Debate ’08! Viable™ Candidates, Under Favorable Conditions

by Scott Creighton

In a couple of hours we will be treated to the last “Great Debate” of 2008, between the two men that “won” the primary elections for the major two parties in this nation: our Viable™ candidates. But don’t expect bombshells or fireworks. This debate is about two things; product placement and getting out without serious embarrassment to the all important “Business Party”.

To illustrate this point I would like to ask you one simple question; who is in charge of these Presidential debates? Meaning, who decides the criteria for who can attend, and who decides the forum and who ultimately decides the all important rules and format for the debates? Who?

Lobbyists. That’s who.

You would think that I mean that in some off-handed, back-door kind of way where they make donations and use the power of the checkbook to help sway the decision making; and that may all be true to some extent…

But no, that is not what I mean. I mean that lobbyists are in charge of the debates. Figuratively and literally.

The definition of viability: “Viability means in general “capacity for survival” and is more specifically used to mean a capacity for living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.”

Now you might think that the Republicans and the Democrats and maybe the Greens and the Independents would get together and hash out some way to present the debates in a good old fashioned democratic way. This is America, after all. You would be wrong.

During the Reagan years (thanks again Ronnie) they came up with a thing called the Commission on the Presidential Debates and the same two guys have been running it ever since. What they do there is pretty much everything. Debates R Us, kinda, in a 501(3)(c) not-for-profit scam kinda way. Alter Net decribes them this way:

“The Commission sounds like some venerable group of eminent graybeards and experts. Not so. It is a group of party apparatchiks whose express goal is to broker the terms of the debate in order to advance and protect each candidate’s interests. For the 2008 debates, the Commission negotiated a 31-page memo of understanding that lays out in precise detail the rules of stagecraft, questioning, follow-up, audience deportment, and other conditions. The contents of this memo, however, have not been disclosed despite requests by citizen groups.” Alter Net.

But still that sounds all well and good, one might think they are doing what is really in the best interests for the people that both political parties represent. But not so, when you look behind the curtain just a little. Also, they are the ones who determine whether or not a Nader or a McKinney will be allowed to participate. How many millions of Americans does that disenfranchise all based on their opinion as to whether or not those “fringe” candidates are Viable™ candidates. “Their opinion”. They decide. So, who are “they”, you ask?

The two chairmen of the Commission on the Presidential Debates are Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Paul G. Kirk, Jr.. Both are active lobbyist; high dollar, active lobbyists.

Fahrenkopf is the “republican” side representative, supposedly, who is a former Republican Party Chairman and now pays his dock-fees by serving as the President and CEO of the American Gaming Association. Wiki describes the AGA this way:

“The AGA was founded in 1995 with the goal of promoting, educating and lobbying on behalf of the gaming entertainment industry through education and advocacy. They address federal legislative and regulatory issues affecting its members and their employees and customers, such as federal taxation, regulatory issues, and travel and tourism matters.” Wiki.

The other chairman of the Commission on Presidential Elections is Paul Kirk and he is a little more interesting. It seems Mr. Kirk is heavily involved as a lobbyist in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Kirk is listed as a member of the Board of Directors for The Hartford, an insurance company, and he has previously served on the Boards of Directors of ITT Corporation (1989-1997). He currently runs a ‘business consulting” firm, Kirk and Associates, inc. and was a previous partner with the firm of Sullivan & Worcester, LLP of Boston.

Some of Sullivan & Worcester’s client list: Deutsche Bank AG, New York, Bank of Scotland, Bank of America, Pfizer Inc, Raytheon Company, Wellington Management Company, LLP, Fidelity Management & Research Company, and many others.

But Sullivan & Worcester don’t quit on their ambitions there, oh no. From their website:

“It’s no secret that the world’s fastest growing economy offers ever-expanding opportunities for U.S. businesses to expand abroad and for Chinese businesses to gain a foothold in the U.S…… For many years we have serviced Chinese-headquartered clients doing business in the US…… Through the wide network of relationships established with Chinese authorities at various levels, the China team can provide direct assistance with local authorities and government to help get our clients’ deals done as efficiently as possible and at the highest possible level of legal service.” S&W website.

Let’s sum up, shall we? We have, running the debates for the most important elected position in the US, a lobbyist for the gaming and leisure industry as well as a current lobbyist and Board member of an insurance company who just so happened to have been one of the people that helped sell this country out to the Chinese after Clinton’s NAFTA and represented a major defense contractor.

And as it just so happens, the third party candidates who go after issues like NAFTA, universal health-care, the military industrial complex, and globalization are all left out of the discussion… because they aren’t “viable” candidates?