Set aside the question of whether President Obama should be empowered to order the killing of Americans. Instead, let’s ask, “What happens after he orders an extrajudicial assassination?” So long as drone strikes happen in secret, nothing happens. A kill order is given, a Hellfire missile fired, and it doesn’t matter if the human blown limb-from-limb is an Al Qaeda terrorist, an innocent Muslim man, or a five-year-old girl. Even if the target is killed far from any battlefield, in a place where he might easily have been be captured, and the kill order could’ve been postponed without putting national security at risk, the president won’t be investigated or arrested or tried in court or punished.
The President of the United States of America believes he has the absolute right to kill you based upon secret “evidence” that you might be a terrorist. Not only does he think he can kill you, but he believes he has the right to do so in secret, without formally charging you of any crime and providing you with an opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law. To top it all off, the memo asserts that these decisions about whom to kill are not subject to any judicial review whatsoever.
[A]s WaPo [Washington Post] points out, with U.S. drone bases maintained in West And East Africa (not to mention the recently revealed base in Saudi) as well as strikes in Afghanistan and Somalia, “it’s plausible that the civilian casualties would be even higher than the Long War Journal and New America Foundation stats reflect.” The BIJ’s most up to date statistics, looking at strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, suggest that up to 1,128 civilians have been killed in drone strikes. But as Brennan’s hearing made clear yesterday, evidence of trauma and civilian casualties caused by U.S. drones will continue to be a counter-narrative to the prevailing, drone-loving sentiment in Washington.
“If Bush had done the same things as Obama, then more people would have been upset about it. He is a Democrat though, and to an extent can get away with it,” said Daniel Ellsberg, who as a government official leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and helped to expose the truth about the Vietnam war. Ellsberg is now one of the plaintiffs in the case against the NDAA and insists that the administration has used the law to give itself widespread and unconstitutional new powers: “We have been losing our guaranteed freedoms one by one.”
Brennan assured that any actions the CIA would take “will be legally grounded, will be thoroughly anchored in intelligence, will have the appropriate review process, approval process before any action is contemplated, including those actions that might involve the use of lethal force.”
One of those skeptical of Brennan’s words is Jayel Aheram, an Iraq War and Marine Corps veteran, activist and writer who, in an interview with RT, expressed his doubt over the possibility and the commitment of the CIA thoroughly to review the situation on the ground from somewhere far away from the United States.
He also questioned the criteria which might be used for such a review, suggesting that “basically anyone over the age of 18 or 16 in a strike zone constitutes a militant. So I could be going to school somewhere in Yemen, going about my day, and if I get obliterated by one of these drone strikes, am I to be considered a militant?”
Congress’ public oversight of targeted killings has been almost nonexistent. The last hearings on the drone strikes — held by a House national security subcommittee — faded away after the early months of 2010.
And until Thursday’s Brennan hearing, the two committees with jurisdiction over the CIA drone program — the Senate and House Intelligence Committees — have never held a public inquiry on the program. The Senate and House Armed Services Committees, which oversee the military drone program in war zones, haven’t held hearings, either.
Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice,
members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:
Each time we gather to inaugurate a President we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:
President Obama takes the oath of office.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Today we continue a never-ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they’ve never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. (Applause.) The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.
And for more than two hundred years, we have.
Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.
Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers.
Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.
Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.
Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise, our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, these are constants in our character.
But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people. (Applause.)
This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. (Applause.) An economic recovery has begun. (Applause.) America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it — so long as we seize it together. (Applause.)
For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. (Applause.) We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own. (Applause.)
We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. So we must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.
We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. (Applause.) For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.
We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us at any time may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. (Applause.) They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great. (Applause.)
We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. (Applause.) Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.
The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition, we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries, we must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow-capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.
We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. (Applause.) Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. (Applause.) Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war; who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends — and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.
We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully –- not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. (Applause.)
America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe. And we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice –- not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity, human dignity and justice.
We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths –- that all of us are created equal –- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth. (Applause.)
It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. (Applause.) Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law –- (applause) — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. (Applause.) Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. (Applause.) Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity — (applause) — until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. (Applause.) Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.
That is our generation’s task — to make these words, these rights, these values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time. (Applause.)
