Do you remember back in 2012 when debate moderator Candy Crowley interrupted Mitt Romney for having his facts mixed up? There was a big brouhaha about that and it might have cost Crowley her job. It’s taboo in a debate for a moderator to challenge the veracity of a candidate, and it would become an absolute circus in 2016 with Donald Trump, who seems to be challenged in saying what actually happened in the past, what is happening now, and what might happen in the future.

But the biggest problem is getting a straight answer from candidates or their surrogates. When confronted with a question that they don’t want to answer (most questions), the frequent modus operandi is to deflect the question and morph it into an opportunity to criticize their opponent. To control this errant behavior requires a moderator to immediately step in and stop a candidate who deviates.You don’t think that it can be done? Well watch what Rev. Faith Green Timmons did yesterday in Flint, MI when Trump deviated from addressing Flint’s water problem and tried to attack Hillary Clinton.

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton has recently joined Trump in focusing more on lambasting her opponent than on speaking positively about her ideas and qualifications. Hopefully the low point is when she took a bridge too far and criticized Trump’s supporters rather than the candidate. She didn’t use an adjective to describe them, instead she turned an adjective into a noun and called half of his supporters “deplorables.” It was a speech, so there was no one to stop it.

But the Trumpians are by far the worst of the turnabout artists. No one is more skillful at it than recently anointed campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway. In a nearly six-minute interview with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota, she “respectfully” turned every question about Trump into a criticism of Clinton.

Example #1:

Camerota (interviewer): She has said now that she was suffering from pneumonia. She got the diagnosis on Friday. This is all Mr. Trump has released about his health, four paragraphs, as you know, from his Gastroenterologist who says that, “Mr Trump is in, his health is astonishingly excellent.” It also says that, “All of his latest medical examinations and tests were only positive results.” Which of course is funny because that means something’s wrong. That’s not what he meant. How can this be considered transparent?

Conway (campaign surrogate): Wow, you can laugh all you want at the medical report, but as far as I can see, there are two major party candidates running for president, and only one of them has pneumonia and lied about it, especially to the press because she always thinks that she has … She treats you all like second class citizens, won’t have a press conference, and when she pretends to have press available. “I’m going to be uplifting and aspirational and all,” then goes onto attack tens of millions of Americans the very next day.

Example #2:

Camerota: What exactly will he be releasing? His entire medical history, or just the results of the last checkup?

Conway: I don’t know, but I’ll tell you what he won’t be releasing. He won’t be releasing the fact that he had pneumonia for two days and lied about it.

Example #3:

Camerota: Well, you’re his campaign manager, which is why we’re asking you questions about Donald Trump. We have people from the Clinton Camp, and her surrogates, and we ask about her.

Conway: They talk about Donald Trump.

Example #4:

Camerota: Has Donald Trump, or will he release anything from the IRS, a letter from the IRS proving that he’s under audit?

Conway: I don’t know. Why? In other words why are you … Are you calling him a liar?

Camerota: Well, we’re taking his word for it.

Conway: Are you calling him a liar? We’re taking Hillary Clinton’s word that she was overheated and didn’t have pneumonia, or that she’s going to be aspirational and uplifting, or she’s going to start talking to the press again. I mean, seriously, we’re running against a Clinton, and we’re going to challenge someone’s veracity?

Camerota never cut Conway off when Conway twisted a question about Trump into a diatribe about Clinton. Perhaps this is understandable, because if she or any other interviewer from the mainstream media does not let a guest answer a question, then they run the risk of never again having that guest and his/her compatriots back on the channel.

But this would be different in a debate. NBC’s Lester Holt is moderating the first debate on Monday, September 26. What if he stated at the beginning that he is not going to tolerate any non-answers, be they directed at their opponent or simply refusal to respond directly to the question. If he enforced it by turning off their microphones when they deviated, he would have them at his mercy. He would be justified in doing this because the American people deserve answers rather than platitudes or insults. If either of the candidates chose to walk off the stage, it would be at their own peril.

And by the way, Flint would get clean water a lot faster.

