Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Open the Debates
The reviews are in, and the latest U.S. presidential debate, the "town hall" from Nashville, Tenn., was a snore. One problem is that in a debate it is important for the debaters to actually disagree. Yet Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain substantively agree on many issues. That is one major reason that the debates should be open, and that major third-party or independent candidates should be included.
Take the global financial meltdown. Both senators voted for the controversial bailout bill that first failed in the U.S. House of Representatives. It passed resoundingly in the Senate and, larded with financial favors to woo uncooperative House members, finally passed the House. The news each day suggests that the bailout hasn't solved the problem. Rather, the economic contagion is going global, with European and Asian banks teetering on the brink of collapse. Iceland-not just its banks, but the country-faces financial ruin.
Earlier Tuesday, before the debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced that it would for the first time ever begin buying up the debt of private companies to help them meet short-term cash needs for things like payroll. Shortly after the debate ended, major central banks around the world, again for the first time ever, cut their prime lending rates in unison. Yet on the debate floor, there was no sense that the global financial system needed more than a tax cut here, a voucher there. The major thing lacking from the debate was, well, debate.
Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, reacted to the debate, writing: "Sen. McCain, Sen. Barack Obama and the other members of Congress who have supported one bailout after another have turned fiscal responsibility into a sucker's game. ... There's no meaningful difference between the two major parties." The independent campaign of Ralph Nader put out a debate-watching e-mail, asking supporters to listen for key words and phrases, among them: "working class," "Taft-Hartley Act," "labor unions," "military-industrial complex," "single-payer health care," "impeachment," "carbon tax" and "corporate power." None of these was mentioned.
Obama supporters noted that McCain did not mention "middle class" once. Yet neither candidate mentioned poverty.
Obama and McCain fought to prove who was more sympathetic to the nuclear-power industry. They each bowed to the coal industry, with its controversial "clean coal" gambit. They split hairs over who would more cagily bomb Pakistan.
At the core of the problem with U.S. presidential debates is that they are run by a private corporation, the Commission on Presidential Debates, founded in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD took over the debate process from the League of Women Voters. Just once since then has a third-party candidate made it into the debate -- Ross Perot in 1992. After he did well, he was excluded in 1996. The CPD requires contenders to poll at 15 percent before they qualify for any debate.
Nader calls the 15 percent threshold "a Catch-22 level of support that is almost impossible for any third-party candidate to reach without first getting in the debates."
George Farah directs Open Debates, a group that works "to ensure that the presidential debates serve the American people first." He told me that "historically, it has been third parties, not the major parties, that have supported and are responsible for the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, public schools, public power, unemployment compensation, minimum wage, child labor laws. The list goes on and on. The two parties fail to address a particular issue; a third party rises up, and it's supported by tens of millions of Americans, forcing the Republican and Democratic parties to co-opt that issue, or the third party rises and succeeds, which is why the Republican Party jumped from being a third party to being a major party of the United States of America."
There is a move to organize a third-party debate, in New York City, a day or so after the final McCain-Obama debate on Oct. 15. The CPD could still liven its last debate, and serve the electorate and history, by opening up that debate to all candidates who have at least obtained significant ballot access. Both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are on the ballot in close to 45 states, Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party is on the ballot in 30 states, and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin is on in more than 35 states. Let's open the debates and have a vigorous and honest discussion about where this country needs to go. It will not only make for better television, it will make for better democracy.
- Posted in
147 Comments so far
Show AllSpot on!
Uh, you're just a little LATE Amy. All you leading "progressives" are always a little too LATE.
Now you can go vote for Obama with a clear conscience.
Sheesh.
I have to agree. Why wait until Oct 15th? You mean to tell me none of the 3rd party candidates could organize a debate in the last 20 months? For crying out loud you could hold it in Nader's living room, videotape it, then youtube it.
The few here who persistently attack Goodman are mistaken.
Goodman HAS covered this before, and cannot write every important article every week. The fact that she did not herself personally successfully overturn the existing corporate debate set-up is hardly reason to dismiss her.
