STATEMENT BY NANCY M. NEUMAN PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
Good afternoon. I am Nancy Neuman, president of the League of women Voters.
Thank you all for coming on such short notice.
The decision I am here to announce vas not an easy one to reach. It's the
right decision. I know that. But not an easy one.
From its start in 1920, the League of Women Voters aimed to inform people
about the issues at stake in elections -- to open lines of communication between
the electorate and candidates for public office. Beholden to no political party,
the League has for 68 years been looked to for the even-keeled information
voters need around election time.
Soon after its founding, the League got into the business of bringing candidates
and experts together in public to discuss and debate various positions on various
issues. These forums were held at the local and state level -- in meeting halls,
churches, synagogues, schools, and eventually on the radio. All in all, they
turned out to be an excellent means toward the League's end of providing voter
information and encouraging people to vote.
In 1976, the League institutionalized debates at the national level by bringing
televised, nonpartisan exposure to the presidential candidates' views, positions
and priorities. Since then, the American voter has come to expect the League
to hold presidential campaigns accountable and to keep the candidates accessible.
1980 and 1984 were election years when television's potential as a campaign
tool was fully realized. In both elections, the League stayed in the game,
and we got the presidential candidates to agree to debate. The League is proud
that we were able to bring Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, John Anderson, Ronald
Reagan, Walter Mondale, Robert Dole, George Bush and Geraldine Ferraro before
the voters in debates that proved informative even as campaigns were proving
more and more image-driven and scripted.
After the 1984 election, the League decided that it would go ahead with plans
to sponsor a full series of primary and general-election presidential debates
in 1988. In early 1987 -- our site selection process and other planning already
under way -- the chairmen of the two political parties announced plans to sponsor
their own series of debates. They had set up a commission, they said, and they
thanked the League for all we had done and urged us to step aside.
We did not.
Since their press conference that day, the League has argued that an organization
set up by the political parties is not an appropriate sponsor of presidential
debates. Obviously, the political parties have a huge stake in the outcome
of debates and elections. And obviously, a political party will not be party
to an event that puts its titular head at risk.
Under partisan sponsorship debates will become just another risk-free stop
along the campaign trail.
We forged ahead with our plans for debates in the fall of 1988. We sent proposals
to the Bush and Dukakis campaigns in May of this year outlining our recommendations
for dates, site, format end other concerns. As the campaign progressed, however,
it became clear that the idea of debates sponsored by the political parties
had appeal with people who routinely squeeze all risk out of their candidates'
appearances. They prefer instead to leave the American public at risk.
After a couple weeks of negotiations around Labor Day, the Bush and Dukakis
campaigns announced they had settled most points of contention, including sponsorship.
The problem was sponsors were not in on any of it. The negotiations ever these
critical events went carried out by the campaigns alone to serve the campaigns'
interests.
Throughout the negotiation, I asked that the campaigns open the door to the
League. I was certain that the voters' interests would be better served if
there were a third party in the room keeping campaign manipulations in check.
The campaigns said no, keeping the voters' interest out of their discussions.
Representatives of the two campaigns came to us on September 28 just
two weeks before the debate -- with an agreement that we ware told we had to
sign. The agreement had been reached by the campaign chairmen, end it spelled
out everything.
Between themselves, the campaigns had determined what the television cameras
could take pictures of. They had determined how they would select those who
would pose questions to their candidates. They had determined that the press
would be relegated to the last two rows of the hall. They had determined that
they would pack the hall with their supporters. And they had determined the
format. The campaigns' agreement was a closed-door masterpiece.
The agreement was a done deal, they told us. We were supposed to sign it and
agree to all of its conditions. If we did not, we were told we would lose the
debate.
Obviously, we have been presented with campaign demands before. We have agreed
to some, and we have challenged and negotiated others. But never in the long
history of the League of Women Voters have two candidates' organizations come
to us with such stringent, unyielding and self-serving demands.
In Winston-Salem, they went so far as to insist on reviewing the moderator's
opening comments.
It turned out that the League had two choices. We could sign their closed-door
agreement and hope the event would rise above their manipulations. Or we could
refuse to lend our trusted name to this charade.
The League of Women Voters is announcing today that we have no intention of
becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public. Under these
circumstances, the League is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential
debate scheduled for mid-October in Los Angeles.
On the threshold of a new millennium, this country remains the brightest hope
for all who cherish free speech and open debate. Americans deserve to see and
hear the men who would be president face each other in a debate on the hard
and complex issues critical to our progress into the next century.
In closing, let me issue this challenge: The League of Women Voters is urging
you, George Bush, and you, Michael Dukakis, to rise above your handlers and
to agree to join us in presenting the fair and full discussion the American
public expects of a League of Women Voters debate.
|
