Too many candidates? How to remedy the presidential debates

In the past few days I've seen a lot of commotion about the first Republican presidential "debate", set for a few months from now.  The biggest deal is about the number of candidates who may appear on the stage: some are counting as many as 19.  And there's the mess going on right now with George Stephanopoulos: the ABC whateverhedoes and how he donated $75,000 to the Clintons: common sense would be that no "journalist" that blatantly compromised would serve as moderator for any debate, much less a Republican one.

Then again, I haven't been impressed by any moderator of presidential politics in recent years.  Don't even get me started on the Fox News guy who blatantly asked Ron Paul during one of the early debates if he seriously thought he was a presidential contender.  If that wasn't biased journalism, then I don't know what is.

Back to the amount of candidates.  Actually, we can address the moderator issue as well.  There is a very simple solution.  Of course this being about the politics and power of high office, don't expect it to be adopted:

All 19 candidates in a row on stage.  The moderator asks one question to all of the candidates.  Then in random order each candidate gives his response, with a minute of time allotted for his or her answer.  No rebuttals.

It's not a "debate" in the fullest sense of the term.  More of a candidates forum.  And it's worked before.

When I ran for board of education some years ago, there were 16 candidates running for five seats.  There were two forums for candidates to express their views.  There was a televised forum, which due to studio space constraints had us going in front of the camera three at a time, and there was a public forum at one of the county's elementary schools.  Fifteen candidates total took to the stage (another candidate refused to come and tried to make a ridiculous spectacle of it later on).  I think we got in 5 or 6 questions total.  It ran quick and smooth, and everyone came away from it informed about the candidates.

It also served to engender no animosity among the candidates or toward the moderator.  When everyone is getting asked the same question, without room for obvious bias on the part of the alleged journalist doing the moderating, well... it makes for a debate that is more even-keel for all involved.

Fifteen candidates doing a debate.  That was completely fair and unbiased in regard to anyone.

Don't tell me it can't be done.  It can.  I should know.  I was there.  I was one of the candidates.

But I'm not expecting my recommendations to meet with any approval from either the Republican or Democrat parties, or the media giants who perpetuate the weary drama between them.  My suggestions are meant for a better sort of citizenry.  Maybe someday, in the not-too-distant future, those people will rise to the task and take charge of this country away from the corrupt and the power-mongers.

Read More

I've got one word that describes this "debate" going on right now from the Reagan Library ...

"Bullcrap".

(Only at the last minute did I change that word before posting from something else.)

And some of you still think this is a free country with a legitimate press?

Some of you even dare think that these are the people that we should give our prayers and support to?

Tonight Lisa and I watched The Remains of the Day on our DVD player. Probably Anthony Hopkins's finest film role ever. That line he says toward the end has never failed to haunt me...

"I'm sorry sir, I was too busy serving to listen to the speeches."

Some of us do listen to the speeches, regardless of how many other people are too damned occupied with American Idol or Britney Spears's underwear or with the dog-and-pony show that the mainstream media and the party bigwigs and the power-mongers in our own government parade in front of us... as if those things really matter.

Yeah, some of us are listening. And we know damned well what's going on with this country. What America is turning into.

I'm not just angry because Ron Paul is being treated so unfairly. I would be this pissed-off if any candidate was being treated this way by supposedly "objective" journalists. Because I'd rather every candidate be allowed equal opportunity to come to the table and make their case, and let the chips fall where they may. Let us decide which one we'd rather listen to most. Anything less than that is an insult to the American people (yah like these bastitches care about whether they insult us or not).

Four years ago I posted my now-infamous list of "People Who Should Be Shot When the Revolution Comes". I'm thinking of amending it in the near future. Perhaps I should put "Partisan Pathetic Excuses for Journalists" on the revised list? I mean, the threat of assassination can work wonders...

Read More

VIDEO: Giuliani staff uses police to arrest independent journalist

If only YouTube had existed in 2000...

In October of 2000 I was a reporter with an independent newspaper. And - through legitimate channels mind ya - I had been given an invitation to attend a rally for George W. Bush during the presidential debate at Wake Forest University. I was hoping to get a chance to ask Bush a few questions: nothing rude mind ya, but I was gonna try to make the most of the opportunity.

Bush staff found out that some "non-corporate" journalists were there and sent Winston-Salem police to track us down. One of them demanded to see my driver's license and I asked why. About then a Bush staffer with a bullhorn came over and told me that I should do what she says "because whenever someone in a uniform tells you something you're supposed to obey."

This guy demanded to see my invitation. He snatched it out of my hands and said that I wasn't going to be attending this function. When I demanded to know why he threatened me with physical violence.

The cops escorted another reporter and myself to "the protest area" (this was the first time I'd ever heard of this little Bush concept) and told us if we tried to return to our vehicles through the fair grounds that we would be arrested.

A few years later I heard - and I've not found any reason to doubt this - that we were rounded up and sent packing on Bush's orders, after he heard that there were non-corporate media present and he told his staff to "haul those assholes out of here".

That night I saw the true side of the George W. Bush mindset. I'm not bitter about it now though: I'm just thankful that God showed me what a loser Bush really is, before I ever had a chance to vote for him (never have).

