[Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Tue Jul 8 13:28:02 CDT 2008
Jockeying for media access and ballot access has become part of the
"democratic" process.
The media is obviously distorting the process.
I think it is not only wrong, it is disgraceful that we the sheeple
tolerate this treatment by our handlers.
I would let the debaters ask each other questions.
I would love to see Cynthia McKinney grilling Obama and McCain.
BTW-
Zogby suggests Barr has an amazing 6% and has Nader at 2%
Walter Pituc wrote:
> No, I think you are mistaken Jenifer. I will not argue about the
> spoiler argument here because I know people have different political
> persuasions and different takes on it on the peace list and I wouldn't
> want to devolve this into mere partisan bickering, but what I will
> argue for right here is the desperate need for equal access to debates
> to non-major party/Indy presidential candidates. If we as a nation
> truly believe in equality under the law, then we would have fairer
> ballot access laws, open and inclusive debates, publicly funded
> campaigns, and equal media coverage.
>
> From a purely civil libertarian perspective, if you are a citizen of
> the United States you should get a fair shake at being able to run for
> office and for equal treatment under the law. In Europe and elsewhere,
> there is more political diversity and more transparent and equal
> treatment (relative to us at least) of more marginal voices in society
> because the laws there allow for it.
>
>
> -Walter
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Jenifer Cartwright
> <jencart13 at yahoo.com <mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> So what y're saying is that spoiler Nader (who just couldn't bring
> himself to back McKinney) might throw the election to McCain?
> That's the kind of deja vu that would end the world as we've come
> to know it (think: Supreme Court nominees).
>
> --Jenifer
>
> --- On *Tue, 7/8/08, Walter Pituc /<wpituc2 at gmail.com
> <mailto:wpituc2 at gmail.com>>/* wrote:
>
> From: Walter Pituc <wpituc2 at gmail.com <mailto:wpituc2 at gmail.com>>
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates
> To: "Prairie Greens of East Central Illinois"
> <prairiegreens-org at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:prairiegreens-org at lists.chambana.net>>, "Peace-discuss
> List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>>
> Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 11:57 AM
>
>
> Here is a good piece by the The Nation about the need for
> truly inclusive Presidential debates. We tout our country as a
> democracy yet we exclude many candidates (who have a
> mathematical chance of winning based on how ballot lines they
> have) from participating in national debates. I especially
> hate the truly undemocratic Commission on Presidential Debates
> (CPD) which decides who gets to debate and who doesn't. It's
> no surprise that the CPD is fully funded by corporations and
> TV executives and is basically controlled by the two major
> parties.
>
> -Walter Pituc
>
> http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/334812
>
> -----------------------
> An Opportunity to Open Presidential Debates
>
> posted by John Nichols on 07/06/2008 @ 3:09pm
>
> The latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey of
> registered voters nationwide puts Democrat Barack Obama at 46
> percent.
>
> Republican John McCain pulls 44 percent.
>
> Is everyone else undecided? No.
>
> A striking six percent of Americans who are likely to vote
> this fall back an alternative candidate: Independent Ralph Nader.
>
> Another three percent back Libertarian Bob Barr.
>
> Those are some of the highest percentages in years for
> independent or-third-party candidates. And they matter,
> especially Nader's six percent.
>
> Google and YouTube are organizing a unique presidential forum
> in New Orleans for September 18. It is likely to be the first
> debate (or debate-like "event") after the major-party
> nominating conventions are finished.
>
> A candidate polling at 10 percent in national polls -- just
> four points ahead of where Nader is now at -- earns a place in
> the forum.
>
> As Nader's campaign says: "If we get on the Google sponsored
> debates, we're convinced Nader/Gonzalez will move toward 20
> percent.
>
> "At twenty percent, people see a three way race."
>
> "When people see a three way race, everything is possible."
>
> "And we believe that in this momentous election year,
> everything is possible."
>
> Frankly, the 10 percent threshold is too high.
>
> Presidential debates should include all candidates who have
> qualified for a sufficient number of ballots lines to
> accumulate the electoral votes to be elected president.
>
> It is not all that easy getting on ballots. And those
> candidates who meet the standard -- usually no more than two
> or three beyond the major-party contenders -- deserve a forum.
>
> Would that put too many candidates on the stage? Don't be
> silly. Both Obama and McCain came from crowded fields of
> Democratic and Republican contenders who debated frequently --
> and functionally -- prior to and during the primary season.
>
> In other countries, such as France, presidential debates are
> open not merely to the two most prominent candidates but to
> the nominees of all parties that display a reasonable measure
> of national appeal. The discussions are livelier and more
> issue-focused, and they tend to draw the major-party
> candidates out -- providing insights that would otherwise be
> lost in the carefully-calculated joint appearances that pass
> for fall debates in the U.S.
>
> The corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates -- which was
> set up by former chairs of the major parties and their
> big-media allies to limit access to the most important forums
> for presidential nominees -- has made mockery of the
> democratic process. And some, admittedly very foolish people,
> have actually convinced themselves that one-on-one "debates"
> organized by party insiders to fit the schedules of friendly
> television networks are meaningful.
>
> The truth is that America needs more and better debates. And
> Google and YouTube have taken an important step in opening up
> the process by establishing the ten-percent threshold -- a
> standard that is significantly easier for an independent or
> third-party candidate to meet than the CPD's overly-strict and
> anti-democratic regulations. (Among rules, the commission
> requires a candidate who is not running with the approval of
> the Democratic and Republican parties to attain a 15-percent
> support level across five national polls.)
>
> Will any independent or third-party candidate reach the ten
> percent threshold this year? Nader appears to be best
> positioned to do so. Despite scant media attention, he has
> polled in the four- to six-percent range in several different
> polls. Getting up to ten percent will be hard. But as Obama
> softens his positions on civil liberties, political reform,
> trade policy, presidential accountability and ending the war
> -- issues on which Nader has long focused -- his prospects
> improve.
>
> And one does not have to be a Nader supporter to hope, for the
> sake of democracy, that they improve sufficiently to earn him
> a place in the Google/YouTube debate and other fall match-ups.
> And if Nader gets in, why not Barr and likely Green Party
> nominee Cynthia McKinney?
>
> An Obama-McCain-Nader-Barr-McKinney debate would be less
> crowded than most of the Democratic or Republican primary
> debates, and much less crowded than the debates in the last
> French presidential election. But it would still be
> sufficiently energetic and ideologically diverse to boost the
> quality of the presidential dialogue and give America
> something closer to a genuinely democratic discourse.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080708/47780a62/attachment.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list