[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Carly Fiorina camp goes to war with the RNC
Source: Politico
URL Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/ ... nc-main-debate-cnn-121757.html
Published: Aug 26, 2015
Author: Steven Shepard
Post Date: 2015-08-27 12:56:44 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 4568
Comments: 55

Carly Fiorina camp goes to war with the RNC

The Republican businesswoman is crying foul over possibly being left off the next main debate stage. The RNC’s response — tough luck.

By Steven Shepard

8/26/15 8:38 AM EDT Updated 8/26/15 10:41 PM EDT

The first GOP presidential candidate to go to war publicly with the Republican National Committee is not Donald Trump. It’s Carly Fiorina.

Faced with the very real possibility that she will again be relegated to a lower-tier debate, Fiorina’s campaign is going after the RNC and the news organization the committee picked to host the next debate, CNN.

What has ensued is a tense back-and-forth, with Fiorina’s camp charging that the RNC should be doing more to ensure that the debate stage represents the true top 10 candidates, and the RNC saying tough luck, the rules are set.

Fiorina, the only female candidate in the GOP field, has surged in the polls since a widely praised performance in the “happy hour” debate earlier this month. But she has a problem: There haven’t been enough polls to catapult Fiorina from 14th place, where she stood going into that debate, into the top 10 ranking for CNN’s Sept. 16 debate.

That’s because CNN — unlike Fox News, which used only the final five polls released before its debate — outlined criteria this spring in which it said it would average the results of polls released between July 16 and Sept. 10. And of the 10 polls that currently qualify for inclusion in CNN’s average, eight were conducted before the first debate.

The Fiorina campaign’s solution? Since CNN has already said it will use all the polls, it should weight down the older surveys and weight up the post-debate polls — and the RNC should make sure that happens.

“The RNC should ask CNN to treat the polling in July the same as the polling that comes after,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, Fiorina’s deputy campaign manager, in a Medium post. “Because there were nine polls released in the three weeks before the last debate, one would expect 18 polls released in the six weeks between the two debates. If that does not happen, the polling average of those six weeks should be treated as the equivalent of 18 polls. Assuming the numbers remain consistent with current polling, Carly would easily place in the top 10 for the main debate.”

[snip]

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: nolu chan (#0) (Edited)

The Republican businesswoman is crying foul over possibly being left off the next main debate stage. The RNC’s response — tough luck.

Fiorina is clearly all about self-promotion. But as someone who is regarded by the RNC/GOPe as one more "non-politician" with a free shot at the GOPe field, they can't afford to withstand her flak targeted at GOPe candidates, along with Carson, and Trump. Conservatives are taken notes. And so too are Republicans and Independents. PLENTY of them.

Fortunately, I believe the RNC will relent on including Fiorina, lest they be accused of "hating women." HA!

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-27   13:08:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: nolu chan (#0)

Perhaps she can get her sugar daddy Bibi to pull some strings and get her on the roster. He has lots of friends in the GOP with enough pull to turn the trick. That is, if she's not too busy felating him.

Logsplitter  posted on  2015-08-27   13:14:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: nolu chan (#0) (Edited)

The Republican businesswoman is crying foul over possibly being left off the next main debate stage.

She was never a businesswoman. She was a dud that was good at fabricating theatrics, posturing, bold assertive talk, and showmanship that had to be fired because she was running one of the top technological companys in the world about which she knew nothing into the ground. She represents everything that has has been fundimentally wrong in this country for the past 60 years.

rlk  posted on  2015-08-27   13:25:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: rlk (#3)

"because she was running one of the top technological companys in the world about which she knew nothing into the ground."

And, dammit, she wants the opportunity to do the same for the U.S.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-27   13:34:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nolu chan (#0)

That’s because CNN ... outlined criteria this spring in which it said it would average the results of polls released between July 16 and Sept. 10.

And she agreed. Now she wants to change the rules (though I'm sure she'd scream bloody murder if another candidate tried this).

That's real Presidential, Carly. No wonder they kicked you out at HP.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-27   13:39:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#5)

Now she wants to change the rules

That's what a politician does for a living: lawmaking is merely the process of writing new rules.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-27   13:53:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

Now she wants to change the rules

That's what a politician does for a living: lawmaking is merely the process of writing new rules.

Thats what cheap politicians do. Statesmen don't. We've had enough politicians and not enough statesmen.

rlk  posted on  2015-08-27   14:01:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: rlk (#7)

Thats what cheap politicians do. Statesmen don't. We've had enough politicians and not enough statesmen.

Statesmen write and amend laws. Laws are rules. The nature of being a statesman is to apply existing rules where prudent, write new ones where needful, and altering old ones that have become obsolete. That's what congressmen, presidents and judges are FOR: to apply rules, amend rules and write new rules.

Carly Fiorina has run into a rule that was made in the abstract. The rule seemed fair at the time, but when looked at in retrospect (a very large number of polls before the debate, and few since), it not only harms her prospects, but may not make sense.

Prussians applied the foolish consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds. What worked for a 3-by-8 little Eastern European kingdom failed on an imperial level, creating a rigidity of mindset that caused wars that ultimately resulted in the loss of the Prusssian homeland itself.

This may not be the case here - Fiorina may be engaging in special pleading. But there is nothing inherently wrong with what she is doing. Chellenging the rules because they do not make sense is precisely what thinking people would HOPE politicians would do. Men wrote laws with the information they had then. We have more information now. Laws often need to change to reflect that.

In this case, Fiorina will win her case. She's interesting, and the GOP establishment will want her to get up there to hammer at Trump, because she will. They will amend their rule to let her into the debate, and in she will come. CNN will love to have her, because she will generate attention and fireworks going after Trump on what is perceived as his weak spot when it comes to dealing with strident women.

They'll bump some also-ran off the stage and put Fiorina up there. You can mark this post down and return to it. Fiorina will be in that debate. CNN and the GOP will make that happen. They will make it happen by interpreting the rules to require a time-weighted average of polls, and that will get her aboard. Some other also-ran will lose, he will complain, and nobody will pay any attention.

Fiorina will win this fight.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-27   14:26:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Too Conservative (#0)

The GOP and CNN will "interpret" the rules in such a way to get Fiorina into the debate next time, and she will be the bead to go after Trump. She will go after him, because the GOP and she think that Trump is vulnerable among women, so they'll be sure to get her in there against him.

He will use that opportunity to deal with her fairly - as an equal - and point out that she was a disastrous CEO of a major company, and he will make the point that promoting somebody JUST BECAUSE she is a woman is foolish. His organization runs on MERIT, not genitalia, and he will run his Administration that way.

This is all foreseeable, but the GOP that get her into that debate won't forsee it because the political professionals in the GOP are actually pretty incompetent and far out of touch with what America has moved on to.

Fiorina will be in the next debate, she will take on the Rand Paul "Bait Trump" role, and Trump will spank her hard and win points with women by putting her in her place. The failed CEO and failed politician is not a peer of a billionaire who succeeds at most things. The only reason anybody gives a shit about Fiorina is that she's a thin, loudmouthed woman who wears red dresses.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-27   14:31:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#4)

because she was running one of the top technological companys in the world about which she knew nothing into the ground."

And, dammit, she wants the opportunity to do the same for the U.S.

Sorry but Barry Hoosane already did that:)

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8

redleghunter  posted on  2015-08-27   14:37:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

"That's what a politician does for a living: lawmaking is merely the process of writing new rules."

1) Laws are written by Congress. She's running for President.

2) Laws are written according to the will of the people, not the will of the politicians.

3) Writing new rules in mid-stream which favor the rule-writer is not lawmaking. It's cheating.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-27   14:39:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

Earlier this year, Trump had this to say on Carly Fiorina being President:

“Look, you have a woman who got fired from her job. And I mean fired viciously. She got fired viciously. She then went out and lost in a landslide when she ran in California for the Senate (to Barbara Boxer in 2010). And I mean, she lost in a landslide. She got clobbered. And now she’s running for president. Now, I’m all for it. I think she’s a very nice woman. But she got fired. And, she lost in a landslide. Does that qualify you to run for president?”

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-27   14:44:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: nolu chan (#0)

Fiorina’s campaign is going after the RNC and the news organization the committee picked to host the next debate, CNN.

The fact that the alleged GOP would pick CNN tells you everything you need to know about them.