Almost the exact same thing happened last night to journalist Matt Lepacek following the Republican debate in New Hampshire, except Lepacek actually got ask Rudolph Guiliani some questions. Or tried to anyway. Giuliani's staff had police arrest Lepacek. Here's the video:

Y'know, the only thing that kept me from standing up to those goons that night any more than I did was the fact that my best friend was coming in from way out of town to spend a few days at my apartment, and if I was in jail then I couldn't be there when he arrived. If that hadn't already been on my schedule, I think years later that it would be with a lot of pride that I could look back at being arrested on orders from Bush.

I hope that Matt Lepacek will feel proud about what he did tonight too: he stood his ground against an evil man. And he didn't back down.

That's something that nobody will ever be able to take away from him.

Read More

Giuiliani said WHAT...?!

I missed this the first time but it's been confirmed: during tonight's debate (actually last night's debate since it's now way early Wednesday morning) Rudolph Giuliani said that we need to use the American military for more "nation building".

Seven years ago George W. Bush said that we shouldn't engage in "nation-building". He went ahead and did it anyway. It didn't work. And now tonight Giuliani said he wants to do more of it.

If this guy does get nominated and then winds up actually elected President, then... I don't know what else to say, except that we will be screwed as a nation and we will probably have deserved it.

Like I said last month: when the "front runner" of the Republican party is a pro-abortion, anti-Second Amendment, pro-amnesty for illegals, pro-"nation building", pro-big government in every way, drag queen...

...there is something very, very wrong with the world.

Read More

Why isn't Matt Drudge running a poll for THIS debate?

Tonight's debate in New Hampshire among the Republican candidates has been over for almost an hour and a half. For every other debate in the past month or so Matt Drudge has posted on his Drudge Report site a readers' poll on who they thought won the debate.

So far, one for tonight's hasn't appeared.

Could it be that Drudge is afraid that his poll will show what a lot of others (heck, most others) are showing: intense support for Ron Paul?

I'm going to wait for awhile tonight, and see if he does run one. If he doesn't, I'll have some more thoughts about what this means Drudge has become.

EDIT 11:04 p.m. EST: Okay, here's what I think...

For all the hooplah ever since Drudge burst on the scene about ten years about being "alternative media", Matt Drudge has... well, become too much like mainstream media.

Let me put it another way: the "new media" that Drudge represents has turned out to be old media with slicker tactics.

"Alternative media" was supposed (we were told so anyway) to be an empowering of ideas that had never been given their fair share of exposure, because of a near-monopoly on the airwaves, the press etc. that the "liberal media" enjoyed for so long. Rush Limbaugh declared himself a spokesman for the unrepresented (Limbaugh would say mis-represented) "conservative" Americans. Fox News Channel boldly proclaimed that it would be "fair and balanced".

It's ten years and more later. And "alternative media" stands as corrupted and of foul purpose as the "liberal mainstream media" it's supplanting. Because it has the very same goal as old media: the pursuit of power over people... especially their minds.

Matt Drudge is trying to control people's perception of things as much as CBS or CNN or any other "mainstream" press outlet, by refusing to be consistent and running a post-debate poll that he knows would most likely have Ron Paul winning handily.

And this being the Internet, I and anyone else get to call him out on it.

EDIT 11:32 p.m. EST: Want another example? Here's Fox News' story about the debate. It doesn't mention Paul or a few other candidates that were on stage tonight.

Read More

CNN Republican candidates debate: What a joke!

So far McCain has spoken for more than 6 minutes. Guiliani for almost 5. Romney for a little over 5. They're being asked just about all the questions.

Ron Paul has been given two questions and has only spoken for 2 minutes.

The other "non-front runners" are being given fewer questions and camera time, too.

This "debate" is a farce. It's protecting the ones the "mainstream" press wants to impress into people's minds are the only ones "worth considering".

For some reason, the last week or so I've gone back to reading Nineteen Eighty-Four. I don't know what's happened in the years since I last picked up that book, but it's like I can see this book coming to pass a lot more than I ever had before. This kind of consciously playing with people's perceptions is one example.

Whatever happened with giving everyone their chance to make their case, regardless of how much cash they have on hand or some kind of favoritism, and let the people decide on their own?

EDIT 9:02 p.m. EST: The only two that impressed me the least bit were Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. And they barely got any time at all, especially in the second round (the one that had questions from the public).

Maybe it's time to post this again...

Fight the Matrix! Ron Paul is the One!

Read More

About what Ron Paul said last night ...

He's right.

The biggest attacks against Dr. Paul for his comments on terrorism and 9/11 are coming mostly from those who proudly call themselves "neoconservatives": the ones who can't get enough of American intervention in the rest of the world. And that's what has invited so much hatred against America to begin with. I defy anyone to tell me that there hasn't been a correlation between our trying to be the world's policeman, and anti-American sentiment.

As for Rudy Giuliani's tantrum: to me it seemed more like an act of desperation than something of solid principle. So he took what Paul said out of context and tried to spin it to make Paul look like a "kook".

But I've no problem with what Ron Paul said last night. It was an honest and intelligent answer. What else are we supposed to want out of a potential future President?

Read More