Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Government Republicans Politics

10 Things To Know About The Upcoming Debates 73

Posted by timothy from the unconscionable-fraud dept.
jSpectre writes "Connie Rice writes an interesting article about the 'Presidential Debates' found on NPR's web site. Did you know it's illegal for the candidates to debate anywhere other than CPD ('Cloaking-device for Party Deception') officially santioned debates? Read on for her 'Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates.'" Read more CPD criticism at Open Debates.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

10 Things To Know About The Upcoming Debates More

10 Things To Know About The Upcoming Debates

Comments Filter:

  • I call Bullsh*t (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MerlynEmrys67 ( 583469 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @01:23PM (#10385989)
    (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."

    Ok, there is a contract that says you will not do something. This doesn't make doing it Illegal (as in congress passes a law, and an executive signs it) subject to criminal penalties - it is a negotiated term in a contract, that if/when you violate it you are subject to civil penalties specified in the contract.

    I'll agree with the spirit of what is being said in this article - but the author really needs to tone down and report on facts as they are, not as they want them to be

    • Unless you are referring to bylaws in their parties, then illegal is a valid term. For those who say that illegal should refer to "stuff made criminal under US [federal|state|local] law," get over it, man submits himself to all sorts of authorities.
    • Last I checked, breach of contract wasn't legal. By implication, braking this specific clause isn't legal, and would probably fall under the set called "Illegal."

    • Re:I call Bullsh*t (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @04:04PM (#10387904)
      Haha... third parties are a much greater threat to the duopoly that the other member of the duopoly. Do you think either party will really risk breaking the rules their duopoly has agreed to, which would lead to opening the debates to other candidates?
      • True, the candidates may blame their unwillingness to debate outside the forums on the contract, but hopefully most rational voters would see this as a smoke and dagger exercise.

        Questions to ask about such a contract:

        Is it enforceable - is your right to free speech as American citizens not inalienable?

        If enforceable, does it provide specific sanctions for breach of the contract? If these are too onerous, for example allowing an injunction to stop the alternative debate, they may not be enforceable on rig
        • I don't think it's enforcable at all. The Constitution is The law of the land, along with its first ammendment.
        • Is it enforceable - is your right to free speech as American citizens not inalienable?

          For the government - yes... But any private party in the united states can tell any other private party in the US to shut up. In otherwords - you have no rights to go running around my house yelling poetry at the top of your lungs in my house, I can tell you to shutup and leave. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings of the freedom of speech - it is protecting you from the government for saying what you believe,

          • INIAL, but in this case there would be no violation of property rights so the analogy is not exactly correct (in addition to asking you to leave I can also use force and do all sorts of other things to get you off my property).

            The question is what the extent of the penalties are for breaking a mutually agreed contract. I assume this would be some sort of civil lawsuit from one party against the other.

    • Ok, there is a contract that says you will not do something. This doesn't make doing it Illegal (as in congress passes a law, and an executive signs it) subject to criminal penalties - it is a negotiated term in a contract, that if/when you violate it you are subject to civil penalties specified in the contract.

      That depends on your definition of illegal, which I doubt is correct under the law. To be illegal, it just has to be against the letter of the law even if it isn't exactly part of the criminal co

    • It's not even secret. That's a CPD item that existed before the parties ridiculous 32 page contract.

      Not only that, as of last night the CPD had not even officially signed off on the candidates debate contracts and are well aware of how asinine some of the terms are.

      Disclaimer: I attend the University of Miami, so have above average awareness of the debate terms.

  • Has the CPD responded? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @01:26PM (#10386023) Homepage Journal
    Or is this news story too soon? I'd really be interested if the CPD has any response to this at all- and maybe we need to be addressing congress to make contracts between the major parties illegal to begin with.
    • lol. Mod parent funny.

      Why would Congress pass such a law when it is controlled *by the two major parties*? They wouldn't be the two major parties if they didn't control Congress...
      • Because if they don't, they just might be faced with having to stay inside a lot over the next four years, regardless of who wins. Put all the third parties together, have the NRA and Libertarians arm them, and march on Washington, would be a good way to get this accomplished.