The post Debate moderators can learn from pastor in Flint about shutting down Trump appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In tonight’s third 2012 Presidential debate, Governor Romney once again referred to President Obama’s diplomatic tour in Spring 2009 as an “apology tour.” He rebuked Obama for “criticizing America” and went on to say:

Mr. President, the reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to — to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to — to Turkey and Iraq. And — and by way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations. And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations and on Arabic TV you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations. Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.

I visited the transcript of President Obama’s interview with Al-Arabiya news network as well as the transcript of his June 4^th, 2009 address to the Muslim world from Cairo. Word searches for “dismissive” and “derisive” yielded no results from either text. Variations on the word “dictate” appeared once in each transcript, although one could hardly characterize the use of the word as an apology for US foreign policy.

When asked by Al-Arabiya’s Hisham Melhem about how he would see his “personal role” in facilitating peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis, President Obama divulged the advice he offered George Mitchell, his personal envoy to the Middle East.

And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen. He’s going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.

Apology or strategy? You can be the judge. In his Cairo speech, entitled “A New Beginning” used the word “dictating” not to apologize for US policy but to defend religious freedom:

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism.

Obama’s speech in Cairo laid out a beautiful dream of peace for the Middle East and the world. He focused on global similarities across cultures and religions, rather than re-enforcing our differences. He apologized for nothing.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.

President Obama continued in this same speech to tactfully defend the US invasion of Iraq, while admitting that war is not always the answer.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.

President Obama even touted our country’s strong relationship with Israel while addressing the Muslim world.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

Ahem, Romney, while he may not have gone to Israel on this tour, he did meet with Netanyahu in May 2009 and visited a concentration camp immediately after his speech in Cairo.

On the subject of a two state solution, Obama said the following:

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

The only thing Obama should be apologizing for is not walking the talk by following through with his idealistic intentions to coordinate peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian parties.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

Had Governor Romney wanted my vote, he could have resurrected this sentiment and brought peace talks back to the US foreign policy agenda… in addition to changing his position on, oh wait, almost everything.

To anybody in need of a dose of idealism and hope for peace, I highly recommend reading the full text of President Obama’s speech, A New Beginning.”

“We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you.”

The post No apologies in the so-called “apology tour” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The debates are part of the unconscionable fraud that our political campaigns have become. Here is a means to present to the American people a rational exposition of the major issues that face the nation, and the alternate approaches to their solution. Yet the candidates participate only with the guarantee of a format that defies meaningful discourse. They should be charged with sabotaging the electoral process. Walter Cronkite

This will not be a debate in the sense the word is often used in the English language because all of this is so tightly controlled by the candidates themselves and their managers. These things have developed over the years into what some people believe can more accurately be described as a joint campaign appearance or an orchestrated news conference. Dan Rather

The debate commission is a corrupt duopoly. Steve Forbes

In dictatorships, it’s common for political insiders to hinder or even silence non-establishment challengers. To do that in America, which supposedly champions open elections, is outrageous and intolerable. But that is just what the Commission on Presidential Debates has done. The Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel

I was one of the 50 to 60 million American citizens who watched the first presidential debate. Besides being bored to tears, I was disappointed in Barack Obama’s “performance.” Obama lost by anyone’s measure. He seemed disengaged and let Romney blather on spouting positions that were often the direct opposite of those taken through much of his campaign. Confusing, I’m sure, to Obama, as well as those of us watching.

But does it matter that Obama “lost?” By design, the debates are practically without substance. Maybe Obama was bored like I was—that, and the fact that his opponent, Mitt Romney, unusually energized and obnoxiously aggressive, lied though most of the tortured event. How do you “debate” someone when the ground is continually shifting?

The best moment, of course, was Romney’s threat to kill Big Bird. The instant and overwhelming response on Facebook and Twitter was both heartening and hilarious. The American people (especially women with young children) want their Muppets and their public television. There is a point where you hit a brick wall with pandering, and it seems Romney ran full speed ahead, right into it. It was the “best moment” because the response was an overwhelming vote from the electorate for something in the public sector to be preserved.

