Majority of Americans want Barr and Nader included in debates.

[Xue Sheng]

If all candidates get equal time and a slot in the debates, I'm running!

Whether or not all candidates get equal time and a slot in the debates… I'm considering running… away

I’ve had enough of these idiots they all lie they all give their pals jobs and do favors for their friends and the country, its people and what is best for them be damned.

To me there is not a whole lot of difference anymore...they are all politicians :disgust:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Pretty much. I say, limit them all to 1 term, and make em work for the Federal Min. Wage.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

This year’s debate rules are not public.
But in ‘04 the rules @ http://www.opendebates.org/news/documents/debateagreement.pdf

Stated in Sec 5 (f):
“The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions.”

How is THAT a debate?

 

[shesulsa]

This year’s debate rules are not public.
But in ‘04 the rules @ http://www.opendebates.org/news/documents/debateagreement.pdf

Stated in Sec 5 (f):
“The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions.”

How is THAT a debate?

It's not. It's a glorified, multi-faced interview.

 

[arnisador]

Yeah, calling these "debates" is an insult to debaters everywhere.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I call them "Infomercials".

 

[Xue Sheng]

Stated in Sec 5 (f):
“The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions.”

McCain: Senate Obama are you a Democrat

Obama: Why yes Senator McCain I am.

Obama: Now answer me this question Senator McCain are you a Republican?

McCain: Yes I am

WOW!!! Now that there is some sort a good debating let me tell you

politicians :disgust:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

McBama can't afford to have a differing voice, nor risk real issues other than such key topics like who was wearing their flag pin, and who had their hand over their heart, and who baked cookies that weekend brought up. It's too much of a threat to the Republicrats to allow otherwise. Why, the masses might actually be educated and wake up.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Looks like the Commission on Presidential Debates doesn't want to answer questions, release information or extend things to allow for a real debate, going so far as to take their phones off the hook. LOL!
http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/19/cpd-shuts-down-phone-lines/

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Online mass emailing effort underway to include Barr in the debates.
http://www.lpgeorgia.com/opendebates.php

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bit I found in the Reform Party's Wiki entry/

Between 1992 and 1996, the Commission on Presidential Debates changed its rules regarding how candidates could qualify to participate in the presidential debates. As Perot had previously done very well in debates, it was a decisive blow to the campaign when the Commission ruled that he could not participate on basis of somewhat vague criteria --- such as that a candidate was required to have already been endorsed by "a substantial number of major news organizations", with "substantial" being a number to be decided by the Commission on a case-by-case basis. Perot could not have qualified for the debates in 1992 under these rules, and was able to show that various famous US Presidents would likewise have been excluded from modern debate by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Despite legal action by the Perot team, and an 80% majority of Americans supporting his participation in the debates, the Commission refused to budge and Perot was reduced to making his points heard via a series of half-hour "commercials". In the end, Perot and Choate won 8% of the vote.

Who is the "Commission on Presidential Debates"?

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that debates between candidates for President of the United States are run. The Commission is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) entity as defined by Federal US tax laws, funded entirely by corporate contributions.

 

[Brian King]

Bob Hubbard wrote:

Third parties have developed and overtaken the 'establisshed'. If they hadn't, we'd all be arguing over the Whigs, Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

But it's a valid point. Get involved. If not with a 3rd, with a main and push for change.

Thank you Bob
I researched third parties a bit in the very early 1990’s during the first Perot running (did a little security for one of his events) and am going off of my faulty memory but it was my understanding that no third party has ever won during a national election or replaced an existing party. They have replaced a party that had previously collapsed (something I thought the Democratic Party was in danger of doing in the mid 90’s) with the members of a collapsed party changing agenda’s and leaders and name but that is different than a third party developing and overtaking an ‘established’ party. Can you point me to a reliable source that says otherwise? As far as I remember the third party candidates rarely get above single digit vote percentages and are lucky to win even a single state and that has not changed even after all the years that they have tried. Is my memory off?

celtic crippler wrote:

Originally Posted by Brian
celtic crippler wrote:

Simple crippler, you get involved. It is my opinion (and it will not be popular on this thread LOL or on this forum), but getting involved with third party politics is a waste of your time and energy and not good for you or your family or your country. A far more effective method is to pick which of the two parties’ most match your beliefs and views and then join it. Get off the internet and join your community at the root level. A single person can change the world but even if that is not you, you can make a difference in your own life and the lives of your neighbors but getting involved with third parties will not. Join the Democratic Party or join the Republican Party and then start to make changes to that party from the inside, one person can start to change a parties agenda. This method has demonstratively worked in the past and we are seeing it work again during this election period. Third party politics can not make those changes that those who follow third party seek; they have not in the past and will not in the future.

