Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOpen 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.
147 Comments so far
Show AllTo be; and not succeed, is not to be.
Just liked that a little better than:
To Know; and not to Do, is not to Know.
I truly believe most of us are going to get really screwed:
Viet Nam, Chile, Nicaragua, Iraq, New Orleans, Wall Street, Main Street ...
And, at any rate, under the current economic collapse, the idea that Republicans could win the presidency at this point is pushing the edges of believability.
Alas, it's more than an idea. There is no good reason to assume a legitimate election.
I wonder how many here even know that Canada is having an election this coming Tuesday.
How many of you have seen the how Canada holds their debates - with ALL political partiess leaders seated around a round table from Harper and the conservatives, to Elizabeth May of the Greens party, to even Gilles Duceppe of the provincial (in both senses) and secessionist Bloc Quebecois.
Why can't the US at least have such a (still quite imperfect) democracy? Are we too stupid? Too lazy? Too resigned? Too brainwashed?
There's something fundamentally wrong with open debate: It will send Dem/Rep party(s) to their graves. But they're not yet ready to die until:
1) They screw up this country for good, OR
2) More people become politically smarter and pay more attention.
Well, #1 has probably been achieved, but #2 remains to be seen. Opening the debates would be an encouraging indication that #2 was in progress.
Nader/Gonzales '08
Leaked! Questions that got censored from McCain & Obama's town hall "debate"...
Question #1:
"Senator McCain, regarding our hostages in Guantanamo, in your opinion does their experience being tortured by us for the last five years qualify them to be presidents of their respective countries?"
Question #2...
Watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuQDTjx-ygM
After watching the so-called debates, I am voting for my party's candidate, Cynthia McKinney, without a doubt.
Ralph Nader is my second choice.
The Democrats have become "moderate" Republicans and just relish the cozy relationship with their brethren on the alleged other side of the aisle.
They fought a harder battle to keep Nader and McKinney out of the debates, as well as their own Democrats, Kucinich and Gravel, then they ever fought against the crimes committed by the Republican Party in this particular administration.
Your position benefits McCain.
Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, admirable as they are, are not really in the race.
They are already also-rans.
Are you going to use your vote to send a message or to select a President?
Cause out here in the real world a very important election is going on.
The winner will be the leader of our country.
Are you going to let others decide for you?
Or will you vote for a viable candidate?
Vote Obama '08.
Sorry, I can't in good conscience vote for a man who wants to expand the war in Afghanistan (5th poorest nation on earth - they are eating grass now), maintain a strong force in or near Iraq, and expand the "war on terra" into Pakistan - our erstwhile ally. I don't discern any difference between his foreign policy and George W. Bush's, actually. And, both are frighteningly simliar to Hitler. Face the facts, these are wars of aggression, and this stand alone by Obama, if carried out, make him a war criminal, guilty of the crime of aggressive warfare.
This "lesser" evil isn't much less, is it.
I have posted responses to these same garbage allegations so many times that I'm not going to bother doing it for you.
Do they email the talking points to you guys or are you all in the same office?
Obama's Foreign Policy
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/
Stop making sense, please. You'll get the faux revolutionaries' panties all in a little pink knot. It is no longer hip on this site to support Obama. You have to hold forth on a candidate that has no chance whatsoever of winning even governorship of a state and rant that anyone who does not do so is a sellout and coward.
May as well be driving a minivan.
MOST states are safe states for either the Democrats or the Republicans. Your rationale is only viable in VERY CLOSE "swing states." In Texas, every progressive voter in the state (I think there are a few) could vote for Nader without affecting the fact that the Republicans will get all the state's electoral votes anyway. Similarly, in California, every person who would even consider voting for Nader can do so with a clear conscience (and yes, send a STRONG message to the Democratic wing of the corporate-imperialist duopoly) and the Democrats will STILL get all the state's electoral votes. Using the fear-monger technique to try to bully voters into voting for the candidate of YOUR choice, without acknowledging this reality, is disingenuous at the very least. For people who live in swing states, there might be some reason (in some people's minds) to vote for the lesser-evil candidate instead of the candidate who really represents their own views, but when you generalize the way you do, you are telling a lie by omitting the essential truth about the (admittedly archaic and undemocratic) Electoral College.
Dear Sir, After careful thought I've concluded a McCain/Palin Dictatorship would suck radically-ergo I will vote for the only other possibility; and wow-someone who I believe actually cares about people too, a Saint? Hell No. But Cares? Hell Yes.
To the End of Lunacy.
My vote for McKinney benefits McKinney, not McCain. If I voted for McCain, he would benefit from my vote. We hear the same story every election cycle that if you don't vote for this crook or that crook, than the other crook will get in.
If you are tired of crooks, vote for an honest candidate wanting to work for the vast majority of people rather than for the few at the top of the economic ladder.
McKinney 08.
ctrl-z,
There’s also a bright side to people voting their conscience, meaning voting for Nader, McKinney, etc, if their vote causes McBomb to win. McBomb would follow Bush track, which may help bring this country ever closer to a badly-needed fundamental revolution. Not a bad prospect, huh?
Sometimes things don't get worse before they get better, they get worse before they get even worse than that.
Sometimes they stay worse.
I'd rather vote for positive change.
Obama '08
On what basis do you think Obama is for positive change? Because he says so over and over? And then again. So what? What is his record? Is he in favor of the wars and the expansion of the wars to Pakistan? Is he for the bailout by the poor of the rich bastards on Wall St? Is he content with our loss of the freedom and speech and the right to a trial if accused of a crime?
