[eDebate] Leaked:Scott E's Draft 2nd VP Statement(s)

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Thu Dec 11 22:46:50 CST 2008


FROM:	Karl Rove, Fox News, Karl Rove & Associates, Political Consulting, P.C.
TO:		Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D., J.D. Director of Debate, UL-Lafayette
RE: 		Regarding revisions to your 2nd Vice President CEDA Statement


Dear Scott:

Thank you for your ?contribution? to our ?Palin in ?12? fund. In gratitude, I
have taken the time to make a few edits to your draft 2nd V.P. of CEDA
nomination statement. Enclosed are our recommended statement (Att.1) and your
original statement draft (Att.2) for comparison. We suggest you delete your
original draft and purge your hard drive, as well as all e-mails regarding
this.  We kept the introduction. It was good. But we made a few changes. Using
the current Obama ?delusional thinking wins, we can govern realistically after
the election? model, we believe the following V.P. statement will appeal to the
demographics of current CEDA members and should secure your election to the
position. Just remember who your real friends are when you achieve the awesome
power of the CEDA Presidency.

Regards,

Karl.

Attachment1.   Revised 2nd V.P. Statement of Scott M. Elliott

Dear Directors of CEDA Programs:

I remember 9-11.

It is with heartfelt gratitude and an effusion of love and caring that I humbly
accept this nomination for the 2nd Vice President of CEDA. I want to express my
love for Jason Russell, Andy Ellis, Mike Davis, and Vic Keenan as we journey
together to determine the future of this organization. All of my colleagues are
qualified to be the Vice President, and eventual President of CEDA.  I call them
colleagues rather than opponents because; like the Great Spirit, Allah, Jesus,
Buddha, and L. Ron Hubbard; I only see companions with differing opinions on
this long vision quest of life. We have no enemies, just people who have not
traveled down our path.

One part of my life has been CEDA and debate in general. I began debating in
CEDA in 1984. Did pretty well for a regional school with no real coach. I went
on to coach at Florida State University. I am old enough to realize that, yes,
Jeff Jarman really did defeat my team in the CEDA final round on a righteous
decision; because I too now realize that CEDA is good in all respects. After
obtaining my Ph.D. in Communication Theory and Research, I became the Director
of Debate at Southeastern Louisiana University for six years. After earning
tenure, I left academia to take a law fellowship at the University of Texas
School of Law. I worked as an attorney for five years before returning to
Louisiana in an effort to rebuild policy debate on both the collegiate and high
school level. I have been involved in CEDA debate at one level or another for
over twenty years. I believe that my background and qualifications at least
match the qualifications of my fellow Vice Presidential Spirit Travelers.

One of the areas in which I have been active has been a secret until now?I have
been serving as a professional ?contrarian? for CEDA. Much like Snape?s
relationship with Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series; Tuna Schnieder and I
agreed more than a decade ago that CEDA needed a secret protector. That person
would often have to bear the brunt of criticisms in order to serve his higher
purpose, to provoke controversy. I have not taken the job lightly, though it
has often caused me great pain and anguish. Many a tear has been shed in my
service to CEDA as a Socratic gadfly. But, for the sake of the Community, I try
to hide the pain. Once the controversy within CEDA was sparked, I would fade
into the background while those within CEDA would explain to the members the
righteousness of CEDA?s decisions. I think I succeeded by serving as a point of
departure; by creating a demonic image of the Other; and solidifying support for
CEDA during times of trouble. It is only through ostracization that a tribe can
become one again. Now that the powers in charge (All Hail the NDT!) have
decided to allow me to advance within CEDA, let me offer my real views of this
Association of great people.

I agree with Jason, Andy and Mike on all of their positions. I will agree with
Vic, even if she does not put out a statement. In fact, her non-statement is
perhaps the best statement of all?namely, that there are no real problems
within CEDA. Nothing needs to be said.  However, out of a deep sense of
obligation towards my brothers, sisters, and transgenders in the debate
community, I feel I should write some type of statement of how I feel
because
feelings count! And, while everything is perfect within CEDA, I want to be the
2nd V.P. nominee for change. My platform is ?hopeful and stable change.? My
vision is for change that brings hope to all within the policy debate
community. Hopefully, the change will change how people outside our family, our
?House of Reason,? see us.  They will see us as we currently see
ourselves--perfection misunderstood--but hopeful to change the misperceptions
of others. That, my colleagues, is my hopeful vision for true change
a change
that reifies all that is good within us as well as our organization.

