Zaino: Does the Commission on Presidental Debates need a shake-up?

[kathy88]

h xtp://newyork.newsday.com/opinion/zaino-does-the-commission-on-presidental-debates-need-a-shake-up-1.4070789

I eagerly clicked this article, thinking, "Good! Let's talk about this. They need to open up these debates to more candidates..."

Imagine my fucking surprise when the article goes blathering on about how there are not enough women/minorities/conservative MODERATORS.

This country is FUBAR

[nobody's_hero]

It needs to be abolished, not shaken up.

[kathy88]

Bump for some love. Doesn't this piss you off?

[havox112]

Bump for some love. Doesn't this piss you off?

One thing government should have control over. Having a private corporation decide which candidates get into TV debates is ludicrous.

Although I wouldn't trust the government to do a good job, it would make more sense to have election issues be brought up with the government.

[Brian4Liberty]

It needs to be abolished, not shaken up.

Or disregarded.


One thing government should have control over. Having a private corporation decide which candidates get into TV debates is ludicrous.

Although I wouldn't trust the government to do a good job, it would make more sense to have election issues be brought up with the government.

It would be nice to have a fair and unbiased process. Can the government do that? Doubtful, considering it's bipartisan composition.

[kathy88]

I guess the point I was trying to make is the article headline talks about "shaking Up the commission. BUT the ARTICLE is about putting more women/minorities/conservatives in MODERATOR positions. Nothing about the unfairness to CANDIDATES. I shouldn't be surprised at people having opinions without reading the article, though.

[Brian4Liberty]

Contact sponsors:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391470-Two-Sponsors-Quit-Presidential-Debate-due-to-Johnson-Exclusion

[acptulsa]

Yeah, 'cause a diet of pure propaganda just seems so much more nutritious when it comes in multiple colors and flavors.

[DeMintConservative]

One thing government should have control over. Having a private corporation decide which candidates get into TV debates is ludicrous.

Although I wouldn't trust the government to do a good job, it would make more sense to have election issues be brought up with the government.

Amazing.

With this and Jesse Ventura statements on Cuba, I'm starting to believe a bit in those who claim many Ron Paul "libertarians" are anti-free market demagogues who are marxists by heart who still don't know it.

Is there any law preventing anyone from organizing debates with whichever candidates they want (and are willing to go)? No? Great.

The idea that the government can do a better job is mind bogging. And we need less government interference in elections too. For starters, end up any type of public financing for campaigns, plus the idiotic limits on campaign contributions and the accompanying loopholes that allow the Byzantine and bizarre system of PACs we currently have.

[Brian4Liberty]

Amazing.

With this and Jesse Ventura statements on Cuba, I'm starting to believe a bit in those who claim many Ron Paul "libertarians" are anti-free market demagogues who are marxists by heart who still don't know it.

Is there any law preventing anyone from organizing debates with whichever candidates they want (and are willing to go)? No? Great.

The idea that the government can do a better job is mind bogging. And we need less government interference in elections too. For starters, end up any type of public financing for campaigns, plus the idiotic limits on campaign contributions and the accompanying loopholes that allow the Byzantine and bizarre system of PACs we currently have.

On the other hand, the argument could be made that the "government" at some point has to minimally print a ballot with candidates names on it. And a ballot usually comes with some kind of Voter Guide, including candidate statements. It would not be terribly out of line to make that Voter Guide in the form of a website, and possibly a C-Span event of some kind. Maybe give each candidate 10 minutes to make their case, in a C-Span studio. Video Voter Guides. And the criteria would be simple, inclusion on the Ballot means you get to make your case.

[DeMintConservative]

On the other hand, the argument could be made that the "government" at some point has to minimally print a ballot with candidates names on it. And a ballot usually comes with some kind of Voter Guide, including candidate statements. It would not be terribly out of line to make that Voter Guide in the form of a website, and possibly a C-Span event of some kind. Maybe give each candidate 10 minutes to make their case, in a C-Span studio. Video Voter Guides. And the criteria would be simple, inclusion on the Ballot means you get to make your case.

Voter guides should be abolished - but those are state issues.

I certainly don't want the government deciding what C-Span should broadcast or not. The idea that candidates who make the ballot would start having free media time mandated by the government is terrifying. I'm baffled stuff like this is consistently defended in a supposedly small government site.

[Brian4Liberty]

Voter guides should be abolished - but those are state issues.

I certainly don't want the government deciding what C-Span should broadcast or not. The idea that candidates who make the ballot would start having free media time mandated by the government is terrifying. I'm baffled stuff like this is consistently defended in a supposedly small government site.

So how exactly are you proposing elections be carried out? Give everyone a blank piece of paper?

[acptulsa]

Voter guides should be abolished - but those are state issues.

I certainly don't want the government deciding what C-Span should broadcast or not. The idea that candidates who make the ballot would start having free media time mandated by the government is terrifying. I'm baffled stuff like this is consistently defended in a supposedly small government site.

It's simple. Oversight of government is good, and for some reason we just don't trust the government with the task.

Laws demanding transparency, equal access for rich and poor, and general restrictions in and on government aren't the same thing as such laws aimed at private enterprise. Like, for example, the former is 'small government' and the latter is 'big government'. See the difference now?

