Presidential Debates Likely to Exclude Nader

[Freddie Stubbs]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission organizing the presidential campaign debates defended its decision on Thursday to set conditions for participation that are likely to exclude independent candidate Ralph Nader.
Presenting its format for the three proposed presidential debates, as well as one vice presidential debate, the commission said candidates could only be included if they had a chance of winning a majority in the Electoral College or had 15 percent support in the electorate in the polls.

Nader, seen as potentially drawing votes from Democratic challenger John Kerry, has poll support that's only in the low to mid single digits.

"We have no apologies to make," said commission co-chair Frank Fahrenkopf, a former chairman of the Republican party. "It's been a prudent and thoughtful exercise."

more: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5449965

[dmkinsey]

1. Sounds fine to me

although I still doubt that * will stand on the same stage as John Kerry.

[tandot]

2. Good. I don't have any problems with that.

I can't wait to see and hear Kerry kick Dubya's ass.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. I would've been happier to read:

"Presidential debates expected to execute Nader"

[tandot]

4. * SNARF *

n/t

[WI_DEM]

5. Is Nader even on enough ballots to qualify for 270 EV yet?

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. No, but it is still early

We will probably know in a month or two.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

7. whether you love or hate ralph, this is bullshit

the debate commision is a sham. it's bipartisan, but elitist. its members are comprised solely of democrats and republicans and independents and third parties have no say in whether independents or third parties get a voice in the debates. they were wrong to shut ralph and buchanan out in 2000 and they were wrong to cripple perot's campaign in 1996.

the heads of this commission, btw, are corporate lobbyists for casino gambling interests.

the debates were handled by the league of women voters until 1988. since then, we've been treated to scripted events featuring 'safe' questions and no real interaction between the candidates. as a result, political discourse has taken a hit

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. You said it!

[no name no slogan]

13. Well put

These are possibly the most undemocratic debates around. If Nader gets on the ballot in 17 states, he deserves to be invited to the debates, just like Perot was in 1992.

Love him or hate him, he does have a right to participate. To deny him from participating (if he qualifies) is not only undemocratic, it's un-American, too.

[Still_Loves_John]

16. Lots of people are on the ballot in 17 states

Should the libertarian, the green, the reform, the constitutional, and the socialist parties all get a platform at the debates?

You saw the Democratic debates. You saw what a joke they were when there were 9 guys up there.

It's not "elitist" to block third parties from the debates; it keeps them from being dragged down into total meaninglessness.

[MAlibdem]

26. perot was polling in the 30s in 1992...

he had a decent shot of winning.

Nader got 2.7% in 2000...he is NOT a major candidate.

[no name no slogan]

46. Perot was only major because he spent MONEY on the MEDIA

If Nader were to spend the same $$$ on blocks of prime air time that Perot did in 1992, I can guarantee you he would be considered a "major" candidate in no time flat.

If Nader can get on the ballots, he has every right to be at the debate. Same goes for any other candidates who can get on the ballots, too-- especially if they got there by petition.

It's really amazing to see how so many Democrats and liberals are so eager to stifle the free exchange of ideas in this society. Maybe it's because if there was a credible challenger of kind to the left of Kerry, they'd have the most to lose.

But, keep on ignoring them, and keep reliving 2000. Because that's what will happen if we continue down this same tired path.

[Cheswick2.0]

27. should every candidate be included?

Aren't there about 10 of them? Will the debate be five hours long?

[Lefty Pragmatist]

19. It's lousy

but it helps. In the long run, it's bad for the country, since continued domination by the two parties is bad. But if they're going to change the rules, let's change them the year it helps rather than hurts us.

[DuckFan4ever]

36. Thank God he's out of the way.

He doesn't belong there. He's an egomaniac only interested in the limelight. Go sit on the bench Ralph.

Although he appears to affect both candidates about equally in the polls, he is nothing but a gadfly who doesn't deserve all the news time he gets. Heck Ralph couldn't even get 1000 people in Portland to sign a petition to get on the ballot in Oregon. The commission is smart to say no to Ralph.

[MontecitoDem]

41. I agree - it's wrong but I'm relieved,

Just would emphasize that liberals can't get their act togther - or as W. would say "have no clear vision for America."

[cyclezealot]

31. I suspect Nader would be better at attacking Bush

than Kerry. Bush would get broadsides from two sides and Nader would not hold back.

