Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search

 


Stateside with Rosalea: Not the any o'clock news


Stateside with Rosalea: 2004 Presidential Election

Not the any o'clock news

By Rosalea Barker

Whenever George Will - a conservative commentator on ABC's 'This Week' - says something self-deprecating about the US I catch a whiff of Eau de Rat. Like any scriptwriter - and what are these talking heads doing but writing the script for the way people will view the news - he knows the value of setting up a story in advance.

Will's commentary this morning was to do with how the English language might be perceived as having been run over by a musical comedy with the American usage of the word "debate". He was referring to the debates between the nine would-be Democratic presidential candidates, and showed a couple of photos of them lined up on stage and all together for a group photo.

Ostensibly, he was lamenting the fact that "debates" are no such thing and never have been since the first televised ones between Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960. The most famous presidential debates - those between Lincoln and Douglas in 1858 - had argument and rebuttal times that were in the half to one-and-a-half hour time frame.

By decrying the shortness of time that candidates now use to present their arguments, Will seems to be making a perfectly sensible point. He asks if the public has such a short attention span it can't deal with anything more than a minute from the candidates. But the real message was those pictures of a crowd of candidates wanting to speak.

What George Will didn't mention was that on 17 June a group of third party candidates and their parties from across the political spectrum joined together to file a legal complaint with the Federal Election Commission to block the Commission on Presidential Debates from sponsoring, with corporate backing, the presidential debates in 2004. The complaint stems from the CPD's use of a "face-book" showing photographs of people who would not be admitted as audience members to the 2000 debate in Boston.

Audience members, right? It wasn't just that were excluded from participating in the debate - they weren't even allowed in the venue. The complainants are the Natural Law Party, the Green Party of the United States, the Constitution Party, their respective 2000 presidential candidates, the Greens' 2000 vice presidential candidate Winona LaDuke, and the Reform Party's 2000 presidential candidate Pat Buchanan.

The full press release is at http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=112-06172003. A Sunday morning Google search of the news using the term "CPD complaint" brings back only 15 stories, two of them about police departments beginning with "C", and most of the rest repeats of the wire story the Associated Press put out. ABC News on the internet was one of the sites that carried the story last Tuesday, but I haven't been watching telly this week so I can't say if it made any television news bulletins.

According to a media release on its website, the Commission on Presidential Debates is "the non-partisan, non-profit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization that sponsored all the general election presidential and vice presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000." The CPD accepts no money from the government or political parties and it finances its debates entirely through private contributions.

Its selection criteria for including candidates in the 2000 election debates were 1) that they were eligible under the US Constitution, 2) that each had his or her name appearing on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority, and 3) that the candidate had a level of at least 15 percent support in the national electorate. The level of support was determined by averaging the results of polls done by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News (and their related print and/or polling company partners).

If the minor parties succeed in their suit - particularly in the part that requires the CPD to return the millions of dollars of corporate sponsorships that paid for the 2000 presidential debates - the case will become big news. Remember, the complainants aren't challenging their exclusion as participants in the debates - which resulted from a failure to meet the 15 percent popularity threshold - they're challenging whether the CPD is meeting its own criteria of being non-partisan.

On a more international note in the minor party newswires this week, came one entitled: Pull the plug on Congressional inquiry into Iraq's weapons. "Surprise! It appears that another US leader has manipulated facts and exaggerated threats in order to whip up war hysteria," said Joe Sheehusen, executive director of the Libertarian Party, which staunchly opposed the invasion of Iraq. "Do we really need a congressional hearing to discover that politicans are adept at using words as weapons of mass deception?"

He then goes on to list a few specific "examples of U.S. leaders lying our country into war" - such as the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin that led to Congress authorising Lyndon Johnson's use of military force in Vietnam. Sheehusen urges voters to keep in mind that last October, 296 Representatives and 77 Senators voted in favour of a resolution supporting the invasion of Iraq. "So every one of these individuals is just as responsible as Bush for the consequences of that decision - and convening a hearing won't change that."

There are many people within both the Democratic and Republican parties who were just as opposed to the invasion of Iraq as the smaller political parties, and I suspect their numbers and their discontent is growing exponentially with every passing day that nothing of any consequnce is achieved in the region except the further enflaming of anti-US sentiment. I don't know how this will affect the Republican field for the 2004 presidential election, but later this coming week you can see its effect on the Democratic candidates at http//www.moveon.org when the results of that organisation's on-line primary election are announced.

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 

Werewolf: Living With Rio’s Olympic Ruins

Mariana Cavalcanti Critics of the Olympic project can point a discernible pattern in the delivery of Olympics-related urban interventions: the belated but rushed inaugurations of faulty and/or unfinished infrastructures... More>>

Live Blog On Now: Open Source//Open Society Conference

The second annual Open Source Open Society Conference is a 2 day event taking place on 22-23 August 2016 at Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington… Scoop is hosting a live blog summarising the key points of this exciting conference. More>>

ALSO:

Buildup:

Gordon Campbell: On The Politicising Of The War On Drugs In Sport

It hasn’t been much fun at all to see how “war on drugs in sport” has become a proxy version of the Cold War, fixated on Russia. This weekend’s banning of the Russian long jumper Darya Klishina took that fixation to fresh extremes. More>>

ALSO:

Binoy Kampmark: Kevin Rudd’s Failed UN Secretary General Bid

Few sights are sadder in international diplomacy than seeing an aging figure desperate for honours. In a desperate effort to net them, he scurries around, cultivating, prodding, wishing to be noted. Finally, such an honour is netted, in all likelihood just to shut that overly keen individual up. More>>

Open Source / Open Society: The Scoop Foundation - An Open Model For NZ Media

Access to accurate, relevant and timely information is a crucial aspect of an open and transparent society. However, in our digital society information is in a state of flux with every aspect of its creation, delivery and consumption undergoing profound redefinition... More>>

Keeping Out The Vote: Gordon Campbell On The US Elections

I’ll focus here on just two ways that dis-enfranchisement is currently occurring in the US: (a) by the rigging of the boundary lines for voter districts and (b) by demanding elaborate photo IDs before people are allowed to cast their vote. More>>

Ramzy Baroud: Being Black Palestinian - Solidarity As A Welcome Pathology

It should come as no surprise that the loudest international solidarity that accompanied the continued spate of the killing of Black Americans comes from Palestine; that books have already been written and published by Palestinians about the plight of their Black brethren. In fact, that solidarity is mutual. More>>

ALSO:


Get More From Scoop

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news