July 02, 2022, 05:13:02 pm

Site design:

A lot of new content added.

Check the home page.

Thanatopsis "Requiem" Available now.

Studio Videos

Live in studio performances

Peace Train derailed

Started by gkg, September 22, 2004, 06:20:23 pm

Previous topic - Next topic


here\'s some info as you prepare to watch the debates tomorrow;


Connie Rice: Top 10 Secrets They Don\'t Want You to Know About the Debates

The Tavis Smiley Show audio / The Tavis Smiley Show, September 29, 2004 • After weeks of political wrangling, Sen. John Kerry and President Bush will square off for the first of three key presidential debates. Both camps have agreed to an elaborate, 32-page contract that spells out everything from the size of the dressing rooms to permitted camera angles.

But the controversy over the debates threatens to overshadow the events themselves. Some citizen groups complain that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) isn\'t as non-partisan as it should be, and that Kerry and Bush won\'t be pressed on urban issues. Commentator Connie Rice says that\'s just the tip of the iceberg, and she\'s got another Top 10 list -- this time: Top 10 Secrets They Don\'t Want You to Know About the Debates.

(10.) They aren\'t debates!

"A debate is a head-to-head, spontaneous, structured argument over the merits of an issue," Rice says. "Under the ridiculous 32-page contract that reads like the rules for the Miss America Pageant, there will be no candidate-to-candidate questions, no rebuttal to your opponent\'s points, no cross questions or cross answers, no rebuttals, no follow-up questions -- that\'s not a debate, that\'s a news conference."

(9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.

"The League of Women Voters ran these debates with an iron hand as open, transparent, non-partisan events from 1976 to 1984," Rice says. "The men running the major campaigns ended their control when the League defiantly included John Anderson and Ross Perot, and used tough moderators and formats the parties didn\'t like. The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates -- the CPD -- in 1986."

(8.) The "independent and non-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates is neither independent nor non-partisan.

"CPD should stand for \'Cloaking-device for Party Deceptions\' -- it is not an independent commission on anything. The CPD is under the total control of the Republican and Democratic parties and by definition bipartisan, not non-partisan. Walter Cronkite called CPD-sponsored debates an \'unconscionable fraud.\'"

(7.) The secretly negotiated debate contract bars Kerry and Bush from any and all other debates for the entire campaign.

"Under what I call the Debate Suppression and Monopolization Clause of the contract, it is illegal for the candidates to debate each other anywhere else during the campaign," Rice says. "We need a new criminal law for reckless endangerment of democracy."

(6.) The debate contract effectively excludes all other serious presidential candidates from participating in the debates.

"This is what I call the Obstruction of Democratic Debate Rule, which sets an impossibly high threshold for third-party candidates... Where are we, Russia? Isn\'t Vladimir Putin wiping out democracy in Russia by excluding all opposing candidates from the airwaves during his re-election campaigns? Most new ideas come from third parties -- they should be in the debates."

(5.) All members of the studio audience must be certified as "soft" supporters of Bush and Kerry, under selection procedures they approve.

"It\'s not enough to rig the debate -- they have to rig the audience, too? The contract reads: \'The debate will take place before a live audience of between 100 and 150 persons who... describe themselves as likely voters who are soft Bush supporters or soft Kerry supporters.\' We should crash this charade and jump up in the middle to declare ourselves hard opponents of this Kabuki dance."

(4.) These "soft" audience members must "observe in silence."

"Soft and silent... In what I\'m calling the Silence of the Lambs Clause of this absurd contract, the audience may not move, speak, gesture, cough or otherwise show that they are alive and thinking."

(3.) The "extended discussion" portion of the debate cannot exceed 30 seconds.

"Other than the stupidity of the debate contract, what topic do you know that can be extendedly discussed in 30 seconds?"

(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.

"Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics," Rice says. "For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare."

(1.) Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD\'s co-chairs are corporate lobbyists.

The CPD is run by Frank Fahrenkopf, a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist, and Paul Kirk, a top gambling lobbyist," Rice says. "And the biggest muliti-national corporations write the checks that fund the CPD -- Phillip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and dozens more. The audience may have to be silent and motionless, but the corporate sponsors can have banners, beer tents, Budweiser girls handing out pamphlets protesting beer taxes -- a corporate-sponsored circus to go along with the Kabuki Debates. Could we get a more fitting description of our democracy?"

image = <i>"Blue Velvet"</i> (front of 2-sided piece) (c) georgia k griffin - all rights reserved


You\'ll love the following link!!!

