I don't think Kerry should fight it if Nader wants to be in the debates

[still_one]

[brainshrub]

1. Agree

[kikiek]

2. Should definately include him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Can I Be In The Debates?

Statistically my chances are as good as Nader....

[napi21]

4. I do! Each viable candidate needs as much time and exposure

as possible. That was a big problem with the primaries. There were just too many candidates. You really didn't get to know any of themv= very well.

It's not that I don't want Nader to let himself look like an idiot, I just don't want the time and distraction taken away from letting shrub look like an idiot too!

[WMliberal]

5. how about the green party candidate?

or the libertarian party candidate? or the conservative party candidate?
by the way, what party is nader running for?

[still_one]

7. Good point, I am not sure what the criterion should be

but I know that it did not help the Gore campaign by trying to exclude Nader...

[WMliberal]

12. i agree about gore

however, this time Nader is not running on behalf of any significant party. he has less of a case for being included than he did four years ago.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. Gore had nothing to do with excluding Nader

Nader didn't qualify.

[mikehiggins]

6. THis is a joke, right?

Nader is NOT on the ballot in all of the states, nor is he likely to be.

He does NOT have the support of any large segment of the population nor is he likely to gain it.

He is being financed to a great degree by the Republicans, just like the Swift Boat liars and all the other impediments being thrown out to derail the Democrats.

In reality his campaign only exists on tv and cable.

Why should he be given a national stage to benefit the forces of evil?

In case anyone has forgotten, the underlying theme of this initiative is ANYBODY BUT BUSH. We have settled for Kerry as our candidate. Now it is incumbent upon us to do whatever we can to get Bush out of office in November. Ralph Nader is NOT helping.

[LisaL]

11. No, Nader is not helping.

If there are legal ways to keep Nader out of debates, he should be kept out.
Because Nader could very well steal some votes, which would mean 4 more years of Bush.
And I can't beleive anybody here would want that.

[still_one]

15. Just curious

I don't feel that strongly about it, but I do think Nader would hurt bush much worse than Kerry, and Kerry might look quite good if he didn't object to it, that is, he isn't afraid to talk about the issues with anyone

[Cheswick2.0]

29. how does Nader hurt bush more than Kerry?

[slinkerwink]

8. um, no, Nader should NOT be in the debates b/c he's funded by Republicans

[Cheswick2.0]

30. That's right, the republicans only get one candidate in the debates

[lastknowngood]

9. He should refuse to be on the same stage with the ass

Nader is a danger to our country and it would be truly aiding the enemy.

[CaTeacher]

10. He is on the left--so he would take more

votes from our candidate.

As he is not on the ballot in all 50 states--he has no right to be in the debates anyway.

[LisaL]

17. Is that the criteria?

He has to be on the ballot in all 50 states?

[CaTeacher]

23. Perot's lawyers

made the case for him being in the debates due to him being on the ballot in every state and pulling in more than 5% of the vote in the majority of states (based on polling data).

This indicated that Perot had a significant number of supporters throughout the country who would be interested in hearing what he had to say. So that is the precedent....of course Nader is not doing as well as Perot was at that time.

[Cheswick2.0]

31. no, he has to be polling 15 percent in the polls

[LisaL]

32. Thankfully, he is nowhere near 15 %.

On any of the polls.

[bowens43]

13. Allowing Nader in the debates

would legitimize his candidacy. He used Republicans and fraud to get on to the ballots in the few states that he has. Nader is a fraud.

[LisaL]

19. Sad but true.

Does he care about any of the issues?
I can't imagine he does, since he has to know he helps Bush to get elected, and Bush is a disaster for the environment and economy and basically everything else.

[bowens43]

14. oops posted twice

[still_one]

16. your repeating yourself

[bluestateguy]

18. Third Party candidates are usually ignored in the debates

I remember the Missouri Senate debate in 2002 between Jim Talent (R) and Jean Carnahan (D). The Libertarian and Green candidates were also there saying some pretty provocative stuff, but to hear Talent and Carnahan you wouldn't have known it. They both talked right past the Lib and Green candidates, almost as if they were not in the room. Even if Nader spend most of the debate hounding Bush (which I doubt he would), Bush would just find a way to respond to Nader by attacking Kerry.