I feel CEDA is awesome! I have hope that as we continue forward into the 21st
Century, we can continue the expansion of policy debate. I hope that we can
continue to serve as models of eloquence, intense policy and critical research,
and professionalism throughout the academic world. It is obvious that American
Exceptionalism, the notion that America has a special moral power and
subsequent duty, is a farce. But I also know that there really is one true form
of exceptionalism
American policy debate. What we do is intellectually and
morally superior to all other forms of debate. We just need to explain it to
the unwashed masses a little better. I accept the challenge with the moral
certainty of a President ready to win the War on Terrorism. Remember 9-11. We
can win this PR War without violence. We can have Peace through Public
Relations. PR solves all problems. Capitalism is bad.

I have hope that one day CEDA Nationals can one day meet the standards of the
NDT so that we can have the NDT first-seeds bless us with their presence at
Nationals. I am audaciously hopeful that we can heal the wounds brought upon us
by a cruel and unfair media. I think, if we all hope together, we can publicly
relate to everyone, including school administrators. If we can do better public
relations, we can heal all wounds. If we just market ourselves at little better,
we will see CEDA continue to grow at the staggering levels it has achieved sense
our glorious merger with the NDT. With love and hope for positive, yet stable,
change, I humbly ask for your vote.

Scott M. Elliott


Attachment Two: Scott?s Original, unedited 2nd Vice Presidential Statement [Not
for publication]

Dear Directors of CEDA Programs:

It is with great reluctance that I accept the nomination for Second Vice
President of the Cross Examination Debate Association. At first I thought the
nomination was a joke. But then I saw the slate of other nominees: Jason
Russell, Andy Ellis, Mike Davis, and Vic Keenan. I realized that CEDA is
obviously in a state of leadership crisis (or will be when one of these
actually become President) and sometimes the membership has to choose the least
bad option. Folks, I am that option. Sometimes in an election, we want to vote
?none of the above.? Well, I am none of the above.

Unlike Jason Russell?s McCainesque attempt (i.e. too politically correct to
create a winnable strategy), let me be the first to do some real negative
campaigning. (This critique stuff is fun!) First, let?s look at
qualifications
..Hey wait a fricking minute!
CEDA has NO real qualifications to
become 2nd Vice President. No, really. You could nominate your dog. Often, it
could only do less damage.

In lieu of an actual guideline or (heaven forbid!) a minimum standard, may I
suggest the following minimum standard: that the 2nd Vice President must be a
Director of Debate at an accredited college or university. CEDA is an
Association of Directors of Debate and Debate Institutions. It is not merely a
place for people who used to debate, or have nothing better to do. While this
insurmountable and clearly racist entrance barrier does allow Jim Brey to
create the University of Phoenix debate program in order to restart his CEDA
political career, it also serves to bar some of my opponents from
consideration. Andy Ellis is not a Director of Debate at any university or
college.  Jason Russell is merely a graduate student. On top of that, he is a
graduate student at Oklahoma. If he were at Texas, I would not raise the issue.
However, I?d hate to have to teleconference the CEDA business meetings from the
Tulsa homeless shelter in two years. On the other hand, I?in true Louisiana
fashion?meet the minimum standard. Contrary to popular belief, Louisiana really
is a state and the University of Louisiana is a nationally accredited
university. I really am allowed by government authorities to teach
(infect/manipulate) the youth of Louisiana and allowed to direct a competitive
CEDA debate program. It is both scary and hopeful at the same time. I am sure
Jason sees this as a sign of hope
that apparently anyone can get a job in
debate. Just disregard the little things like a Ph.D. and J.D. in hand, and we
are on equal footing.

We are in a Pathological Period for Two Reasons: (1) Our membership is still
horribly low; and (2) CEDA Public image is in tatters.

Jason and Andy come to the warm and fuzzy conclusion(s) that ?CEDA has done an
exceptional job since the merger? (Andy); ?I agree with Russell, I don't think
debate is in trouble. I actually love what we do and am not afraid to take on
anyone who disparages us. (Andy);? and ?CEDA is not on the ropes? (Jason).