 ;D Crawford Texas News paper Endorses Kerry!


Can\'t wait for tonight!!

Beatnik  8)



image = <i>"Blue Velvet"</i> (front of 2-sided piece) (c) georgia k griffin - all rights reserved


Can you imagine the steam rising from the private quarters of the White House today, after Junior reads that!?  ;)

Thank you for posting the Debate secrets. I knew the CPD was corrupt when they boldly announced to the American voter public that they refused to permit Ross P. to participate in the 2000 campaign debate, "because he didn\'t have a chance of winning the election!"
Nothing like exampling the concept of , "select Democracy" in action!

Per Nader and gkg\'s comment: RE: "(sic)...the smartest thing the GOP and other Bush-o-philes have done is give financial and court support to Nader\'s efforts to get on ballots. "

While I\'ve heard about the financial backing that supports Nader being suspect, I would respectfully ask you to consider that it is the court system that is currently utilized to get Nader\'s name off many State\'s Ballot\'s. (For your consideration: Google News search results ~ (Pick your link ;) ) http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Nader+court

Re. the statement: "(sic)..."the lesser of two evils is still evil."  
i think perhaps that simply becomes a cop out.  your duty in voting is to do what is truly best for the country - and if you truly think that the current administration is heinous and evil, then it is your duty to remove them from power.

With all respect, I disagree that it\'s a cop out. It\'s a personal opinion, due to careful research of the candidates.
 Yes, I do believe the current Administration is heinous and evil.  I believe another 4 years of GW , puts America at risk of his corrupt Federalist vision, for America.
And John Kerry, I believe quite simply doesn\'t have the backbone, the character or the foresight, to lead a country.  I also don\'t believe he sincerely believes he shall, either. But that\'s an entirely different thread. ;)

It\'s not a cop out and it\'s not letting someone else pull my weight. It is responsibility for my future, my people and my country, to effectively protest the candidacy of two evils by not voting for either one. (Imagine the implementation of the earlier slogan;

"Re~elect No One!"

For that to germinate from dream unto reality, it has to start somewhere. And I can not allow my conscience or consciousness elect GW or Kerry, as the leader of my future knowing they are equally bankrupt of character.)

As for the contention that a vote for Nader, or any other independent party candidate, write in vote, etc... is a vote for Bush; that is a sophomoric judgement and contrary to the mechanism inherent in the electoral college and that of the popular vote.

Link: http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/electoral_college/

In any event it will be interesting to watch the debates tonight, even though it has been relegated to entertainment rather than a bonafide political discourse.


i don\'t see it as sophmoric to examine the past election against the upcoming one and see the direct correlation between the impact of a third party on the previous election and the support of the GOP for maintaining the third party active in this election.

as for the courts, in several instances the GOP has either been the financial backer or outright proponent in the courts to add Nader to the ballot.  yes, the courts are being used also to block him from ballots; the cases that i am familiar with where this is happening are due to the fact that the signatures on petitions have been found to be suspect, or election rules and guidelines have been sidestepped to put him in the ballot.

i have no huge love for Kerry at all - though i do fail to see him as evil i certainly don\'t think he\'s a fantastic candidate.  Nader is much more suspect and is in fact showing extremely poor judgement in running at a time when it is in the country\'s best interest to unseat the incumbant.  

as for re-electing no one - that is actually sophmoric to me.  there are many good people who do a good job in office and deserve to be re-elected.  hell, i would have signed up for a third term for Clinton had it been possible.  broad maxims like "re-elect no one" do more damage than good.

i don\'t see all GOP candidates as evil any more than i see all Green or Independent ones as good.  i do see a paramount issue that supercedes distaste and preference when our country is actually in grave danger.

at the time that Ross Perot was running, a third party candidate in the mix was a good thing and made people work harder to gain office.  in this instance it has been used as a tool - in fact the candidate himself has set himself up to be used as a tool - for an administration that is doing every thing in its power and a few things beyond that to get re-elected.  that i cannot abide, however poor a choice i feel Kerry may be.

