget of under $50/week. (I know, I've done it!) FCC rules require this community-access television to be funded - it's just that few people actually stand up and produce the programming. Once a show is produced, it only requires a local sponsor to air the show in each community.
So, who's going to actually do it? You?
It's All Politics (Score:2, Insightful)
I've said it before, and let me say it again - these fringe parties should spend the next 50 years trying to build up support from the city/county level on up to Congress and governorships. When they can accomplish that, then they have the organizaion, message, and support to run for President and qualify for these debates.
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:5, Insightful)
and the u.s. will always be that way because of the nature of the system. in a presidential election, second place (let alone third or fourth) counts for nothing.
in a parliamentary system, by contrast, parties with lower levels of support get to have input. either they form the opposition or join the opposition coalition or, more effectively, become part of a governing coalition and weild some degree of political power.
witness canada: the dominant liberals alienated both the conservative and liberal portions of the population (no mean feat). however, none of the other parties were generally considered experienced enough to rule... so the electorate handed the liberals a minority victory.
to govern, the minority government now has to form coalitions with other parties to acheive enough votes to pass bills. in this case, the party the liberals allied with was the left-of-centre new democratic party. the result is that the ndp now has a fair amount of "pivotal power" - and given that helth care and other social programme issues were a big deal during the election, this is probably a Good Thing.
in a minority government situation, the opposition parties also have increased power. since the the government can fall to a well-organized attack by the opposition, the liberals are less likely to antagonize stornaway.
the result is: less people are alienated in a parliamentary system. if you voted for gore in 2000, your vote was completely wasted. but no matter who you voted for in canada last april (unless you voted green, as i did) there's someone in the government representing you.
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:5, Insightful)
The two main parties have zero interest in diluting their mindshare. Things will never change if you leave it to them.
Currently, the sole purpose behind 3rd party candidates is to be heard. The more good points they make, the more people will question the dominant parties. Eventually it reaches a critical mass and change will happen.
Re:15% (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to necessarily let "anyone" into the debates.
But anyone that's on enough state ballots that they could theoreticly be elected is certainly a legitimate candidate, and should therefore be allowed to participate.
Re:Non-troll content is low (Score:1, Insightful)
The candidates are not allowed to ask each other questions, nor are they given time to respond to what another candidate says. These events simply do not meet the dictionary definition of debates. [I'm too lazy to link to the entry on dictionary.com.]
Re:"Real" debates (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody said that they expect to be elected. They expect to INFLUENCE the process, and they do. Look at what Nader did in Florida.
Re:what are your objections (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the whole concept of using polling as a way of deciding eligibility is pretty morally bankrupt. I've suspected for a while that the reason for that is to make it possible for the major parties to manipulate third parties out of the contest. Perot gave them a good scare in '92, and they've been tightening the screws on our republic ever since.
Eligibility should be decided on a more legalistic basis: if the electoral votes of the states that a candidate is officially ballot-qualified for exceeds 270, then the candidate should get a chance to debate because they have a real chance of being elected. Arguing that they do not have a chance because they are not a Republican or Democrat becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only person who could possibly argue that a candidate that is ballot-qualified in 30+ states doesn't even deserve a chance to debate the other candidates is either a partisan shill or someone who has been manipulated by the partisan shills, IMHO.
Think about that: thanks to the "system" for ballot access that has been put into place, the minor party candidates have collected signatures from tens of thousands of voters all over the country. They have met the legal requirements for ballot access in many cases. But they aren't even given a chance to have a serious policy debate, because the debates are now controlled by the "major" parties. Those parties have concluded that the opinions of all those tens of thousands of people who signed petitions for Nader, Badnarik, et al don't mean shit to them as long as they can hold onto power without having to run the country well. Nice what our republic is turning into.
Re:"Real" debates (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:2, Insightful)
and the u.s. will always be that way because of the nature of the system. in a presidential election, second place (let alone third or fourth) counts for nothing.
Yes, there's just no way to topple those Whigs from their firm grasp on power.
The U.S. might "forever" be a 2-party system, but you can change which 2 parties it is.
Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are? (Score:3, Insightful)
Add up the total electoral votes for all states on which the candidate is on the ballot. If this number is enough to gain election, the candidate should be involved in the debates. So if you can get on the ballot in Texas, California, New York, Florida, and a few other states, you should be eligible for the debates.
Re:Non-troll content is low (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you must have missed the primaries.
No process is more dominated by fringe elements within the Republican and Democratic parties than the primaries. For 15 years I attended Republican caucuses in my state and organized around centrist candidates only to see the process hijacked by radicals.