One could of course turn the argument around:
Uh, you're just a little LATE Moonpie, where have you been while the CPD hijacked US democracy? Thanks for your post here, now you can go belittle others with a clear conscience.
BEAUTIFUL, webwalk! You beat me to it. How easy to sit at a keyboard and piss and moan instead of taking action BEFORE the fact!
"Crack open a cynic and you will find an angry idealist!"
.I fail to see how some could miss the gist of that article, "let every candidates views be heard". Some sit before their computer screens just waiting to spring in attack...Engaging ones brain should be a criteria to posting, sadly it isnt.
No side in this is free of the penchant to attack ones who do not fall into lockstep accord with a poster's views. One might think that posting a negative about a party or a candidate, almost always based upon fact and referenced as well, is a sort of sin to some....The ones most guilty are also the ones who fail to post any links, references to truths, and, in the case above, fail to demonstrate any knowledge of Ms. Goodman's history and have probably never heard her show.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I will vote for Obama with a clean conscience, thank you.
First, I agree completely that the debates need to be opened up. We need to hear so much more than we do.
Secondly, anyone who wants to be president knows that they are on a very short leash. Whether the debates are open or not, Obama would have to still walk a fine line or he'd be labeled a nutcase or a moonbeam (remember Jerry Brown?). Now, he could commit political suicide as Nader has repeatedly done, but I get the feeling that Obama actually wants to be president - Nader never has.
.You are correct in that Ralph Nader does not run to win, only to put the progressive agenda where it otherwise would not be found, in the political process. I find this a terrific motivation in fact, and a heroic effort on his part as well.
Your conscience has to answer only to you, as mine does to me. We can certainly agree to disagree as to the best candidate running. I only reserve the right, should your guy triumph and his weaknesses and cupidities unfold, to say "I told you so".....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I can only hope that should McCain win, I will not be so small as to say to you, "I told you so."
P.S. We all have weaknesses and cupidities. Welcome to humanity.
.Not to harp, but...Should McCain win the fault will lie with Barack Obama and not with anyone else...Using such tactics is silly, really it is...
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Ursa
I am all for open debates with all represented parties, but that would take a restructuring of the CPD . Currently it is a Farce. I also believe that there a some fundamental difference between McCain and Obama, and those differences have to deal with Character. I believe that I would choose a negotiator before I would choose a out and out War monger. The risk of McCain becoming President is too great to our Country.
Ursa
You actually believe that the major differences between McCain and Obama are character and that would be the reason to vote for Obama? That seems to be similar to the reasoning given to impeaching Clinton because of his sexual activity with Monica Lewinsky. I suggest that you reread Ms. Goodman's article as it would inform you how little Obama and McCain are different from one another.
Also, you are concerned about a warmonger like McCain becoming president but yet express no trepidation that a covert and insidious warmonger like Obama could also end up being president. Apparently another example of the lesser of two evils being brought to the forefront.
Ursa
Yes it is the lesser of two evils. I did read Amy's article and I am thankful for Link TV, Common Dreams and Democracy now and Al Jazeera. I have voted for Nader the last two elections, but I honestly believe this year that on Nov 4th either McCain or Obama will be president. And I seriously do not want McCain.
Don't waste your vote on Obama the Fake. He's gonna win easily. EASILY.
Vote for Nader or another third-party candidate of your choice that isn't EVIL.
Moonbat
So people should vote for Nader because of your psychic abilities?
There is no guarantee Obama will win. If past elections are any indicator voter theft may decide the winner. It's easier to steal a close election.
Voting for a third party candidate who has no chance, that's wasting your vote.
I'm with you, Ursa, and I hope that after the election you will work with me and others to keep working hard for what we want. Tossing an election is not a good start.
.Ted, you speak of "tossing an election". Yet how worthless is your vote if it is cast for one you think might win yet care little for his plans for this nation?
I do not doubt that you think highly of Barack Obama, yet you seem unwilling to understand the views of those who value the words of Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney, or Bob Barr even....It is precisely because I value my vote that I have already cast it for that candidate whose platform more closely mirrors my own values and wishes for this country. Ralph Nader speaks to me and for me, thus I voted for him. Should Obama lose it will not be because I voted for the candidate of my choice, it will be because he, Obama, failed to convince me that he was the better choice.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Character is as character does.
