Nader and the debates

[sidwill]

First Off please don't jump down my throat for this.

I want Nader in the debates.

I don't support Nader for the presidency, I support Kerry. I'm voting for Kerry. I gave money to Kerry.


Its just that Nader is just about the only national candidate who is speaking truth to power. Face it Kerry has moderated his rhetoric since the primaries in an effort to not alienate voters who weren't going to vote for him anyway. A nader appearance might force Kerry to re-evaluate the way he is talking about issues like Iraq, corporate accountabilty and the role of government in building a stronger fairer society. At the same time Nader will not back down from calling Bush what he truly is a warmongering corporatist bent on further enriching his own already too powerful patrons.

Slam away.

[TrueAmerican]

1. LOL

The Democratic Party will not be held hostage to Nader and his supporters.

No Nader, Never!

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. And I am sure his supporters feel the same way about the DNC.

[TrueAmerican]

16. Who cares.

His supporters rather have Bush.

[still_one]

2. I don't want him in the debates, but I don't think Kerry should fight it

In fact Kerry should not say a word, and let the other side look like the bad guy.

[Monte Carlo]

4. It seems to me to let Nader in, you'd have to let others in, too.

Nader is not the only 3rd party candidate. From what I understand, Badnardik is polling similar numbers. It would seem arbitrary to let one in but not the other. And then you have the other minor candidates.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. I think Nader and Badnarik would make interesting additions

to the debates. How many other candidates would be added depends on the criteria used to set up the debates.

[G_j]

5. I really haven't been paying, much attention

to how much support Nader has this time around.
But I believe he should have been included in the 2000 debates, given his popularity at that time. That situation was very undemocratic IMO.

[iconoclastic cat]

6. Speaking truth to power? LOL!

Ralph's truthfull discussion with Power: "Okay, I'm going to look this way, and you can do anything you want with me while I blame the Democrats!"

[Blue_Roses]

7. Exactly! Especially tell us the"truth" of how he's getting his

name on the ballot in some states :eyes: Nader is a joke and he has NO credibility anymore. He lost it when he started letting the Republican Party fund his campaign.

Nader is an opportunistic egomaniac

[demon67]

8. Rules regarding entry

I think there is an established protocol dictating whether an individual qualifies to participate in the presidential debates. I believe it is tied to the party's performance in the last election and perhaps current polling information. Does anyone else know more about this?

[G_j]

9. don't know the specifics but

I do know that the League of Women Voters who used to run the debates withdrew in protest over the Repugs and Dems together raising the bar and essentially keeping third party candidates out of the debates.

on edit:
Google search:
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES TO ENHANCE DEMOCRACY, NOT DUOPOLY
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... people." So said the League of Women Voters in explaining its 1988 decision to withdraw
from sponsoring the nationally televised presidential debates that it ...
reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/ primers/citizens_debate_commission.pdf

----
good commentary:
http://www.agrnews.org/issues/94/commentary.html

<snip>
The Presidential debates

The Presidential debates recently began operating under new management. Until 1984, the debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters. The League withdrew its sponsorship because “the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetuate a fraud on the American voter.”

Enter the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), operated by representatives from the two major political parties. The New York Times reported that the CPD was “not likely to look with favor on including third party candidates in the debates.”

The debates have become another avenue for the views of the major parties’ candidates. The CPD does not seem to count viewership as a high priority since when third party candidate Ross Perot participated in 1992, over 90 million people watched. In 1996, the debates between Clinton and Dole were only viewed by 41 million.

The exclusive, bipartisan control of the debates keeps third party candidates from gaining an audience. They are denied by the CPD as they are denied by the mainstream media. Their platforms and campaigns are further marginalized because they cannot gain access to the general public and therefore cannot illustrate how their views differ from the two major party candidates. The American voter is left to assume that there are only two voices worth hearing, and this is precisely the self-professed agenda of the CPD. “As a party chairman, it’s my responsibility to strengthen the two party system,” said Paul Kirk, a CPD official.

<snip>

[MadHound]

10. Yep, you're right

Dems and 'Pugs got together and pretty much slammed the door on third party candidates. After all, can't have that messy business of some outsider showing up at the debates and pointing out just how close the two candidates are on most of the issues. Can't have the exposure of the two party/same corporate master system of government, it would upset the US citizen too much to have the truth out there in the open.

[Zynx]

11. You put Nader and "truth" in the same sentence. That's rich.

He's a filthy liar. I don't even need to explain myself on that one.

[sidwill]

13. Nader

I think y'all missed my point, or I didn't make myself clear.

If the debates remain Bush v. Kerry the discussion will hinge upon such mundane tpoics as: How little they differ on Iraq, Vietnam, "Leadership"?,"Values", etc... in other words the same vacuos wedge issues that dominate the political discourse in this country.

At the very least Nader will point out that:

A. Bush is bought and owned by corporate America.
B. The war in Iraq was illegal, unnesessary, and immoral.
C. Bush's tax cuts are driving the nation to the brink of a two tiered society--the very weathy and the rest of us.
D. Kerry needs to move at least a little bit left and stop trying to sound like Bushlite.

Either way Kerry has my vote and my money.
But we need our Dem. candidates to be more like Dean and less like Lieberman.

[dansolo]

14. Nader isn't a national candidate

How many state ballots is he even on? I'd argue that Cobb has more of a right to participate in the debates.

[Kahuna]

15. Right on! Let all the candidates with less than 5% support debate ..

each other. They are fringe candidates and don't belong on the stage with candidates who are each getting over 40% support.