Speaking of the right to a trial if accused of a crime....during the last 'debate' Obama said that he wants to KILL OSAMA. "Kill" he said---even if the United Nations don't agree, even if Pakistan says no, he will go into Pakistan and kill a human being who he says deserves it because that person threatens to kill Americans.
Isn't it a crime to threaten to kill someone? If there is some involvement with the collapse of the World Trade Center by Osama, shouldn't he be charged with that act and have a fair trial? "Guilty!" says Obama, "Off with his head!!" ...or, really what he says is bomb him and with him kill an unnumbered group of people who will be called 'colateral damage'.
I think McPain is the lesser of the two evils. Obama will be in for eight years and with a even more complicit legislature, he will have carte blanc to do what ever the corporations want him to do.
Ctrl-z Hi, Obama '08? Hell Yes.
But, Yikes, Satan has reared his horned head at last in the sinsimellia scented foothills of nor-cal: We've now seen two McCain/Palin bumper-stickers. As good progressives we burned the vehicles to the ground, but the disease lives. Yuck.
Obama. With three weeks to go, uh, who else?
I took a ride out in the hinterlands today. Nothing but McCain/Palin signs.
Your contention applied similarly - and I bought into it - in 2000. Do you believe that Shrub's election advanced progressive transformation? Are we now living the bright side of neocon seizure of our government? If there has been any progress, do you believe it has been worth the price? I understand the THEORY that escalating the collapse will hasten fundamental change, but how does the trauma of collapse impact the nature of the transformation? Are we going to see armed insurrection? Is that inevitable? Is it likely to bring about a good outcome? Do we not have a lot of tools within our constitutional framework to bring about transformative change without resorting to violent means? I won't say I know the answer to these questions, but I'd urge people to think very seriously about the implications of encouraging collapse as a precondition for progressive change. Certain is that collapse will be traumatic for all. Uncertain is whether we would see a more enlightened progressive system arise from the ashes. I find it reckless to say, in effect, "Bring it on!" in this context.
That said, there is very good reason to have 3rd party candidates challenging the existing candidates, the dominant parties and the American people on the issues. It's simply all about waking people up - turning on the lights.
Nonsense. We are not in a country where plurality of votes cast determines the president. 270 electoral college votes does. The writer might be in a state where Obama cannot lose so a vote for Nader there would not benefit McCain. Besides, you don't vote for someone because they can win. You vote for them because you agree with them and their platform.
____
You are spouting the same old nonsense that has been discredited here on CD over and over again. When I cast MY vote it is MY vote and MY vote doesn't let OTHERS decide who becomes president. What is it that you don't understand about democracy?
____
Nader IS a viable candidate. Anyone on 45 state ballots IS viable. Winning the "race" is not what Nader's candidacy is about. As for you being "out here in the real world" that is the place where Republicans and Democrats alike have screwed you over and over again. Unless you are addicted to the experience keep on bending over and pulling the lever for the same old same old and then wonder why the pain in your bottom doesn't go away. Run Ralph. Run!
Jozef
:...you don't vote for someone because they can win. You vote for them because you agree with them and their platform." That is exactly it in a nutshell. The Obama fans are using the same old tired argument that the Gore supporters used against Nader in 2000, which is that he was stealing votes from Gore and now fear that Nader will commit that heinous crime again their candidate. What the Democrats never want to address is that if Gore in 2000 ran a strong enough campaign and Obama in 2008 would actually offer a viable option, then certainly many Americans would have voted for Gore in 2000 and Obama now in 2008. But Gore did not in 2000 and Obama is doing the same thing in 2008 by being a pro corporate, pro militant candidate. And for Democrats, the most grievous offense could be for Americans to think and believe that they have a much better candidate to vote for than either Obama or McCain. If this is supposed to be the land of the free and the best democracy in the world, then why are the Democrats, who supposedly represent equal opportunity and equal rights, not clamoring for Nader and other third party candidates to be allowed in the debates? In all likelihood because they would be terrified that Americans would then realize that there are other points of view that they could choose from besides that of a Democratic or a Republican. And it would seem the last thing that the two major parties want Americans to be cognizant of is choice.
If Nader had organized for this run these last four years, might he be polling at 15%?
Isn't he polling at about half that doing nothing?
That begs the question, why does he NOT organize?
With his many ardent supporters he has a base, could he not double it?
He has great positions, but so do many who thread on CD, and with equal power to influence change. Drag.
WHY does he NOT organize towards electability in interim years, could a Nader supporter tell me?
The Debates Are Window Dressing.
Nader and his supporters certainly have been doing plenty of organizing over the past four years. But you seem to be ignorant of the fact that the US corporate/state media ignores and buries all dissident political movements to the point of even refusing fully-paid newpaper and TV advertizements.
So how the hell are dissenting views going to be made visible to the greater public under such a seamless, diabolical system of repressing dissent?
And those that tell us that a vote for mader is a vote for McCain are effectively telling us that we don't live in a democracy and we should just fucking shut up and accept it.
WELL, I DON'T ACCEPT IT, AND I WON'T SHUT UP, OK?
Hello? You don't live in a democracy.
I am sorry you are so angry. I am not your opponent, USAn, we probably share many values; I applaud your voice and your passion. Never shut-up.
Let our angry voices form a chorus; BUT let us not see ourselves as on different sides because we sing in different keys.
Signed, F Major.
What do you mean doing nothing? He's on the ballot in 45 states! You seem to be ignorant of the system in place in the USA. It is Greed Capitalism with two Capitalist Parties in control and the media, along with everything else is a Capitalist enterprise. I'll leave to you to do the research on what Nader does between elections. You'll find Nader does a lot more than most people and most activists. Recognize the stacked deck that the two parties have created and you find out why 3rd parties and independents have such a hard time. So then, Nader has "great positions" but you're not going to vote for him. They call that informed democracy, do they?
This nonsense has been going on for almost a decade. "Doing something" as someone pointed out earlier, is not getting on the ballot in 45 states during an election year. It's making your campaign viable by building it up years before and building a constituency, so that by the time the election rolls around no one can keep you from the debates or even stop you being elected.
This "movement" is the worst kind of distraction from the serous political crisis at hand. If you have a solution, make it viable. Don't be a gadfly, while the rest of us adults are knee deep in the kinds of compromises required to get the better of two less-than-perfect choices elected. Would you call that the lesser of two evils? Well then so be it. Because those are the real choices and real people and their real lives hang in the balance.
The third party movement waits until they don't see the two parties giving them EXACTLY what they want, then like petulant consumers, they start running around, getting people all aggravated and disenfranchised because these compromised candidates are not perfect. Well guess what? We grown-ups know that, but they are all we have to choose from. We’re not here to vote our ego, but to get this country back on track, even if it means moving things a little at a time.
The difference between us is that you cling to this concept that you are looking for someone like you, to vote FOR, while the rest of us see things more clearly and since 2000 have had to make the hard decision that there is a greater evil to vote AGAINST. You see your "vision" which is untainted by political compromise as the only acceptable course. So you risk the election and vote your principles - which shows no compassion for the underclass and the middle class, the millions of people who are vulnerable, who will suffer in real tangible ways under McCain as they did under Bush but would get some hope and even relief under Democrats.
It would work IF - and this is a big IF - the people with ideas and solutions (Like Nader, who I once held in the highest regard) would engage the political process in the long term and hold the dominant party’s feet to the fire like a real politcal movement - instead of sleepwalking through tedious, mundane day-to-day politics only to wake up every 7 years and start spoiling the election – like those locusts that hibernate and then come out of the ground and destroy things every 7 years.
And I am so effen tired of the mantra that there's no difference between the parties. It's just not even logical. I won’t even list the differences. But I will list the way they are the same: they won’t march in lockstep with your uncompromised and dare I say, undemocratic position. Get real. The Republican Party engineered this financial crisis and they started this unstoppable war and they ravaged this injured planet and just because the Democrats didn't blow themselves up opposing it all, or have the majority muscle to change it, doesn't mean they are the same.
And the whole MSM thing is a totally lame excuse. The media - if you have not noticed - is one huge whore. It shows what sells. They back no minority candidates. The hard right doesn't like McCain, so where's the power of the right wing MSM? If you built momentum behind a third party candidate and the media could get ad dollars out of it, they would promote it. But the media won’t unilaterally take sides and decide that it will give Nader time on the screen because he's right, only because he's popular enough to help their ratings. Does Murdoch interfere editorially? Sure but so does Arianna Huffington. Bias is everywhere. But there are also a lot of media outlets out there looking to reach demographics.
This election will fulfill my greatest fears about America and the third party movements will contribute greatly to that dismal assessment. In battleground states where Obama leads by 7-10 points, Independents will suck up that much collectively. Then the Republican disenfranchisement strategies and voter fraud tactics can put him and Palin over the top. And if they win, IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
No difference between Obama and McCain? Get serious. No difference between Biden and Palin? Grow up!
If you can afford to cast your vote in protest or on principle, what does that say about how you are personally affected by the outcomes? Are you not touched by this? So you have health care? You have a lot of money? You are not on your third stop loss in Iraq? Are you "off the grid"? Well, lucky, lucky you.
For the rest of us, I fear that once again the election will be a battle between Liberals who look out for their fellow, most vulnerable Americans and Neo-Cons who look out only for themselves ... but it will be ultimately decided by those who don’t care either way.
I fear this may have become a far from perfect union.
Walt,
Why didn’t the Democratic Party stop the Iraq war (by cutting funds) or impeach Bush, when they had the muscle. They betrayed their campaign promise of 2006, didn’t they?
"Obama leads by 7-10 points, Independents will suck up that much collectively."
Wait, maybe some of that is going to Barr? You assume two things: 1) The 'Independents' would vote even if their first choice wasn't on the ballot; and 2) ALL of the Independents would have voted for Obama and not McCain if their first choice wasn't on the ballot.
I'm not scared by McCain/Palin. Put those assholes in office--call them corporate team B--the 'dumb' team--and we'll be ready for civil war. And I don't care if Obama wins because I don't want Warren Buffet running the country's financial system--in short, I don't trust the corporate team A--the 'smart' team. Both teams are on record as willing to ignore International Law to advance corporate interests. Both voted for the bailout. Both are vetted by the corporate elite, CFR. All this while the Corporation on Presidential Debates CHOSE FOR YOU who would be allowed to debate. And still you're not outraged. Get ready to get screwed again, this country is being ENRONIZED and you are playing their game voting for Coke or Pepsi.
We are now facing a massive world depression. Re-read the _Iron Heel_ by Jack London for an oddly prophetic anticipation of what we likely will face: A powerful Oligarchy using troops to control a dispossessed population, desperate, angry, and ripped off.
See you in the streets!
If Ralph is doing SO much politically, why is he getting less support over time? Getting fewer votes?
Why ain't the message catching on? Help me here.
Actually, he is on more state ballots and is polling higher (7%-8% in some states) than he was in 2000 and 2004, so he is doing much better, even considering the fact that the corporate media refuses to cover his campaign, and the Commission on Presidential Debates--a private corporation controlled by the two major parties--refuses to allow him to participate in the debates, so most people who only get their new from TV have no opportunity to see him and learn where he stands on the issues. His message--on a living wage, single-payer health care, corporate crime, fraud and abuse, Iraq and Afghanistan and the bloated military budget, on renewable energy, on deregulation and privitization, on the Federal Reserve, on the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act, and on the current mess on Wall Street, among so many other subjects--represents the views of the majority of American citizens. If he were in the debates and on the TV, millions more people would get behind his candidacy. You don't seem to understand the corporate blockade he is up against.
By the way, you will see him occasionally on C-SPAN. Here is s great interview that will remind you what he is all about:
http://www.c-span.org/search.aspx?For=%22INFORUM%22%20Even
Translucent
The reason that the message is not "catching on" is because of the simple fact that the mainstream media has given almost no air time to Nader. It really does not get much simpler than that. Nader is polling about 5 or 6 percent in about half a dozen states around the country and that is without receiving almost any exposure from the corporate television executives. Nader certainly is not helped by the fact that the heads of the committee that control the debates have been previously connected to both the Democratic and the Republican parties and the last thing they desire is for the American people to realize that there could be another point of view that would be seen on that stage that would actually challenge both Obama and McCain.
The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of equal opportunity and equal rights. You may wish to ask yourself why that [alleged] bastion of liberalism Barack Obama has not demanded that Nader and other third party and independent candidates be allowed to take part in the debates. What are the chances that Americans would actually see and hear the views of a socialist candidate? I would say the chances of that occurring in this [alleged] democracy are slim to none. Recently Canada has had five parties take part in their political debates. Why is that not happening in the [allegedly] freest and [allegedly] best democracy on the face of the earth? In all probability because the two major parties do not wish to relinquish their stranglehold of power that they currently enjoy in the [alleged] land of the free.
Erroll: Hello, True. Personally, I trace the death of critical thinking and democracy in America to the birth of tv.
And then, sadly, the few of us who spend time reading Chomsky, CD, Aisa Times, Informed Comment etc seem divided and splintered.
Thanks for your erudite and thoughtful response.
Neither Obama nor Hillary complained when Kucinich was excluded from the debates. We know why.
Have a brew sez:
"Neither Obama nor Hillary complained when Kucinich was excluded from the debates. We know why."
Yes, we do.
They were/are trying to get elected.
In an election you don't just toss advantages to your opponent.
Ah. I see. Democrats want us progressives to support THE PARTY but when their party member Kucinich wants to be in the "debates" they say "screw you!". Well, I say "Screw the Democratic Party!" Tell me Democrats, what is the difference between the US two-party system controlled by the Corporate State and the former one-party system of the Soviet Union controlled by the State Corporatiion? Not much.
jozef nails it! BINGO!
Kucinich was not shut out of the process during the primaries. He reached a lot of people. His numbers grew. He was granted media exposure. He drew supporters. It wasn't enough. Candidates modifying their stands is not necessarily an indication of their lack of backbone; it could as easily be what they learn from pluralistic constituencies and what they have to negotiate to be heard and elected. Compromise? Yes, but that's what democracy is all about ...
The difference between living in the US and living in the Soviet Union? Not much?
I'm speechless.
Excuse me. It wasn't enough? It might have been "enough" if Dennis had the inclusion in the debates that ALL Democratic candidates are entitled to. The media is not supposed to filter out who the remaining primary candidates are going to be. The people are. And the people don't determine the final party candidate through media polling. They do it in the primary. And where was Hillary and Obama in the shutting Dennis out? Well, content, of course to eliminate the gadfly, who given the same exposure as they got might have "been enough" to win. So again, screw the Democratic Party, the party of just a lighter shade of brown than the Republican Party. Run Ralph. Run!
iowablackbird October 9th, 2008 8:51 pm
Absolutely.
Goodman: "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." That there is such a "move" is news to me, but good news. Does anyone know anything more about this move and especially how those of us who support third party candidates can get behind the "move" to make it move a little faster?
Here you go: http://thirdpartyticket.com/
Thank you, gr8ful1997. I've gone to that site and signed up as a supporter of that "move." They say they are within a few supporters of what they need to go forward with the debate. Apparently they adopt Ron Paul's definition of who should be concluded: candidates of all parties are represented in enough state ballots that they could "theoretically" be elected were they to win elections in all states. These are Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Constitutional and Nader's independent candidacy. What a debate THOSE five people could have. I recommend that others go to that site to join those who pledge support; I don't know how much they will hassle you for donations, but it would beat other hassles with which I'm bombarded. (By the way, they say the debate will be broadcast on various internet sites. Maybe even Common Dreams would carry it!)
Candidates
I personally would have liked to seen at least one of the other candiates involved in these debates. (Anyone who has ever been on a debating team in highschool or college knows that these presentations are anything but debates)
Dante October 9th, 2008 8:27 pm,
good points.
3rd party inclusion (barr,nader,mckinney) would have been nice but a more traditional 'debate' b/w mccain and obama would have been preferential to the campaign slogans that were refined during the seemingly endless campaign season regurgitated w/ brokaw's promptings.
the most annoying aspect of listening to 'presidential debates' is the interjection of the moderator (who in my mind should be nothing but a time keeper, and gatekeeper for civil discourse).
tom brokaw's interruptions/promptings and constant references to time were annoying.
diminish the role of the moderator (ifill, lehrer, brokaw), one topic 2 hours point by point w/ time constraints.
