Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
- 'Biggest Act of Civil Disobedience in Canadian History'
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sunday's C-Span Opportunity: 3rd-Party Candidates Debate
WASHINGTON - Third-party presidential candidates finally will have their own debate: at 8 p.m. Sunday at Columbia University in New York.
The debate, which will be
announced Wednesday, will include at least three of the four
third-party candidates - independent Ralph Nader, the Green Party's
Cynthia McKinney and the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin.
Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr said he has a scheduling conflict,
but debate organizers say he wanted to appear only with Nader.
(Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain are
also invited.)
Nader and Barr are on the ballot in 45 states, while the Green Party is on 31 state ballots and the Constitution Party is on the ballot in 37 states. Nader and McKinney also are on the District of Columbia ballot.
Organizers say the debate is an important exercise in democracy, especially because the debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (the last of which is Wednesday night) exclude candidates scoring below 15 percent in national polls. Nader, the best known of the candidates, has an average of 2.5 percent in recent national polls, according to realclearpolitics.com, while Barr averages 1.5 percent.
Nader maintains that if he could get into the debates run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, his numbers would immediately climb because "two-thirds of the people don't know we're running."
"It's a Catch-22."
Nader describes the debate commission as "a two-party dictatorial company that doesn't want anybody else on the stage." The commission, created in 1987, is a corporation headed by two former chairs of the Democratic and Republican parties.
But third-party critics of the system recently got some traction: the second of the presidential debates prompted a chorus of criticism of the "boring" format and the lack of follow-up questions.
Nader also will give the issue more visibility at a rally to open the debates Wednesday night at New York's historic Cooper Union Great Hall, where presidential candidates back to Abraham Lincoln have spoken.
The format for Sunday's third-party debate is still being finalized. It will be moderated by Pacifica radio host Amy Goodman. The issues promoted by the candidates strike a different chord from the major party standard-bearers - all four are against the $700 billion economic bailout and all oppose the Iraq war.
In addition, each has his or her own agenda: Nader rails against corporate greed while McKinney promotes environmental causes. The Libertarian Party is a critic of monetary policy and likes to invoke a return to the gold standard. Baldwin of the Constitution Party represents a conservative, small government, anti-abortion party that wants to "restore the government to its biblical foundations."
The third-party debate will be streamed at www.thirdpartyticket.com and will be shown on C-Span.
- Posted in
111 Comments so far
Show AllWell thank you CD for FINALLY including a (short) article about candidates other than Obama and McCain!
Yep, if the independent media online doesn't give them exposure, who will?
Yes!
To fundamentalists:
Instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, vote for the Constitution Party.
Amen.
"Organizers say the debate is an important exercise in democracy, especially because the debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (the last of which is Wednesday night) exclude candidates scoring below 15 percent in national polls."
_________________________________
I applaud the organizers and participants for standing on principle instead of prostrating themselves before the delusional sociopolitical fantasy mistaken by many for "reality", but in truth the debate is an IMPOTENT exercise in democracy.
The participants have already been effectively muzzled and nullified by the powerful forces inside the duopoly, and their legions of disciples and willing slaves.
According to the prevailing "reality", the teevee burlesque of some Respected Infotainwhore(s) presiding over a faux-reality show in which contestants are bombarded with questions like, "If you could smell like a tree, what kind of tree would you want to smell like?" are the "real" debates.
Ironic how much farce and artifice "pragmatists" are willing to swallow in service of their belief that they are sensibly, maturely, and most of all UNSELFISHLY facing up to political "reality".
I trust that Amy Goodman will offer more than the usual repertoire of underhand softball with occasional chin music to push "controversial" buttons. But it's all about what might have been, alas!
"I trust that Amy Goodman will offer more than the usual repertoire of underhand softball with occasional chin music to push "controversial" buttons."
I hope that your optimism is well placed, but if history is our only indicator, I won't expect a very high bar. The format and time allocated for any staged debate offers mostly superficialities and sound bites. The fact that Amy knows what we all face as a nation with no real pressing dialog, gives me a bit of hope for some substance.
I am glad that she took to heart, the challenge she received to assemble this debate. Hopefully it will be a model for future debates. I personally would like to see one scheduled directly after each "The Party" debate where third parties are excluded, with an opportunity to address the incredible shortcomings that are a mainstay of those "charades".
Some accountability must be produced if third parties (or as I see them, second parties)... are given real voice.
May the dead and decomposing carcasses of the enraged rampaging elephant and insanely deranged donkey provide nutrients, sustenance and growth for the gnats!
This is great news AND I support Obama. Short term and Long term we need to hear more and more of 3rd parties. Short term, we still need Obama, because there's a far greater chance of making 3rd party debates "stick" long term under his presidency than under McShames.
