Presidential Debates Likely To Exclude Nader

[Beloved Citizen]

According to the commission organizing the debates this year, a candidate would have to show the ability to attract at least 15% of the vote this November to qualify for participation.

Looks like Kerry will have a clear shot at Shrub w/o Ralph the Fly buzzing around with his nonsense.

They can't be happy about this at the White House.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=4&u=/nm/20040617/us_nm/campaign_debates_dc_4

[Pepperbelly]

1. is he even on the ballot anywhere? nt

[DLC]

2. How about the ability to contain his ego

Nader doesn't have it. He is so far out of step.

[bluestateguy]

3. There is no constitutional right to debate

Bush and Kerry have no right to debate either. The Commission is free to invite whoever they choose. If Nader is invited, than the Natural Law Party, the Libertarian Party and every other fringe and crackpot third party candidate must be allowed to debate. Then we would have an incoherent mess with 7 or eight candidates crowding the stage, spreading the Q&A period way too thin.

[LTR]

6. Too bad - a good opportunity for Nader to make an ass out of himself

I feel the field should be narrowed somewhat for debates. Many of those parties aren't really that serious.

The Libertarian Party, for example, has had every opportunity to become somewhat of a force, but they seem stuck in the minor leagues. Tough to get serious when your party is made up of pissed-off tavern owners.

The Reform Party (aka the Ross Perot independent movement) had the best shot. They started off rough, especially with Adm. James Stockdale's performance at the 1992 VP debates. Talk about embarrasing. They crumbled when Buchanan's gang hijacked the party and their sole major office holder, Jesse Ventura, went off on his own.

I applaud third parties, since, if they are effective enough, could help keep the major parties in check. But most of them put on half-assed performances and too often prefer to act as spoilers.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

4. If they let Ralph in I want to be in too!

He's only drawing 3 or 4% more than I am.

[daveskilt]

10. thats within the margin of error!

[jrthin]

5. Excellent! nt

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

7. thoughts on ralph aside

having a corporate-financed commission comprised solely of republicans and emocrats getting to determine who get to appear in the debates to oppose republicans and democrats is pure bullshit. where is the representation for the 1/0 of america that doesn't blong to either party?

they should either include 3rd parties or independents on this panel or give it back to the league of women voters who conducted it honestly for years until it was taken away and given to a corporate boardof lobbyists in 1988

*FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE *
June 17, 2004

*Nader Criticizes Debate Commission*

*Describes as Tool of Corporate Political Duopoly Shutting Out Voices*

Washington, DC: The Independent Presidential Campaign of Ralph Nader
today criticized the Commission on Presidential Debates for putting
forward standards for debate participation that will shut out voices and
choices.

The Nader Campaign noted that the debate commission is funded by
corporate interests and run by the two major parties. “This Commission
is a political organization designed to support the two major parties
and shut out third party and independent candidates. They should be
stripped of their non-profit status and television networks who work
with them should realize they are working with a political organization,
not an educational organization,” said Ralph Nader, Independent
Presidential Candidate.

Indeed, another debate commission, the Citizens Debate Commission, filed
a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service on April 12, 2004 against
the Commission on Presidential Debates for violating non-profit
501(c)(3) rules by intervening in political campaigns. They also filed a
complaint on February 19, 2004 with the Federal Election Commission
against the Commission on Presidential Debates that showed the
Commission colludes with the two major Party candidates to keep third
party and independent candidates out of their debates.

The new Citizens Debate Commission has a prestigious board of directors
that covers the breadth of the political spectrum and is seeking to open
the debates to more candidates. The Citizens Debate Commission has also
announced its standards and schedule of debates. See www.OpenDebates.org
<http://www.opendebates.org/>

On May 5, 2004, Ralph Nader joined with former presidential candidates
Pat Buchanan, John Hagelin and three third parties, the Natural Law,
Green and Constitution Parties, to sue the FEC to decertify the
Commission on Presidential Debates. The suit argues that the Commission
is a partisan group that works with the two major political parties to
advance their interests exclusively. The lawsuit is against the FEC for
wrongful dismissal of a complaint against Commission of Presidential
Debates.

“We need to reinvigorate our democracy by having real debates – not
joint press conferences designed to limit the voices heard by voters.
Real debates with more candidates participating will interest voters and
enrich our democracy,” said Nader.

[rock]

8. Hmmm. Think bush* will meet the qualification?

This could be close.

[stevedeshazer]

9. Same as 2000, no difference

Ain't anything new. What's your point? That NO candidate who is other than a Republican or Democrat will ever debate in public as a presidential candidate?

The Commission On Presidential Debates only acknowledges Republican and Democratic candidates. I think this this is very bad policy despite my support for Sen. Kerry.

Not all candidates are Ralph Nader. Bill Clinton would never have won in 1992 without Ross Perot!

[Cheswick2.0]

12. Ross Perot was included in the debates

he met the guidlines.

[Cheswick2.0]

11. That has been the rule for a long time

It pisses the Ralphies off but it is perfectly rational. Here in pa in 2002 we had the green and the libertarian candidates in the debates for Governor. They were a circus, but it was okay really. At least the libertarian was amusing. I can just imagine if we had a socialist candidate, a new party candidate, a reform party candidate, several independent candidates, a communist party candidate etc.... how the hell would you make any sense out of the debate or have enough time to hear from the only two candidates who have a chance to win?

Perot was included years ago because he had very strong support for a third party candidate. He got around 19 percent I believe.

[Lefty48197]

13. Oh that's just great. Does this mean I can't be in the debates either?

My rights are being denied.

[Elidor]

14. We have a lovely consolation prize for you, Mr. Nader

A PIE!!! Come back again in for years for another!

[Nlighten1]

15. Of course they will exclude Nader...

http://gnn.tv/countdown


Watch this speech by Nader and you will see why they won't let him on.

[galadrium]

16. Sounds good to me

Bush doesn't need his most effective campaigner there anyway.