[bitchkitty]

32. That's funny -

Considering Nader's favorite target has always been the Democrats.

[JohnLocke]

38. Give me a break.

If we let Nader in, the debates will last forever and be a joke. Unless Nader is running in double digits, there is no reason to include him.

[MaggieSwanson]

43. Damn right

I've had enough this election cycle of hearing only what "front-runners" have to say.

[Sparkly]

44. I disagree

There are plenty of ways for plenty of people to be heard. You can hear them right now if you want to. But in these final debates, I want the one candidate with the realistic chance of defeating the Chimp to have equal time with him without blurring that focus.

[Lefty48197]

8. THIS IS CENSORSHIP!

Next thing you know, they'll be denying ME the right to participate in the Presidential debates. What is this country coming to?

[Padraig18]

10. *Snarf*

:P

[sangha]

15. HA!!

.

[JohnLocke]

39. ROTFL (nt).

[robcon]

11. This news.

I'd heard that the RNC was definitely in favor of having Nader in the debates.

Great news for Sen. Kerry.

[bushwakker]

12. There will be one debate

No way AWOL does more than one.

[welshTerrier2]

17. i think two ..

one will be on foreign policy and one on domestic policy ...

i agree with your theme that bush is going to get killed in the debates ... but i don't think they would risk putting all their eggs in one basket ... they have tremendous confidence in their ability to spin the outcome ...

my feeling in 2000 was that Gore killed bush in the first debate ... then there was all this talk about Gore being mean spirited or too competitive or some such nonsense ... i really think Gore was put in a box between the first and second debates and that Gore did very poorly in the second debate as a result ... it seemed to me that they really tied his hands ...

[Poiuyt]

20. I'm not so sure that Bush will get killed in the debates

If it were a real debate, then I'd say yes. But these debates have become somewhat of a sham. Nobody answers the questions that were asked, they just recite an answer that most closely resembles the question. The only way that Kerry will really do well is if he's allowed to hammer on the followups (or if the moderator hammers on the followups).

[bitchkitty]

33. He should never have apologized. n/t

[Lefty Pragmatist]

18. Bush actually improved his position in 2000 debate #2

partly because he was expected to implode, and partly because Gore was horrible.

The GOP might be emboldened to have more than one debate. Hopefully, Kerry will not make Gore's mistakes and will expose the chimp.

[JHBowden]

14. There are going to be debates?

AND no Nader? Praise the lord!

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. Yep.

Just like last time.

[Dinger]

21. Ain't That Just Too damn Bad Wah wah Wah

[CPops57]

22. There is zero democracy in America. This is not a free country.

I don't want Bush and the neocons to win in 2004 obviously, but we are not living in a free country if the ruling parties can exclude legitimate 3rd parties from having a voice. This is a sham of a government, in more than one way.

The criteria for at least the first debate should be very simple. Any candidate on enough ballots to get 270 electoral votes should be allowed in at least the first debate. That would eliminate frivolous third parties with zero chance of winning to participate, but would allow 2 or 3 third party candidates from participating. (Most likely in 2004 Nader, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian would make the cut. I doubt that any other party would meet the criteria this year. 5 candidates in at least one debate would be perfectly reasonable.)

Also as I see it, it is very hypocritical of people to be angry at Bush for his unconstitutional censorship, but then being happy that Nader's and others voices are excluded because it gives you some minor political advantage. Where lies the principle here?

(In truth, we ought to welcome an open debate with all of the candidates including Nader. Bush has much more to fear from the Libertarians and Constitutionalists than Kerry has to fear from Nader. The Right is angry at Bush over such issues as spending, the war, the Constitution, immigration, etc. The Democratic Party would benefit by getting everybody up onto the stage in a debate in my opinion. The Libertarian and the Constitution guy will destroy Bush IMO.)

[JHBowden]

24. Did you see what happened in California?

That was downright pathetic. We have an outstanding candidate; it is dishonorable to debate crackpots for some imaginary "principle."

[MontecitoDem]

40. Hey, our Cali debates were great!

It was fantastic to have Peter Camejo up there for the Greens. \


What was ridiculous was that we voted for the Governator!! Holy shit, I still can't believe it. Ah, the embarrassment of it all.

crawling back to the beach now, with my tail between my legs.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. in a related story : Pat Paulsen ALSO Denied Debate Spot

tragic. I hear they aren't going to have Linden Larouche either.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. It's not cesnorship if the government isn't doing it

This is a private organization that is running these debates. Any is free to start up their own debate commission and invite as many looney tunes who are running that they want.