"That is one major reason that the debates should be open, and that major third-party or independent candidates should be included."
Thank you Amy. Yes, real differences have vanished. If we just had two distinct parties from which to choose, I might be a little less disillusioned... but "The Party" has joined ranks to squelch all differing and dissenting dialog as a show of force that insures political ownership for corporate America.
To wage a successful class war, real choice must be diminished or eliminated... but always controlled. Exclusion is the tool most commonly and effectively used.
The Party = More of the Same
Don't wait until you are so weakened that you can't act... stand up now. Be loud. Be demanding. Be steadfast. This is your country... as much as the corporatists would like you to believe otherwise.
Be included.
Its not really new. I still remember the Al Gore-George Bush foreign policy debate in 2000 when they sat there and completely agreed with each other for the entire time of the debate.
----------
The simple rule is still ..... don't ever vote for the candidates you see on corporate TV.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Moonpie: Exactly! You see "progressives" are liberals afraid of being called a "liberal", a four letter word in the MSM. So liberals hide under the label "progressive". These "progressives" only go as far to the left as the Right allows them and they are content with that. With the middle being far to the Right of center these "leftists" are actually in the Right.
Amy Goodman, by her lonesome or, perhaps, in association with Free Speech TV, and with the additional invitation of CSPAN could have arranged a 3rd party/independents debate to commence as soon as the Two Corporate Party debate(s) end (if 3rd parties and independents are kept out which seems to be the case). Of course, that can still take place. I have to agree: why now Amy? The name of your show is "Democracy Now!" but "now" always seems to be somewhere in the future and never becomes the present. Come on Amy. You can do it. We all know you can.
People have done this in past years. Had alternative candidates debate separately. I don't know why they didn't this year. But its still a case where you have probably tens of millions of people watching the corporate debates on corporate tv, then a much smaller audience watching the alternative candidates on another channel. (Actually, I think C-span might have carried these in the past).
So, its not a bad idea. But its not the answer. And it certainly isn't worth attacking Amy Goodman over when she's the one trying to write and publicize the much bigger problem of having such limited points of views in the main debates on corporate TV.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Actually, you have it exactly backward.
Many people choose "progressive" over "liberal" to describe themselves because firstly, in much of the world, "liberal" means the economic liberalism (or specifically "neo-liberalism") of the global lazzez-faire capitalists and their program of ramming their robbery down the throats of the world's people. In Australia, the "liberal" party is the party most similar to the US Republican party.
Secondly, ever since the vile Bill Clinton, the self-described "liberals" in the US are so sold-out and compromised, that anyone that genuinely believes in reigning in capitalism, dismantling the war machine and imperialism, and providing a minimum living standard and social wage for all, can no longer stomach the word "liberal".
So "progressive" has been chosen by many. Me, I prefer "leftist", or "socialist" to describe myself.
"The name of your show is "Democracy Now!" but "now" always seems to be somewhere in the future and never becomes the present. Come on Amy. You can do it. We all know you can."
Again, this is an absurd argument. The fact that Amy Goodman has not herself personally instituted democracy in the United States, let alone in the presidential campaign, does not make the lack of democracy her personal fault.
And again, this "argument" can be turned against anyone and everyone. Since we do not have democracy, and you say you work for democracy, therefore it is your fault, how come you have not accomplished it? Let's see, millions of us have not successfully opened the debate process, or organized an alternative debate. What a bunch of poseurs we all are!
webwalk,
excellent point that can be applied to many discussions on CD, as well to many situations/circumstances throughout life. democracy now and amy goodman have been remarkable agents of change and voices for those who seldom have voices...(the folks in jena, LA come to mind)...
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)"
...peace...
Considering that legislators were threatened with martial law if they did not pass the bailout, we see more of totalitarian Bush & Co. tightening the noose, and the complicity of McCain and Obama.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Representatives-Were-Threa-by-Patrick-Henningsen-081004-301.html
A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for McCain. Plain and simple.
q
Is it sunny where you are?
Then just look out the window for an hour or so.