With all due respect to them and to the people that have tried for over a decade
to pull us out of this debacle, I must for the first time openly and publicly
call bullhockey. Jason?s and Andy?s delusional thinking on this issue is
similar to Oklahoma?s belief that it really is better than Texas, and more
deserving of a BCS National Championship match-up with Florida. It is the same
type of delusional thinking that makes Oklahoma think it can actually beat
University of Florida in the title game (nice pandering for votes, eh?!). It is
this type of delusional thinking that allows James Madison and Emory University
students to believe they are part of the Ivy League. It is this type of
delusional thinking that makes Towson think it won a ?real? national debate
championship (going for the NDT cross-over vote on this one!).

All joking aside (except that Texas really does deserve to be in the BCS title
game), CEDA has not done an exceptional job since the merger. Debaters do not
understand this.  You whippersnappers out there simply do not understand all
the turmoil that CEDA has undergone since members of the NDT invoked a rather
simple Jedi mind-trick on the weak minded CEDA hierarchy in the early 1990s. It
is almost laughable now that we see it from hindsight and that nobody saw it
coming?oh, wait, I saw it coming and was bitching about it all the way down to
the CEDA vote on the merger.

I will not rehash the history of CEDA?the glory days of Jack Howe, when Josh Hoe
was a ?powerhouse? debater, when Greg Achten was a Speedo model, etc.?but I will
relate to you a discussion I had with one of my sophomore debaters this
semester. She asked me why do we have to travel a minimum TEN HOURS to get to a
single CEDA tournament. That?s right, it takes us ten hours to make it to our
closest tournament?in Dallas, Texas. When I told her the reality of CEDA, she
was pissed-off. Here is the reality
in 1990-1993, there were at least ten CEDA
programs in Louisiana. Some years there were 12 programs within our state
because Tulane and Xavier would field a team or two. When I was coaching at
Southeastern Louisiana University, we could travel to six to eight tournaments
per year within our own state. Northwestern State University in Natchitoches,
La. won the CEDA National Sweepstakes Championship. My little program was
ranked in the top twenty for a while. By the year 2006, there were ZERO CEDA or
NDT programs in the State of Louisiana. Let me repeat that for the dense?that is
a 100% decrease in CEDA membership. This is just one example of the larger
problem and why I continue to complain about CEDA. It is not an overstatement
to say that post-merger, CEDA lost 2/3 of its membership. The only
organizations that have a business model similar to CEDA are GM, Chrysler, and
Ford.

Of course, Jason, Andy, the current CEDA hierarchy, and the NDT Illuminati will
tell all of you that membership in CEDA is growing. They are correct. It is
growing. Darren Elliott, Gordon Stables, Jeff Jarman, Sue Peterson, M.L.
Sandoz, Dave Steinberg, (even Jason, Andy, Mike Davis and Vic Keenan) and the
other members of this Association have worked their butts off (Darren still has
some more junk in his trunk to work off) to stop the diminishment of our numbers
post-merger. But, guess what? Ford Motor Company presented graphs to Congress
this week showing there is an upsurge in Ford SUV sales. You and I will each be
paying about $5,000 each of real money in order to support this form of
accounting. If you lose 2/3 of your customer base over a 15-year period, any
stabilization or new customer appears to be a huge upswing in sales. In other
words, just because CEDA has gathered in 10 or 20 new programs over the past
five years does not wipe out the loss of a hundred to two hundred programs that
decided CEDA?s business model was no longer appropriate for their students and
their programs.

CEDA, and policy debate in general, has a horrible public relations problem.
Personally, I blame it on the horrible debate topics that Mancuso forces on us
every year at the CEDA topic meeting. I want to physically attend a CEDA Topic
meeting to see how the NDT Sith Lords use their powers of mind control to craft
exceedingly bad topics
but I digress (Exhibit 1., ?eliminate at least nearly all
subsidies
?). Others, however, may choose to blame factors such as directors of
programs mooning the public; virtual and/or real violence in rounds; lack of
decorum/civility in general; post-modernism; speed (both the drug and the
delivery style); and no prayer in schools. Well, let me lay out the facts as I
see them.