Your rant about the other parties is way off the mark. The centrists have left the major parties looking for parties that the middle CAN vote for.
And I, for one, am not looking for instant change. I am working at the local level (school districts, county commissioners, state reps and senators) for victories that will make the major parties begin to pay attention again.
If you continue to stay with the major parties, you are begging to be controlled by the fringe.
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're describing is basically a Catch-22 situation. The 2-party system has to be changed before someone not in one of the two major political parties can win, but the system won't change unless something major happens to shake it up
Sorta. In the past typically one party becomes very un-popular (federalists, whigs, etc.), and the other party sorta takes over. Then that party fractures into two parties. Lather, rinse, repeat. Though we have had the current parties for some time, and they are still pretty evenly-split, so it's doubtful that any other party will really have a chance.
What I *do* see as a use for the third/forth/fifth/etc. parties, is that they are a sort of test as to what the non-two party affiliated folks are thinking. For instance, the Democratic party can look to the green party members as sort of it's "far left", and gauge whether that's the direction the party may need to move in (or away from). Should the Green party start to gain momentum, I'd bet the Democrats would start picking up some of their platform (and similar for Republicans and Libertarians).
Just a thought...
Re:"Debates" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what are your objections (Score:3, Insightful)
PS: you are now listed as a foe, because no person of sound mind can also be a republican, and I don't like people who are not of sound mind.
Separating Wheat from Chaff (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh Please.
There are plenty of reasonable criteria for screening out the kooks. One is having ballot access in enough states to win the Presidency, so that all those voters who have the ability to vote for you can make informed decisions. How many candidates make that? Just 6 [wikipedia.org], including Bush and Kerry. There were nine in the Democratic Primaries.
Another is commisioning polls to find out if a majority of voters want to hear from each of these candidates. Open Debates [opendebates.org] commisioned a poll [opendebates.org] and found that Nader should be included. Badnarik [badnarik.org] has commisioned his own polls [badnarik.org], using different verbiage, that show he too should be included.
These are reasonable, easily applied criteria that will allow alternative viewpoints be heard without stealing the show.
This country needs real Presidential debates. If we'd had them in the past, we may not have been left with Bush and Kerry as our candidates now...
Re:15% (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people fail to see that the parties are malleable. I'm guessing it's because a lot of folks here are young, and don't know history...
The democrats today are *not* the party that they were even when Kennedy was president! And the parties will continue to change as their members change. The third/forth/etc. parties serve to show where the 'extremists' are IMHO. The bigger the Green party gets, I'd be the more liberal the Democrats get. And the bigger the Libertarians get, the more Libertarian the Republicans would get. But since we've only got two parties, neither will stray very far from each other. Extremists are rarely popular.
Not that there are exceptions (witness the civil war, Hitler, etc.), but they aren't common (and the civil war was mostly because the 'lines' were drawn on geographic terms [North v. South] as well as political ones).
Re:what are your objections (Score:2, Insightful)
Section 5, Subsection (F) Reads:
"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions."
I don't understand this. I didn't do the whole "debate team" stuff in high school and maybe I'm just uninformed, but is this how debates work? How come the two debates can't ask each other direct questions.
I know that when I am debating things with my friends, the asking of direct questions plays a central role in articulating individual positions on the topic being debated about.
It seems to me that these rules, and this rule in particular takes away from the entire purpose of having a debate. These debates could serve as an opportunity to see how each individual candidate thinks "on their feet" and to observe how well they are able to articulate themselves on their position, but when you take away a basic characteristic of "debating" as this rule does, all you will most likely end up with is a 90 minute rehash of the commercials we have been seeing for the past few months.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
No one has a chance. Average Joe can't run for president, nor can hyper-intelligent Prof. Joe.
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Libertarian I don't think I can agree with this. Lately the Republican party does not speak to the issues I care about, mostly being smaller government, and more self determination.
I think, unfortunately, who the republicans are listening to these days is the "Moral Majority" or the "Religious Right", depending on who is describing them.
There is all too much of both parties telling me what is right for My Own Good as opposed to just governing our society.
Re:"Debates" (Score:3, Insightful)
Michael Bradnick (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, but why do you think that? I followed your link to find out for myself, and I concluded that this idea is completely kooky. Aside from all the weird rubbish about international bankers etc, why do you think it would be a good idea to yoke the value of your currency to a pair of commodities? Yes, inflation and deflation would no longer be directly controlled by government decisions
In any case, bimetallic standards are inherently unstable, because the intrinsic relative values of gold and silver are not constant; the money in a bimetallic standard can therefore be arbitraged against the underlying commodities.
