An October glimpse of American spring? - Postscript

I call B.S. on America's mainstream media.

On Tuesday, CNN.com ran a story by Tom Cohen with the headline, "Campaign enters final stretch as Obama takes final debate."

Here's the opening:

"Three debates down. Two weeks of campaigning to go.

President Barack Obama put Republican challenger Mitt Romney on the defensive on foreign policy in the final presidential debate Monday night, with analysts and an immediate poll giving Obama the victory."

That is B.S.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post's coverage of Monday night's Obama-Romney debate included a piece by Dan Balz and David Nakamura, with this headline: "Obama keeps Romney on his heels in last debate."

The Balz/Nakamura story includes this paragraph:

"The final debate concluded a gripping series of encounters between the two candidates that shook up the campaign as dramatically as any recent series of debates. Romney used the first debate to greatest advantage with an aggressive performance that contrasted to a lackluster evening for the president. Obama rebounded in the second debate, which was marked by sharp and testy exchanges between the two candidates, but not so much as to reverse the gains Romney had made."

That, too, is B.S.

The New York Times' Tuesday editorial, headlined "The final debate," opened thusly:

"Mitt Romney has nothing really coherent or substantive to say about domestic policy, but at least he can sound energetic and confident about it. On foreign policy, the subject of Monday night’s final presidential debate, he had little coherent to say and often sounded completely lost. That’s because he has no original ideas of substance on most world issues, including Syria, Iran and Afghanistan."

B.S., B.S., B.S.

These stories are all B.S. for one simple reason: Monday night's debate was not the last debate. It was not the final debate. More explicitly, it was not the final debate between presidential candidates. On Tuesday night, 24 hours after the debate that mainstream media called "last" and "final," there was another presidential debate, moderated by Larry King and featuring, not two, but FOUR presidential candidates: Rocky Anderson (Justice Party), Virgil Goode Jr. (Constitutional Party), Gov. Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), and Jill Stein (Green Party).

Tuesday night's debate was sponsored by Free and Equal Elections, a nonprofit whose stated mission is "to reform federal, state and local elections, making it easier for candidates to get on ballots and ensure all ballot qualified candidates are included in various forums and debates."

Monday night's debate was sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonprofit formed by the Republican and Democrat parties.

I won't rehash what I've already written about the history of presidential debates, and the CPD's exclusion of third-party candidates. The point of this post is to note the degree to which the press has cooperated with them in that exclusion, with the result being B.S.

On a purely journalistic level, describing Monday night's meeting between Messrs. Obama and Romney as the last or final presidential debate when there was a presidential debate happening Tuesday night, is inexcusably sloppy.

Now get this: after Tuesday night's debate, Free and Equal Elections asked for a vote on who should participate in a SECOND debate. The top two candidates will square off next Tuesday, October 30, at 9 pm Eastern, in Washington DC.

Don't expect to view that debate, or to learn about it, by way of media who have already said that Monday's debate was the "last" or "final" one. But you can prepare to view it bookmarking Free and Equal.

Meanwhile, here is what you missed Tuesday night. Please notice that not only does this debate feature candidates you may not have heard of - it also includes questions, from everyday people, that journalists seem afraid to ask. (I will spare you a whole essay about questions that are not being asked in the CPD debates.)

Do you think these candidates (whether you agree with them or not) deserve to be heard? Do the questions here deserve to be asked?

An October glimpse of an American spring? - Part II

Title notwithstanding, I did not plan to write this piece.

On October 5, I wrote about how third-party candidates have been squeezed out of the presidential and vice-presidential debates since the League of Women Voters stopped sponsoring them in 1988. The League dropped its sponsorship in protest against an agreement between the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns that the League felt made the debates a fraud.

I have not yet seen that agreement, so I can't compare it to the current memorandum of understanding between the Obama and Romney campaigns.

With tonight's presidential debate, the pattern of exclusion continues. Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson was denied participation.

But what made me start typing was this: this afternoon, the arrest of Green Party presidential nominees Jill Stein was arrested, along with her running mate Cheri Honkala, as they sought to enter the debate grounds.

Actually, the police refused them entry, then arrested them for blocking traffic when they sat down...




It's an incredibly minor thing - two women sitting in the street and then getting carried off by police - except that...them being carried off means that the American people will not get to hear a presidential candidate tonight who, by the party's count, will appear on 85% of the ballots on election day.

That candidate's name, "Jill Stein," will appear, and the vast majority of Americans will never have heard of her, or of her running mate, "Cheri Honkala" They will have no idea what ideas these women offer, and thus no idea of whether or not they agree with them.