  • Umm.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by m0rph3us0 ( 549631 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @01:27PM (#10386039)
    If breaking a contract was legal how would a court impose penalties for doing so?

    The fact that a court can impose a penalty means that it was against the law. If it was not against the law to break the contract there would be no way a court could enforce the document.

    • Re:Umm.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by haijak ( 573586 )

      People misinterpret the purpose of contracts all the time. Something written in a contract is not automatically illegal. Breaking a contract is not illegal ether. A contract is a an agreement between 2 or more parties. If any party does not comply with what is agreed upon in the contract the other parties involved have solid legal ground to sue the non-compliant for damages resulting from their breach of the contract.

      Basically in this case, if they participate in another debate, they would probably loose t

      • i find it funny how your parent poster wrote a total idiocracy and got +4 insightfull, while you explain everything correctly and dont get mod at all.

        well, life's a bitch...
    • If breaking a contract was legal how would a court impose penalties for doing so?

      Simplified explanation:

      It is legal to break a contract.

      However the courts will enforce the terms of that contract, including its provisions for breach.

      In enforcing the terms of the contract, the court may impose any civil penalty, but not a criminal one such as imprisonment.

      Gloss:

      It used to be possible to enter into contracts carrying criminal penalties for breach (so called indentured contracts) however that wa

  • NOW with Bill Moyers Transcript (Score:5, Informative)

    by _bug_ ( 112702 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @01:29PM (#10386060) Journal
    George Farrah, author of no debate was on NOW with Bill Moyers to discuss the history of presidential debates and how they've turned into bi-partisan press conferences. [opendebates.org]

    You can read the transcript here [slashdot.org].

  • Reform is necessary... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cephyn ( 461066 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @01:32PM (#10386095) Homepage
    ...but its too bad that the only people willing to reform are locked out of the system by those who are terrified of losing their monopoly on the system. And those who oppose reform are the ones who would have to create reform.

    IRV voting. Open Debates. Truly non-partisan moderators. Proper polling, or none at all. Safe, secure, open-to-the public electronic voting. Are all these things really too much to ask? Are all these things really IMPOSSIBLE to discuss?

    I really hope that in 20 years when my generation is coming up through the ranks, when the geek inherit the earth (come on guys, get some people skills! Think of the people!), they remember the early 21st Century fiascos.

    • Re:Reform is necessary... (Score:4, Funny)

      by hopemafia ( 155867 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @01:54PM (#10386331)
      "Think of the people!"

      I did...and I still don't like them.
    • Not that I like this system, but I have a question. What is to keep the independent candidates from buying prime-time TV air time and doing a real debate for the public. Wouldn't the Dems and Repubs almost be required to respond?

      IMHO, if the deck is stacked against you, don't play the game.

      • Re:Reform is necessary... (Score:5, Informative)

        by cephyn ( 461066 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @03:09PM (#10387239) Homepage
        Perot did that. He was ridiculed. Also don't forget lobbyists only support the major players. Contributions from companies go to the major parties. The major parties support their candidates.

        It's a cycle, the rich get richer and the indies get shoved out more and more.
      • Well seeing as there was a third party debate on CSPAN rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04090604_thi r d.rm
        It appears they are trying. I'm sure they even tried to get it on prime time, but the cost of prime time air is outragously high. Though shouldn't they get it simply on "equal time" rules for elections. Honestly I'm not sure about this.

        Btw watch the video its very interesting, personally I'd vote for Badnarik, but I'm kinda worried about the extremist in the libertarian party and weither he is one
      • What is to keep the independent candidates from buying prime-time TV air time and doing a real debate for the public.
        1. Money
        2. Cooperation from TV Networks
        3. Money
        4. Favors to the two main parties from the TV industry
        5. Money
        6. Having any real influence in Washington DC
        7. Money
        8. American Voter Ignorance
        9. Money

  • It isn't just national debates (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ElForesto ( 763160 ) <elforesto@gAUDENmail.com minus poet> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @02:03PM (#10386434) Homepage

    The local PBS affiliate, KLVX, has been excluding 3rd-party candidates from all of their televised debates. They made up some rule that you have to pull at least 5% in the last election for that same office. In other words... you have to run for the same office over and over before they'll let you in.