Nader is willingly acting as a shill for the very establishment power mongers he originally opposed decades ago.  that is far more evil than anything i have read about Kerry.

the debates will be very interesting, but largely a dog and pony show; as the top 10 outlines, it can be nothing else.  Americans need to step forward and take back the debates and the political process, rather than sitting back and being fed BS daily.  that means holding everyone accountable.

i firmly believe that those who do not vote for Kerry and allow Bush\'s competition to be split in half are doing nothing but guaranteeing Bush\'s re-election.  the oldest and most successful offense is to divide and conquer - and they\'ve done it, by jove i do fear they have done it.

image = <i>"Blue Velvet"</i> (front of 2-sided piece) (c) georgia k griffin - all rights reserved


Ocean - Such hopeless cynicysm can only doom us to the negative. If one only sees the negative, then only negative will come. I believe that i am a realist. I try to balance preparation for bad, with hope for good. Have I been disappointed? Sure, but I have been pleasantly surprised as well. If everyone got so disgusted and did not vote, then the small minded minority is sure to win.

gkg - I agree that the Green Party has become a republican funded puppet. It\'s a shame and a sham. Very sad to see such an idealistic group of people used openly by their ideological advasaries. You would think they\'d be quick enough to catch on. It is too much to hope that Repubs are so disgusted by Bush that they would support Nader  rather than for Kerry so they can lie and say they voted, but not for the opposition.

After just watching the dog and pony debates, cause let\'s face it it IS all we have. I was overcome with joyful feelings of hope as I watched Kerry wipe the floor with Shrubya, without so much of a hair out of place. Regardless of how rigged it is, I do think that Kerry was extremely well spoken, he used EVERY SECOND of his time to state his platform. I found his statement of securing all the nuclear grade materials in 4 years, as daring as Kennedy saying we\'d put a man on the moon in however many years. (sorry folks it was before me, so I have only seen clips.) Bold move, which I am sure was meant  conjour images of JFK, Camalot, and better days.  Now, it is truely evident that Kerry is now working with the former Clinton people. And it worked before. Now lets face it, (all Zipper Gate and White Water aside, the Clinton years were pretty good in hind sight. Smart move. I beleive that Shrubya will definitely reduce the debates to 2 total, he looked so BAD! He stammered and stuttered, had long pauses, lots of "ummms" and "ahhhs"  and I was so distrated during his closing commets by all that blinking!! It was bordering on OCD!! Shrubya kept trying to talk in circles (mostly because his mind is stuck in a never ending idiot loop) and Kerry kept calling him out. Even if there is only one more debate Kerry has won the election.  ;D

Especially because all the of the havoc in Florida has so screwed them logistically for the election, that Jeb won\'t be able to help out this time. Hey, that puts me to mind, does anyone know what Neil Bush is up to? You know the OTHER brother. The one that was on the BoD\'s of the first 5 banks to fail in the S & L failures, you know the one that George Sr. pardoned while he was Pres. ::)

The Bush\'s are such an upstanding white collar criminal  family!!  :o  



Beatnik, i too thought Kerry did an excellent job.  i feel better about him now than i did going into the "debate" - my fav part of which was when Dubya interrupted and then apologized and Kerry offered to get rid of the "guidelines" and have a real debate.  Dubya wisely ignored that offer or he\'d have been shredded wheat by the end of the night.  your phrase "idiot loop" is dead on accurate.  

several times while watching and playing certain things back (we taped it) i said, "i hope Ocean and other reluctant to vote for Kerry saw this" - i really think it was a good representation of what is good about Kerry.  the whole thing about nuclear disarmament and Korea is SO strong and people have been letting that fade into the background.  i don\'t understand why.

all in all - i think it was a strong sign of hope for us that people are talking about it on the trains and in the coffee shops this morning.

image = <i>"Blue Velvet"</i> (front of 2-sided piece) (c) georgia k griffin - all rights reserved


I agree, it\'s got the conversations of the country returning to THE ISSUES. What are the real causes of the problem? Don\'t treat the symptoms of the problem, treat the cause of the problem! Kerry clearly explained how he would deal with the actual causes. While Shrubya just had a blank look on his face. It is easy to see that Bush will just never listen to the country about how WE think foreign policy should be handled. I believe that Kerry will listen to the country, even if he makes a different decision, he will take everything into consideration.  :D