10 minutes for obama, 10 minutes for mccain, on one subject (say the economy), for 2 hours w/ 3-5 minute rebuttals. simple.
i don't understand why presidential debates should be any different than policy debate (in schools or in congress).
...peace...
"i don't understand why presidential debates should be any different than policy debate (in schools or in congress)."
I agree. What must be understood is that these things aren't formal debates. Formal debates have rules. These shows have no rules. Indeed, that much should have been apparent when Palin decided that she wasn't going to answer the questions and chose, instead, to talk to the American people.
Why should they be any different? Because the networks pay the money, they get to call the shots.
Perhaps one day you'll read the election laws that make it nearly impossible for anyone to challenge the dictatorial stranglehold the two political parties of your world have upon your Nation. You might even study the New World Order as more than likely both parties are controlled by the NWO & their agenda. They knew about the financial crisis coming in 2000 according to memos I read if those memo's are true. They could have done somethng then but the financial crisis gives them to opportunity to consolidate power in your Nation and globably. The people at the top of the Pyramid of the Good Old Boy system aren't going to get hurt & all these things merely profit their worldly agenda for a NWO.
"Now you can go vote for Obama with a clear conscience."
I am not sure who Amy is going to vote for but I am almost positive that she will not be voting for Senator McCain and Gov. Palin. You are most likely correct when you stated that she would vote for Senator Obama rather than live the next four years knowing her voting choice has resulted in the election of John McCain as President. I believe that is what you were referring regarding "a clear conscience."
Nice article Amy Goodman, I listen to you almost every morning and your program is very informative and enlightening.
The reason why 3rd parties are excluded is because the PTB does not want certain issues brought up. They want to frame the war "debate" around whether we focus on Iraq (McCain) or Afghanistan (Obama) not whether we should be having a war. On the Wall St. fat cat bailout without hearings, no other point of veiw is allowed to be heard because the establishment needs people to buy into the 2-party notion that there is no other way to solve the problem other than handing the very crooks that caused the mess an almost trillion dollars more.
All the CD Obomot-fools and reboots that constantly attack anyone not towing the 2-party line are actually supporting the exclusion any alternative to militarism, curbing of civil rights and the transfer of wealth upwards. These saps oppose not only 3rd party points of view but would probably criminalize it if they could.
Hic'Haveabrew sez:
"All the CD Obomot-fools and reboots that constantly attack anyone not towing the 2-party line are actually supporting the exclusion any alternative to militarism, curbing of civil rights and the transfer of wealth upwards. These saps oppose not only 3rd party points of view but would probably criminalize it if they could."
Well Hic,
All the CD Obonot-fools and 'Have-a-brew-o-koolaid' that constantly attack anyone not towing the 3rd-party line are actually supporting McCain. These saps oppose not only realistic points of view but would probably criminalize it if they could.
It's easy to flip propaganda.
All your posts benefit no one but McCain. You want to help 3rd parties? Give them money and time. They don't need votes. Voting for them doesn't help them. It only helps McCain.
Voting for Nader in 2000 and 2004 didn't help Nader. It helped the candidate whose views were furthest from Nader: Bush.
Voting for Nader in 2008 won't help Nader. It will only help McCain.
To help 3rd parties, support them.
To help the country, vote Obama.
Absolutely false. Those of us that can clearly see that the masters of the oligarchy own both parties as witnessed by the speed with which both parties of Wall Street knees hit the floor when the criminals whose malpractice caused the sub-prime mess asked them for a bailout, would not vote at all if it weren't for 3rd parties.
I hope you can see how foolish your arguments are. I am not voting for sellouts. How does voting for McKinney, Nader or the Socialist Equality Party (WSWS) help McCain seeing as I am not voting for a Dim no matter what?
Your flawed "analysis" assumes that everyone must vote for a Dim or a Pug which is false. Those that want to limit choices to the status quo establishment's vetted pro-war, pro-corporate Wall Street candidates are heading down the road to fascism. Don't forget Obama voted to allow the government to spy on us and grant Bush (who supposedly he's against) immunity for his crimes.
If the Dims are against Bush why do they protect him from impeachment and give him immunity? I know the answer and I'm sure you haven't a clue.
Hic' Have a brew
Were you rational, you'd want your vote to count. You're choosing to protest.
You could make a difference, but you've decided not to.
To you an ideal candidate is more important than who is in the White House.
So, a vote that could have gone for the more liberal candidate is being pissed away.
While you are screaming about getting your way the adults will be voting.
Your vote isn't a protest, it's a tantrum.
Amy is correct.
The corporate party debates are boring and present no solutions to anything.
Obama fans: prepared to be disillusioned.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
What a hypocrit! Her program has disappeared the alternative party candidates this year just as much as the mainstream media. We have heard, for example, Cynthia McKinney's voice only twice since Barack Obama sewed up the Democratic nomination for the presidency: the first time was at the Green Party convention and the second occurred all too briefly on 10/1, when DemocraticPartyNow! deigned to grant her a few seconds to criticise the Congressional bailout plan for its signal shortcomings.
We also got to listen to the candidate of the Libertarian Party that afternoon, possibly to add the perfuctory veneer of "balance." Ralph Nader has been on a few times throughout the summer, but that's about it. In the meantime it's been the disgraceful McCain/Obama/Palin/Biden show week after week after week. And this is un-embedded media? Like the rest of the so-called "liberal" "progressive" aleternative media (CommonDreams included) her program needs to be retitled for truth in advertising. In this case, Democratic "Party" Now.
