Debate
by digby
This is long overdue:
The Open Debate Coalition has three primary objectives: (1) Make raw footage of the debates part of the public domain, so that journalists, bloggers, and citizens can access it without concerns about a major network slamming them with a copyright suit. (2) Allow citizens to vote for questions in advance using the internet, so that town halls aren’t conducted at the whim of a moderator. And (3) reform or replace the Commission on Presidential Debates, a group which declines to make information on its funders public and has not released the debate rules to which both presidential campaigns have reportedly agreed.
This is not a commission that holds itself to iron-clad ethics rules. Anheuser-Busch has sponsored the presidential debates in every cycle since 1996 — as a result, its hometown, St. Louis, has hosted at least one debate in all but one of the last five presidential elections. Reports the Center for Public Integrity, “For its $550,000 contribution in 2000, the beer company was permitted to distribute pamphlets against taxes on beer at the event.”
While seeking sunlight is never easy, the Open Debate Coalition would be excused for thinking they have an ace up their sleeve: the support of presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain. Both candidates have written letters (here’s Obama’s; here’s McCain’s) expressing support for the coalition’s ideals.
So far, no luck. But the members of the coalition aren’t giving up — they see a future where debates bear no resemblance to the ones we have today, which, should anyone need reminding, are essentially identical to the ones held between presidential candidates 25 years ago. “2008 will likely be the last year that the Commission on Presidential Debates will exist as we know it,” Adam Green, Director of Strategic Campaigns for MoveOn.org Political Action, told me. “In the future, voters will demand interactions with the candidates that are democratic, transparent, and accountable to the public.”
These debates have become a media entertainment event along the lines of American Idol finals where who “won” is determined by spin and bullshit marketing devices. They are not helping our democratic processes.
One thing I would demand of the new debate sponsors (whoever they end up being) — refuse to allow the networks to feature this ridiculous “spin room,” “expert commentary” that colors the reaction to the debates before people even have a chance to absorb what happened. I don’t know what mechanism they can use, but without that I’m not sure what purpose debates even serve except as backdrop for conventional wisdom.
Debate drinking game tonight:
One shot for the word “bipartisan.”
A whole bottle for the words “Ayres” or “Wright.”
Update:
Oh Jesus.
ACORN is destroying the fabric of democracy.
I just cracked the tequila. And that’s not going to be pretty.
.