The Commission on Presidential Debates is NOT "nonpartisan"!

I am so sick and tired of seeing and hearing this blatantly misleading statement. The CPD is NOT "nonpartisan", they are wholly "bipartisan". There is a distinct difference.

The CPD was founded in 1988 by flunkies from both the Democratic and Republican Parties in order to control the debate structure. Prior to that time, the debates had been run by the League of Women Voters. The LWV had steadfastly resisted attempts by both political parties to control the process, consistently holding the line that the public deserved a free exchange of ideas and issues during the debates, and that the candidates had the responsibility of answering the public's questions.

When CPD came into the game in 1988 and tried to strongarm the LWV into accepting the bipartisan debate rules, the LWV withdrew their involvement, making a public statement in which they said, "We will not be a party to this hoodwinking of the American public."

Ever since that time, the debates have gone downhill to the point that they are now little more than televised time for bumper-sticker slogans and press-release statements.

The American public and the US electoral system are the worse for this "hoodwinking". It's high time that journalists start accurately portraying the CPD as a bipartisan arm of the Beltway power structure meant to keep out all outsiders and remove any possibility of serious questions or issues from arising.

</rant>

thank you.

here's the transcript of the "NOW, with Bill Moyers" that addresses the issue . . . guest is George Farrah of Open Debates. . .

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript339_full.html

(snip)

FARAH: When you have stultified debates that produce scripted sound bites rather than authentic discussion, the American people are gonna turn off their television sets.

MOYERS: Farah founded a nonpartisan organization called Open Debates. He says Americans are not getting the presidential debates we deserve.

FARAH: The American people want to hear and see popular candidates discuss the important issues in an unscripted manner. That's what's at stake. Whether or not we're gonna have the right to witness an important conversation.

MOYERS: And why aren't we getting that kind of discussion between the candidates now?

FARAH: Because the Commission on Presidential Debates secretly submits to the Republican and the Democratic candidates and allows these candidates to sanitize the debate format, excludes popular voices, avoid discussing critical issues.

MOYERS: Farah has written a book laying out his case. It's been endorsed across the political spectrum from the conservative patriarch Paul Weyrich of the Heritage Foundation to the Texas populist Jim Hightower.

What unites them in outrage is the Commission on Presidential Debates, the official sounding, supposedly nonpartisan sponsor.

Don't be fooled, says Farah.

FARAH: The Commission on Presidential Debates, although it claims to be a nonpartisan organization, was created by the Republican and Democratic parties for the Republican and Democratic parties. By design, it was established to submit and conceal the wishes and demands of the Democratic/Republican nominees.

MOYERS: The result, he says, is an event tightly controlled by the candidates, a glorified press conference with rules rigged to serve the candidates, not the public.

- much more . . .

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript339_full.html

Kind of throws a spotlight on the sham of the process, doesn't it?

It also irks me how they conspire to keep third-party candidates out of the debates. I'm in complete agreement with Farah's take on this. It's not as if we really expect third-party candidates to win. However, historically third-parties have played an important role in helping to bring important issues to the electoral conscience. For instance, many of FDR's New Deal reforms were based on policies that the Socialists had been advocating for years in one form or another.

By the DNC and RNC through the CPD shutting out third-party candidates, they're shutting out ideas and issues that are important to the American people, but that THEY don't want to talk about. The American public and our democracy suffer in the process.

Nowhere near nonpartisan.

Remember when we had journalists in the media who made sure that everything they said was accurate and could be supported?

:kick: