In 1987 the Democrat and Republican parties decided to join forces to create a joint entity to oversee presidential debates. Since 1976 the League of Women Voters, a non-partisan organization, had accepted the challenge to run the debate series so that the public would be able to witness actual debate between candidates. What the parties’ decision would obviously lead to is the exclusion of any candidate who is outside of the two parties and the end of actual debating.

In a letter to the editor in the New York Times dated March 11, 1987, Lenore Chester, then-president of the New York League, stated that the debates should not be controlled by the two major parties because they will stifle debate and then goes on to list reasons why her organization has had trouble with candidates from both parties. The debate set for March 2, 1988, was cancelled because a few of the candidates did not want to participate, which was probably a party tactic. In October of that same year the League ended its relationship with the debates. Today we have the Commission on Presidential Debates that was formed in 1987. The commission’s website states that it was created to “provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners” and that it is also nonpartisan.

I do not believe this for a second. I highly doubt that an organization created the same year as both parties’ decision to end their relationship with the League is nonpartisan. What we have now is an organization that works in concert with both major parties to eliminate debate and squash the attempt of any other party candidate to join, which is what happened this year with Ralph Nader. There is no actual debate. It is merely a question, answer and short rebuttal session. The revelation of the secret contract between each party for this series of debates does not make me feel any more inclusive in the political process of this nation.

I do not feel that there is any reason to actually watch or listen to these sound bite sessions. In no way will each candidate be spontaneous or say anything that was not driven into their heads by their coaches and speechwriters. I would like to have a moderator and all of the candidates answering questions the moderator wrote without informing anyone and the allowance of ample time for rebuttal instead of a quick 30 seconds. The debates are a farce and only push the public farther away from an inclusive experience.

Vontilla Steven can be contacted at

v.steven@umiami.edu.

Let me talk to you about the proliferation of WMDs – not the kind you’re used to hearing about, and they threaten to undermine our democracy. Allow me to explain.

WMDs are destructive. They have deep implications for the electoral process and the marketplace of ideas. They keep the American public from making informed decisions. They are dangerous. See what I’m talking about? No? The term is actually very concrete – the way I see it, “Weapons of Mass Distraction” – yes, Distraction – does not have anything to do (directly, at least) with Nader, Kerry or even Bush. It has nothing to do with phony intelligence or nukes, but rather with something much more sinister: “WMDs” is simply a fancy way to describe the annoying, repetitive and seemingly omniscient political pundits that plague American newscasts.

Pundits are quite simply out of control. It’s as if Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch set out to assemble entire armies of talking heads and dress them up in cheap suits for the sole purpose of repeating their message over and over again to slowly indoctrinate the American public (if they don’t bore us to death first, that is). Pundits are everywhere in cable news channels, slowly taking over: Pundits get more airtime than actual news reporting in primetime, when most people are watching.

Now, if these pundits spoke facts, or at least balanced their statements with opposing opinions, this wouldn’t be a big deal – in fact, it would be good for keeping America informed on hot issues. Unfortunately, pundits have degenerated from being credible, respectable sources of opinion to being little more than human broken records, endlessly spieling their biased opinions, and conveniently leaving out any opposing views that might contradict whatever sliver of a reasonable argument one might find in the hot air they spew out. On top of that, they give unnecessary importance to irrelevant issues in order to distract us from what really matters – hence “Weapons of Mass Distraction.” Over 1,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq, and the WMDs are still talking about Vietnam War records? And the American public is actually listening to them? Please – we can do better!

If this keeps up, American news networks will become nothing more than propaganda outlets for their respective preferred parties, which would seriously undermine our democratic process and the marketplace of ideas. Whoever wants to win the election should make room in their agenda to declare war on CNN and FOX to stop Ted and Rupert from proliferating WMDs, an imminent threat to the very foundations of effective democracy.

Jay Rooney can be contacted at

j.rooney@umiami.edu.

Following the first presidential debate, Saturday Night Live captured Kerry’s position with typical poignancy. In a sketch, Jim Lehrer asks Kerry about the charge that he’s been inconsistent on Iraq. This Kerry was finally more forthcoming than the real one when he replied, “I’ve always been consistent on Iraq; in front of pro-war audiences I’m 100% in support of the war and in front of anti-war audiences I’m consistently against it.”

Much has been made about Kerry’s manner of nuanced speech that only New England liberals (and those from New Jersey) seem to find endearing. One example we’re all familiar with is where Kerry expresses that he “voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it,” referring to the $87 billion in supplemental defense funding for Iraq and Afghanistan that he voted against. It is certainly true that there’s more to that supplemental bill than just an up or down vote. What you’ve not heard, however, is that on Sept. 14, 2003, when asked if he would vote against the bill if his amendment didn’t pass, Kerry said, “I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves.” One month later Kerry did just that.

At the first two debates, Kerry praised the 1991 Gulf War coalition that was put together by the first President Bush. That coalition, which Kerry says was the ideal type of coalition, included a broad base of nations including most of our NATO allies and Arab nations like Syria and Egypt. It came complete with significant numbers of ground troops and a UN resolution authorizing the use of force. It was everything that Kerry says we need now, but don’t have.

While I was sitting in the Persian Gulf as part of the American military forces sent to liberate an Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, how did Kerry vote when it came time for Congress to vote to authorize force for that grand coalition? Kerry voted, “No.” It was everything he says we need now but don’t have, and when we had it, he voted no. Perhaps if he had been running for President then, he might have voted differently.

If I had been at that debate in St. Louis on Oct. 8, and had the chance to ask Kerry a question, I would have asked, “Senator, have you lost your mind?”

Scott Wacholtz can be contacted at

s.wacholtz@umiami.edu.

The unexpected death of actor and political activist Christopher Reeve this past weekend largely impacted UM students and our University community. We felt touched by Reeve’s meaningful life and were deeply saddened by losing him.

Before suffering the equestrian accident that left him paralyzed, Reeve was renown for his good looks, charm, fine acting skills and famous portrayal of Superman in the movie of the same name. But what is most admirable is that, even after the accident, Reeve continued to work, not only as an actor, but also as an advocate for spinal chord injury and paralysis research, including embryonic stem cell investigation.

Regardless of one’s point of view concerning this controversial topic, Reeve’s tenacity, optimism and strength were undeniable. Like the Man of Steel hero he played – the part that largely immortalized him as an actor – Reeve served as an inspirational role model and an icon for survival.

It takes a real-life Superman to fight as Reeve did against the difficult consequences of his accident. Faced with the same circumstances, not all of us would be able to maintain the contagious spirit and positive will to live that Reeve did. Although Reeve had access to some of the best care available in large part due to his fame and income, he used his experience to become a voice for the less fortunate in the same position as him. There are numerous examples of real-life heroes that, like Reeve, have to confront adversity and situations far too daunting for some of us to imagine. His death reminds us of the importance of overcoming obstacles and fighting for our beliefs, and this applies to individuals, groups and – why not? – even nations.

Because of his public support for embryonic stem cell research, Reeve’s name has been used in politics in the past. Sen. John Kerry brought up the actor’s name in the second presidential debate last Friday night, two days before Reeve’s passing, and Kerry said later that Reeve called him and appreciated being mentioned. Now that he’s gone, however, politicians should refrain from using his name for political benefit. In fact, Sen. John Edwards has already been criticized for speaking of Reeve in a political context after his death, and his wife was on the Today show justifying it.

Although it may be that Reeve (and his family) would have appreciated his cause being talked about, it would be lamentable that his death be over-politicized. Politicians would do well to remember this, particularly in such an intense election year where other people, like the Iraqi Olympic soccer team, have controversially been used in political advertising.

Reeve’s life would be just as memorable if this were not an election year; the significant effects of his actions were important before the election and will continue to be felt after it. Above all, Reeve will be remembered for the fine actor, role model and survivor he was…and Superman will be missed.