Similarly, anytime there's a chance to deflect coverage of Apartheid Israel (and it is an Apartheid state in the fullest sense of that term, Ms Goodman), a beneficiary of US tax assistance without peer on the planet, Ms Goodman seizes on Darfur. Her coverage of that problem is so un-enlightened that she delivers one veiled slander after another about Muslims. The Congo by contrast, where the scale of the catastrophe is so much greater and where American corporations and taxes have fueled the bloodshed, scarcely gets noticed.
Personally, I think her Right Livelihood award is wholly undeserved. Black Agenda Report and its editors would have been a far more just and long overdue recognition by the members of the awards committee of the Right Livelihood Organisation than this white liberal "progressive" Democrat cum supremely hypocritical Zionist.
Any weekly edition of BAR is but pure journalistic gold compared to the daily dross of DemocraticPartyNow! any day of the year.
"Democrat cum supremely hypocritical Zionist. "
If Amy Goodman is a zionist, then I am God.
Weatherly
Your criticism is not entirely accurate. The day after the two major vice presidential candidates debated, Democracy Now! did have on the vice presidential candidates from the Green Party and from independent candidate Ralph Nader [Matt Gonzales] on the program. But I agree, the third party and independent candidates should be on more often on Democracy Now!.
>> Do you hear that, Lesser-Evilists? YOU people are the gutless forces of reaction & the defenders of the status-quo. You are the ones who are analogous to the cowardly reactionaries of yesteryear, who might have felt that in an ideal world, women & blacks should perhaps have the right to vote -- but who always insisted that "it simply wasn't the proper time to pursue such wild & idealistic notions."
This can not be stated enough times. It seems to me people look at elections as an instant gratification thing. This is part and parcel as to why true Democracy erodes the world over. The electorate has taken the same philosophy when they vote, that the Corporations take when they institute policies to increase shareholder value.
They do not care about the long term health of the country/company. They just want to get that bonus now.
I have parked my vote with the Green party in Canada for years. Yes I know that might well help the Conservatives win an election, and then another but I am not looking at Canada over the next 4 years.
I recognize that in that 4 years time Harpers Conservatives can do a lot of harm, but I feel it no worse then the harm the Liberal party can do when they pursue policies that really do not differ from Harpers Conservatives when you look at the long term impact on our country.
I am patient and willing to continue to vote green. It has already been reported that the Liberals simply can gain nothing more in the way of votes from the "left" of the Conservative party. They have to look at the NDP and the Greens and in order to do that they will have to adopt far more of the policies that are important to me.
The lesser of two evils philosophy is one that will perpetuate the status quo. If one wants real amnd meaningful change that will help ones country evolve, rather then devolve then it my feeling one needs the patience and the commitment to support those third parties who by NECESSITY must sell themselves on their policy, rather then rely on the "Base" of electors and coporate masters that the more established parties rely on.
pk
I emailed a protest to Frank Newport – and said a horse could do better than his gallop poll.
Why?
To protest the sheer arrogance of the Gallup Organization.
In a recent WSJ/NBC national poll, Ralph Nader pulls 5 percent.
Contrast that to the most recent Gallup national poll, where Nader polls a fraction of one percent.
Why the big difference?
Answer: Gallup, the 800-pound gorilla of the polling world, doesn't list Ralph Nader as one of the Presidential candidates in the primary polling question.
Are you kidding me?
No.
We are not kidding you.
And guess who the Commission on Presidential Debates depends on to do its polling to see which Presidential candidates get to debate before tens of millions of Americans tonight in Nashville?
You guessed it: Gallup.
I called Frank Newport.
Newport is the editor-in-chief at Gallup.
I asked Newport:
Is there an objective standard you use to keep Ralph off your primary polling question?
"No," Newport said.
"We use our internal judgment to decide."
Whoa!
Gallup's "internal judgment" keeps Ralph Nader out of their polling.
So, I tried again.
Any ballpark levels of support Gallup looks to as a threshold?
"No," Newport said.
Again, it was just subject to unidentified "internal judgment criteria."
What a total crock of you know what.
There are some polling agencies -- such as Ipsos/McClatchey and CNN/Opinion Research Corp. -- that include all the major third party candidates.
Not Gallup.
So, we propose two ways to protest Gallup's arrogance in keeping Ralph Nader out of the Gallup polls, thereby denying him the chance of having a chance to debate McCain and Obama.
Protest method number one:
Donate $5, $10, $100 -- whatever you can afford -- up to the legal limit of $2,300 -- to Nader/Gonzalez now.
On October 2, Amy Goodman interviewed George Farah of OpenDebates.Org. You can view the video or read the transcript at this link.
Here's a taste:
GEORGE FARAH: We used to have a fantastic, genuinely nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor: the League of Women Voters. From 1976 until 1984, the League of Women Voters hosted our most important public forums, and they made sure the debates served the public interest rather than the interest of any political party. And they had the guts to stand up to the two major parties.
(... skip ...)
The parties did not like the fact that an uppity women’s organization, pro-democracy, was telling their boys who could participate in their debates and under what condition. And so, in 1987, they created this private corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates. It sounds like a government agency; it’s not. And every four years, it awards absolute control to the Republican and Democratic parties over our political forums.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And who sponsors this organization?
GEORGE FARAH: Well, that makes things even worse. Unfortunately, much of the money that finances the presidential debates that are hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates are private corporations that have regulatory interests before Congress. Anheuser-Busch has spent the most money of any company in the United States on presidential debates, which is partly why every four years we get a debate in St. Louis, and we don’t have a debate this year in New Orleans, which is dying for a debate, and massive civic groups were demanding that a debate be held there to highlight some of Katrina’s problems.
