Bush, Kerry get debate invites; Nader out

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

By SAM HANANEL
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


WASHINGTON -- The formal invitations went out Friday for the presidential debates, and there was no gold-embossed card for independent Ralph Nader.

The Commission on Presidential Debates asked President Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry to meet for their first debate next week. The commission also invited Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards to a single debate on Oct. 5.

Invitations were based on nonpartisan selection criteria adopted last year: that participants be constitutionally eligible for election; that their names appear on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning enough electoral votes for election; and that they receive at least 15 percent in an average of five national polls to show support for election.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apelection_story.asp?category=1131&slug=Presidential%20Debates

[bluestateguy]

1. There is no constitutional right to be in the debates

Two parties.

Pick one.

[aggiedem]

2. Commission on Presidential Debates

There was an excellent piece on NOW with Bill Moyers this evening that discussed how the Commission was set up by former heads of the Democratic and Republican parties. Their intent is to keep 3rd party candidates out unless it is perceived as beneficial to both candidates to have them in (example: Ross Perot in 1992).

[21winner]

3. Libertarians are a serious 3rd party.

Nader(What is he this time?) is not. He only runs for his personal gain and to feed his ego.

[cindyw]

4. It's called party building. If a party besides Dem and repub wants to

be included in the debates, then they should have to demonstrate a base of support beyond a certain percentage. Nader should have spent the last few years building his party. It would have been perfect timing. He ould have captured a progressive uprising. But no, he went into hiding and then he came out under a couple different party titles and wants to run. No.

[Eurobabe]

9. great photo!

[MichiganVote]

5. As far as I know, all candidates have to meet a % by law to qualify for

the televised debates. I think its 15%. Based on what data I don't know.

[Carolab]

6. Bush's useful idiot

THE LIBERAL MEDIA by Eric Alterman
Bush's Useful Idiot


Four years ago, Ralph Nader justified his third-party campaign on the grounds that the two parties represented nothing more than "Tweedledum and Tweedledee." As Americans die by the thousand in Iraq, the budget deficit explodes thanks to a tax cut targeting the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, the Justice Department demands women's private medical records from abortion clinics, and polluters are given carte blanche to despoil the earth and poison our children, the devastating evidence of Nader's myopia is everywhere around us.

Recall also that four years ago, Nader professed to want to help build the Green Party into a genuinely progressive alternative to what he termed the corporate-dominated "duopoly." But Nader was no more truthful about his commitment to party-building than George W. Bush was when he decried "nation-building." Today, Nader's party allies consist mainly of the motley far-right collection of Republicans who fund his campaign and collect his signatures, and the remains of the nativist Reform Party, late of Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign.


It's true that Nader once represented an important progressive voice in American politics; then again, so did Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens. While Nader continues to employ the same rhetoric as before, this speaks merely to his personal self-delusion and shameless demagoguery. He also appears to be a rather brazen liar. "We have not been accepting signatures obtained through organized Republican Party efforts in the three or four states where we have learned of such activity," he insisted in a September Washington Post op-ed. In fact, as the Detroit Free Press reported a day earlier, 45,000 of the 50,500 petition signatures submitted on Nader's behalf in Michigan were indeed submitted by Republicans. (Meanwhile, in Florida, Nader's ballot access lawyer is one Kenneth Sukhia, who just happened to represent Bush in that state's 2000 recount.)

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041004&s=alterman

[Voltaire99]

7. Excluding Nader: politics as usual

Despite the rationalizing going on in this thread, one fact remains: Nader alone among the candidates has a serious critique of our broken, pathological system of governance. That the critique is basically right, of course, makes it all the more necessary for the two parties to collude in barring him from the debates.

It's a pity the DLC-dominated Democratic Party fears and loathes the left, which it so clearly needs having failed to woo NASCAR America. And have you noticed? The further the party travels from its roots, the harder it is to get voters to care...

What, you haven't? Then take a gander at this pro-Kerry site: www.electoral-vote.com

[FlemingsGhost]

8. Thanks Voltaire99 ... straight to the marrow, per usual.

These "debates" are going to be a farce.

(Rationalizing, indeed.)

[Zynx]

12. You imply Nader would do better against Bush? HA!

He would be lucky to carry three states.

[Julien Sorel]

13. LOL

"Broken, pathological system of governance."

Next up: "A sharpening of contradictions," and "The imminent collapse of the capitalist superstructure."

Any other marxist buzz phrases? While you're at it, go out on a streetcorner and convince people who live in the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world that their political system is "broken."

It's no wonder that far leftists are so incredibly marginalized: they are so incredibly out of it.

By the way, since you flash poll data so freely, where is the far left wonderboy candidate polling? You'd think that if the system was "broken and pathological," and Nadir was offering a "serious critique" of the system, he'd be polling somewhere above 2%, and able to get on a few more ballots. But then, I stopped expecting logical reasoning from you mountebanks a long time ago.

[Cocoa]

16. Nader is proof that being "right" isn't everything

his behavior proves that he would be a terrible president. Incredibly poor judgement on his part to run again.

Kucinich is a much better leader. His politics are as "right" as Nader's, but Dennis has proven much wiser by his actions than Ralph.

[anarchy1999]

10. Did anyone see Now tonight about this very topic. The Commission

It's another joke folks. Another "pretend democracy" event. The "Commission" is actually a coalition of the Dems and the Republicans. They are not non-partisan. They sit in back rooms and work out the details of the "debate". We the people, have not seen a real debate since 1992, when Ross Perot was allowed on the stage and The Leaque of Women Voters, (Non-Partisan), were in charge of said debates.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Perhaps we can get Ross Perot back so we can have real debates again?

If he is not interested maybe we can get Gabby Hayes to stand in for him. No one will be able to tell the difference.

Don

[anarchy1999]

14. I'm afraid not. The League of Women Voters quit that year sponsoring

any more debates, and God only knows what possessed Ross Perot to "endorse" Dubya the night before the selection on Larry King. Never, ever will I ever get over that. It was stunning. Talk about Shock and Awe!...........

By the way, "Gabby Hayes..." not funny, NN.....

[robbedvoter]

15. Nader - on ballot in 20 something states. Libertarian guy - almost all

yet somehow, only Nader gets included in national polls, gets write-ups about being excluded from debates.
Some persecution!
His entire candidacy is MADE IN GOP.
If you don't believe me, try remembering - fast - the libertarian guy's name. If you hesitated, ask yourself why?