From the Green Party Stein campaign, the announcement of an effort to get into the presidential debates organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates:
Spread the word far and wide! This morning (September 12), dozens of community leaders, artists, and academics – including Tom Morello, Leah Bolger, Richard Wolff and Medea Benjamin – and thousands more joined together to launch Occupy the CPD.
The Occupy the CPD site is “Paid for and authorized by Jill Stein for President.” The argument to open the “nonpartisan” debates – the description offered by the CPD – to other candidates isn’t new or unique to Stein, of course, but it is interesting that her campaign is taking this step.
The presidential debates are the first opportunity for millions of voters to see the presidential contenders themselves, not just their advertising campaigns. These debates are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) – a supposedly ‘nonpartisan’ corporation which is a puppet of the national Democratic and Republican parties, and the big corporations that fund both of them. The CPD’s criteria to be included in these debates are designed to exclude independent contenders who promote ideas that challenge those in power.
From the CPD, their “Mission”:
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan.
It’s difficult to reconcile providing the “best possible information” with their obvious bipartisan understanding of “nonpartisan.” Only Republican and Democratic candidates, apparently, are capable of providing such information.
The letter referenced in the Stein announcement, via the Occupy the CPD release:
We demand debates of, by, and for the people . . .
Not the corporations:
We, the undersigned, demand presidential debates that include the real choices before the voters this November.
The debates must include every candidate who is on enough ballots to win the White House and who has demonstrated a minimal level of support — meaning either 1% of the vote in a credible national poll, or qualification for federal matching funds, or both. In 2012, the Green and Libertarian party candidates both meet all of these criteria.
We call on the national news media, the League of Women Voters, and every other civic organization that speaks up for the rights of regular people to organize a 2012 presidential debate that includes all the qualified candidates.
We call on the Commission on Presidential Debates to change its arbitrary rules to include all the qualified contenders. And we urge our fellow Americans to rise up and demand democracy in our presidential elections, beginning today with the presidential debates. These debates belong to the people, not the politicians or Wall Street.
Changing the so-called presidential “debates” to something that would actually be a serious conversation, not a series of sound bites and gotcha lines, and changing the rules so that Green, Libertarian and other party candidates could participate could be a step toward breaking the hold of the Duopoly. It will, therefore, by strongly and consistently resisted by those – Blue and Red – who like things just the way they are.
If you’re so inclined, you can sign the letter here:
Yes, I demand presidential debates that include all the national candidates. These debates must include every candidate who is on enough ballots to win the White House and who has qualified for federal matching funds, or has polled 1% in at least one credible national poll. I will act to make sure that the voice of the people is heard in 2012.
(Occupy the CPD graphic via Occupy the CPD)
Under normal elections I would be all for this. That being said I find this to be a distraction that could have dire consequences. We have seen in the last couple of days how dangerous Mitt Romney would be for this country. His gunslinger mentality when it comes to foreign policy in the middle east is truly frightening. I’m not willing to take the chance that this man could end up in the white house, and in charge of the military and foreign policy. Romney has shown us that he will pick up where Bush left off, and I’m truly scared at how many American lives it will cost us and how many innocent civilians will die in the middle east.
There is always a reason or an excuse to exclude other candidates and none of it is very convincing. Every election sees a dire situation from party loyalists.
Stein, as well as Johnson, are on ballots across the country, with Johnson polling close to 5%.
There is no good reason both of these candidates shouldn’t be in the debates & in polling, except that it might “hurt” one of the big two party candidates.
I understand were you are coming from, I happen to disagree with you at this point and time. The stakes are to high.
The stakes are always too high, according to D & R loyalists. I have been hearing this LITERALLY for decades. It never, ever, ever changes. The next election is always a “stakes are too high” election.
I’m not voting for any of these individuals, hearing from many people on the subject, so I really understand at a much different level the point & it’s correct.
The status quo won’t change squat.
It will, by the way, bring the push for the “grand bargain” in some model, whether Obama or Romney wins.
I would, however, like to hear what they have to say. And I think that under the First Amendment they have the right to be heard. I don’t like Coke and I don’t like Pepsi. I was always a Birch Beer kind of girl.
BRAVA,JA.
There is also a chance that their inclusion would make the other parties more accountable & even make their candidates stronger.
And get rid of those god awful sound bites. How I hate sound bites. I’d like a nice discussion of the issues. Thank you.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right of free speech, it doesn’t guarantee you the right to a platform!
start quote:
I don’t like Coke and I don’t like Pepsi. I was always a Birch Beer kind of girl.
end quote
In my youth, I preferred grape soda. Of course, almost no one made it, and you could almost never find it in vending machines. Story of my life, I’m afraid.
Though I’m noticing nowadays that you don’t see birch beer all that often, either…
It will never, of course, be a good / right / okay time for the Duopoly to include anyone but themselves. The very fact that it’s the two legacy parties who control the “debate” commission, and the fact that the media goes along, tells us everything we need to know about how long it will be — left to them — for candidates of others parties to be included.
And Taylor, your point about “their inclusion would make the other parties more accountable & even make their candidates stronger” is one of the most fundamental arguments made for “third party” inclusion.
Jane, getting rid of the sound bite “answers” would be wonderful, and I’m all for it. But of course, that would mean adding something besides the only two drink choices available, to accompany the bigger and more diverse “bites” of information.
It’s a very good reason, too, Joyce. Emboldening outside voices would also MAYBE — AT LONG LAST — get progressives off their asses.
It would be coming up with intelligent answers based on fact and not BS.
I was asked to send emails to Jon Stewart, Colbert and Maddow asking them to have Stein on their shows. I sent the emails; needless to say there were no replys.
fangio – have Stein supporters swamp Stewart, Colbert and Maddow with e-mails. One ain’t gonna do it.
Goof for making the effort, fangio. I don’t think those are wasted, even if “no reply” is the response we get.
Signed. Thank you.
Since I was a boy, which is quite some time ago, every presidential election has been talked about as crucial to our survival, blah, blah. We’re all going to hell of the wrong guy is elected. Well, guess what. We’re already in hell. We were brought there by the guy I was supposed to vote for last time, because we’re on the way to hell, and ya know, we just can’t afford that any longer. As far as I’m concerned, there’s never been a less crucial election than this. Until there’s a presidential candidate who is actually willing and capable of leading us out of it, nothing of much real importance is going to change, at least not for the better.
I’d rather listen to people with firmly held principles, even if, as in the case of Gary Johnson, I probably won’t agree with them.
“As far as I’m concerned, there’s never been a less crucial election than this.”
Odd as it may seem, I actually tend to agree with you.
While it makes for good sport to kick the Choom around, his re-election hardly causes me to personally lose any sleep. If we assume the current snapshot polls will keep him in Washington, the very same snaphot polls calls for no partisan balance turn in the House and actually a notable R gain is indicated the Senate.
BooHOo will be relegated to do in the next four years what he has done in the first four…….recite good speeches.
Foreign policy will be neo-conservatism simply re-branded as neo-liberalism.
Economic policy will be grand bargain or nothing.
Scalia is certainly not going to retire, so if the One gets to replace Ginsburg or Kennedy, I’ll take my chances that I can’t be too worse off.
4 years from now, the world will still be a dangerous place, unemployment may inch into the 7s but no lower. The only thing different will be this blog will have to find some new enemies of the State to rail against.