[TexasSissy]

23. Good.

[Democat]

30. After all the money the Republican Party has invested, will they be angry?

Nader is their project, if they want him in the debates, he'll be there.

Maybe the Republicans who finance Ralph have decided it's better for him not to be at the debates?

[LoZoccolo]

34. Yeah, let's not waste everyone's time with Nader's LIES.

Like the idea that there is little difference between the two parties, or that he would take away more votes from Bush* than Kerry, or that Gore would have started the Iraq war (he should have done a modicum of research before saying that last one).

[wjsander]

35. I'm sure FOX News will be more than happy to give him air time

Even though he's only on the ballot in Arizona, he's still helping Bush's poll numbers... :eyes:

[Sparkly]

37. Poor little Ralphie...

And I'll bet he'd already made an appointment to have his hair combed.

[Monte Carlo]

42. If Nader is let in, then why not the Libertarian or Buchanan?

They are also drawing in comparable popular support. It would seem to me that if we want to talk about fairness and democracy, it's kinda arbitrary to stop at Nader.

We could end up with, what, five candidates in the debates? It could be one giant circus.

Please, let us face the cold, hard reality that Nader is not going to win. He doesn't have the current popularity, he doesn't have the infrastructure (Kerry barely has it), he doesn't have the appeal. The Democratic Party and the GOP are the two titans in this fight. They are where the smart money is.

Getting Bush out of office is priority number one. Breaking the two party system is an important concern, and that is why we must get Bush out now; we don't even know if we'd have the two parties next time around.

[mac56]

45. "One giant circus" is right.

Focus, people.

[QC]

47. Or why not let my Aunt Ethel in the debate?

She's a very sweet lady who always told me that if I couldn't say anything nice about someone, then I should say nothing at all.

And she has exactly as much chance of winning the election as Nader.

[zulchzulu]

48. Maybe Comedy Central can have him do commentary on debates

Nah... bad idea. OK, maybe so. Perhaps people could wager how many times he says "corporatized" or "graft" in a sentence. And if he says "corporate" more than 10 times in a minute, someone gets to pie him.

[oasis]

49. Ralph should sponsor his own debate with two empty chairs.

[John_H]

50. One reserved for his ego,the other for his Wal-Mart stock cirtificates n/t

[IndianaGreen]

51. Presidential debates are not debates at all, but a shameless infomercial

staged by the two major parties for the benefit of the gullible sheep.

If you want real debates instead of the scripted staged charade we are served every four years, you should ask the League of Women Voters to organize and run the debates as they did before the undemocratic cabal that run the Dem and GOP parties decided what was best for us.

Student's book looks to reform presidential debates
By Hugo Torres
Published: Thursday, April 29, 2004

With a first chapter titled "Debate Cartel", HLS 2L George Farah provocatively begins his new book "No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates" and argues that the current presidential debate system is corrupt and anti-democratic. Weaving anecdotes with policy arguments, Farah manages to keep the book both informative and entertaining while making a convincing argument for reform to the current debate system.

Dubbed "the Superbowl of politics" by Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., who co-chairs the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), the broadcasting and subsequent media coverage of presidential debates reach an audience in the tens of millions and influence the choices people make in voting for president. Farah begins by noting the importance of this influence, recounting the 1960 presidential debates when Richard Nixon showed up to the debates "underweight, pale, and needing a shave." Wearing a suit that blended into the background and refusing makeup, Nixon was completely overshadowed by his charismatic (and tanned) rival, the photogenic John F. Kennedy. The rest, as they say, is history.

The parties learned from their mistakes however, and after a brief period where the nonpartisan League of Women Voters ran the debates, the system shifted to control by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. This bipartisanship, as opposed to the previous nonpartisanship, resulted in a format that heavily favored the two major parties. While the League offered "protection of the integrity of the format, rejection of excessive candidate control, and transparency," the CPD instead gave the parties what they wanted: presidential debates entirely under their control. Farah recounts the road to the CPD, explaining the incremental changes that took place from each election season, and highlights alternatives that existed and thrived prior to the current system.

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/2004/04/29/News/Students.Book.Looks.To.Reform.Presidential.Debates-675381.shtml