It's always great to find some humor here!
But I suppose Obama supporters ARE, in fact thrilled that the 3rd parties have been sidelined once again. Whew, thank heavens that Obama is not forced to share the stage with Nader!
So, Kane Jeeves, who wants to "hear more and more of third parties", "Short and long term", I assume the short term starts AFTER the Nov. election and stops a long term before the election after that. By the way, did you call Sen. Obama and urge him to either participate in this debate, to which he has been invited, or to allow these candidates to participate in the MSM debates? No? Why not?
That's interesting that you point out that "3rd party debates" are more likely to "stick" long term under Obama than under McCain. Does that mean that we would be more likely to get ALL party debates under McCain? Shucks, if that's so, that may be the one (and only) reason to vote Rep.
Thank you for confirming Obama's commitment to foiling democracy.
"But I suppose Obama supporters ARE, in fact thrilled that the 3rd parties have been sidelined once again."
Sigh...this is getting so damned old.
I am said Obama supporter and no, I am NOT thrilled that 3rd party candidates have been sidelined again.
There, blew your theory all to hell.
Now you can set up your next straw man to knock down.
-You sure are a grouchy one for having your "perfect" candiate so far ahead.
Sigh---more sore winners. Neo-liberals/neo-conservatives.
I agree with Ted Markow October 15th, 2008 8:07 pm; I'm an Obama supporter, and I also support free speech, more choices, and open debates as the best way for the voter to make an informed decision. I definitely wish we had more parties represented at these debates. I just saw a debate in Canada on C-Span with five parties involved, including the Green Party, and a moderator who mainly stayed out of the way. That's what we need here.
Can we stop with the "making the name of candidate that we don't like into some 'clever' attack" please?!?
It makes everyone who does it seem like teenagers.
Meow! Anything you say, catti!
My manhood is now questioned?
Well McShame on me, my post O-bombed.
I couldn't come up with anything for ~Little Brother~.
Darned hard to mock names!
Now how can I demonstrate that I am both clever, AND against your policy positions?
You DO realize I just couldn't help myself, don't you?
I've learned the hard way that one really does need to use things like tags and emoticons to signal "only kidding" on blog comments, but sometimes I just let it fly without them. ;)
You DO realize I just couldn't help myself, don't you?
I've learned the hard way that one really does need to use things like tags and emoticons to signal "only kidding" on blog comments, but sometimes I just let it fly without them. ;)
The key thing to realize is that this is all the Democrats have to offer.
Its all you see from the Democrats these days. Nasty little personal attacks on their opponent. They smear and attack McCain all the time. And they've been doing the same to Palin.
One would thing that in running against an administration that is fighting unpopular wars, has crashed the economy, and has given hundreds of billions to wall street, that the Dems would have something real to talk about.
But, then you realize the Dems support the wars, the Dems support the Bush economic policies and that the Dems led the charge for the bailout, then you really why all they've really got to offer is funny little slurs on their opponents name.
People on the left react negatively when they see "Obama" slurred with "Osama". Or when the "Hussein" in his name is highlighted. But this is exactly the same crap coming from the other direction. The key is to spot both and recognize both for the junk they are. And both are there to distract people from realizing that the Dems don't offer an alternative.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Please provide some factual basis for your belief that an Obama win would help make '3rd party debates "stick" long term' .... whatever the heck that is supposed to mean anyways.
The Democrats consistently attack any third parties. The Democrats work hard where they can to keep 3rd parties off the ballots. The Democrats are equally responsible with the Republicans for no alternative candidates being allowed into the fake debates like the one tonight.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that a Democratic win in any way would help 3rd parties in this country. That is total nonsense to anyone who's been paying attention.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=3771
July 10, 2008
Attorney General Corbett announces charges in legislative bonus investigation - 12 suspects charged in 1st phase of the investigation
...........
Pennsylvania investigation into 2004 criminal democrat party actions
On September 27, 2008, a "We the People" festival was held in Los Angeles, primarily to energize the youth vote for the 2008 election. From the mission statement of the organizers: The "WE THE PEOPLE" festival promotes non-partisan, non-violent, environmental and politically conscious views.
Three persons INVITED to speak at the event were Jack Blood (GCN radio host), Cindy Sheehan, and Cynthia McKinney. All three are known for their anti-establishment views, opposition to Obama and their call for a real investigation of Sept. 11, 2001. All three were shut out from speaking at the event. Cindy Sheehan was told she could introduce Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, but she would not be allowed to address the crowd. Cynthia McKinney was advised of the situation beforehand and refused to attend.