I love how Kery said [glb]"BACK DOOR DRAFT"[/glb] too too true.  :o
And [glb]"COLLOSAL ERROR IN JUDGEMENT"[/glb] I was hopping up and down on my sofa!! :o

Beatnik  8)


the note that rang deep within me was when he hit on the matter of returning to the practice of earning international respect and that with integrity back in the White House we stand a better chance of getting an actual international coalition to help us dig ourselves and just as importantly Iraq out of this deep and dangerous pit of quicksand.

if anyone wants to know Kerry\'s plans, they are outlined in a general format on his website:


Bush obviously got stung by Kerry - he has just come out saying that Kerry would let foreign governments tell us when we can use our military, which is a complete misrepresentation of what was said.  arrggg... ok - before i take up too much space, or alienate anyone, i\'m gonna let that go.

image = <i>"Blue Velvet"</i> (front of 2-sided piece) (c) georgia k griffin - all rights reserved


October 02, 2004, 01:47:58 am #54 Last Edit: October 02, 2004, 01:51:31 am by Ocean
Oh Travis Darlin, you really should consider adding a chat room to your wonderful site. Just a thought.

I drafted a post for this thread this morning, and then the dread Microsoft error report window blinked on and "poof", the issue was closed. I took that as a sign from the powers to take a breath and step away. ;)
(*First time that irritating critter has ever popped up anywhere but on another network I utilize. I took it as a serious sign.  Probably shaped like an oval and embossed with; "Ahhh hush up!"   :-X

Let\'s see if M.soft kicks an edit this time.

I watched the debates on CSPAN , and was amazed that the networks violated one of the rules. They actually showed the opponent , as the other was speaking! Bravo revolution! ;)
It was obvious that Junior expected this though, because all his emotional ticks were so contained that he appeared as playdough with a tic. Rubbing his nose, posing that irritating smirk, looking to his left at who ever, as if seeking an ally during his ass kicking, etc....

Kerry, meanwhile, was clearly amused through the whole thing. He\'s a master~debater.  Given enough wine and white chocolate , on some of the coffee tables around here, that phrase could be edited to truly AmuZe! *cough*

I was impressed.

I was impressed that Junior stood his ground. Goddess Bless the moron that believes "Idiot" is monotheistic and claims acclaim as devout!

I was very impressed that Kerry addressed issues that GW probably prayed would never be brought out. And yet, with all respect to Kerry supporters, there is one little thing that caught my attention.
It\'s not a good thing to site facts and figures to support your platform , when said facts and figures are in error.
Per the GAO.  Kerry was in error when he said we spent over 2 Billion thus far , on the "war" in Iraq.

In point of fact we have spent little over 1.2 Billion.

"The flip~flop" charge per Kerry\'s record vs. his campaign rhetoric is valid. No, not per Juniors assertion in this debate, but per this debate and research of his record.  

For your consideration: Project Vote Smart Kerry Voting Record Link:http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

I concur , not with Junior, Goddess forbid, but with the issue of respect, that it dishonors those who fight and die today, to say this "war" is ; Kerry Quote> "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"
Source Link: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090804Z.shtml

What does that say to the grieving families of those who served, died, and bled in the sand, to insure democracy is born to a people who may or may not want it!?
Do you truly want U.S. there, when you decapitate us, and our ally nation members, in protest!?
And has America ever exampled herself , via the two party system and those in power at the time, as altruistic!?


October 02, 2004, 01:49:16 am #55 Last Edit: October 02, 2004, 01:55:56 am by Ocean
Consider Halliburton\'s investment in this "cause". Consider America building Air force Bases in Iraq today; over 10 in number (that is , more than 10). Does that send the message , that Junior initally claimed, that we\'re not there to take over their country, just to free their people?! (Paraphrasing).

And yes, I realize those few examples are citing the Anti~ Christ(Bush) points of contention, in this 1st debate and election. However, it is also to address the Kerry platform as well. Hence the inclusion of the "Project Vote Smart" link.

Read and learn. Dare to think beyond the hype.
Is it wise, is it free thinking and a free democracy, that our two party system candidates are likened unto celebrity and all that entails!?

In celebrity, Image is everything.

A bad movie can be canned, or relegated to the "Straight to video" shelf. However a bad movie in politics is guaranteed by the popular vote to run at least 4 years!