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? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-08-27   16:05:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Liberator (#1) (Edited)

Fiorina is clearly all about self-promotion.

Name ONE politician that isn't.

Politics is the art of selling yourself. If we,the people are lucky,they are trying to sell themselves to us.

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? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-08-27   16:06:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: misterwhite (#4)

And, dammit, she wants the opportunity to do the same for the U.S.

If that is true she is going to have her work cut out for her if she plans on topping what the usual suspects pull.

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? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-08-27   16:09:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: misterwhite (#11)

1) Laws are written by Congress. She's running for President.

2) Laws are written according to the will of the people, not the will of the politicians.

3) Writing new rules in mid-stream which favor the rule-writer is not lawmaking. It's cheating.

(1) Laws - things that have the force of law - have always been created by courts - that is what the Common Law is. Statutory law is written by Congress. Regulatory law is written by the Executive branch. It's all law.

(2) Laws always have been, and always will be, nothing more than the opinions of the legislator. In America, the people choose the legislators, but the legislators legislate according to their own opinions. If the people don't like what they've done, they can replace them in the next election. Other than in ballot initiatives at the state level, the people never write laws directly, and the laws are only "by their will" through a very attenuated pretense.

(3) All changes to all rules is always mid-stream.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-27   16:53:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite (#12)

“Look, you have a woman who got fired from her job. And I mean fired viciously. She got fired viciously. She then went out and lost in a landslide when she ran in California for the Senate (to Barbara Boxer in 2010). And I mean, she lost in a landslide. She got clobbered. And now she’s running for president. Now, I’m all for it. I think she’s a very nice woman. But she got fired. And, she lost in a landslide. Does that qualify you to run for president?”

Fiorina will come after him, and Trump will fire that at her on national television, prime time. It will be great.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-27   16:55:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Liberator (#1)

Fiorina is clearly all about self-promotion.

I thought that was Trump's schtick.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts

Deckard  posted on  2015-08-27   17:24:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Deckard (#18)

("Fiorina is clearly all about self-promotion.")

I thought that was Trump's schtick.

Yeah, it is Trump's schtick. Except he has an actual track record FOR doing things and calling out Jorge Ramos, Megyn Kelly, Jeb Bush, and the GOPe.

Fiorina? Not so much. She's a pathetic loser who was an AA CEO who got fired. During this go-around she tried to piggy-back Trump thunder by played the "I support Megyn Cheap-Shot Kelly." And NOW she's whining...."Waaaah.....I'm a girl! Yo won't let me play with with the boys!!"

So tell me -- what's Fiorina's schtick again, and who do you support??

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-27   17:42:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: sneakypete (#14) (Edited)

(Fiorina is clearly all about self-promotion.)

Name ONE politician that isn't.

Again -- when you can back it up (like Trump), you CAN self-promote.

Politics is the art of selling yourself.

No kidding. ALL sales is an art -- be it politics or real estate or product or vision. By definition one self-promotes ideas, conviction, strength, and credibility to get things done.

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-27   17:47:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: sneakypete (#13)

The fact that the alleged GOP would pick CNN tells you everything you need to know about them.

Not as much as if they picked MSNBC.

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-27   17:48:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: misterwhite (#5)

And she agreed. Now she wants to change the rules (though I'm sure she'd scream bloody murder if another candidate tried this).

I don't believe the candidates had a say in the matter to agree or not.

Weren't the rules changed for the first debate, or was that the first two debates. It was originally slated to include only the top 10. Shortly before the event, they decided to include all the excluded candidates in an event a few hours earlier dubbed the "happy hour" or "kiddie" debate.

If the party and CNN wanted to make the change, I doubt the FEC would stand in their way.

From the Politico article:

But after determining that the final polling average could very well include more surveys conducted before the first debate than after, Isgur Flores aimed directly at the pollsters and the RNC in her Medium post.

“To be clear, if Carly isn’t on the main stage, it will not be because her rise in the polls can’t overcome lower polling from July, but because only two of CNN’s chosen polling companies have released polls at all since the first debate,” she wrote. “If the RNC won’t tell CNN to treat post-debate polling consistently with pre-debate polling, they are putting their thumb on the scale and choosing to favor candidates with higher polling for three weeks in July over candidates with measurable momentum in August and September.”