For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. (Applause.) We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today’s victories will be only partial and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years and 40 years and 400 years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.
My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction. And we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.
They are the words of citizens and they represent our greatest hope. You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course. You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time — not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals. (Applause.)
Let us, each of us, now embrace with solemn duty and awesome joy what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.
Thank you. God bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America. (Applause.)
[T]he president will be joined by Vice President Joe Biden as well as children who wrote to the president after the Newtown shootings.
“They will be joined by children around the country expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents,”
Both passions and accusations have run high since the Newtown, CT massacre as Sandy Hook Elementary School. The image below is one.
I mean, seriously, if Hitler, Mao, and Stalin had their pictures made with children does that not make Obama equal to them?
I drink bottled water. I’m sure every president in recent memory drinks bottled water. That does not mean I am or have been the president. We will forego the old putting pants on one leg at a time saw.
The stupid thing about the meme is, like many of the same genre, there is no context at all. They are simply pictures of a known leader and kids. Except for Stalin. That’s a drawing. He had probably already killed those kids. Or, maybe they were happy to get another potato. [UPDATE: A missionary friend of mine had this to say about the Stalin poster: “What’s ironic is that the Stalin poster is actually a parody. It says, ‘Thank you dear Stalin for shooting our parents.'”]
But, since we are on the subject, here is another well known dictator with a bunch of kids:
And another (in fairness he did not get the chance to be dictator, but would have):
And another:
And another:
Please don’t fall for these things. Guilt by association is not the domain of truth seekers. Besides that, easily disproven assertions weakens your argument and your credibility.
If only our president was moved to compassion over the plight of unborn children as he was after the tragedy at Sandy Hook. He has never been more eloquent. If only…
But when it comes to the most defenseless of all, our president is double-minded at best. Which is more defenseless, a six year old in a classroom facing a gunman or a child still attached to the mother confined by the walls of the womb facing a medical technician with dismemberment in mind? If a child in a classroom is defenseless against a madman, how much more so a unborn child against calm, methodical, professional annihilation?
Mr. President, get your thinking in order. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8).
Most people who know me are aware that I supported retiring Texas congressman Ron Paul for president. I did so in 2008 and 2012. All except those who have died in the mean time also know that he did not win, unless you count those eleven congressional terms.
Yesterday Ron Paul gave a final speech in the House chamber. Like most of his speeches it was a bit rambling, sounding warning bells on economic concerns, the gold standard of money, an overextended military and liberty. From his remarks:
In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.
All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.
Through the campaigns Paul supporters (excepting a few flamers and morons) were a thoughtful and cogent–if not an odd–mix. It is safe to say no other single candidate in the last two elections has attracted such a wide variety in his or her base. Only Barack Obama’s supporters could touch Dr. Paul’s for passion.
In an insightful article entitled, “Who Killed Rudy Guiliani?”, W. James Antle III asserts that Ron Paul has restored the soul of conservatism’s future. In my way of thinking this would make Paul the true and better William F. Buckley, Jr. Writes Antle:
When Ron Paul leaves office in January, he will have been more successful than many of the legislators who spent decades maligning him. Paul’s ideas have gradually gone from marginal to mainstream, and his record shows how much even a single determined man of principle can do to change a movement. In foreign policy especially, the Texas congressman leaves behind a new generation of leaders, both libertarian and conservative, who challenge the disastrous bipartisan consensus.
-Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
-Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
-Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
-Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
-Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
-Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
-Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
-Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
-Why should there be mandatory sentences–even up to life for crimes without victims–as our drug laws require?
-Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
-Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
-Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
-Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
-Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
-Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
-Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
-Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
-Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?
-Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
-Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
-Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.
-Why is it is claimed that if people won’t or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
-Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
-Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
-Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?
-Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
-Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
-Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world’s great religions.
-Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?
-Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
-Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?
That may well be true. But maybe the problem is the wrong questions were asked over and over while the right ones were ignored.
Ron Paul speaks to a packed house at Texas A&M University
Did I think he could have won? Sure anything is possible. Did I think it probable? I guess I never did.
For me it was never about him winning. Though they are loathe to admit it history has already taught McCain and Romney supporters they were not about winning either. They could win neither the political nor idealogical campaigns.
