Making Ripples: post-corporate adventures in Floyd County Virginia

Two more days to the next Presidential Debate in Nashville

The Commission on Presidential Debates is sponsoring the next debate between Senator McCain and Senator Obama in Nashville, TN. Tom Brokaw is the moderator.

This is your chance to see how the candidates respond to questions in a townhall meeting format. Candidates will be questioned by uncommitted voters identified by the Gallup Organization.

Since both parties have already figured out how to "game" the system, there will be a number of party operatives pretending to be "average uncommitted citizens". As a result, we can expect sophisticated "Gotcha" questions from these "average" citizens.

It will be a good test of candidate toughness under fire and will also be a test of moderator fairness.

Tom Brokaw has come under criticism by Obama supporters because he served as a liaison between NBC and the McCain campaign to diffuse conservative animosity against the network. He also wrote a book with John McCain. We will see if he shows any more favoritism than Ifills did.

Visit the CPD website for full details about the history and format of the debates.

Here is a sample of some important points from the CPD website:

Candidate Negotiation
The debate sponsor and the participants must agree on the details and terms of the debate...

Selection of Questioners
Pick a person/persons who are familiar with the issues and candidates in the election being debated. Journalists are likely to be more experienced and comfortable with handling the technical requirements of a broadcast setting. Above all, choose a moderator or panelists whom you and the debate participants trust to be professional and fair.

If you decide to organize the debate as a town meeting, select an unbiased audience. Consider asking a neutral, independent organization, such as a polling or research group, to identify impartial individuals to serve as members of the audience.

Debate Details:   

General Election Presidential Debate

John McCain (R), United States Senator (AZ) and
Barack Obama (D), United States Senator (IL)

Date:October 7, 2008
Location:Belmont University
City:Nashville, TN
Time:9:00 - 10:30 p.m. Eastern

Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Moderator: Tom Brokaw, NBC
Topic: All Topics

Format:  90-minute town hall meeting debate. Candidates questioned by uncommitted voters identified by the Gallup Organization. In addition, moderator has discretion to include questions submitted online. Candidates questioned in turn with two-minute responses, followed by one-minute open discussion for each question.

Thanks to  Georgia Reynard of Richmond, VA for the link to CPD.

What were they thinking?

If there was any desire to appear fair and balanced, why would PBS the Commission on Presidential Debates choose Gwen Ifill as the moderator for the Vice Presidential debates when she has a book about Barack Obama coming out soon? Are there no other spokespersons who are not openly aligned with one candidate or another?

One can only imagine if John Corsi, author of the Obama Nation, were proposed as the moderator for the debate. Heads would be exploding at the very thought.

John McCain is more trusting than I am. He said in a recent interview, "I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional and I think that she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly respected professional."

I think that Ifill, with all of the scrutiny she is now under, will do a competent job, but this ridiculous choice is another blemish on the reputation of PBS the CPD. With such a choice of moderator, who is to believe that someone from PBS will not slip the questions to Joe Biden's folks beforehand?.

The original question I posed still applies. Why would PBS anyone make such an inopportune choice?

Mainstream Media is finally becoming sensitive to charges that the media is biased. The recent discussion by MSM talking heads where they discussed that perception on the part of the public shows their complete puzzlement that the public would find their slanted coverage as reflecting bias.

Perhaps like a fish having difficulty comprehending the idea of "being wet", much of the media is so solidly of one political persuasion it is difficult to envision any other way of viewing events.

(Image credit: House of Eratosthenes, Paging Saturday Night Live)

UPDATE: After watching the first hour of the debate, I saw no sign of bias on the part of Gwen Ifill. She seemed to be scrupulosly fair and balanced in her handling of the Vice Presidential candidates. On the other hand, Joe Biden kept flashing her a knowing smile when he wasn't speaking as if to acknowledge that he was on good terms with her.  Sarah was polite, but played to the camera and the audience and answered only those parts of the questions she wanted to answer. Both candidates were persuasive speakers.