It's hardball party politics. The GOPe turds cannot rise to the top on their own, so the party is doing its best to flush away the unwanted turds.

So far, Trump is too big to flush.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-27   18:19:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite (#16)

(1) Laws - things that have the force of law - have always been created by courts - that is what the Common Law is. Statutory law is written by Congress. Regulatory law is written by the Executive branch. It's all law.

Precisely.

Now get ready for the local experts to tell you it ain't so.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-27   18:24:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#12)

Earlier this year, Trump had this to say on Carly Fiorina being President:

“Look, you have a woman who got fired from her job. And I mean fired viciously. She got fired viciously. She then went out and lost in a landslide when she ran in California for the Senate (to Barbara Boxer in 2010). And I mean, she lost in a landslide. She got clobbered. And now she’s running for president. Now, I’m all for it. I think she’s a very nice woman. But she got fired. And, she lost in a landslide. Does that qualify you to run for president?”

The response to the criticism of Fiorina as HP CEO came by way of a full page ad in the NYT today, by Tom Perkins, a member of the HP Board of Directors back then.

https://carlyforamerica.com/blog/icymi-former-hp-board-member-tom-perkins-the-truth-about-carly/

ICYMI: TOM PERKINS, “THE TRUTH ABOUT CARLY”<

New York Times
8/27/15

By Tom Perkins

RESPONSE TO:

Andrew Ross Sorkin

August 17, 2015

“Carly Fiorina’s Business Record: Not So Sterling”

The consensus is clear: Carly Fiorina won the first Republican Primary debate. As a result she is climbing the polls and into the top tier of candidates. Her rise has led pundits to speculate about her tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

I was a member of the HP Board of Directors much of the time Carly was the CEO. I was in the room for many of the decisions she made. I can attest to the strength of Carly’s leadership, the accuracy of her vision and the quality of her management.

Carly was an excellent CEO. She led HP through one of the worst economic times in decades. Less than two years into Carly’s leadership, the dot com bubble went bust. Silicon Valley was in chaos. Companies were shedding jobs almost daily. There were so many layoffs The Associated Press ran weekly announcements regarding layoffs at tech companies. And The San Francisco Chronicle declared 2001 “The Year of the Layoff.”

While other Silicon Valley icons like Sun Microsystems disappeared, Carly’s vision and execution not only helped to save HP but made it a strong, more versatile company that could compete in the changing technology sector. I was on the Compaq Board during the HP-Compaq merger and remained a member of the new HP Board once the merger was complete. Both companies knew that we needed something dramatic to inject life back into our companies. The merger, while controversial, was unanimously approved by every member of the HP Board and won approval from shareholders. Thanks to Carly’s leadership there was a path forward for this storied but troubled company.

Critics questioned the move, but history proves Carly was right. Post merger, HP became the biggest computer company in the world. It positioned HP to compete in integrated systems and allowed us to compete in sectors beyond the core strength of the company, printers.

Carly was hired at HP because it was struggling. Revenues were down, quarterly earnings were missed, innovation lagged and growth stagnated. HP, once the leader in Silicon Valley, was clinging to the status quo and failing to embrace the new tech era. Silicon Valley companies were prospering by taking advantage of the new technologies; HP was stubbornly clinging to the past. HP needed a change agent and someone who could return the company to its glory days. Carly was the right choice.

The results of Carly’s transformational leadership? HP revenues doubled to more than $80 billion, innovation tripled to 15 patents per day, the growth rate more than quadrupled 6.5 percent and we grew to become the 11th largest company in the country. Carly did what she was brought in to do: turn the company around make it successful again. Not only did she save the company from the dire straits it was in, she laid the foundation for HP’s future growth.

Critics often claim was fired at HP because she was unsuccessful. As a member of the board, I can tell you this is not true. In truth, it was the Board I was a part of that was ineffective and dysfunctional. The HP board of directors included family members of the founders. Carly worked with the hand she was dealt as best as one could. While Carly fought to save the company and the employees within, some board members fought for their own power or advancement. You see, some board members wanted to micro-manage the company, hand picking friends and allies to run divisions. This is no way to run a global company and Carly had the strength of character and courage of conviction to stand up to it and ultimately she lost her job because of it.