For me it was about the conversation itself. Nothing is changed until the conversations is changed. McCain did not try to change the conversation unless you want to count from bad to worse. One hundred years in Iraq, an entirely new wing of government to deal with mortgages, and more military intervention. This was not upward movement; this was accelerated depreciation of ideas.
Romney could have changed the conversation several dozen times with only himself doing the talking. But, as the election demonstrated, people were too uncertain which Romney asked for their vote. In the end Romney was too much like Obama-lite to change the conversation. Romney was like Obama in an echo chamber on foreign policy, could not chart a believable path on domestic policy, and found a pretty much deaf ears on social policy.
Think about what we never heard from the top two in 2012 that Ron Paul talked about every chance he got: abuses by the Federal Reserve bank that both destroy the poor and middle class and allow for endless wars and interventions, a failed “War” on Drugs that has created an America with about as many people through prison and probation as the Gulags at their depths of depraved darkness, assassinations of American citizens without due process, abuses of government power through the Patriot Act, abuses of executive power through Executive Orders (aka “presidential directives”), the dangers of indefinite detention, and on and on we could go.
Ron Paul’s insistence that we adhere to the constitution was not only refreshing, for some people it was eye-opening and for others it was an absolute epiphany. Someone running for president acknowledging the power of the president is limited and war should be declared by Congress. Gasp! He showed a person did not have to be a card carrying member of the ACLU to care about civil liberties since civil liberties are constitutional, not preferential. He showed why and how it could and should be so.
Mitt Romney was not able to generate a single idea in his entire campaign that will still be talked about in another month. Ron Paul’s ideas have already spawned two movements, one official (the “Tea Party”) the other not (the Liberty Movement), created a trio of best selling books, contributed to a number of others being elected to congress, and drawn regular crowds of two to ten thousand people of all ages and socio-economic backgrounds.
For one, I’m thankful to have lived in the era when Ron Paul gained a national stage. He will never be elected again, and never be president. But while Barack Obama has found success with, “Ask what your country can do for you,” Ron Paul’s ideas are the ones whose time has come.
And, if those who call themselves conservative would stop merely adopting and modifying the thinking of the Left, they might just find these ideas unstoppable.
The closer the presidential election draws the more attentions return to the issue of abortion. Those on the left cry “women’s rights” while those on the right plead “right to life.” Both sides are passionate, and often enflamed in their attempts to solidify or overturn–respectively–Roe v Wade.
In early September 2012 the Democratic National Convention met in North Carolina. Amidst the debacle over “God” and “Jerusalem” the Democratic Party passed as strong a pro-abortion plank as has been ever hammered into a platform.
I think this Democratic Convention was really over-the-top in terms of abortion. Every single speaker talked about abortion. At some point, you start to alienate people. Thirty percent of Democrats are pro-life.
on why the platform committee removed the phrase saying that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” which had been in the platform since Bill Clinton ran on that platform in 1992.
Below is the abortion plank from the 2012 Democratic National Platform called Moving America Forward. Read it carefully.
Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs. (2012 DNC Platform, pg. 18)
Here is the thing implicit in the DNC platform: abortion and adoption are moral equivalents. This is the real issue with abortion and the Democratic National Convention.
That Democrats affirm the legality of abortion from conception to birth for any reason or no reason is self-evident and has been for decades. But it is startling they cannot even bring themselves to recommend adoption over abortion. This is slavish adherence to ideology at the expense of civilized thinking.
Perhaps pro-life Democrats should be added to the endangered species list.
The moral and ethical position of the DNC is abortion = birth = adoption. Whether a woman aborts a child, keeps a child, or gives the child to adoptive parents it is a morally equivalent decision. No recommendation is made for a preferred end. They “strongly and unequivocally support” all options. Dismembering a child in the womb is given no moral difference from one delivered healthy into the arms of its mother.
[T]he 2004 platform said abortion “should be safe, legal and rare” – language that’s [sic] casts abortion reduction as morally preferable, something this platform does not. [Emphasis added.]
Planned Parenthood did 329,445 abortions while it provided prenatal care to 31,098 women (90% less) and referred only 841 women to adoption agencies.