Another consequence of corporate sponsorship is that the corporations are able to give a contribution this way to both parties. You know, we have limitations in this country. Corporations can’t give direct contributions to the candidates. Well, the Commission provides an end-run around. When a corporation gives money to the Commission on Presidential Debates, it knows it is giving money to both the Republican and Democratic parties, supporting their duopoly over our political process and excluding third party voices that may be hostile to corporate power. And all four third party candidates that are on ballots this year are sharply critical of growing corporate power.
The two party system the people have come to adopt is a problem, a BIG one. Watching the so called debates, I thought how groomed the debates are. Seems like everyone's hands are tied by the rules. Instead of calling it a debate, call it a presentation by the participants. Debates are civil arguments on issues, challenging the candidates stance on issues. Tough questions are answered, not filtered questions. What a joke debates have become. No wonder people are confused.
We really have a one party system - with two reich wings.
yawn.
Yep. The debates were a joke.
The only one I didnt fall asleep during, was the one with the VPs. Palin was hilarious. SWhe reminded me of some relaitvse I have in Minnesota and ILLINOis.
But, she looks like a "rehabbed" Amy Winehouse.
"Palin should go to rehab--I say , YOU BETCHA!!"
Watch Ralph Nader debate Bush and Kerry in 2004: http://thewomandirector.com/Ralph_Nader.html (click on 2nd movie file)
Mame McQueen
http://thewomandirector.com
All those who seem to have a special paranoia about Nader, maybe if you actually let him in on a nationalized, televised debate, he might be able to do the "pullling left" that Obama seems to be telling you to be in charge of(why cant he just pull left? do you just THINK that he can be pulled left/ Why?)
That is one of the reasons people want to open the debatyes. Lets hear ALL ideas--they had a debate with 5 partiers in Canada , rectly, and all of them wil be onthe ballot. Then, if people particularly liiek an idea, they can urge the "leading": candidate to support it.
The post from a Canadian, who will support what I said, is below.
Back in mid-January Presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich was barred from the Nevada Presidential Debate. He was first invited & scheduled to appear, then uninvited, supposedly to focus on the top three candidates. This decision was made by a broadcasting corporation, MSNBC (subsidiary of General Electric Corporation), effectively a corporate pre-screening of Presidential candidates.
The worst thing was that the three invited Democratic Party candidates / suckers, Clinton, Edwards and Obama, accepted the situation. They let the supposed personal benefits of narrowing the field undermine the democratic process. The Las Vegas debate did not involve a need for great haste (remember that was nine months ago). Those other candidates later had plenty of time to get their points across. What this teaches is that these three people and their advisors were willing to cut corners to gain power. In this case none properly represented democracy. So sad.
Genki
I think your point concerning how Kucinich was shut out of the Nevada Presidential Debate is well taken. Unfortunately, Kucinich has made a grievous error by endorsing Obama, a candidate who is anathema to his own views. Regrettably, it appears that Kucinich decided to sell his soul in order to placate the Democrats and by doing so ended up placing party over principle.
Kucinich did not make a "grievous error". He did what was expected of him by HIS Party bosses. As Party appartchik his DUTY is first and foremost to bring his supporters into the fold, i.e., he must deliver them to the final and only candidate of the Democratic Party. Otherwise, he would not get committee assignments, etc. He must play the Party line and game. This he has done as expected. Now, Democrats who supported Kucinich are told they should vote for Obama, and, of course, they are propagandized into accepting that there "is no other alternative". Yes. There is. Run Ralph. Run!
It is true, it is very disappointing. But, if you ask Dennis, he givse an answer that sounds alot liek "the better of two evils". Thats not good enough--but, I just think taht Dennis is so good for the Left, and the people of his disctrict, I cannot be against him.
He hasnt sold us out, yet. Recall all of teh votes that Obama (and majority Dems made) that made you angry.. On almost ALL of them, Kucinich was against them:
The FISA reorg., The uSA Pat Act, The Invasion of Iraq. Funding Iraq. The Bailout.
That was indeed a tremendously revealing & significant incident. It spoke volumes about all the involved players -- the other candidates, the media, & the Dem Party itself. In itself, it encapsulated much of what's wrong & fake about American "democracy."
That was such an atrocity. Fascism barred a candidate-for-the-people from their mock debate. And no one spoke up in Kucinich's (aka the people's) defense. No one spoke up about the injustice. Therefore all who were allowed to mock debate that night were supporting Fascism -- and NONE of them should get one vote from us.
The real reason they won't let Nader into the debates is because he would mop the floor with both the democraps and repugs.
Absolutely true.
I agree with you ezeflyer that we have a unique opportunity to clean house of the two corporate parties. However the MSM has convinced the average voter that it is a two party race and that any other vote casted is a complete waste.
Amy's article as usual is well written and on point, but it is just fantasy to believe that the CPD will allow any "non-corporate candidate" to participate in an election debate.
This was no debate. It was a calculated appeal to the voting sheeple majority's prejudices.
If one believes a campaigning politician's words, one is seriously deluded. Obama has to say what the sheeple want to hear. We can only hope that with enough of our support, he will do right by us.
Their voting records tell all. If as Republicans say, Obama has the most liberal voting record of all Senators, he gets my vote. We love Kucinich and Nader, but they are prohibited from forming public opinion. It's either Obama or Worse Than Bush.