While lesser leaders would have accepted offers of transition plans and graceful resignations, Carly would have none of that. Carly demanded to be fired. In order to restore peace to the board I voted to fire her. That was a mistake.

In the months and years after Carly left, the Board of Directors remained dysfunctional. The Board members who plotted Carly’s ouster eventually resigned after an embarrassing investigation by Congress.

I have no question that Carly is a transformational leader who uniquely has both vision and the expertise to implement it. We are in the middle of a heated election, and often facts and the truth get lost in the heat of partisan rhetoric. As someone who worked with and observed Carly first hand I can attest to her abilities, intellect and talent. I am proud to support Carly Fiorina for President of the United States.

Tom Perkins

Tom Perkins is the founder of the California venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-27   18:53:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: sneakypete (#13)

The fact that the alleged GOP would pick CNN tells you everything you need to know about them.

They will take hours of free airtime on any network.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-27   18:55:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: nolu chan (#24)

The response to the criticism of Fiorina as HP CEO came by way of a full page ad in the NYT today, by Tom Perkins, a member of the HP Board of Directors back then.

It would be amusing to know who paid for the article, him or her??

“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...

CZ82  posted on  2015-08-27   19:37:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: nolu chan (#25)

The fact that the alleged GOP would pick CNN tells you everything you need to know about them.

They will take hours of free airtime on any network.

Not even close. Any network would offer them free air time in order to get the viewership for higher ad rates.

I wouldn't even be surprised if networks were willing to pay THEM to hold their debates on their network. They can write it off their required public service time,also.

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? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-08-27   19:52:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: sneakypete (#27)

Any network would offer them free air time in order to get the viewership for higher ad rates.

Only if Trump is there. Early primary debates have never drawn an audience before.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a private 501(C)(3) corporationn, not a government entity, and was created jointly by the Dems and GOP when they conspired to wrest control of the debates from the League of Women Voters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a private firm. It began in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that presidential election debates are run between candidates for President of the United States. The Commission is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation as defined by federal US tax laws, whose debates are sponsored by private contributions from foundations and corporations.

The CPD sponsors and produces debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and undertakes research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and former White House press secretary Michael D. McCurry. As of 2014, the Board of directors consists of Howard Graham Buffett, John C. Danforth, Charles Gibson, John Griffen, Antonia Hernandez, John I. Jenkins, Newton N. Minow, Leon Panetta, Richard D. Parsons, Dorothy Ridings, Alan K. Simpson, Olympia Snowe, and Shirley M. Tilghman.

[...]

In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."

Christopher Hitchens speaking at a September, 2000 third party protest at the Commission's headquarters.

At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-27   20:51:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: nolu chan (#0)

Carly is strictly GOPe. She just wants in on the real money. She is a globalist fraud.

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

out damned spot  posted on  2015-08-27   22:12:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: nolu chan (#0)

Beware of Carly, the GOPe stealth candidate.

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

out damned spot  posted on  2015-08-28   6:26:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: nolu chan (#22)

"I don't believe the candidates had a say in the matter to agree or not."

I believe if you agree to participate, you agree to the rules. No?

But in today's society, who knows? There are many stories of people who participate in our society, violate the rules, then complain afterwards that the rules were unfair or stupid. Perhaps if they complained before they violated the rules they'd have more credibility.

Of course, that's what's wrong with society today. Individuals think the rules are for other people, not them. Apparently, Carly Fiorina is one of them.

"Weren't the rules changed for the first debate?"

No. But they did add a completely separate debate for the lower tier candidates. This gave her an opportunity for airtime (that she could have refused) that she wouldn't have had otherwise.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-28   9:14:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: nolu chan (#23)

(1) Laws - things that have the force of law - have always been created by courts - that is what the Common Law is. Statutory law is written by Congress. Regulatory law is written by the Executive branch. It's all law. Precisely.

Now get ready for the local experts to tell you it ain't so.

Courts don't create laws. The leislature does.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-08-28   9:31:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Vicomte13 (#16)

(1) Laws - things that have the force of law - have always been created by courts

Nope. Common Law is simply stare decisis -- a court decision made on case law or precedent. Our courts do not write new laws.

