Once again, Ralph Nader should not be allow to debate....

[deminflorida]

during the National Forum...he's as insignificant as Allen Keys, Lyndon Larouche, and Pat Buchanan. The General election is about the Two Party System in this country and Nader or any of these other fruit-cakes should not be allowed to attempt to high-jack that system, or this board for that matter.

Let Ralph play in his own insignificant sandbox and isolate him from the National stage again. He'll get less support this time around than he did in 2000 and finally the country will be rid of him forever.

Yes he has the right to run, and I support that, but the Republican and Democratic Leadership committees also have a right to deny him a national soap-box, and rest assured he will be denied that soap-box once again.

Anyone who donates to him might as well be donating to "Vermin Supreme" good money right down the toilet.

[Nlighten1]

1. Do yourself a favor.

http://gnn.tv/countdown

Watch this video and ask yourself if you want a candidate talking like this.

[bowens43]

2. Of course he should be allowed in the debates for the general election.

This country does not have a 'two party' system by anything other then recent tradition. Running for office and participating in discussions and debates, is NOT hi-jacking the system. This is starting to sound a whole lot like those on the other side of the isle. We don't like what they say so we'll stop them from saying it.

[SaveElmer]

3. Recent Tradition ?

This country has had almost nothing but a two-party system from the beginning. When third parties do show signs of popularity they are quickly swallowed up by one of the two larger parties, or a re-alignment takes place and that perty becomes dominant. Even his last scenario hasn't occurred since before the Civil War.

I agree that the Democratic and Republican parties are under no obligation whatsoever to give third parties a forum. If Nader, or some other party gets popular enough (see Ross Perot), they will be included because of political pressure. Just because someone says they are running does not entitle them to equal access.

[bowens43]

9. If candidate is able to get on the ballot in enough states

to make it possible for him to win the general election he sure as hell should be given the same opportunities as the Dem or Repug candidate.

I can't believe how many here are willing to throw democracy into the shitter because they are afraid their guy might lose. I certainly understand why so many may be choosing a third party candidate. It is becoming painfully obvious that there is virtually no difference between the methods of the Dems the Repugs. If you don't like what they say make damn sure they can't say it or slander them until they have to quit.

Once again , our system is not now , nor has it ever been a two party system. To deny third parties the opportunity to be heard reeks of elitism.

[SaveElmer]

11. You are wrong

Of course there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a two party system...but that is what we have...and that is what we have always had. There has never been a viable third party for any extended period of time in American history. Occasionally a third party or independant candidate becomes popular enough to be taken seriously...in those cases, as I have said, they are included (Ross Perot, John Anderson etc...).

I am not prepared to allow Lyndon LaRouche, Ralph Nader, Walt Brown, or any other non-viable candidate into the debates until they have shown significant political strength. The debates are not government run or sponsored events, they are run by the political parties themselves...and they are under no obligation to provide a forum for third parties...

[edzontar]

4. I disagree. He should be allowed to debate.

I am not afriad of him or what he has to say.

[IndianaGreen]

5. The voters must take back the Presidential debates!

Here is a repost of a thread I posted in January 3, 2004, which addresses the topic of the Presidential debates. I think it is as appropriate now as it was back then.

The voters must take back the Presidential debates!

I remember when the Presidential Debates were real debates, with a real impartial moderator, and a distinguished panel of journalists, in which candidates were given the time to answer and expound on their views on major issues. There were no Judies, or Paulas, or Timmies trying to get their KO punch and the sound bite.

When the political machines of the 2-major parties took away the debates from the League of Women Voters, it did a disservice to the American people. Debates were won by the best prepped and coached candidate, not by the better candidate.

It is our fault that we allowed American democracy to degrade to the point that it has. The outrageous abuses of the Bush government are the culmination of years of neglect by us, the American people, of the liberties and democratic values that so many sacrificed their lives for.

I don't care what a candidate's favorite book, or philosopher, or artist happens to be. I don't care how tall or short the candidate is, or whether he is single or divorced. I don't care to hear how well rehearsed the candidate was in giving the TV audience a bland and safe answer on a thorny issue. I do care what the candidate's values are, and what he is going to do if elected.

There are Americans from all across the political spectrum that would like to change the way presidential debates are organized and conducted. I ask that you give them a fair hearing.



OPEN DEBATES APPLAUDS REP. KUCINICH

Open Debates, National Press Building, 529 14th St. NW, Suite 1201, Washington, DC 20045
November 25, 2003

OPEN DEBATES APPLAUDS REP. KUCINICH

WASHINGTON, DC -- Open Debates commends Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for calling for open debates as part of his presidential campaign platform. "I believe in the power of open debates to restore higher values of democracy and voter education to the American political process," stated Rep. Kucinich.

"We applaud Rep. Kucinich's call for open debates," said Open Debates' Executive Director George Farah.

The bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has sponsored the presidential debates since 1988, when it seized control of the debates from the non-partisan League of Women Voters. The CPD is a private corporation that was established by the chairs of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee.

"CPD sponsored presidential debates have been little more than glorified press conferences, where candidates recite prepackaged sound-bites, and avoid discussing many important issues," said Farah.

http://www.opendebates.org/news/pressreleases/06252003.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=57071

[HFishbine]

6. You realize of course

that is is just that kind of thinking that further convinces people that the two-party system doesn't serve democracy.

[SaveElmer]

8. When a third party candidate shows viability, they are included

Because of political pressure. Every Tom, Dick, and Mary who says they are running for President is not automatically entitled to equal access. When Perot showed vialbility he was included, same with John Anderson. The Democratic and Republican parties are under no obligation to provide a forum for 3rd party candidates.

[IndianaGreen]

10. In Indiana, all political parties on the ballot are represented

during debates.

We had several candidates during the debates for the Mayoral election. The voters are better served when they hear diverse views, often more imaginative, from candidates such as the Libertarian and New Party parties.

We expect to see third party candidates in the Gubernatorial debates this Fall, a race that is going to be very tight with incumbent Joe Kernan going against the well-financed Mitch Daniels.

If open debates are good enough for Hoosier voters, why aren't they good for all Americans?

[SaveElmer]

12. Why are they included in Indiana ?

Who runs the debates, and how is it decided who is asked to participate ?

[IndianaGreen]

14. The 2-major parties don't run the debates!

The debates are organized by civic organizations.

I will also point out that Indiana Democrats have a better grasp of democracy than some of the people in the Beltway.

[SaveElmer]

16. Would they allow a KKK member into the debate

Do they draw a line anywhere over who is allowed to participate ? Or is anyone who manages to get on the ballot entitled to attend ?

[mmonk]

7. I don't know about "should not be allowed"

but it would be nice not to have him working against a better chance at beating shrub. But I'm not about closing the process of democracy.

[Tinoire]

13. Onward with the coronation!

The people are hungry? Let them eat platitudes!

[IndianaGreen]

15. Kobe, Jacko, Peterson, Janet Jackson, Martha, Paris Hilton!

The burning issues of our time!