In a better-functioning America, the debates would give candidates who are not able to spend half a billion dollars the opportunity to be heard by the American people.

That's in a better-functioning America. But since we aren't in that America, what's a voter to do?

Well, after all of the hoopla has died down from tonight's debate, and from the one on October 22, this voter is going to head over to the Free & Equal Elections Foundation website on October 23, for a presidential debate between FOUR third-party candidates. The event will stream live beginning at 9 pm EDT.

I plan to do that not just because any candidate who makes it onto the ballot in most of the country deserves to be heard. I'm doing it because I deserve to hear them. I deserve to decide whether I think they're brilliant or nuts. I deserve that choice.

And so do you.

An October glimpse of an American spring?

I just realized that Wednesday was an important day in the history of presidential debates.

No, not because of anything Mitt Romney said about Big Bird or garage banks, or anything President Obama didn't say.

Wednesday was the anniversary of an event that made the debate between Messrs. Obama and Romney possible. And not in a good way.

On October 3, 1988, the League of Women Voters issued a press release saying that the group would no longer sponsor presidential debates.

To appreciate the importance of that announcement, you have to understand what led up to it.

The League sponsored presidential debates in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In those debates, the candidates were questioned by panels consisting of between three and six journalists, representing both print and broadcast media and a variety of political leanings.

The 1988 debates featured panels of journalists, as well; but behind the scenes, a major change had taken place.

In 1987, Democratic National Committee Chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. and Republican National Committee Chairman Frank H. Fahrenkopf, Jr. formed the Commission on Presidential Debates.

According to the commission's website, the CPD's mission is:

...to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates

In September 1988, the leadership of both the George H.W. Bush and the Michael Dukakis presidential campaigns presented the League of Women Voters with a "debate agreement," including a list of demands that would give the campaigns "unprecedented control over the proceedings," according to the League's press release.

The League, saying that they refused to help perpetrate fraud on the American people, withdrew its sponsorship of the debates. Since then, the CPD has been the sole sponsor of the debates.

And since then, these things have happened:

Third-party candidates have been denied participation in the debates. With the exception of Ross Perot n 1992, no third-party candidates have participated in any CPD-sponsored presidential debates - and in 2000, the organization created a rule that could prevent third-party candidates from ever doing so. As the Center for Public Integrity writes:

To debate, a candidate must now show an average of 15 percent support in five selected national public opinion polls prior to each debate.

That famously kept Green Party Ralph Nader out of the presidential debates in 2000, and has kept other third-party candidates from participating since then.

Third-party candidates have been denied attendance at the debates as audience members. The CPI piece details how in 2000, Ralph Nader, and in 2004 Libertarian nominee Michael Badnarik and Green Party nominee David Cobb were not allowed into the buildings where the debates were being held.

The panels of journalists have been replaced by a single moderator. The last debate featuring a panel was on October 19, 1992, when Gene Gibbons of Reuters, Helen Thomas of UPI and Susan Rook of CNN questioned the candidates.

In the 12 debates since then and prior to Wednesday, there has been a single moderator - in eight of them, Jim Lehrer.

Much has been made of Lehrer's performance (or non-performance) Wednesday night. But the question so many are asking - "Why did Jim Lehrer peform so poorly?" - misses the larger question that should be asked: "Why is there no panel?"

Reducing a field of candidates to two, and a panel of journalists to one, nearly guarantees a flattening of discourse that makes it easy for both the President and his challenger to ignore truly challenging questions. I, for one, wish that a journalist would ask both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney how they might end the so-called "War on Drugs," which has led to the U.S. imprisoning a greater proportion of its population than any other nation on earth.

The CPD is denying the American people the opportunity to hear from candidates whom a great many Americans will already vote for, and whom more might choose to vote for if they heard them. That may not be a crime, and it may not be a sin, but it's a low-down dirty shame.

However, just as Wednesday was the anniversary of the day when one could say that darkness fell on the debates, it also offered a glimpse of a new dawn.

On Wednesday night, thanks to the ethersphere, I was able to hear from three non-CPD-approved candidates: Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Justice Party nominee Rocky Anderson responded to Mr. Lehrer's questions at Democracy Now's website, and the Libertarian Party nominee, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, responded via Twitter.

Tracking all three of them, along with Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney, via two netbooks plus our TV, was pretty darn messy. But if my non-geek self managed, then the tools are definitely in place for expanding debates beyond the CPD borders.

Is an American spring brewing?