The only legitmate debate format is... (Score:2, Insightful)
No moderators.
No questions from the peanut gallery.
The format is very simple.
Bush speaks for one hour.
Kerry speaks for an hour-and-a-half.
Bush speaks for half-an-hour.
The order of speaking is flipped for the second debate.
The candidates get to say anything they want - they can use their time to both pose questions to their opponent and to respond to their opponents questions and statements.
Maybe we can cut down on the time - have it 30/45/15 minutes instead of 60/90/30, or somewhere in between. The point is that with the candidates posing their own questions, there's no interference from without (such as the snappy "what if Kitty Dukakis were raped and killed" question that sunk Dukakis). Also, because of the strict format, there's no opportunity for "Where's the Beef" or "There he goes again" interruptions that are really meaningless soundbites rather than substantive argument.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were historic - Lincoln lost the Illinois Senate campaign, but the positions Douglas took, some of which Lincoln caused Douglas to take, were one of the reasons why Lincoln was subsequently elected President.
Re:Michael Bradnick (Score:3, Insightful)
"Beardo doesn't know about Marcoeconomics. Vote Greymond - because a bad plan is better than no plan!"
Same with changing your mind. I used to hate girls; now I love `em. If you're running for president, it's flip-flopping. Otherwise, it's puberty.
Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve (Score:3, Insightful)
Gold owned by the U.S. Treasury: $11 billion
Gold held by the Federal Reserve: $586 million
FRB Currency and Coin Services: [federalreserve.gov]
Currency in Circulation: (2003) $690 billion, 1/2-2/3 held abroad
Consider the contraction in credit implied by a return to the gold standard. What happens when 2/3 of america's gold reserves can be claimed abroad?
Re:"Real" debates (Score:3, Insightful)
So don't confuse "doing what's good for our partes" with "doing what's good for the country". 1992 was a fluke, since both parties thought they were doing themselves a favor by having Perot there. His actual performance in the election must have scared the hell out both of them, and I can guarantee that neither will ever let something like that happen again.
Re:"Real" debates (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, many members of the public would LOVE some substance, UNFORTUNATELY WE DON"T OWN ANY MAJOR TV NETWORKS.
How much did Microsoft, Enron, etc contribute to the Democrats in the last few years? (lots)
The Republicans? (lots)
The Green party? (nothing)
If you just spent a bunch on money buying the sopport of both the democrats and republicans, would you cover a third party on your TV network? Of course not.
Re:Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions (Score:2, Insightful)
Radical Muslims, the ones training the suicide bombers (although not always the bombers themselves) hate us because we do not live under Sharia, and are therefore worthy of death. I'd say this qualifies as "hate".
Are you saying that the "they" in "they hate out freedom" is anyone who observes Sharia law or anyone who trains a suicide bomber because depending which definition you choose "they" could be either millions of people or hundreds of people.
Also, you are playing fast and loose with whether they hate "us" or "our freedom" or perhaps "our behaviour". Another plausible definition of "our freedom" (besides non-observance of Sharia law) is "our foreign policy that affects the Middle East" which gives an entirely different meaning to "they hate our freedom".
Finally, you suggest that the reason "they" hate "our freedom" is because of jealousy. Usually, one is jealous of a scarce resource: someone else is in possession of a particular object so the person who is jealous is unable to possess the object. Non-observance of Sharia law isn't a scarce resource - it's not like there is a limit of three hundred million people who can be non-observant of Sharia law and after that everyone else in the world has to observe Sharia law.
I would agree, however, that saying "people who train suicide bombers want to impose Sharia law on the United States because they are jealous" is a vast improvement over "they hate our freedom" and, in fact, by interviewing "people who train suicide bombers" one could establish the fraction of those people for whom the statement was correct. Personally, I think that the fraction would turn out to be substantially less than one.
Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that Libertarians' ideas are all bad, but a lot of their lassiez-faire economic ideas used to be the norm 100 years ago. These policies were abandoned for good reasons. A certain amount of governmental intervention has been proven to be needed to keep a complicated modern economy stable.
Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an excellent idea...for people who like the idea of a fully-backed currency...as long as there aren't too many such people.
In another Slashdot thread a month or two ago, someone proposed using physical pure-gold currency in all transactions. The problem is, there isn't enough gold.
Very roughly, the total amount of gold ever mined is on the order of three billion troy ounces [usgs.gov].
The total amount of U.S. currency in circulation is on the order of six hundred billion dollars [frbatlanta.org].