A simple credibility test

The next time you are exposed to widely differing stories about anything, take a hard look at which side is trying hardest to shut off the debate by force or by legal threats. That side of the issue is hiding something that cannot stand scrutiny.

If an idea is worth defending, it should be defended openly with an exchange of facts as well as opinions.

Shutting off debate using paid goons to interrupt speakers is as old as civilization. "Spontaneous" demonstrations staged by professional agitators provide eye catching news photos for journalists especially when these demonstrations disrupt an ongoing event..

Suppressing dissent takes different forms. PR professionals craft action campaigns where callers jam radio station lines to create the effect of mass disapproval in hopes of forcing the show to shut down.

Lawyers are sent to threaten media outlets with suits for running ads unfavorable to a particular cause or candidate.

This is not limited to politics. One can see this "stamping out dissent" activity around the subjects of global warming, construction of power plants, harvesting of trees, etc.

Using force or legal threats to shut off discussion of important matters is a sign that something is being hidden from view. Any group using this technique should be considered unworthy of trust. It becomes very important in these situations to see who is making money on each side of the controversy.

How can one apply this?

Take a subject like global warming which has passionate adherents and reputable critics in the scientific community. The ad hominum attacks on those who question the measurements and computer models suggests that critical inquiry is heresy of the worst sort. When we can no longer ask questions, we enter the province of religious belief. Climate change is a matter for science, not zealotry and faith.

I have no particular insight on this matter even after extensive historical studies, so I see the efforts to shut down critics of the current global warming debate as a sign of a cover up of some magnitude. As a result, I have a healthy distrust of the whole global warming movement. There may be some merit to the arguments, but the actions of the proponents makes me think it is a money making scam.

What is there to cover up? Perhaps the sale of carbon offsets by the oracle of global warming. Perhaps a "green washing" of polluting businesses through the purchase of "dispensations". Perhaps the creation of government grants to "study" the problem and guarantee employment to those who are properly aligned.

Until there is continued open and intelligent discussion of the situation, I will not believe those who cry wolf and attempt to use our tax money to line their pockets.

The next time you find yourself unable to make up your mind about an important situation, take a look at how the parties involved are handling their critics. That may tell you more about their intentions than what they are actually saying.

Deeds are more important than words in determining what to expect from someone or some group.

A politician will run on promises to "throw the bums out", but you should take careful note who is contributing to him and whether they are under indictment or investigation.

Why a debate is different than a campaign stop

The presidential debate showed a different side of both Barack Obama and John McCain than I had ever seen before. This is probably because the debate environment is closer to what an executive experiences on the job has to deal with as opposed to campaigning and interviews which are more like sales situations.

Barack Obama is a gifted speaker and has the ability to arouse an audience and to get others to follow his dreams. He is an incredibly persuasive orator and his rapid rise to political prominence reflects that ability.

John McCain is no salesman and on the campaign trail his speeches have not seemed inspiring, only reassuring us that he means well. Until Sarah Palin joined his campaign, there was no sizzle. A sales campaign without sizzle is a non-event.

A live, in-person debate is much more like the kind of challenge executives face every day in the business world and in the political world. Courage and the confidence that comes from actual experience are essential for handling pressure and making decisions when there is a lot at stake.

There are no retakes or Photoshopping in real life situations. In a presidential debate, as in real life, your opposition can see you sweat and every tremor and bit of nervousness is there for all to see. There is no provision for a "Do Over" call. What goes down in a crunch situation is there for all to see.

In last night's debate John McCain's experience served him well. Barack Obama's obvious brilliance and oratorical ability were on display and were tested to the fullest. Only the voters can decide which man is the better choice to be President of the United States for the next four years.

Do children come prewired for Internet access now?

I ask because, in Floyd, it often seems like anything is possible.

Porter is one and half years old. When I saw him at the computer at the Cafe Del Sol, I was taken aback at his certainty.

I asked his mother if she thought this was his first lifetime using a computer.
She just smiled.

Meanwhile, Porter made a determined effort at logging in on Netflix.