The number of women receiving prenatal care dropped significantly from 2009 to 2010, as the abortion business helped 40,489 women in 2009 — meaning almost 10,000 fewer women received prenatal support from Planned Parenthood last year than the year prior, or a drop of almost 25 percent.
The number of women getting adoption referrals also declined — from a low 977 in 2009 to 841 last year, or a decline of 14 percent.
Examined another way Planned Parenthood does 391 abortions for every adoption referral it makes and almost 11 abortions for every woman it helps with prenatal care.
The direction the DNC has taken this year is indeed tragic. They have increased their strident support for Roe v Wade to a philosophical landfill in which good and evil are comparable. To quote Javert, “The world is inside out. The world is upside down.”
Welcome to the Kingdom in the Midst chat of the Obama-Romney foreign policy debate. As with the previous debates, we are given the illusion of fairness. All third party candidates–even those with a mathematical possibility of winning, on the ballots in 47 or more states–are banned from the Democratic/Republican party controlled spectacle.
Tonight’s debate, moderated by Bob Schieffer, will be held at Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL. The format calls for six 15-minute time segments, each of which will focus on one of the topics listed below. The moderator will open each segment with a question. Each candidate will have two minutes to respond. Following the candidates’ responses, the moderator will use the balance of the 15-minute segment to facilitate a discussion on the topic.
(Seriously? The leader of the free world is being chosen based on two minute answers?? Good grief. No wonder people want to know who Honey Boo Boo endorsed.)
One of the subjects that has not been covered and will not be covered tonight is human trafficking.
Tentatively the topics as scheduled are:
America’s role in the world
Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
Red Lines – Israel and Iran
The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World
The debate will begin at around 9:00pm Eastern Time (8:00CT) and last until around 10:30ET. For a refreshing change, watch the debate on C-Span which seems to be much less shrill than Fox and MSNBC.
RULES FOR THE CHAT
1. Be clear.
2. Stay on topic. Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden, their policies and performances are inbounds. Their families are not.
3. Try to be concise. If you try to write a novel the comment to which you are responding will be gone.
4. When appropriate use the name of the person to whom you are responding. For instance, “Terminator1: I think you are misinformed.”
5. NO SWEARING. If you cannot express yourself without stooping to gutter language go back to the SPIKE movie you were watching.
6. Please share the post via social sharing buttons at the top. The more the merrier.
7. Have fun!
You can login below under a username and your Facebook or Twitter accounts. The latter two will use your avatar; comments will not post to your timeline or Twitter feed.
Dear Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry,
Like many Americans I am interested in the direction of the country. Others have said they are “concerned,” and still others “burdened.” Still others claim this 2012 presidential election is the most important in the history of the republic.
The Denver presidential debate, October 2012 [Image credit]
You cannot be ignorant of the reality that the presidential debates help frame how voters view the candidates each presidential election cycle. Indeed, this is part of the reason for your existence. Your mission, in part, is that the Commission should:
provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates.
I am writing this open letter to address some concerns I have, concerns that may be shared by others. It seems these might be addressed through your organization.
Your bi-partisan make-up does not translate to the moderator phase of the debate. This silly idea of an unbiased moderator has created a pill too big for most of America to swallow. Following the most recent debates Jim Lehrer was demonized by the Left for being too passive (milquetoast was used by one liberal communicator), Martha Raddatz was slammed by some conservatives for her repeated interruptions of Paul Ryan, and Candy Crowley has all but admitted to assisting one of the participants, President Obama, by “correcting” Mitt Romney on a point of fact. (This, notes Canadian journalist David Akin, was not within the bounds of her assigment.)
Clearly, you have problems with this debate structure. The October 22 debate, moderated by Bob Scheiffer, holds little promise for a cure.
These debates would be more effective if the moderators were specifically chosen because of their bias or biases. Without a semblance of being non-partisan viewers would be better prepared to anticipate questions and reactions. Informed viewers are not deceived by such a fraudulent presentation, but viewers depending on the debates to fully inform their decisions stand in danger of deception.
No one would consider Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham unbiased, but as I present it they would need not pretend they are. Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews? Liberal as they can get, but at least it would be in the open. John Stossel or Neal Boortz as Libertarian leaners would disrupt the narrative major party candidates and the moderators tend to inhabit.