The current price of gold is about four hundred dollars per ounce [goldinfo.net], giving the value of all the gold in the world as about 1.2 trillion dollars. In other words, you'd have to put half of all the world's gold into Fort Knox to fully back all the greenbacks in the U.S. To be fair, trying to acquire enough gold to back all U.S. currency would play merry hell with the value of gold, and the dollar, so the numbers above are very approximate. We'll leave aside the damage caused by the economic dislocations of shifting so much capital about....
For silver, the comparable figures are 40 billion total ounces mined in the last two millennia, at $6.50 an ounce--total value: $260 billion. There isn't enough silver to back greenbacks, period. Also, silver is used commercially for a lot of things (photography, jewellery and other decoration, electronics...) and is currently being consumed faster than it is mined. Once again, trying to pull billions of ounces of the stuff out of circulation to back a currency would be an economic disaster.
Adopting a fully-backed currency may seem appealing, but it is a practical impossibility for the United States--there just isn't $600 billion worth of anything out there that could be readily relocated to Fort Knox.
Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you never took a debate class. Debate is a skill, a methodology of speaking applied to the facts that is not designed to elucidate facts, but to persuade the audience, sometimes flying in the face of the facts. A skilled debator will win a debate regardless of wheteher he believes in his point or even has ample facts to support his case. Truth and debate are strange bedfellows.
Political platforms are supposed to convey the facts about what a political candidate stands for and wants to do if they win office. As is evident from the media and the comments from the two parties no one really wants to talk about the facts or the real situations we are facing. No one mwntions that Iraq is actually a strategic emplacement that, if it is ever stabilized, solidifies the USA's global presence and extends our political influence into the rest of the world(the reason we are pulling out of Germany is because it has lost its strategic signifigance). No one wants to talk about the Chinese and the fact that their consumption is causing the rise in oil prices. No one wants to talk about the transformation of the american economy to a globally infiltrated economy and what that will really mean for the next few generations. And everyone, I mean everyone, want to aviod the real subject of retirement and social security.
It is no wonder that politicians like debates. It gives them the chance to appear to tell the truth about what they want, all the while they are just laying persuasive bricks to bolster their candidacy and leaving themselves verbal backdoors to escape from like Houdini after they get elected.
Even worse, we, the American people understand so little about what they are actually talking about (foreign policy, military policy, history, and conventions, ECONOMIC policy, the Constitution, matters of personal liberty) that we swallow what they say hook line and sinker, and don't have the background to call "BULLSHIT" when they say something totally off base with conventional wisdom.
Personally, I am not of the mindset to see conspiracies at every turn, however I have had the feeling these past few elections that those in power do not like to see high voter turnout. I believe that if there was a conspiracy it would be one of negativity. It is proven that negative campaigns cause people to become disenchanted with political figures and the political system, leading to lower voter tunrout. Therefore they campaign on their opponents weaknesses and point aout things have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to govern a nation (see the innumerable references to Viet Nam for fucks sake).
I think that it is just possible that politicians understand that if less people vote and more people are disinterested with and disgruntled with the political system there will be fewer people to question and complain about what they do in the real powerhouses of the government...the Senate, Congress, and the Supreme Court.
If they keep the eyes of the country on the politcal bouncing ball, the president, and off of the people who manipulate and control the legal landscape of the whole country, no one will stop them when they enact the PATRIOT act, or the DMCA, or whatever other policy that undermines the fabric of our liberties. At least, that is what I would do if I were them and had absolutely no moral intentions.
Maybe I have just had too much to drink tonight, but then again, maybe that is the Feds knocking at my door at 1:00 am and not my neighbor with another bottle of beer.
Re:How true (sadly) (Score:2, Insightful)
You'll recall that Clinton testified under oath but he did not have the advantage of having Democrats in control of Congress at the time.
In any case your reply is a change from your earlier tune, which was the congress has no business investigating the office of the president. Certainly that is not implied by "separation of powers".
Question from different country (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question from different country (Score:2, Insightful)
I would guess the problem of popularity in the past for these two parties established them in everybody's minds and pocketbooks. I think it'd be great if there was a spending limit imposed on all candidates for advertising. Herein lies another problem, you have groups like "Friends of George Bush", which will buy advertising, which wouldn't could against that dollar amount. Another would be to supply each candidate with a certain amount of money for advertising or campaign use and tell them they can use that money for advertising and no more.
It's broken, it needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure how it should be fixed, because most of the "brokeness" is in the minds of us Americans...
-Me