Let Nader debate!
Take a risk on Democracy
September 24, 2008
By Joshua Anderson
Before you partake in the mandatory revelry that is sure to ensue this Friday when the Democratic and Republican candidates take the stage for round one of the Presidential Debates, take a minute to reflect on how un-Democratic the spectacle has become.
The debates are governed by a so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates." Their website says that they're "non-partisan", though it is ridiculously obvious that it is a privately run "bi-partisan" corporation.
It is co-chaired by Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul G. Kirk. Fahrenkopf was the chairman of the Republican Party during the Reagan years, and is now president and CEO of the American Gaming Association. Paul Kirk, on the other hand, was chairman of the Democratic National Committee at roughly the same time that Fahrenkopf was chairman of the GOP. Mr. Kirk is a lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical industry.
Corporate sponsors of the debates have included Phillip Morris, Ford Motor Co., Yahoo Inc., and Anheuser-Busch, all of whom have given a great deal of soft money to the two parties.
These pockets are deep, and the stakes are high: retaining the two-party bi-hegemony is very important to the powers that be. This is why they repeatedly deny access to the podium and TV screen to suitable third-party candidates like Ralph Nader, Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan.
In 2005 the requirements for a candidate to debate were defined as having at least 15% support, a number that has to be verified by five private polling companies, all of whom are owned by major newspaper and television conglomerates. Conglomerates who, in case you've missed it, have almost succeeded in completely ignoring Mr. Nader in the 2008 election year, despite his presence on the ballot in 45 states plus the District of Columbia - more than he had during his impressive run in 2000.
If we're serious about democracy then we have to at least admit this: until our process becomes more representative - that is, not bought and sold by corporations whose only goal is profit - we're taking part in a quasi-democracy at best.
For some great info, check out another, more honorable, bi-partisan group, Open Debates, a group comprised of Democrats and Republicans dedicated to debate reform. They have fliers and brochures. Print some out. Give them to your friends. Or your enemies.
And when it comes time to vote, don't forget: Vote for Nader!
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
Can't argue with that. You should read Nader's "Crashing the Party" if you haven't already. Great read. I have it if you're interested.
-Nick
Last July 2nd, in Counterpunch, Ralph Nader described a robbery about to happen and blew the whistle. In “Economic Domino Theory, Greed without Accountability,” Nader warned readers that Americans were about to be robbed of the future value of their dollars by financial institutions, corporations, both unregulated and out of control.
The terms of the largest bankers’ robbery of America’s wealth are being hammered out by the bankers and those who neglected to regulate them. Nader’s call to action was not picked up by major media. Censorship of Nader is not too strong a word. But that the crime is occurring before our eyes and that its impact will be massive and long-lasting is now certain.
In their public statements, the two major party Presidential candidates and their corporate advisors scramble to avoid blame. On Friday next, these two candidates will debate. The good citizen who warned of the impending crime, (who is also a Presidential candidate), has not been invited. According to the debate commission, funded by the two major parties, the rules don’t allow it. But, given his uniquely prescient warning to America, shouldn’t he be allowed to say a few words about the crime?
Perhaps Nader could explain how he saw the crime unfolding and leave it to candidates Obama and McCain to explain why they didn’t. Or, more importantly, Obama and McCain could explain how each proposes to deal with its aftermath. While they missed predicting the crime, as Nader did not, they can now predict its impact on us and on future generations of Americans. This small involvement for Nader in the scheduled national debates would amount to a small reward for Nader and, perhaps, an incentive for other citizens to speak up when they see crimes about to happen, be they street crimes or corporate.
I'm voting for Nader.
I hater Nader. Not because he's a third party candidate, but because people assume his being a third party candidate makes him worth voting for. I'd feel just as alienated and unrepresented if the ballot read McCain/Obama/Nader/Perot as I will when it will say McCain/Obama. Having a third party means nothing until it's a third party that means something.
That's one of the reasons we'll never get out of the two-party system: people keep assuming the only way out is to just elect somebody, anybody, from outside those two. You have to establish a party that can stand as a viable alternative to both parties in any election, not just this one race for one position. It frightens me that people are willing to vote Nader just because he's not a Democrat or a Republican, regardless of what he thinks on any issues. An ignorant democracy is no democracy at all.
One of Nader's objectives is to create election equality. In order to do that though, we need to have someone who thinks oyt side of the two party lines. Consider this The We Agreement includes Mckinney, Barr, Baldwin and Nader. http://www.votenader.org/weagree/
With a viable third party candidate elected who believes in these freedoms as well as out of the box(That is the 2 party mode) solutions to major problems. Nader has the most support of the 3rd party candidates. It would be democratic equality to have all 6 people at the debate: That includes McCain and Obama. But at very least to prove were not a virtual toletarian nation.
We need to contact the powers that be by tomorrow to politely insist that Ralph be on the debate.
Call Janet Brown at the Commission on Presidential Debates at 1- 866-675-2008 Also call media and political outlets for the same purpose.
Excuse me Janet Browns contact info is jb@debates.org
1- 866-675-2008 Barrack Obama's contact. Press 6 to speak to a volunteer.
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/09/22/call-barack-obama-e-mail-janet-brown-now/
Lets get a voice by tomorow!
Slamb - You're assertion that people vote for Nader just because he is third party is a wholly unfounded assumption, one that makes you come across as lazy. To combat this, go to Nader's website, read his platform - inform yourself. It is just as ridiculous to not consider a candidate because you assume people like him for irrational reasons as it is to vote for someone because they're not quite as bad as the other guy.
Nader is a better economist than either main party candidate. That's why I'm voting for him.
Great Article!
If anyone is interested in getting involved with the Nader/Gonzalez campaign please email me at stephen@votenader.org. I am both the Coordinator for KU and the entire state of Kansas.
This is my favorite line from Nader, taken from Nader's website:
Carbon Tax:
"""A phased in initial price of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions would harness $300 billion annually—money that would be put back in the pockets of American taxpayers"""
Back in the pockets? After he just took it out? Where does he think that money will come from? I know, some geniuses on here will claim that he will take it from large corporations. What is a corporation, other than a business that is not owned by a few, but owned by millions of tax-paying-Americans through their 401k's, stock, or other investments? Nader is apparently claiming that if you own stock in a corporation you are not an American taxpayer.
Hilarious!!!
After the debate we saw last night, I am going to say that absolutely no one would have been served by allowing Nader to get up there.
Last night was what I hope every Presidential debate going forward will be: a moderator who throws up a topic and fades into the background to give the spotlight to the candidates.
Ralph Nader's self-aggrandizing drivel would have ruined what was a beautiful debate format. While I agree with some of what he stands for, he has no chance of winning, and is thus standing for "the perfect at the expense of the good."
For once the Democratic Party has a very, very good candidate. I disagree with him on a few issues, but the concept of Nader spoiling another election like he did in 2000, and giving us another George W. Bush, scares the crap out of me.
I'm voting Nader all the way. Obama's platforms are change I can believe in.
Done with that $h*t.
Share your 2¢
(Requires free registration.)