The Public Square
I was encouraged by Bernie Sanders’ call for an increase in the number of presidential candidates’ debates, and even more so by his suggestion that a more open, inclusive forum be used. It will be interesting to see two things: first, if any of the marginal republicans endorse the concept; and second, how the corporate machines behind both parties respond.
The republican machine, of course, is intent upon limiting both access to, and the number of, their primary debates. As Willard Romney has said, there’s no use in even talking to 47% of the voters. Rick Perry himself has noted there are three reasons for this. But there are plenty of others, such as Rand Paul, who appear eager to appear on any stage.
I suppose it is inevitable that some in the Democratic Party will insist that Sanders’ suggestion is foolish, and that there are established rules that make it impossible to seriously consider providing the American public with that more open and inclusive format to discuss the serious problems that we face. It’s possible that they will take a page from the republican book -- first, make fun of the idea; second, say its impossible; and then simply ignore it.
Every step towards bringing “politics” back to the Public Square is, in my opinion, a good thing. Indeed, that is what our constitutional democracy requires. It is, in essence, the opposite of having decisions made in what were once known as “smoke-filled rooms,” but now are plush, air-conditioned corporate offices.
The three announced democratic candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley -- are all capable communicators; each would have opportunity to appeal to a wider base by using such a format. It would be interesting to show the stark differences between reality-based candidates, and those who deny climate change. There are other extremely important issues to be discussed, from national security to the TPP. This format could only be “high risk” for a corporate candidate, such as Jeb Bush.
Malcolm X used to say that if you place a sparkling clean glass of water next to a glass of filthy sludge, you can trust a thirsty public to make the correct choice. I think a “water-taste-test” in the Public Square is a great idea.
Peace,
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
And I've read some of the commentary from Democrats suggesting that six is just fine; that a good candidate should be able to express themselves in six debates and I should just get accept it.
I should also just accept that our State Department promoted fracking, because I guess Chevron is jobs or it's Obama's idea.
We are also to accept that it's A-OK to use dark money and Super PACs to become elected so that you can follow through on promises to end dark money and super PACS.
And I nod my head, just a little, the way I used to when my stepfather would explain that the only 500 of his 1973 "Ford Custom 500" sedan were ever made.
Let us open the blinds and, heck, tear the roof off our house to let in some pure daylight and fresh air.
More debates, and mixed debates, and the party leadership be damned.
Recommended.
Rick Scott Almost Refused To Debate Charlie Crist Over A Fan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/rick-scott-debate-fan_n_5993412.html
Florida's second gubernatorial debate got off to a bizarre start Wednesday evening when incumbent Gov. Rick Scott (R) initially refused to debate his opponent because he had a fan under his lectern.