Notice that the sun moved? Notice that the earth didn't?
The sun moves around the earth. Plain and simple.
Did you misdirect this response?
q
Touche!
"Gee, that's such a brilliant & incisive comeback. I've never heard it before (sic)."
Well, this is a text message board so I doubt that you've heard anything here.
On the other hand, we've all read your garbage many times. You consistently post the same tired, dishonest, and transparent attempts to dissuade folks from voting for Obama while pretending not to be a McCain supporter.
You get what you deserve.
q
.Speaking of garbage....
I have read, many times, eloquent and factual citings from Rich and others here carefully explaining why they choose not to vote for one of the two mainstream candidates. From you one gets vituperation and snotty insult. If you are so convinced that it is the right thing to vote for Barack Obama why not post the reasons and let rationality rule?
I always read that it is the "Nader voter" who defames and attempts to swindle the voter because they are, at heart, republicans, yet it is mostly you loyal democrats ( with exceptions to be certain, though you are not one of those) who do the defamation thing.....If you are so convinced you are right, enumerate why you think so, perhaps you've got nothing after all?
P.S. were you satisfied with this latest debate? Did you believe your candidate spoke truthfully and accurately about issues and enumerated solutions? I found them to be saying almost exactly the same darn thing....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
.SShhh. You have blown your cover and now must return the secret decoder ring....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Don't be silly. Equal numbers of people from each persuasion are currently dissatisfied and will vote third-party or independent. A vote for Obama IS a vote for McCain because it is a vote for the same military industrial complex that finances and hence owns both parties. Plain and simple. Be smart. Vote outside the main parties.
A vote for a third-party candidate --- a vote expressed that likely would have otherwise not been cast because the voter stayed home. Plain and simple.
MoonPie-
Amy and many others have been pushing this issue for years. Maybe you're just a little late in reading about it...
Then why am I just seeing it here--and now?
Pushing it for ...years? How about THIS year--and BEFORE the eve of the election?
PO-Leeezzzeee.
I'm continually perplexed at the fact that Amy, along with her clique in radio and TV (and adoring fans), can't do better than this.
Now, go join Amy in line to vote for Obama; the LOTE of 2008 (lesser of the (2) evils)
Moonpie,
Where have you been? Why haven't you changed the system? What is wrong with you?
Nader wold put two or three sentences together and completely expose Democrats for the cruise missile liberals that they are, that's why he'd never be allowed in a debate.
Tweedledee and Tweedledum, that's what America deserves.
Of course, one problem with trying to reach 15% is that the opposition vote is split three ways between Barr, McKinney and Nader. Last I looked, both Barr and Nader were at around 5%, and McKinney at maybe 2%.
The tantalizing thing is to realize that if these groups were running one unified campaign, they might very well be in double digits in terms of support, and not far from that 15% threshold. Close enough to make some noise about being excluded. Close enough to try to get some attention. For instance, the level of support an opposition candidate might have become a regular feature of the news stories on polls. Something like, "[-fill-in-name], the unified opposition candidate polled at 13% in the recent Gallop poll, just 2% short of what's needed to qualify for the debates."
Its not just being excluded from the debates that is keeping candidates from reaching 15%. This ridiculous idea of trying to run three separate opposition campaigns is a part of it too.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Bob Barr has almost nothing in common with Nader or McKinney. The Libertarian Party has almost nothing in common with the Green Party. How on Earth can you roll them into one "unified campaign"?
Someone has said, "The two parties are just two wings of the same bird of prey." In that vein, I have always voted Libertarian. People like Harry Browne and Ron Paul. No wars, no draft, no taxes. You want to smoke dope--no big deal, after all, it is YOUR body.
This year, they picked Bob Barr. Barr voted in favor of the Iraq resolution. He voted for the Patriot Act. He introduced the Defense of Marriage Act. He is no libertarian, but rather another neo-con. His hands are just as bloody and his heart just as black as either McCain's or Obama's.
And sorry Dr. Paul, there's no way I could stomach the evangelical rantings of Chuck Baldwin.