I don't know why so many people on the American Left are so enamored with the idea of a European style multi-party system. It is a recipie for Balkanization, and this nation is divided enough as it is.

[LisaL]

20. Nader is very angry with democrats

If he gets to the debates, it ain't Bush he is going to hound.

[Old and In the Way]

21. I'm sure Bush would love to open it up to anyone who's interested.

The more the merrier. Forget any meaningful debate between the only 2 viable candidates. That would work to limit George's answering time and guarantee a huge distraction for his benefit.

[Cha]

22. I thought they should have included that

creep the last time! I think it just made his supporters mad.

he will go after kerry as much or more than bush ..don'cha know.

WE'll see what happens.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. Nader isn't in them

http://www.debates.org

[Awsi Dooger]

25. WRONG!! Visibility=credibility=several more percent=DISASTER

Bush is almost a dead lock cinch if Nader debates.

[sampsonblk]

37. Not a great endorsement of Kerry there

Don't you think Kerry can hold his own against Bush and Nader?

[Awsi Dooger]

38. Nothing to do with the debates themselves

Kerry is a excellent debater and Nader no doubt would savage Bush. But just giving Ralph a forum like that would inevitably boost his November numbers far beyond what we can afford.

Just like putting three cars in a showroom instead of two. The additional car will automatically win some supporters, no matter what it is.

[mike_c]

26. yes, let's prevent a real airing of the issues that define the...

...presidential candidacies using the tried and true method: suppressing access to public debates.

I say that anyone who wants to exclude a candidate is simply afraid to hear what that person has to say. If Nader (for example-- or Cobb, or any other candidate) has nothing substantive to bring to the debates then we will see that and dismiss them accordingly. On the other hand, if they have valid issues to raise and points to make, then suppressing them results in an uninformed electorate.

[LisaL]

27. No

It results in Bush being elected again.

[Cheswick2.0]

33. the debate criteria is quite reasonable.

[LisaL]

34. Uninformed electorate?

Considering how many people are going to vote for Bush, some of the electorate are dumb as a bunch of rocks.

[mike_c]

36. touche....

You've got that right-- although I'd argue that in more than half of those cases it's willful ignorance. You could hit those people over the head with Bushco's record and they'd still beg for the Kool-Aid.

We should not aspire to willful ignorance.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

35. Nader won't have the necessary poll standing to be included.

No matter what Kerry does.

[dolstein]

39. Not if he's not on enough ballots to have even a theoretical chance to win

At the rate he's going, he may not even been on the ballot in states with electoral votes totalling 270 or more. If he doesn't even have a theoretical chance of winning, why the HELL should he be invited to particpate in the debate? Why not invite Jon Stewart instead? At least HE'D be funny.

Ralph Nader is just an insufferable bloward with an ego a mile wide and a conscience an inch deep. He's not running to win -- he's running to keep John Kerry from winning, and he doesn't even have the decency to admit that.

Sorry, but's its high time we stop treating Ralph Nader as a charity case.

[zulchzulu]

40. FUCK NADER!

He doesn't deserve shit except to lick Kerry's boots and perhaps Chimpy's too.

Nader can show up at the debates. In the goddamn audience.

[Democat]

41. Nader is working for Bush - you want two right wingers vs. Kerry?

Bush would make Nader do the hard hitting against Kerry while he stood back and watched.

If Nader is allowed into the debates, he will be the Swift Boat Liar of the debates, making crazy attacks on Kerry and allowing Bush to look good.

Nader must not be allowed in the debates - he is a Republican operative of Bush's campaign.

[George_Bonanza]

42. Cobb should be allowed before Nader

[geek tragedy]

43. The debates are about picking a winner.

Fringe candidates do not belong.

[smb]

44. Simple

Any candidate who gets on enough ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning the EC vote should be in at least one debate. Additional debates could concentrate on the front-runners.

[okieinpain]

45. agree, I think this was one of gores mistakes too.