Restrict government, get small government. Restrict other stuff, get big government. This really isn't a difficult concept.

[DeMintConservative]

So how exactly are you proposing elections be carried out? Give everyone a blank piece of paper?

Huh? I'm fine with the state government organizing elections. I think they should cut on stuff like Voters Guides.

I'm totally against public financing, including matching, funds and certainly against more federal government interference, as it's been proposed here.

I mean, the government mandating tv channels to give candidates air time? Fairness doctrine comeback? C'mon. Same for tv debates.

Don't worry, if there's a legitimate 3rd party candidate, he'll be there. Ross Perot was there. John B. Anderson was there. Heck, Carter refused to be on stage with Anderson and the networks decided to carry the debate between Reagan and Carter. The idea that Carter should be forced by the government to attend a debate with Anderson - or networks should be forced to broadcast it - is flat out creepy.

[DeMintConservative]

...

[DeMintConservative]

It's simple. Oversight of government is good, and for some reason we just don't trust the government with the task.

Laws demanding transparency, equal access for rich and poor, and general restrictions in and on government aren't the same thing as such laws aimed at private enterprise. Like, for example, the former is 'small government' and the latter is 'big government'. See the difference now?

Restrict government, get small government. Restrict other stuff, get big government. This really isn't a difficult concept.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Any laws that want to restrict the networks and candidates decisions about the tv debates are, by definition, an expansion of government powers and a restriction on private parties decision-making. Just like a candidate suing under the socialist anti-trust laws is behaving like a totalitarian freak.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Skip to 2:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXZNFTVzD_w

[havox112]

Huh? I'm fine with the state government organizing elections. I think they should cut on stuff like Voters Guides.

I'm totally against public financing, including matching, funds and certainly against more federal government interference, as it's been proposed here.

I mean, the government mandating tv channels to give candidates air time? Fairness doctrine comeback? C'mon. Same for tv debates.

Don't worry, if there's a legitimate 3rd party candidate, he'll be there. Ross Perot was there. John B. Anderson was there. Heck, Carter refused to be on stage with Anderson and the networks decided to carry the debate between Reagan and Carter. The idea that Carter should be forced by the government to attend a debate with Anderson - or networks should be forced to broadcast it - is flat out creepy.

I agree as well that government should not use public finance/fund matching for any candidate, even the president.

Mandating TV stations to give candidates air time sounds bad and probably isn't my endgame method to solve this. Also I'm not supporting that candidates be forced to attend government mandates debates.

Anyways, I would like to see a commission on presidential debates catered to all the third party groups where they could at least all get together, and raise enough funds to have air time so they can have a debate on major TV stations. But why the third party groups haven't gotten together to make this idea happen is beyond me.

Not trying to have government top down control, but why aren't the third parties banding together and working to get some primetime TV debate spots? (Not controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates)

[SneakyFrenchSpy]

Skip to 2:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXZNFTVzD_w

That video should be spread everywhere. Anyone still drinking Budweiser products? Absolutely disgusting!

[acptulsa]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Any laws that want to restrict the networks and candidates decisions about the tv debates are, by definition, an expansion of government powers and a restriction on private parties decision-making. Just like a candidate suing under the socialist anti-trust laws is behaving like a totalitarian freak.

Any law that gives private parties decision-making capability that affects government substantively gives that private party governmental-level power. Now, last I checked, people give government certain powers because they feel those powers cannot be entrusted to private hands. You keep trying to push my libertarian buttons and get me to say that private power is always good because governmental power is coercion. Thing is, governmental power is coercion, and governmental power controlled by private groups is coercion in unelected hands.

The politician whose opposition goes unnamed because the media exercises its 'right' to ignore them is the only one in a position to truly behave like a totalitarian freak. The others don't have that luxury. You don't defend Tass or Pravda. Does it really matter if you have totalitarianism because the government owns the media or because the corporations that own the media own the government? Really?

[nobody's_hero]

Any law that gives private parties decision-making capability that affects government substantively gives that private party governmental-level power. Now, last I checked, people give government certain powers because they feel those powers cannot be entrusted to private hands. You keep trying to push my libertarian buttons and get me to say that private power is always good because governmental power is coercion. Thing is, governmental power is coercion, and governmental power controlled by private groups is coercion in unelected hands.

+rep. I hate socialism with a passion. But if someone held a gun to my head and forced me to choose between full-blown socialism or corporatism (more accurately,facism, (noun) the merger of industry and state), I wouldn't hesitate to choose full-blown socialism.

Why?

Because corporatism, as Ron Paul defines it, is what gives true capitalism a bad name. Lots of people in this country look at companies like Goldman Sachs and say, "Oh these are bad capitalists." Nothing could be further from the truth. These are people with inside connections with the government to obtain special favors that are not available to others in a 'competitive, free-market' (which we do not have).

At least with full-blown socialism, you know who to blame, since the government controls everything. With facism, government gets practically no scrutiny and instead, all our woes are blamed on 'capitalism' or 'the private sector' (which, in turn, drives the call for more government control; a vicious cycle). Republicans who perpetuate the policy of corporate favoritism in Washington are actually, in my opinion, more damaging to the reputation of the free-market than Democrats who advocate full government control.