That said, a judge can certainly reinterpret statutory law or existing common law (eg., the Kelo decision), but that is usually looked upon negatively as judicial activism.

"Regulatory law is written by the Executive branch."

Executive orders are limited to the implementation and enforcement of statutory laws written by Congress.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-28   9:52:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: misterwhite (#31)

I believe if you agree to participate, you agree to the rules. No?

And then you get in, and once you're in, if the rules are bad, you go right after them and try to change them.

Prussians worship rules. They set out battle plans and adhere rigidly to them, permitting no deviation. Occasionally, they win. More often, they declare war on Russia, and then invade France because "that's the battle plan - those are the rules" and they cannot be changed.

And so Prussians lose.

Today, the land that was called "Prussia" once is today called "Poland" and "Russia".

Those Prussians sure stuck by their rules. They made a fetish out of worshipping the laws they made, and insisting on their strict implementation.

And they were smashed to pieces and lost all of their land.

In life, the only absolute rules are the ones that God made - the physical ones (you can't breathe water), and the moral ones (don't kill people).

Human rules are made for a time, to address a situation. When they don't work, you change them if you can, but if the rules are ossified and the people supporting them are Prussians, then you break the rules and rely on differentials of power to be able to make your breaking of the rules stick.

The rules in this case don't make sense. Fiorina is interesting. The other candidates are not. So her stink about them will result in a change of the rules so that she gets on the main debate panel versus Trump. If Pataki were complaining about the rules, nobody would be changing them for him, because he is neither interesting enough, nor has seen enough surge in popularity, to be able to persuade anybody to change the rules for him.

They'll change the rules for Fiorina, and that's fine. We don't live in Prussia. Nobody does. Prussia is gone. It was a bad idea to begin with, and its rigid adherence to arbitrary rules was a complete failure. We've never been Prussians, and we're not going to turn into them.

Rules are opinions. They can change. They can be forced. They can sometimes be broken. They're guidelines only.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-28   10:51:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: misterwhite (#33)

Nope. Common Law is simply stare decisis -- a court decision made on case law or precedent. Our courts do not write new laws.

All of our original law came from Common Law. It was codified later by statutes that sometimes changed it. The equitable power of courts makes the law for the case, and makes the law for the lower courts.

How the courts rule determines what the law actually is.

The Supreme Court made the current abortion law of America. Legislatures and Executives have no power to override the Supreme Court's imposition of abortion law. They have tried, and the Supreme Court has struck them down and cleared off their competing law every time.

Law doesn't work according to the simplistic lines in civics books. It's more complicated than that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-28   10:53:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: misterwhite (#33)

Executive orders are limited to the implementation and enforcement of statutory laws written by Congress.

Most law is in the form of regulation, which determines how the general statutes of Congress and legislatures actually are applied. The Executive branch writes the regulations.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-28   10:54:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: A K A Stone (#32)

Courts don't create laws. The leislature does.

Abortion on demand is the law of the land. It struck down statutes passed by legislatures.

Courts have always created laws.

They don't create statutes. Judicial opinions are not statutes, but they are laws. Regulations are not statutes, but they are laws.

If Sam and Bill want to get married, and want the New Church Bakery to make their cake for them, the local officials will marry them, and the bakery will bake the cake, even though legislatures passed statutes that say no no no, and even though state constitutions were amended by the people to say no no no.

Because the Supreme Court makes the Supreme Law of the land by interpreting the Constitution. Courts make laws.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-28   10:58:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Vicomte13 (#35)

"The Supreme Court made the current abortion law of America."

Just the opposite. They told legislators across the country that writing laws banning abortion violated a woman's right to privacy protected by the U.S. Constitution.

This is the judicial activism I was referring to.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-28   11:01:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: misterwhite (#38)

They struck down individual statutes and executive decisions, and imposed their own decision. That's lawmaking.

If one wishes to call it something else, one can hide what it is under fake labels. I call a spade a spade.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-28   11:02:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Vicomte13 (#37)

"Courts make laws."

Courts overturn laws which violate the constitution, and issue a ruling to that effect. There is no new law, written by the courts, which take the place of an overturned law.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-28   11:05:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 55) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com