    In 2002, I was out with a group of people from my party picketing the station. We challenged the candidates to refuse to go on unless they had our candidate on as well. They, naturally, politely declined. We then showed up to protest a 2nd non-televised debate, one that had a lot of newspaper reporters around. They let him in after 10 minutes. He ended up being the only candidate that answered questions instead of talking about how tough he is. (We created the David Roger Drinking Game based on this debate.)

    No matter where you go, the monopoly is enforced.

    • Most people wouldn't think totalitarianism would apply to the US. But in reality it does. It's not just PBS or where not but actually laws like equal funds that require 5%. Whether it is 1 party or 2 that the laws create it still isn't very democratic. Whether it actually illegalities third parties or just makes them unable to get elected doesn't really matter either. Laws prevent them from winning and force only the 2 parties to get power. Remember a duopoly is a monopoly too. P.S. When I spell-checked it
      • You don't play that game like I do...
      • Do you want to be my friend? Send 1 Bush bashing comment to me,

        Would you accept a Cheney bashing comment? How about Cheney bashing Cheney? I found the following on andrewsullivan. [andrewsullivan.com]

        "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged

  • Congress wont reform (Score:5, Insightful)

    by superascal ( 238428 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @02:11PM (#10386509)
    Congress will never change the laws regarding the two party duopoly until some thrid party congress members are elected. Same thing with a national initiative or term limits. We're farked.

  • Just saw something simliar on MeFi (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xenocide2 ( 231786 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @02:13PM (#10386526) Homepage
    A more detailed analysis [pbs.org] that backs many of the points made in the NPR article.

    The worst part of this is that it puts incumbants and poll leaders in a great position. The underdog wants the chance for the other guy to screw up. The leader of course doesn't want this to happen, but doesn't want to look afraid to debate.

    This year it puts Kerry in a tough spot. He needs the media exposure as much as he needs the President to screw up. The Bush campaign could have easily walked away from it without serious reprecussion. Instead they used Kerry's needs to sanitize the affair. Kerry gets a gamble made worse by the negotiations, and America gets another boring infomercial where two guys stand up and declare how awesome it is to be them, and how awesome America will be if you BUY NOW!

    Of course, if this is treated in any way like the Conventions, media coverage will be irrelevant. Most of the cable news channels featured Chris Matthews or Ron Reagan or Larry King or Bill O'Reilly talking over the majority of the convention. They're already fighting over how to present the debates; the networks want cut-aways that show one guy talking and the other listening.
  • I'll be playing Doom3 or Painkiller during the structured news confrence often called a debate.

    Nearly all of campaigning is an insult to intelligent voters who keep abreast on important issues. Both sides are full of shit, and most of us know it.

  • The best debate should include 7yolds (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chemisor ( 97276 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @02:44PM (#10386899)
    For a really good grilling the candidates should field questions from first grade kids, and be required to answer each one. Let's see how well they stand up under the constant stream of "Why?", "I don't get it", "Is this some grownup thing?", "Why?", "What's a 'recovery'?", "Why?", etc. Especially if "because I said so" is not considered to be an acceptable answer.

  • Rice's Secret # 9, need some help with this one (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scupper ( 687418 ) * on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @03:02PM (#10387131) Homepage
    Quoted from Connie Rice piece [npr.org] on NPR:
    (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 ."
    Without googling into this, it initially struck me that Perot was mentioned in a timeline ending in a debates "takeover" in 1986 by the cpd, 4-5 years before Perot launched his presidential campaign, so I thought.

    I'm not debating whether there was a "takeover" of the LWV moderated debates, just wondering if anyone knows what Ross Perot's role was in any LWV moderated debates prior to 1986, as it seems to me that Rice is trying to state that, based on her info, the LWV lost the presidential debates, in part, due to the admission of Ross Perot into the debates. The CPD, not the LWV, admitted Perot to the 1992 debates, and according to Rice's own timeline, CPD was in charge then.

    On the surface, it appears to be a simple error, an oversight of copy and pasting, and one that makes me question the rest of "Secret # 9" accuracy and Rice's sincerity and attention to detail about the facts.

