Community | August 27, 2012 | 48 comments

Why League of Women Voters calls presidential debates "frauds" !

Image
kennymotown
For you younger voters and those of you new to the Corporate Political Kabuki Theatre, things used to be different when the League of Women Voters ran the Presidential debates. Now we get the Presidential Debate Commission running the show and making people believe this is some Federal Commission when actually it is the Democratic Corporate Party and the Republican Corporate Party agreeing to not have a real debate with even with a 3rd Party or 4th Party participating. I bet you can see within this article the disgust echoed by the League of Women Voters as to the take over of our National Election process.

This article from 2007 is really quite revealing and explains the takeover in 1988 of another piece of our freedom to decide!

I'm listening to the CNN-Youtube GOP debate right now and I'm pretty disgusted. This is not a debate, this is a media sham. How did we get here, I wondered. What happened to the tough debates hosted by the League of Women Voters?

Apparently, LWV saw this coming a mile away. Check out their press release from 1988 explaning why they bowed out of the process (bolded emphasis mine):

October 3, 1988

LEAGUE REFUSES TO "HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD"

WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

WASHINGTON, DC —"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter," League President Nancy M. Neuman said today.

"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 honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

Neuman said that 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" and vas presented to the League as "a done deal," she said, its 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.

Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings. Neuman called "outrageous" the campaigns' demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues.

"The campaigns' agreement is a closed-door masterpiece," Neuman said. "Never in the history of the League of Women Voters have two candidates' organizations come to us with such stringent, unyielding and self-serving demands."

Neuman said she and the League regretted that the American people have had no real opportunities to judge the presidential nominees outside of campaign-controlled environments.

"On the threshold of a new millenium, this country remains the brightest hope for all who cherish free speech and open debate," Neuman said. "Americans deserve to see and hear the men who would be president face each other in a debate on the hard and complex issues critical to our progress into the next century."

Neuman issued a final challenge to both Vice President Bush and Governor Dukakis to "rise above your handlers and agree to join us in presenting the fair and full discussion the American public expects of a League of Women Voters debate."

Source: League of Women Voters

It's me again. This problem is obviously not specific to the Republicans. Anyone following the Dem's debates will see the same "controlled" conditions.

So with the 3 Presidential Debated looming and 1 VP Debate still to come, realize these
debates are nothing like a real debate, just more Kabuki Theatre!
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   WTF,   US Politics,   24 more
  2. tags:
  3.     
    |

48 comments // Why League of Women Voters calls presidential debates "frauds" !

  • KC_Ted
    • +1
      KC_Ted  
    • With so few differences between Romney and Obama, on the truly critical issues, what will be left to debate on? Gay marriage? If the trees are the right height? Meanwhile, the US dollar is on the verge of collapse.

      Heaven forbid allowing someone like Gary Johnson in. Even though he has twice as much experience as Mitt, having served 2 terms (leaving office with the people pleased) compared to Mitt's single term (leaving office with the people not pleased).

      Maybe the League can put some pressure on the process. It has become quite rigged, much the the entire Dem and Repub nomination processes.

    • 9 months ago
  • Pat_Southward
    • +1
      Pat_Southward  
    • The League is still going strong -- several lawsuits re new voter suppression laws and lots of action on the local level. But we need more worker bees (who doesn't?) and ESPECIALLY people under 40 with tech talent. Find your local League and join and pitch in to help.

    • 9 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • Tayllerand
  • thedirtman
    • +3
      thedirtman  
    • What we need is an independent media that would allow the League of Women Voters to sponsor a debate and invite all the candidates. Does anyone know of a media outlet like that?

    • 9 months ago
  • progressivecpa
  • artemis6
  • warman1138
  • youngdebater
  • Leen61
    • +5
      Leen61  
    • The debates are dog and pony shows just like the conventions. Nothing of substance is ever discussed or debated. SSDD. I do love the Legue of Women Voters, though.

    • 9 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • Ricky84
    • +3
      Ricky84  
    • It's only a matter of time before we start seeing strategically placed commercial products like Coke bottles an ipads at presidential debates. The politicians, the media, and the parties do not respect the American people and are more interested in making money from us than anything else.

    • 9 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • Ricky84
  • kennymotown
  • savroD
  • kennymotown
  • jubal
    • +5
      jubal  
    • All the presidential debates are geared as marketing gimmicks they aren't dealing with any substantive issues whatsoever. They are a way to control public discourse while billionaire corporational entities market you their products. In this case they are candidates, but there is no real differences between them...they are crooks and liars.

