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 nowI have been serving as a professional contrarian for CEDA. Much like Snapes 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 CEDAs 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 allnamely, 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: Scotts 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 Russells 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, lets 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, Id hate to have to teleconference the CEDA business meetings from the Tulsa homeless shelter in two years. On the other hand, Iin true Louisiana fashionmeet 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. Jasons and Andys delusional thinking on this issue is similar to Oklahomas 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 comingoh, 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 CEDAthe 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. Thats right, it takes us ten hours to make it to our closest tournamentin 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 densethat 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 CEDAs 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 gentlepersons 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 OrganizationsNationally 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 debates 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 Obamas appeals for hope. I think we all now see what happens when hope meets reality. Hows 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 PRPlan: 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---whos 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 Colliers husband (sorry if I offend anybody) some head of a big Public Relations 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 doesnt CEDA sponsor, or somehow officially identify with a UDL Nationals? b. Discounts for entry fees for minority students? Why not? c. Buddy programsif 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 CEDAs business model failed in the late 1990s. 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 dont suck. We dont 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 painfullike 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? Heres 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 aint 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, thats my perspective of the morass we are in. Those are my proposals for hopeful, and real change. If you dont like it or me, dont 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. _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