So, let’s get back to the reality of our substance-free presidential debates. Here are some points to consider.

The debates are undemocratic. Under the aegis of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), the Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns get together and write up a secret contract. Yes, it’s secret. They jointly decide what is off limits, which is just about everything meaningful to the lives of most of the electorate. The acceptable questions and terms of engagement, agreed upon by signed contract, precludes a debate that might in any way threaten Washington’s subservience to corporate interests. Even the so-called “town hall” debate questions are so thoroughly vetted ahead of time that the format is nothing less than a sham. It’s a pretend town hall meeting.

CPD’s secret contract is not available for public review or comment. If you want to see that contract, join with 18 progressive groups who are demanding that the content of the contract be made public. The groups include Open Debates, Common Cause, Public Citizen, Rock the Vote, Democracy Matters, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, Center for Study of Responsive Law, and Free & Equal Elections Foundation. The bottom line: a handful of Republican and Democratic Party hacks should not be determining what is and is not acceptable in our national political discourse.

The CPD exists to shut out third parties candidates and ideas. According to Opendebates.org, the League of Women Voters served as an excellent and genuinely nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor from 1976 until 1984, courageously including popular independent candidates and prohibiting the major party campaigns from manipulating debate formats.

But, in 1986, the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee ratified an agreement “for the parties to take over presidential debates.” Fifteen months later, the two parties created the CPD to implement joint sponsorship of general election presidential and vice-presidential debates, starting in 1988.

The CPD competed with the League for control of the 1988 presidential debates. After prolonged negotiations, they reached a simple compromise: The CPD would sponsor the first debate, and the League would sponsor the second. But when the League began preparing for the debate, the Bush and Dukakis campaigns handed it a secretly negotiated Memorandum of Understanding—a contract that dictated every detail of the debates, from the selection of panelists to the color of the timer lights on the podiums. The agreement even mandated that the League uninvite civic group leaders and replace them with a handpicked partisan audience.

The League of Women Voters bowed out in disgust, and issued this statement:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing 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.

The Commission purposely sets the bar impossibly high for third party inclusion in the debates. It’s intention is to limit political discourse and the free exchange of ideas, and the result has been to actively, and intentionally, impoverish the political dialogue in the United States. There are so many limits on the debate questions and what the candidates can say, it’s no wonder they end up being unwatchable pablum—theater rather than actual discussions of issues meaningful to voters.

The media has helped CPD in its efforts to stifle outside ideas by ignoring third party candidates. Case in point: The mainstream media acts as if the excellent Green Party presidential candidate, Jill Stein, doesn’t exist. If you are interested in a truly progressive candidate and progressive ideas, check out her interview with Bill Moyers. Jill Stein, hands down, is my candidate of choice. But, I will be voting for Barack Obama. I do not want Mitt Romney, who I believe to be a sociopath, to have the power of the presidency. Because of the stranglehold of the Democratic and Republican parties on the political process, this time around, I don’t have a choice.

Surprise! The CPD is funded by corporations! If you go to the CPD website, they proudly list their corporate donors, all of which expect something from both parties in return for their support and campaign donations. From Opendebates.org:

Since the CPD seized control of the presidential debates in 1988, the debates have been primarily funded by corporate contributions. Multinational corporations with regulatory interests before Congress have donated millions of dollars in contributions to the CPD. Tobacco giant Phillip Morris was a major sponsor in 1992 and 1996. Anheuser-Busch has sponsored presidential debates in its hometown of St. Louis in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008.

The CPD has turned the presidential debates into yet another opportunity for special interests to influence the political process via financial contributions. . . . By contrast, donations to the nonpartisan League of Women Voters were primarily considered civic charity.

Indeed. Donations motivated by a sense of civic duty? What an antiquated concept. My final thoughts on the debates: don’t worry if Obama won or lost. Remember, it’s only the first round. And secondly, the debates are held so late in the game that, no matter what happens, most people have already made up their minds. If you want to worry about something, worry about the state of our democracy.

The post Presidential debates: Bi-partisan, fraudulent, corporate controlled theater appeared first on Occasional Planet.