    • 9 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • Jim_Moyer_Sr_
    • +4
      Jim_Moyer_Sr_  
    • ..did these people just figure this out or just now verbalizing it, its been a fraud for years. repub and demacrat is bull sh#t.it just a front for the greater good of the one world order . old man bush kept advocating it and knew it is on the way .NOW!!!!HERE IT IS. two puppets that say the same old shit and do NOTHING,,,oh the do nothing is for us we the people the do or implemented the agenda of the the builderburgers. YOU BETTER BE READY FOR THE FIGHT OF YOUR LIFE!!! its coming soon very soon..

    • 9 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • SIBob
    • +5
      SIBob  
    • Politics is like the squealing pig commercial, attention grabbing with no substance. What they should really do is put the two candidates on a lie detector machine. When the chart shows they are lying, and the audience agrees by online voting, we get to administer shock treatment. Or, we can "Trump" them with a "your fired". It won't solve our problems but at least we get to give back some of the pain they are giving to us.
      But like George Carlin said, if you took the BS out of our system, it would probably collapse. (But then we would get to rebuild it, and if we don't go through a Mel Gibson Mad Max phase, maybe things will get better.)

    • 9 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • SIBob
  • kennymotown
  • artemis6
  • kennymotown
  • Incredulous
  • kennymotown
  • Incredulous
  • kennymotown
  • cw9000
  • kennymotown
  • jimstoner
    • +5
      jimstoner  
    • Nice post Kenny. I do however take offence to the idea that America is the only reason other citizens of the world embrace free speech and democracy.

      “On the threshold of a new millennium, this country remains the brightest hope for all who cherish free speech and open debate.” No, you're not.

      The fact is most people in the rest of the industrialized world will have free speech and democracy long after America is a far right disaster. Do Americans actually think the rest of us are just waiting for our chance to end our freedoms the minute you lose yours? Are we all going to say “Thank the dictators that experiment is over. The Americans have lost their right to free speech so we have to give up ours too. America is no longer a democracy so the rest of us can’t be either.”

      I know you don’t think this way Kenny, but for some reason a lot of Americans do. What the rest of the world does with their rights and freedoms has nothing to do with whether you have those rights and freedoms or not. We live right next door to you folks and already have more personal freedoms than you do. I can’t see that changing no matter how far off the right wing cliff you go.

      Make no mistake, putting the fix into Presidential debates is a right wing thing to do no matter who is doing it. Far right conservatives or right of center Democrats.

    • 9 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • MSII
    • +5
      MSII  
    • jimstoner:

      Well said I agree. I expect better saner countries will (and already do) have excellent Democracies well after amerika has finally completed it's descent into full one-party-right-wing-corporate-FASCIST-police-state rule.

    • 9 months ago
  • alexandrekBack
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • kennymotown
  • remanns
  • kennymotown
    • +5
      kennymotown  
    • So when watching this years debates take into consideration these two Corporate Party's staged events. No real questions, No real debate, just another way of protecting the Elites two Candidates! Have fun watching the phony Debates this year and read between the lines if you can!

    • 9 months ago
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +5
      Varex_Sythe  
    • kennymotown:

      If you haven't seen it yet, I suggest watching "An Unreasonable Man."

      It is a documentary about Ralph Nader. Roughly the first half of the movie is about Ralph Nader's life and career prior to the 2000 election, and the other half is about the 2000 election. What is interesting is that the movie does not show a particularly imbalanced view either supporting or criticizing Nader, but has elements from both sides. A very important point that was brought up in the movie though BY Nader is the fact that the people who decide who participate in the Presidential debates are not the news agencies or some publicly run commit tie, but the Republican and Democratic parties.

    • 9 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • MSII
    • +6
      MSII  
    • kennymotown:

      I probably won't watch them, they are about as interesting in their current form as watching "reality" t.v, about as truthful, about as worthwhile. I expect they'll not talk about the most important issues, the growing gap between the 1%er-scum and the REAL CITIZENS, the increasing corporate-FASCIST takeover, the growing poverty, the mad-wars, etc... as neither party wants to talk about these things.

    • 9 months ago
  • MSII
  • artemis6
  • kennymotown
  • Incredulous

top videos