David Broder Tells the Truth, Then Runs Correction!

[luisao]

First, I'm a newbie and posted this in another section and had a flamer drive away any intelligent discussion. I see rules to prevent that on this board, so I'm trying here. Apologies for not justposting here.

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 (CDC). 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

Anyway url for more on the Citizens' Debates plans: <http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/citizens_debate_commissio... > and documentation of issues excluded from the 2000 debates <http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/debates_exclusion_issues.... >

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) and urge Kerry to pledge his support. I don't believe scaremongers that claim the risk of Nader participating (I doubt he'll meet even the CDC criteria this year) means democracy should take a back seat to beating Bush. I believe the goals are synchronous. Do you agree?
Luisa

[alcuno]

1. Welcome to DU

Many here are doubtful that there will even be a debate. I need to read this more closely.

[Cocoa]

2. backburner issue for me this time

I've heard Nader on quite a few talk shows, and he doesn't have much substance to offer, what he had to say has been mostly about process, which I'm not all that interested in lately.

I think Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton were a good model of the democratic party being the home of progressives.

[John_H]

3. folks may have been reacting to an unspoken point

Which is perhaps that you want to see Nader included in the debates (If so, why not just say it?). I have no problem with Nader joining the debates as long as he meets a bare-minimum threshold. Eight percent average in national polls and being on the ballot in enough states to have a shot at an electoral win.

Certainly you'd agree that that threshold is exceedingly generous to third party candfidates.

[SoCalDem]

4. There are so many things wrong with the debates..

First of all... they are NOT debates.. They are glorified soundbyte fests.. The "questioners" are only there for self-aggrandizement and to get their dumb question echoed in the cable screamfests..

They have no intention of finding out where the candidates actually stand..They only are out to "catch them" in a fib, or to humiliate them..

Each candidate should just stand there and lay out their plan for america, and that's IT..

-----------------------------------------------------------------

As for THIS presidential debate.... there will be an "emergency" that will prevent him from attending..