Wash Post Runs "Correction" - It Inadvertently Told Truth!

[luisao]

Evidently, someone came down on syndicated columnist David Broder for telling the truth about the Commission on Presidential Debates -- that it's a bipartisan front group that exists to exclude any third party candiates and ensure that the "debates" run like joint campaign infomercials. The Commission ensures servile moderators like Jim Lehrer will protect either candidate from facing uncomfortable issues like corporate power, avoid calling them on distortions, etc.

I received a copy of a response letter from ReclaimDemocracy.org that explains it in a more understated way than I would:

The "clarifying note" following David Broder's column on March 7 was mystifying. On February 26 Broder accurately described the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) as "the privately financed consortium created by the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties..." Yet the "clarification" said, "The Commission is an independent, nonprofit organization, not an adjunct of the Democratic and Republican parties." That statement is grossly misleading at best.

The CPD remains to this day under the joint, exclusive control of the Democratic and Republican parties. The CPD deservedly has been criticized for its deliberate exclusion of serious independent or "third party" candidates through setting participation criteria that only a Republican or Democrat can meet. But lifeless formats and the exclusion of critical issues that both dominant parties are eager to obscure also are critical problems (documented at ReclaimDemocracy.org/debate). Such failings led President Bush Sr. to deride them as "...not really debates. They're rehearsed appearances."

Allowing a private, bipartisan club to control the single most influential forum for American voters is inexcusable. Recognizing this, seventeen civic organizations of widely disparate views and interests recently united to form the Citizens' Debate Commission. Citizens' Debates will replace the CPD's events with truly non-partisan, substantive, and engaging debates that will provide citizens the information they deserve to make fully-informed choices on Election Day. Voters should insist that presidential candidates commit to supporting the Citizens' Debates as a measure of their regard for democracy.

The letter was signed by Jeff Milchen, Citizens' Debate Commission Board of Directors

Anway here's the url or more on the Citizens' Debates plans: <http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/citizens_debate_commission_proposal.html> and documentation of issues excluded from the 2000 debates <http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/debates_exclusion_issues.html>

Even if you don't care a whit about the anti-democratic element of the CPD, consider this: The more Bush can be forced out of scripted sound bites (the CPD events are one sound bite after another), the worse he will look and the better Kerry's chances. I urge folks to write their own opinion on this if Broder's column runs in their paper (he's syndicated nationally). Thanks!

[donhakman]

1. sorry to be so cynical

but with the abolition of exit polls and advent of guaranteed uncheckable electronic ballots, the scripted debates are the least of my worries.

Its not 1964 anymore where an unshaven Nixon lost the visual debate.

[luisao]

8. Abolition of exit polls?

How can exit polls be contolled, never mind abolished?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

2. I'M GLAD IT IS

Tell me, which party has more trouble getting its people to actually vote? Which party always seems to have some third-party kook candidate peeling off just enough voters to hand the other side a victory? Which party is completely outmatched in fund raising, and so is the one that needs direct undiluted debates to get its message out?

Let me give you a hint. This is the DemocraticUnderground. Not the ThirdPartyNaderUltraleftistThinksDemocratsAreWorseThanGOPUnderground.

Lusao - Go away.

[chiburb]

3. Um...

"Which party always seems to have some third-party kook candidate peeling off just enough voters to hand the other side a victory?"

Thank you Ross Perot! Without you we wouldn't have had Clinton!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

4. Untrue...

Perot pulled just as much from Clinton as he did from Bush and Dole. Don't believe me? Read this.

Here's the key graf:

"If forced to choose between Dole and Clinton, 44 percent of Perot supporters would select Clinton and 43 percent Dole."

Perot hurt Clinton by one more percentage point than Dole.

As far as 1992 goes, you should read this.

Here's the key graf from that one:

"By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory."

- C.D.

[luisao]

5. Conservative What?

Last time I checked it was Bush who thought those who disagreed with the party line should shut up and go away. Would you send me to Guantanamo under your regime? Thanks so much for your insightful comments.

[donhakman]

6. I got that here before

but only when I do a cartoon about a democrat.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

7. Use your own money...

if you want to attack Democrats. You can start your own site and flame away.

However, don't expect to be welcome if you post threads attacking Democrats in a Democratic forum, paid for by donations from people whose philosophy you disagree with.

Your "Guantanamo" comment shows that you really have no clue. Come back when you're about ten years wiser, however long that takes you.

- C.D.