Our Shameful Debate Sham
Just like in the beer commercial, our presidential debates have become "a travesty, a sham, and a mockery." "NOW with Bill Moyers" on PBS ran an excellent show Friday, detailing how the Republicans and Democrats dumped the League of Women Voters so they could stage long commercials. The candidates can no longer question each other directly. Audience members can’t ask follow-up questions, the questions are screened in advance, and the answers are rehearsed. After Perot’s appearance in 1992, the establishment parties don’t want to take any chances. The debates now have a high 15% threshold for third-party participation. They are rigged to minimize mistakes, and to keep the truth at bay.
I’m so glad I’m not associated with this broken system!
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/debates.html
http://opendebates.com/
posted by Tom Cleland @ 9/26/2004 10:16:00 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
You know, it would be interesting to know what folks in other areas of the world think about Nader supporters.
They don't really have anelectoral choice in preventing these things that the American government does to their cultures, but to watch folks who could stop it sit idly by so that they can feel idealogically pure. That's probably not all that comforting when your family's home has been blown away or you have someone you care about die for no reason whatever.
The collerateral damage of idealogical purity.
PS I agree that the Debate Commission sucks, but whether Nader has the support to justify allowing him the debates this year is questionable. In 2000 he probably had the numbers behind him. Most people I know who supported Nader in 2000 are not doing so now. The only people I know who are supporting Nader now are solid Green supporters. Funny thing considering that the Green party actually has a candidate running, and it ain't Nader.
And why do you hear about Nader and not David Cobb? My guess is that David Cobb is getting his ballot signatures the honest way.
Tom, I want to say that I think Nader should be allowed to debate, but I also want to lean toward Sheryl's arguement about being on the sidelines. Mr. Nader has a strong following, but should make some compromises in order to widen his base and really stick it to the established parties. I'm glad to see that he will be on the ballot in my voting state of Florida. However, I will not vote for him because he would pull us out of Iraq way too soon, thereby weakening our security at home. I can tell you a story of the ballot initiative in California. I was approuched by a petitioner who assumed that I was a Republican and mentioned that Republicans want Nader on the balllot (true). I told him I am an independent and could not sign it anyway because I was not registered to vote in California. I wished him well, but was sure, in this liberal bastion, that he had a hard job ahead of him. I guess they failed...
As of this writing, Californians can vote for Nader as a write-in candidate. Nader did widen his base when he got the Reform Party endorsement, but it’s true he lost the Green Party endorsement along the way. Nader was right about the lateness of the Green Party convention making it more difficult to get on ballots. It’s tough enough as it is. And, of course, a lot of Greens are running scared this year because of how terrible Bush is. Cobb is running a “safe-states” strategy that is more palatable to the scaredy-cats. (Sheryl, maybe you should vote for Cobb in Texas.)
By and large I like Cobb, and Nader has always advocated more voices and more choices throughout the campaign. It just goes to show how desperately we need Instant Runoff Voting. In a four-way race, I would rank the candidates in order Nader, Cobb, Kerry, Bush.
Gecko, as for getting out of Iraq too soon, see my next post “Cut and Run.”
After researching what he's done in Congress, I like Kerry. There's no point in voting Cobb if I like Kerry. Besides, I doubt he made it on the ballot. Nader didn't, and that was a Bush appointed Republican judge who kept him off here as well. I also was looking on Nader's FEC expenses and he spent loads of money in Texas in lawyer fees and petitioning. Not the smartest use of money.
Furthermore, there are lots of reasons to vote Kerry in Republican states. I admit that the make-Bush-waste-money-in-Texas arguement is probably old hat and no longer all that valid at this stage. However, if it gets down to another close call (like it did in 2000), then having a larger popular vote only helps Kerry PR-wise. Especially if we get another situation where Kerry clearly wins the popular vote, but we have another dispute in terms of electoral votes. Then he can say--how long are going to sidestep the will of the majority?
So I personally don't think my Kerry is irrelevant in any state of the union. Although I wish I could switch with you and vote in Minnesota in exchange for my Texas Vote. I think Minnesota is actually a swing state. You guys shouldn't have so much power. I don't think either campaign has spent money in Texas this year. Not that I am going to move to swing state any time soon (just to change my voting power.)
I hope Texas shocks everyone--clearly the polls are not taking into account new registrations and people who don't normally vote. You guys in Minnesota and swing states have too much power, but maybe we will show the world that we change outcomes without big money. The power of disgust.
And don't give me this Nader would change it nonsense, because you know what I think about that.
Sorry I am leaving words out. It's 3:30 AM, and I have been having typing problems lately. I think it's from stress. I keep leaving words out. Oh well. At least I know what I am saying, even if no one else will.
My computer mouse broke so I just installed a new one.
Given your leanings, Ted should vote for Kerry in Ohio (swing state), Gecko should vote for Kerry in Florida (swing state), and Gecko can tell his friends to vote for Cobb or Nader in California (safe for Kerry). You could write-in for Cobb in Texas (safe for Bush) but you won’t. I’m voting for Nader in Minnesota, because, given what I know, it is the only way I can say that I did everything I could to prevent catastrophe as described in the first chapters of Mike Ruppert’s new book “Crossing the Rubicon.”
I think I said from the start that there was no point in trying to convince you of anything. I'm surprised your not quoting Elliott Abrams version of the story as well (or maybe Oliver North's.) They probably have ugly things to say about Kerry as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home