A letter to the Presidential Hopefuls

Dear Senators Obama and McCain;
I am severely disappointed in you and your campaign slogans. I am ashamed by you and your actions and activities during this "race" for the presidency. I need look no further than the second presidential debate for proof of your deliberate attempts to avoid sharing your beliefs and positions on the most important issues of the day.
Both of you are running on some type of change rhetoric. Mr. Obama, you use change as your campaign slogan. Mr. McCain, you use the maverick moniker. And yet you maintain the status quo during the Presidential debates. The debates and the style to which you subject the American people are bland, boring, and useless for the purpose for which the debate was designed. Why did you both sign the secret agreement to deprive the American public of their ability to make an informed decision? Why is that agreement still secret? What have you to hide? Mr. Obama, are you ashamed of some of your positions? Mr. Maverick, are you afraid to lose on the issues?
A man who supports American public interest would not have deliberately regulated the market of ideas by restricting the debate to only the two major parties. A man who supports American public interests would not have eliminated dialogue from the debate; limiting it to monologues on premeditated talking points. A man who supports American public interests would have rebuked not only the opposition party, but also his own party to allow the American people to make an informed choice. But you have proven that you are not men who support American public interests. You are pusillanimous mice interested in protecting your image and that of your party.
Since both of you would like us to look at history, let us look at presidential debate history. Recall that the presidential debate is a recent development on the national stage. The first televised presidential debate was in 1960 between JFK and Nixon. It was a debacle for Nixon and he refused to debate on TV again. Debates did not become a permanent part of the road to the presidency until 1976. Before that, the presidential candidates could and would decide not to debate for political reasons (Nixon was famous for ducking the debate). It was not until 1976 that a regular debate was set up by The League of Women Voters. In 1980 Jimmy Carter refused to attend the first debate because of the inclusion of the independent candidate John Anderson. Their debates were generally considered fair but trying for the candidates (You can see the debates hosted by the LWV here). The downfall of the LWV was that they are strictly nonpartisan. They did not (and still do not) identify with any one party, which means they are very tolerant of the third party candidates. They provided the American people with a valuable service for three debates, until 1987, when they released this statement;

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debates . . . because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. 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 answers to tough questions. The league has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.''

Into the void stepped the Commission on Presidential Debates, a "nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporations." This group has hosted all the debates after the LWV withdrew their support. It should be noted that "nonpartisan" should be read bipartisan, as no third party voice has been involved. The LWV at least tried to include third parties but the two main parties would refuse to participate. It is evident in the mission statements of both the LWV and the CPD to see the differences between the two entities
I think that it is useful to remind the senators of the sponsors of the CPD. Included are several multinational corporations, a wealthy Washington lawyer, and a National Security interest group. There is something to be said for following the money, but there will be time for that another day.
So I guess it comes down to simply walking the walk and talking the talk, senators, if I may paraphrase Senator McCain. Both of you talk incessantly about fighting the status quo; you preach change or reiterate your maverick pedigree. You talk that talk, but when given the opportunity to walk the walk, you sulk away. Here is a difficult question that you won't be asked in any debate. How will you change that?

The VP Debate Blog Assignment

So the VP debate was last night. It was an interesting debate to watch, if not to hear. What are various groups and people thinking about it though? We do not have time to watch this debate, so today we will go compare the positions of some of the different editorials out there. Click on two of the following links, one from the Left, one from the Right.

From the Left
Mother Jones
The Nation
The New Republic

From the Right
The American Spectator
The National Review
Townhall

Now go to your blog and compare and contrast the two articles you read. Be sure that you have a link to both articles so that your readers can see where your position came from.

If you get done early, it is worth poking around some of those sites because these are not the only stories and editorials that they have.