Well I don't disagree entirely with your comment, I do think that Nader should've ran with the greens this year and get his numbers up to get the Green Party the 5% of the votes they need to qualify and finally break the two-party system. But I do disagree that they should band together. Barr =/= Mckinney =/= Nader. The idea is to offer a different choice. To get people to stand up and take back their elections.
15% is just ridiculous. Like the article mentions, you can't get 15% without getting into the debates. We should work on changing that to 5%.
Actually, I think if you, as a third party candidate, can perform the truly awesome feat of getting on the ballot in enough states with enough electoral votes to win - that should be quite enough to get you a ticket to the debates.
The Demok/Repuk contest is a giant red herring on display to distract attention from the real contest: The elites' class war against the people. The people's platform supports real justice, security and prosperity for all individuals and communities. Adopt the people's platform and resist the elites' class war aggression by "voting third party" in all your exchange/association.
The simple message we should be trying to put out is simply to convince people never to vote for the candidates they see on corporate TV.
There's a lot of back up to that we can give of course. But that's a nice short bumper sticker length message we should be putting out whenever we can.
The candidates on corporate tv only serve the corporations. Don't vote for them.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Include in the debates candidates whose poll numbers are within 5 of the percent of MSM exposure that they get.
How about including the candidates who are on enough state ballots that add up to 270 or over electoral votes needed to win?! That means Ralph Nader and Bob Barr who are on 45 state ballots. Cynthia McKinney is on 30 state ballots. Why shouldn't the U.S. electorate get to hear what these people have to say? Why is democracy being stifled? Ah, but I digress. We know why don't we? We DO NOT have free, fair and democratic presidential elections. And Democrats, like Republicans, like it that way. You see, no matter what, the Corporate One Party (COP) with two heads always wins.
FINALLY, an article on this matter--BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.
Here are some things you can do:
1) Check out and help: Coalition For Free and Open Elections--http://www.cofoe.org/
2) Check and help: Open Voting Consortium:
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/
3) Watch this video on the corporate elections: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiTh1jdsdkc
4) Read about the SECRET debate contract. call on the Commission on Presidential Debates to make public the secret debate contract negotiated by the Obama and McCain campaigns.
http://www.opendebates.org/makecontractpublic.html
5) Sign the "open debates" petition: http://www.opendebates.org/yourrole/petition/
6) Contact these national debate "sponsors" to let them know that you object to the rationing of political speech and the disregard shown by the CPD for the opinions of the majority of American voters!
Anheuser-Busch Companies
800-342-5283
E-mail-- http://contactus.anheuser-busch.com/Contactus/email.asp
Bartle Bogle Hegarty (BBH) New York
212-812-6600
E-Mail Bruce Wellington: bruce.wellington@bbh-usa.com
The Howard G. Buffet Foundation
402-556-6641
Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq.
Farr, Miller & Washington
Email: sscohen@farrmiller.com
EDS (an HP Company)
Email-- https://www.eds.com/ssl/forms/contact/index.aspx
http://www.eds.com/
International Bottled Water Association
703-683-5213
Email: ibwainfo@bottledwater.org
The Kovler Fund
617-514-1624
Email: kennedy.library@nara.gov
Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF)
650-854-9400
202-347-5270
YWCA USA
202-467-0801
E-mail: communications@ywca.org
7) Organize Protests outside the Democratic and Republican headquarters in your community, at corporations that sponsor the debates, at radio stations, newspapers and media outlets not covering third party candidates.
8) Write letters to the editor, to blogs, to public forums, and to your friends and family members.
9) Check out the Citizens Debate Commission, created to replace the corporate "Commission on Presidential Debates"--http://www.citizensdebate.org/
10) Watch the third party debates online
Please join us for a third party candidate debate and money bomb (date to be announced as we approach the 10,000 pledges mark, location to be in New York City). All of the major candidates will be invited to participate. The event will be broadcast via www.BreakTheMatrix.com
Am I naive to think we don't need all the "overhead" of all these organizations to get 3rd Party debates? Punk teenagers get videos up on youtube that go viral almost every other week. You mean to tell me the 3rd party organizations can't stage their own debate, MSM be damned, put some good video quality behind it, and youtube it?