It is flat out embarrassing to watch many debate rounds nowadays. Those of you
that are Directors of Debate (not students, not graduate students, or former
debaters
but Directors of Debate, those who have to defend their budgets, their
programs, and their careers) know exactly what I am talking about. I think we
are extremely lucky that the worst thing that has made it into the popular
press about our activity was a mooning incident. Regardless of what Jason
thinks, many of the things that we allow to occur in debate rounds are simply
indefensible. Should I detail the ones that I know of personally, or should I
just be able to obtain a gentleperson?s agreement that this is true? Because,
if not, I would love to see how these vague appeals for better public relations
handle the reality/nightmare of a pointed series of questions from journalists,
or worse, attorneys. Just ask the current CEDA administration how they felt
dealing with one incident. [Deleted details and examples.]

Many of my colleagues just do not seem to get it. We all agree that 99% of the
behavior that we have within CEDA is defensible. I can and do defend speedy
speaking. I can and do defend alternative interpretations of the resolution and
alternative means of argumentation. However, there is no reason why the
Association should have to defend behaviors that place students, programs and
the Association at existential risk.

Among other Debate Organizations?Nationally and Internationally--policy debate
is viewed as an anachronism and childish at best, and a dangerous cancer to
intellectual inquiry at worst. Look, when a Parli debate coach kicks our
collective ass in a national Op-Ed, and we have no real response, we are
defenseless. When Tuna Schnieder has to be our only defense of policy debate on
the international level, I think we can all agree that policy debate?s public
relations are in the toilet. Wrapping ourselves in our intellectual elitism,
post-modern smugness, and insularity is not enough.

I agree with Jason, Mike, and Andy that we need to do better public relations.
But their vague appeals are reminiscent of Obama?s appeals for ?hope.? I think
we all now see what happens when ?hope? meets reality. How?s that post-election
?Liberal Agenda? working out for all of you? Appeals to ?we need to do some
public relations? are going to blow up in our collective faces when we realize,
as any person who has actually studies public relations and crisis management
already knows, that some things cannot be solved through a slick ad campaign.

Some problems require pro-active changes. I am for change. We need change. I am
for hope. In fact I am audaciously hopeful. Rather than some vague appeals, let
me give you some concrete proposals that I will, as 2nd Vice President, strive
to put onto the CEDA business agenda. I am not saying I will get them passed, I
am saying I will put them out there for discussion and vote by the membership.
If accepted, I will work as hard as I can to implement them. Some of these are
?pie in the sky? ideas. Some are going to tick a lot of you off because they
are so good you wish you would have thought of them, or you hate the messenger
(Sniff!):

1.	We need a CEDA alumni newsletter. This would involve gathering news stories
and updates regarding former members of CEDA, publishing it, and distributing
it both to the media, member institutions and media outlets. This is a huge
undertaking. But, guess what Jason, Andy, Mike, and the rest of the CEDA/NDT
Hierarchy? This is what you REALLY do if you want to really do Public
Relations. You see
there is a real difference between policy debaters and
kritik debaters. K debaters want to wave the magic wand of ?uh, we need to do
better PR.? A policy debater says, ?we need to do better PR?Plan: Start
Publishing a CEDA Alumni Newsletter.? Now, I know this idea is going to be
stolen by everyone
because it is just that damn brilliant
so, go ahead. But,
just remember---who?s your daddy?

2.	We need a REAL CEDA Public Relations/Media Packet produced by a real Public
Relations Firm. I am not talking about some Communication Professor who took a
photoshop seminar and a PR class five years ago. We have plenty of alumni who
actually do Public Relations. They share our vision of debate. Why not put them
to work. Is my memory wrong, or is Linda Collier?s husband (sorry if I offend
anybody) some head of a big Public Relation?s firm? Jesus, does it take a
rocket scientist to come up with this stuff? Hoping for good PR does not
work
paying professionals to develop good PR does.


3.	We need a REAL CEDA Institutional Recruiting Packet and a real outreach
program. Just like our response to 9-11, we need ?boots on the ground.? Why? To
steal institutions away from other forensics associations and to bring in new
programs. See above.

4.	We need a Real Minority Recruiting Program. I am sick and tired of programs
using racism in debate as a means to win rounds, but having little to no real
effect on minority participation rates. Your ?in round? advocacy does nothing
and is a waste of time. If you would stop pontificating for a moment and
actually had a policy-making thought, realistic solutions may be possible:

a.	More official involvement between CEDA and UDL. Why doesn?t CEDA sponsor, or
somehow officially identify with a UDL Nationals?
b.	Discounts for entry fees for minority students? Why not?
c.	Buddy programs?if you are an established program and you convince a HBCU to
attend a CEDA Tournament, you get a reduction in your fees or in your CEDA
Membership.
d.	A minority recruiting program award by CEDA
1.	One for recruiting the most underrepresented students to their first CEDA
tournament;
2.	One for recruiting the most new debate programs;
3.	CEDA member program doing work with UDLs.