The crowd numbered around 5,000 when the L.A. police, along with the State Police began turning away people (in a venue which would have accommodated 20,000) because the "anti-establishment" sentiment of the crowd might lead to a "riot" situation. The police actions more than likely were directed from the office of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a big Obama supporter. Mayor Villaraigosa had requested to speak from the main stage, providing that Sheehan, McKinney, and Blood NOT BE ALLOWED to speak from that stage. Rock the Vote, responsible for booking most of the bands, and essentially shilling for the Obama machine, also contributed to shutting out these three speakers. So much for the "non-partisan" aspect of the organizers' mission statement. An inordinate amount of pressure was placed upon the organizers by the powers-that-be. Basically, the event was hijacked by the Obama campaign and turned into an "Obama Rally". (See Deadline Live (Jack Blood website), Oct. 16, 2008.
There will not be an "election". The "Winner", whether Obama or McCain, will have been appointed by the Board of Directors.
Nader had a short but substantive interview on public television (the News Hour) the other day. It is hard to believe, with Americans finally receiving their September fund statements, that Nader's poll numbers are not shooting up.
This is the perfect election year to insert a third party into the corporate duopoly. It looks like Obama will landslide McCain, leaving progressives free to give Nader over 5% of the vote. If there is any danger of McCain/Palin winning this election the country is too dumb to survive anyway. Let's consider Obama a fait accompli and put our eyes on the future. If we had done that 8 or 12 or 16 years ago Nader's party would be viable today.
Nader was also on the MSM networks - CNBC, CNN, and FOX. I do not watch them normally but had to tune in yesterday to see what he would say. If he were afforded even 10% of the air time given to Obama or McCain, his numbers would soar much higher.
The fact that these MSM news outlets "gave" Nader ONE day of coverage is disgusting. The constant graphics during his interview(s) were even more discouraging.
Nader's viewpoints are 90 - 100% in line with the majority of the American public right now, especially when it comes to corporate fraud, Wall Street bailout, public education, and health care. But the news outlets - like the Democrats and Republicans - are owned by these corporations.
I am surprised that only C-Span will be running this debate on Sunday. What about PBS, the supposed "progressive" outlet?
Side note re: PBS, the "progressive" outlet. Here in Dallas, without warning or any announcement whatsoever, KERA moved the only PBS money program, Nightly Business Report, from 5:30p to 11:p just as the economic news went super-sour. Clearly, they decided (or were told) to move the bad news to the least watched time-slot - wouldn't want Americans learning facts and truth now, would we?
PBS is not progessive. They never criticize the Bush administration on anything. If you want progressive media, you need to be watching Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman.
Agree that PBS is not progressive and have never challenged the status quo with other than occasional fluff pieces. When you see that they are 'sponsored' by some of the very corporations that are working against the interests of the general public, you may understand that they measure the health of the economy by the state of Wall Street instead of the health care being provided to Main Street.
And though I like Democracy Now, I find that it still marginalizes Nader, Kucinich, Mike Gravel etc instead of headlining them.
In Nader's last appearance on Democracy now, Amy Goodman asked Nader if he is willing to support Obama. Nader responded that he is waiting for Obama to support him.
Where was the outrage on Democracy Now or Common Dreams when the Democratic Convention excluded any criticism or conflicting views (like the Iraq War/Occupation). Hillary and Obama worked hand in hand to make sure that there was no vote that could show possible differences and that not all are on board for the carnival ride.
Vote third party, don't support the corporate candidates.
www.NotOneMore.US
.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/nader_10-14.html
Ralph Nader PBS Interview
.
Yup, I signed on in '96.
Yes.
This year there is room for Nader to get 5%.
Just saw that CNN's State-by-State Poll map put VIRGINIA as "lean Obama" or whatever they call it.
This projection therefore shows Obama getting 277 electoral votes to McCain's 174 with only 87 in "tossup" States.
The relevant bit to your post is that the only made this switch on how they're "calling" Virginia once Obama's poll "lead" got to "double-digits". What do you wanna bet that they're factoring in the "Bradley Effect" here? Double-digit poll leads only net Obama a "maybe" projection?
Sounds like there's room for 5% of "Obama voters" to go Nader in VIRGINIA (if he's on the ballot there) let alone Washington or Oregon!
I know we anti-Corporate Party people tend to not put much stock in this sort of "projection" but Dem-types do.
I invite all Obama supporters to look at this map on CNN.com, absorb its information, realize they are backing a "landslide" candidate, relax a little, and then come back to this site and apologize for all the crap you've given all of us "third party" people and fear-mongering you've engaged in.
Remember the "safe-state" vote campaign for Nader in 2000? This year almost EVERY state he's on the ballot in would qualify.
