Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: GOP to Boycott Presidential Debates Over Clinton Programs (by unanimous voice vote) [View all]bvar22
(39,909 posts)40. We no longer have "Presidential Debates" in the USA.
We have Campaign & Marketing Opportunities tightly controlled by the two major parties.
We used to have "debates",
back when they were sponsored by the League of Women Voters,
but both major Parties decided that the questions were too hard.
Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984.[5] In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:
[font size=3]" The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."[/font]
According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates
[font size=3]" The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."[/font]
According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates
Kudos to The League of Women Voters for "no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
Now THERE is an organization I can STAND with proudly.
What once were called "debates" have fallen to the level of mild infotainment
complete with Gotcha Journalism more concerned with the best One Liners than actual policy or substantive differences between the two parties.
What is MORE important to the American citizen is NOT what was discussed in these faux "debates",
but what major issues were AVOIDED or IGNORED, because the Two parties absolutely AGREE 100%.
These would be issues like:
*The destruction of the Working Class in America
*The Plight of the Poor
*The erosion of Constitutionally protected Civil Liberties
*The expanding powers of the "Unitary Executive"
*Privatized Prisons
*Privatized ANYTHING that used to be in The Commons
*The negative effects of so called "Free Trade" and the mythological "Free Market"
*Blowback from the "War on Terror"
*the growing disparity of WEALTH in America
*"Too Big to Fail"
*Support or Demonization of the emerging Transparent Democracies in Latin America
*Black Box Voting & verifiable Elections
*The Failed War on Drugs
*Out of Control Military Spending
...does anybody remember ANY of the above important issues discussed in the 2012 Presidential Debates? ALL of the above affect every single American every single day, but none of the above were "debate" issues between the two major parties.
It is easy to become distracted by parsing out What was Said,
but more difficult to discern what was NOT said because BOTH Parties agree 100%, especially when "they" control all aspects of the "debates".
Its not that important anyway.
Its ONLY our Democracy that is at stake here.
You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
GOP to Boycott Presidential Debates Over Clinton Programs (by unanimous voice vote) [View all]
big_dog
Aug 2013
OP
There is a God! Won't have to listen to their moderator, Rush the bigoted blowhard!
freshwest
Aug 2013
#44
In a normal world they would request that a similar program be aired for their guy....
Spitfire of ATJ
Aug 2013
#29
"the party would consider holding its 2016 nominating convention in June or July, rather than August
KamaAina
Aug 2013
#17
"Holy shizz! We better keep our candidates off TV or we'll lose another election!"
struggle4progress
Aug 2013
#19
Excellent. A sign at the other podium stating "Missing in Action", and a real Democrat or two,
jtuck004
Aug 2013
#22
I didn't think the GOP had any feet left to shoot off, but I guess I was wrong. eom
99th_Monkey
Aug 2013
#27
Good! But I wonder how the next group of Republican rodeo clowns will feel about the
notadmblnd
Aug 2013
#32
We will still get to see clips from the Republican primary debates won't we?
A Simple Game
Aug 2013
#33