  • Media Coverage (Score:5, Informative)

    by wayward ( 770747 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @03:09PM (#10387242)
    One frustrating thing about this restriction on debates is that it gives CPD a lot of power over media coverage, since they also control the media credentials. For example, I'm part of Independent Media Center [indymedia.org], specifically, the U-C IMC [ucimc.org]. Essentially, media have to be credentialled by the CPD to even get into the debate, so I filled out the application (which made me specify my race and SSN, among other things).

    Monday, I got an email from them saying,

    To all recipients on this list:

    The Commission on Presidential Debates appreciates your interest in covering the debates. However, at this time, your application has been denied. Applications are declined due to security concerns, space limitations, or other reasons.

    Thank you,

    The Commission on Presidential Debates

    To the best of my knowledge, CPD didn't give credentials to any other Indy Media reporters either. So that means that we can't cover it, because we won't even be admitted to the event.

    • Applications are declined due to security concerns, space limitations, or other reasons.

      Hmm, does "YOU'RE AN IDIOT! BOOOOOO!" count as a security concern?
      • Hmm, does "YOU'RE AN IDIOT! BOOOOOO!" count as a security concern?

        That phrase probably would have gone through my head repeatedly if I'd actually gotten to watch the debate, but I'd been planning to behave. :)

    • No, it means that you, like the vast majority of reporters, will just not actually be in the debate hall. The media center is in a separate building, and they're not credentialed to get into the actual debate.

      There will be various live feeds all over the campus, so you can cover it all you want.

      The debate footage comes from pool cameras, not from every network having their own cameras right in the debate hall.

      There are over 2200 journalists credentialed for the media center, which combined with equipmen
      • No, it means that you, like the vast majority of reporters, will just not actually be in the debate hall. The media center is in a separate building, and they're not credentialed to get into the actual debate.

        There will be various live feeds all over the campus, so you can cover it all you want.

        No, I don't think you understand. I can't even get onto campus at all, let alone into the media center. I even asked a Wash U official if we could just watch it on the big screens and got turned down. Here's

  • "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,"

    Are we really talking about something that is Illegal, or are we talking about a contract to protect a financial stake in the "Official" debates?

    Would they be arrested and tried if they debated on Nightline or would they be sued for breach of contract?

    I suspect that, since we're talking about a contract with CPD, it's the latter.

    LK
  • "Connie Rice writes an interesting article....

    Is it this [dailyhaiku.com] Condoleeza Rice?

    Probably not, but damn, what an unfortunate name for a political commentator.

    -dameron
    ------
    DailyHaiku.com [dailyhaiku.com], saying more in 17 syllables than Bill O'Reilly says all day.
    • Is it this Condoleeza Rice?

      No. She was on Politically Incorrect once, I remember expecting to see Condoleeza and I was surprised when it wasn't her.

      LK
    • NPR really 'dropped the ball' on this one or rather should I say, 'dropped the name'.

      Many sites will give details on the authors and interviewees' on the page, this confusion is a good reason why it should be done. It might not stop the confussion that I an most likely 95% of the other readers had.

      I was reading it and saying 'Good Lord, this is the President's National Security Advisor saying this...". At the end of the article there was a link for 'More Commentary by Connie Rice' and it became obvious

      • You think this was accidental? I'm not suggesting conspiracy but the deception seems intentional. and could have been cleared up with "Connie Rice, NPR commentator".
  • I posted the articles below in a sub-thread to correct Rice's error about the timeline, but her article is really a poor place to start a discussion (though I agree with her) -- it's inacurrate on a couple of items and not well substantiated. So let me suggest some better references.

    I found this article clarifying the Perot story http://www.commondreams.org/views/100100-103.htm [commondreams.org]

    The same writer has an excellent current analysis that present a much more fact-based, but no less damning critique of the

  • This article lost its merit. I started watching the debates, and yes they are debates. A question is asked of one candidate, he answers, and then the other candidate has a rebutal, and then sometimes there is more back and forth on the question. So where did rice get her info????

Slashdot Top Deals

Sentient plasmoids are a gas.

Close