One from the Left, one from the Right, one from the Outside, and, finally, a college level debate professor as moderator. It is interesting these debates feel so much different than educational or philosophical debates. After watching many debates online, I have found the role of the moderator is to read the rules, ring the bell, keep the time, signal transitions, thank the participants and attendees, and announce the end. The moderator should disappear, not take center stage.
Also, at this stage of our country’s history requiring a candidate to poll at 15% before being invited to participate is appallingly controlling and unnecessarily exclusive. Even when they are included in five major polls (as you require) the results are rarely included by any major media. For all intents and purposes the media presents two–and only two–candidates for the presidency. You follow this problematic path since you are controlled by the same two parties.
The major parties do not have all the answers. In fact the debates reveal all-too-clearly their representative candidates have fewer and fewer answers as time rolls on. America would be better served be allowing candidates from qualifying third parties to participate. Requiring the candidate to have at least a statistical possibility of winning the electoral college (by getting on enough state ballots) would allow the Libertarian or Green candidate, for instance, without having to admit the Ball in High Weeds candidate. Keep the your latter requirement, but drop the first.
Your website says,
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.
As long as you continue to wall-off non-major party candidates you are failing to provide the “best possible information” to us.
Please fix this. Your model is broken. What you are trying to accomplish is admirable and appreciated. What you are actually accomplishing is short of that goal. You should strive for more.
We the people may not deserve it, but we need it.
If you agree share this post on social media. You can also email this post to the Commission on Presidential Debates: comments [at] debates [dot] org
Welcome to the Kingdom in the Midst chat room for tonight’s town hall-style debate at Hofstra University between president Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney.
In true two-party dominance and pansy Presidential Debate Commission style, no third party candidates will be allowed. This ensures most actual ideas will remain sidelined. Despite this sad occurrence the Democratic and Republican contenders will have an audience of about 80 undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization. CNN’s “Complaining Candy Crowley” will select from among questions on foreign and domestic policy submitted by the audience, and most likely try to insinuate herself into the debate as well. As she is on the record for hating Mr. Romney, it is unlikely she will issue any substantive challenges to the president.
The debate will begin at around 9:00pm Eastern Time (8:00CT) and last until around 10:30ET. For a refreshing change, watch the debate on C-Span which seems to be much less shrill than Fox and MSNBC.
RULES
1. Be clear.
2. Stay on topic. Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden, their policies and performances are inbounds. Their families are not.
3. Try to be concise. If you try to write a novel the comment to which you are responding will be gone.
4. When appropriate use the name of the person to whom you are responding. For instance, “Terminator1: I think you are misinformed.”
5. NO SWEARING. If you cannot express yourself without stooping to gutter language go back to the SPIKE movie you were watching.
6. Please share the post via social sharing buttons at the top. The more the merrier.
7. Have fun!
You can login below under a username and your Facebook or Twitter accounts. The latter two will use your avatar; comments will not post to your timeline or Twitter feed.
Tonight the major networks will host a debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. (Third party candidates have been asked to stay home. Upsetting the accepted narrative is frowned upon by the Presidential Debate Commission.)
Of these few things you can be sure:
1. Both men will say something good.
2. Both men will make gaffes.
3. Even if Barack Obama falls off the stage, drops an F-bomb, and lights up a Marlboro while talking about healthcare, Democrats will proclaim him the winner within a nanosecond of the host’s “Goodnight and thanks for watching.”
4. Even if Mitt Romney breaks out a roll of thousand dollar bills as thick as Andre the Giant’s fist, introduces his two other wives to America, and calls for dispersing the Social Security Trust Fund among the Forbes 400, Republicans will shout down the Democrats in proclaiming a win.
5. Both men will be unswervingly bold in their promises and incomprehensibly vague in their substance.
6. Mitt Romney will say Obama has gotten almost nothing right.
7. Barack Obama will say Romney would get almost nothing right.
8. Obama will say “47%” enough times for an entire frat house to be drunk from beer pong.
9. Romney will mention “unemployment” enough times for Joe Biden to realize his four year burden comment was actually a slam on his boss.
10. No Democrats will change their minds.
11. No Republicans will change their minds.
12. Anyone who decides to vote based on a debate should probably have their voter registration card revoked.