5.	Pass and Enforce a Professional Responsibility Amendment. I have discussed
this in the past already. I actually cordially worked with other members of
this organization on this issue (No, really! I work well with others. It kinda
freaked them out.). My reasons are on the record. But every other person
running should stake out a clear position. Jason has. I appreciate that. Jason
is wrong.

6.	A study, a real and painful study, of the programs/schools that left CEDA to
answer all the conjecture of why CEDA?s business model failed in the late
1990?s.

7.	A serious re-recruitment effort to bring those programs that left CEDA, back
to the organization.

8.          Have only one CEDA Sanctioned ?National Championship? for JV and
Novice
Debate. National Championship proliferation risks Middle-East instability.

9. 	Pay me and Dallas Perkins to sit at a hotel pool bar for a weekend to come
up with decent, debatable, policy resolutions that don?t suck. We don?t even
have to be at the same hotel.  I will transcribe the proposed resolutions from
our cocktail napkins and forward them to Jarman. Can it be any worse than the
topic committee cluster____ we get every year? We have hope, change and bourbon
on our side? What does the current topic selection process have to
offer---inclusion?

10.	An annual Festivus Presidential Address to be teleconferenced and stored on
Youtube. The address will allow the President of CEDA to state all of the
failures and disappointments he has seen throughout the year, including the
failure to act, or general incompetence, of his/her fellow CEDA Officers and
coaches in the Organization. Humiliation is often overlooked as a great
motivator.


11.	Abolish the Association. Sometimes an organization needs to call it quits
when it has either failed in its mission, or has lost its way. A case can be
made that only through a revolution can we create evidenced-based debate that
serves a larger intercollegiate community. Before you say this is impossible,
folks, remember CEDA started from just three or four schools calling bullshit
to the NDT. It grew to have hundreds of participating programs. It was the NDT
that was dying from lack of membership pre-merger, not the other way around.
Realistically, I think there is enough value in CEDA to rebuild. But, I think
the discussion should be had and I think members of the policy debate community
need to rededicate themselves to CEDA. If the members choose to do so, I will
sadly, but dutifully, work to wind down the organization.

12. 	Secession from the NDT. Yeah, I said it. Get over it. How to do it?
Simplistic and painful?like a battlefield arm amputation or Gordon Stables?
presentations at CEDA Business Meetings: The Association votes for a return to
semester long topics and/or non-policy topics.

Why? Well, (a) these topics we have been getting just suck. The current topic
has been virtually exhausted since the third tournament. I bet that if we voted
right now to debate a different topic that Ag subsidies, 80% of the debaters,
directors and coaches would vote for change. (b) I am not a participant in the
death march to the NDT, but I am damn sure a victim of it. Regional debate is
virtually extinct after the January swings. All anyone wants to do anymore is
to prep for the NDT district tournament. For what purpose I do not know? 
Here?s a hint folks
if you did not get a first round bid, or cannot secure a
second round bid to the NDT, you are deluding yourself. You ain?t gonna win
but
you will get a little ashtray for your $5,000.00 per two person team in expenses
(entry fees, travel costs, judges, etc
do the math). Yet, program after program
has decided that the NDT District means everything
to the detriment of regional
debate. I say, at what cost? It is impossible to field any novices in the Spring
Semester anymore. There are not enough regional tournaments, and the topic is
too advanced by Spring to allow for their entry. (c) Last time a split from NDT
occurred, there was an incredible increase in evidence based debate
participation. Based on the number of former CEDA coaches in Parly, and the
evolution of Parly, I see a severence of the relationship as a potential boon
for CEDA and a chance to bring former programs back into the fold.

Well, that?s my perspective of the morass we are in. Those are my proposals for
hopeful, and real change. If you don?t like it or me, don?t vote for me. Its
not like being President of CEDA gets you any government contract kickbacks in
Illinois. I do care about policy debate, I do love the activity and people that
know me realize that I am a hard worker dedicated to solving problems.

Sincerely,

Scott Elliott.







More information about the Mailman mailing list