Forget the fear and propaganda, 2008 is actually a "safer" time to vote "third party"!
Don't Panic,
-matti.
P.S.-
The above was a reply to ~voxclamantis~ way above.
Wonder if we could get an automatic "reply target heading" at the top of our posts indicating who we are replying to?
Ex: This post would say "reply to: matti October 15, 2008 6:47pm"
Clarity would be improved.
"This is the perfect election year to insert a third party into the corporate duopoly."
Excuse me, but what third party? Nader is running as an independent, not as a standard bearer of any third party.
I supported Nader when he came down for a 3rd party. Ever since, he has represented a party of one.
C'mon, if we're really going to be honest, why don't the Nader supporters really say what they're in favor of: NOTA! You're in favor of None Of The Above, a non-entity, a negative, a protest vote - not a party or a movement!
Big goals.
The 'impotence' will be the lack of a credible opposition at the upcoming Cooper Union Great Hall,NY. In the face of an open invitation to debate...the 'impotent duplopity' will once again fail to show up.
Because of the 'impotent', we won't get their direct arguments FOR: war, 700b swindle, FISA 08, drill baby drill, torture, concentration camps, war on drugs...just to name a few. C-span has gone one extra mile.
The President/Vice-President United States ballot in my state, shows/vote for 1:
Bob Barr/Wayne Allyn Root (LIB)
Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez (IND)
Barack Obama/Joe Biden (DEM)
John McCain/Sarah Palin (Rep)
Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente (GRN)
Chuck Baldwin/Darrell L. Castle (CON)
Gloria La Riva/Eugene Puryear (SOC)
wild;)
Good to see the Socialist Party USA is still on the ballot in a few states.
The are states like Lousiana and New Jersey where all it takes is some paperwork, no petetion signatures to get on the ballot. I wish more states were like that.
In Oregon, the Socialist Party merged with the Pacific Green Party some years ago, giving us some of our most dedicated members. Of course, there are still Socialists (several different flavors); and the national Socialist Party refuses to recognize the merger, threatening to throw out a member running on our ballot line (they don't have one, possibly because of this sort of thing.) We're glad to have him.
In case you're in Oregon: his name is Walter Brown, and he's running for Attorney General.
Oregoncharles
Can you give me a link for their site?
Sweet, I'm hosting a watch party for it in my dorm room :-)
And how many probably watch C-SPAN at 8 on a Sunday night?
A few thousand choir members, at best.
Well, let's see... perhaps MANY if it was advertised in ANY SORT of way. But wait, the corporations who sell us all of our "needful" daily products refuse to endorse this sort of thing.
maybe...but C-span also reruns some segments, for the nightowls.
wild;)
.
CSPAN VIDEO PLEASE WATCH
http://www.cspan.org/search.aspx?For=Nader
RWH: Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader (I) "INFORUM" Event
This week on Road to the White House, Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader held a campaign event in San Francisco at the Commonwealth Club of California. Mr. Nader answers questions about his presidential campaign and past runs for the White House. The independent candidate will be on the ballot in 45 states this Nov. 4th and is polling 5 to 6 percent nationally, according to the candidate's website.
Sunday : Washington, DC : 9-05-2008
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008…
.
If anyone has money out there, like unions, colleges and universities, or all of the other approx 100 political parties in the U.S., perhaps they could fund some Democrat + Republican + other cadidates debate.
you think the exclusion is about lack of debate funding?
When exclusion of debate participation can lead directly to pillage of the Treasury at the whim of those who control the debate... why would you possibly believe that active dissent would be welcome in any form?
It IS about money... but not as you suggest.
John,
The Dem and Rep candidates REFUSE TO COME when the others are invited. Note that they were both invited to this one. They WON'T SHOW.
That's because they don't want to be embarassed by losing in an HONEST debate.
The Likud bars its candidates (Demok/Repuk) from participating in mixed debates.
Hahaha I like this one :-)
Baldwin of the Constitution Party represents a conservative, small government, anti-abortion party that wants to "restore the government to its biblical foundations."
Which Baldwin brother is he? I thought Stephen was the religious nut of the family?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Thank you, Commondreams, for finally acknowledging reality.
Not only the reality that there is more than just the duopoly, but also the reality that a LOT of your readers support real progressive parties and candidates.
I haven't been contributing because of the site's blatant censorship. Keep this up and you'll cost me some money.
Oregoncharles
FINALLY, AT LAST, MY FAITH IN HUMANITY HAS BEEN RESTORED.
I LOVE C-SPAN.
I LOVE NADER !
Right on, Rose. Can we keep those positive vibes flowing?