We have a unique opportunity to toss all conservatives, Republican and Democrat, out of office. Their leadership and/or support of neocons, fascists, and Reaganites makes them entirely responsible for this mess. In fact, conservatives, sometimes known as neo-liberals, authoritarians, little dictators, religious fanatics, followers of Milton Friedman, oligarchs, commissars, criminals, reactionaries, greedheads, fearmongers, warmongers, or just plain morons are behind every human-caused tragedy that has ever occurred.
This is our opportunity to rescue the word "liberal" that Jesus personified and was demonized by conservatives.
Why Conservatives Can't Govern:
http://www.alternet.org/story/37947/?page=1
Conservatives Deconstructed:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Society/Conservatives_Deconstruct.html
"One can't say that all conservatives are stupid, but one can say that all stupid people are conservatives"
John Stewart Mill
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith
Excellent post! And you said "This is our opportunity to rescue the word "liberal" that Jesus personified and was demonized by conservatives." I'd add that by "our" you can include many enlightened atheists and secular humanists who can admit that Jesus WAS a real person and had many wonderful ideas. And we can go further and say this is an opportunity to rescue Jesus from Christians.
Well, call me a Cafeteria Christian, but I reject Jesus' admonition to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." in favor of Bokonon's aphorism: "Pay No Attention To Caesar-- Caesar Doesn't Have the Slightest Idea What's REALLY Going On."
“The last Christian died on the cross” - Friedrich Nietzsche
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" - k marx
vote your conscience...
...peace...
And what about J.C. saying "the poor will always be with you"? Great, eh? And no there is no direct evidence that J.C. ever existed given that the gospels were written decades after his (supposed life and) death. The First Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. put the gears of the established Catholic enterprise into place. In the interim the Gnostics fled for their lives as a result of persecution. What we have today is an institutionalized cult of immense proportions based upon the book we call the Babble.
You're missing my point. You need to separate the person of Jesus, who I think most secular scholars will agree actually existed, from institutions that used his teachings for their own purposes. Also, you can't necessarily treat everything attributed to him in the New Testament as actually being his ideas. Bart Erdman is a great biblical scholar who's very popular nowadays. I recommend you check his books out.
>> Jesus, who I think most secular scholars will agree actually existed...
Baloney. Pure BS pulled right from your a**. Made up. Fiction.
"Secular Scholars" (and I happen to count myself as one) quite to the contrary know that there is not a single shred of hard evidence that an historical Jesus ever existed. There is nothing but hearsay accounts, and nearly all references to his existence come many years after the "fact."
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
>>Also, you can't necessarily treat everything attributed to him in the New Testament as actually being his ideas.
I always shake my head in wonder at the "pick-and-choose" school of Christianity. "I know the bible says God hates homosexuals, and advocates stoning them to death, but....but....Jesus didn't really mean it that way" and on and on. You don't have to take that stuff in Leviticus seriously, or Noah's Ark, but hey...those ten commandments? Oh, you better obey them or you're going to go the land of eternal fiery damnation. But remember...Jesus is "love."
What crap. What nonsensical crap.
Either you "believe" in the tooth fairy, or you don't. There is nothing in between. No "Well....I know that I'm the one that really put that dime there underneath my child's pillow, but that doesn't meant that the tooth fairy isn't real."
Forget Erdman, I recommend that you try reading a little Robert M. Price. Or better yet, start with Darwin's "Origin of Species." Maybe that'll help straighten out your thought process.
----------------
"I know that many Christians regard the Old Testament as the foundation and the New as the superstructure, and while many admit that there are faults and mistakes in the Old Testament, they insist that the New is the flower and perfect fruit.
I admit that there are many good things in the New Testament, and if we take from that book the dogmas, of eternal pain, of infinite revenge, of the atonement, of human sacrifice, of the necessity of shedding blood; if we throw away the doctrine of non-resistance, of loving enemies, the idea that prosperity is the result of wickedness, that Poverty is a preparation for Paradise, if we throw all these away and take the good, sensible passages, applicable to conduct, then we can make a fairly good moral guide, -- narrow, but moral.
Of course, many important things would be left out. You would have nothing about human rights, nothing in favor of the family, nothing for education, nothing for investigation, for thought and reason, but still you would have a fairly good moral guide.
On the other hand, if you would take the foolish passages, the extreme ones, you could make a creed that would satisfy an insane asylum.
If you take the cruel passages, the verses that inculcate eternal hatred, verses that writhe and hiss like serpents, you can make a creed that would shock the heart of a hyena.
It may be that no book contains better passages than the New Testament, but certainly no book contains worse.
Below the blossom of love you find the thorn of hatred; on the lips that kiss, you find the poison of the cobra.
The Bible is not a moral guide."
-Robert Ingersoll
We recently had our own telivised debates up here in Canada, both in French and English on subsequent nights.
The 5 parties leaders all were included. I really do not see why such could not be the case in the United States UNLESS it purely the MSM attempting to perpetuate the one party state.
The Green Party saw a significant surge in support after the debate and I am very happy that all parties EVEN the Quebec only Bloc were included.
See! This is what I watched--incidentally with great envy!!
Same is true for most places in Europe.
Or if there is a one-to-one debate, like in France (=the one - democratic - country, so we leave out Russia, whose system is the closest to America's, i.e. more presidential than parliamentary), it is because presidential elections come in 2 rounds, and the two who got the most votes in the first round have their face-offs in round 2.
I heard about that. At the same time the beauty contest was going on in the US between our two 'candidates', Canada had a REAL debate -- heat and all.
You are right that the MSM (and it's corporate owners) want only one party -- THEIR PARTY in our government. The people in the US have no representation in the 'presidential' candidates. They shun the Third Parties and only have a debate between 2 people who belong to really the SAME PARTY.