It\'s our responsibility not to let our honor and our future, to be relegated unto a B movie.

Kerry waffles! True enough and it\'s proven despite his contrary publicist machine that hopes to compel us to believe otherwise.
Remember during the debate, he kept talking about how much money the B. admin. spent on the war in Iraq?
There is a valid news clip where Kerry is asked how much we should spend to "Win" the "war" in Iraq, and he says (paraphrasing again I realize) , as much as it takes to win!

Point being; Bush is clearly myopic. "I am President, what I say goe$"
And Kerry has not, and did not , even in the debate, though he did address issues the Moderator did not, waffles! It\'s not campaign slam, it\'s his Senate Record speaking for himself.

I think of Kerry and I hear this line , repeating like a bad audio reel: "What ever it takes to win".

Before you vote, let me ask you this. Would you let Kerry invest your savings ?!
Would you trust him to tell you where the money was and what it was "up" to?

What does it say about a politicans record , when they campaign to lead you as President and yet, in a Nation of Laws, as a law maker, they did not vote on many of the bills that affected your future!?
If this is a nation of laws, do you trust to lead a law maker that abstains or does not vote , on your day to day as Senator, when they aspire to Commander In Chief!?
When I\'m wrong, I\'ll admit it. No problem. Because when someone proves I\'m wrong, I learn. I love that!

I respect some have titled me a cynic.
I consider myself an eternal optimist.

And I have learned that anyone who excuses their behavior when the future of others is on the line, is not anyone I would trust my life to!
You can excuse all you want. When I\'m dead, or in the shakles of a Federalist authority, etc.... that excuse means I should have had keener vision. Not that I should have realized a two party system is the only option in risking my chance of chains!

Goddess Bless America and save us from ourselves.

[size=10]*double word edit*[/size]


I just typed a huge responce to you Ocean, but unfortunatly the board gave em an error message that it was too long and to shorten it, and when tohe post box came back my entire post was gone.

Here was my gist:

Kerry\'s coments about the war were not meant to put down the troops, as Shrub would have you believe. His comments were to illustrate that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That the troops should be in Afganistan, tracking down Osma. After all it can\'t be too difficult to find a 60 year old man dragging a Kidney Dialysis machine throught the mountians. The troops areint he wrong country. We NEVER should have gone into Iraq.
I support the troops, but abhor the war. They are following orders and dying because there was never a full plan. Yes I think their lives are being wasted by Shrubya the war monger!!

Read former Secretary of the Treasury O\'Neils book. Bush wanted to go to war from the first week of his presidency. A full 9 months prior to 9/11.

Shrubya won\'t pay them decently, has yet to extend medical benefits to the reservists, who come back wounded and maimed. But we don\'t hear about those numbers do we??

Yes, I think Kerry would do better, because when he orders troops to go fight he knows first hand what it is like. Shrubya was too busy drinking and doing drugs, being sheltered by his rich family, and was too self centered to serve his country.

And now Shrub sends off the poor and middle class to go die for bull @#it reasons! Look at who comprises the military. The only rich people are the ones that got to the Academcy, and come out Officers. It\'s still the rich deciding who is going to die.

Beatnik   8)


I heard about this and had to find it myself. It appears that Laura Bush is not so innocent either:



Beatnik  8)


Goddess Rest the soul.  :\'(

I think it shows how low the media will go , exampling partisan bias, to help win this election.

I loath GW. However, I would ask, what of our past, even at 17, would we cringe to have revealed publicly!?

*runs and hides*


I don`t even pretend to know anything about politics in the USA, I can just go by what I`ve read and seen on UK television, But I do know I don`t like or trust George Bush and his treatment of people who speak uo for what they believe in.
I had always voted for the Labour party in the elections, but since Tony Blair decided to team up with Bush for the war in Irac I will not support them again until Blair goes, he doesn`t care what we the people want, he just wants to get Brownie points from Bush.
It`s time to bring home all the troups from the Gulf, back to their loved ones, It`s too late for some will never see their families again, every life wasted could have been avoided, They aren`t your children, Mr Prime Minister, and President Bush, you can`t know how their family feel, I have some idea, having lost my own son 5 years ago, he was 23.

When you decide to send troops to War, go with them, and be in the front line, we`ll see how brave you are: This to all the pro-war, Bush--Blair supporters everywhere.
Patti x