Regards
Brian King

Though you don't have an actual pic of yourself up as your avatar, I don't need to see one to know you've got some serious kool-aid stains around your mouth.

Just FYI: I am involved in both the community and in politics, though not with the Dem's or the GOP. They don't share my values and I personally don't feel like whoring myself out because someone is trying to convince me to just "give up" and accept the status quo. No thanks...I'm no sheep nor am I a lemming.

I refuse to give up on the values this country was established on. I refuse to "sell-out." I refuse to give up one more liberty or freedom without doing everything I can to keep them.

A real waste of time is continueing to do nothing but swallow party rhetoric. It's ludicrous that both parties are using the word "Change" but neither would actually "change" anything. It would just be more of the same...as evidenced over the last several decades.

You want "change?" Then truely vote for it and stop wasting your time making assumptions about somebody you don't know and whether or not they're "involved" or not.

Quoted Bobs post

Third parties have developed and overtaken the 'establisshed'. If they hadn't, we'd all be arguing over the Whigs, Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

'Nuff said.

Well sir if you go to my profile you can see my picture sans the “kool-aid stains” you imagine.

You asked what one is to do. I gave you my opinion. Sorry that it is not one you wanted to hear. That happens sometimes when you ask for opinions. I appreciate the effort you showed in not getting emotional or resorting to vitriolic attacks and name calling but instead chose to logically dialog and point out how supporting an effort that has, despite my opinion that third party’s never accomplished anything of value, actually have accomplished things to better our society and supported that opinion by stating what exactly that they have been responsible for and how by being involved with them they have made positive changes in your and your families lives and the community around you. I also admire the way you stated with facts and examples how changing an organization from the inside of that organization does not work but attacking the organization from the outside does. I appreciate the effort that you made and salute you. Great job and good luck.

Warmest regards
Brian King

 

[Brian King]

More opinionating in regards to the upcoming debates follows, read at your own risk.

A healthy reason to get involved with politics is to further your views/goals/opinions thru dialog. Although conversion by sword fits my natural tendencies it is not so much viable today. My problem with third party politics is two fold. First is that I can find no evidence that the goals that they seek to advance are actually getting advanced even after years and years. Instead I see the third party types pointing fingers of blame, loudly (and annoyingly) crying/claiming victim-hood, and resorting to degrading name calling. Election after election cycles the numbers rather than going up (even just a little) seem to get worse and worse and then finally the Party just disappears while accomplishing nothing of value. The second is that I see them seducing good people (especially the elderly) with conspiracy theories, claims of saving the world while actually accomplishing nothing, and made up and reinvented history and paranoid visions of society . The ‘best’ claim that can be made for third party politic is that of spoiler. Speaking for myself, I am looking forward to the debates (especially the Governor debates here in Washington where the dead, the incarcerated and made up votes count but those serving in the military overseas votes do not count (a reference to the last race)) I want to hear the views and see how the candidates handle themselves I do not need to see candidates that will only get a percentage of a percentage of the vote. I feel that having a bunch of people that demonstratively cannot run a campaign, cannot get their message out, cannot further their cause(s) will only distract and do so for no good reason other than (my opinion follows) to satisfy their ego and greed for power. If the message cannot get out in this day and age then perhaps it might be time to wonder if perhaps the message is getting out but it is being rejected.

Warmest regards
Brian King

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob Hubbard wrote:



Thank you Bob
I researched third parties a bit in the very early 1990’s during the first Perot running (did a little security for one of his events) and am going off of my faulty memory but it was my understanding that no third party has ever won during a national election or replaced an existing party. They have replaced a party that had previously collapsed (something I thought the Democratic Party was in danger of doing in the mid 90’s) with the members of a collapsed party changing agenda’s and leaders and name but that is different than a third party developing and overtaking an ‘established’ party. Can you point me to a reliable source that says otherwise? As far as I remember the third party candidates rarely get above single digit vote percentages and are lucky to win even a single state and that has not changed even after all the years that they have tried. Is my memory off?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States))

Some bits pulled from there. I only list 3rd parties that received over 10% since 1900.

• 1912
• Theodore Roosevelt ran as the "Bull Moose Party" (Progressive Party) nominee in the 1912 election. Roosevelt won 27.4% of the popular vote and carried six states totaling 88 electoral votes.
• 1924
• Robert M. La Follette ran as a Progressive. He received 4,831,706 votes for 16.6% of the popular vote and won his home state of Wisconsin receiving 13 electoral votes.
• 1968
• George Wallace ran on the American Independent Party line. Wallace received 9,901,118 votes for 13.5% of the popular vote, receiving 45 electoral votes in the South and many votes in the North. Wallace remains the only third party candidate since 1948 to win a state.
• 1992
• Ross Perot, an independent, won 18.9% of the popular vote (but no electoral votes). His was the second-best popular vote showing ever for a third-party candidate, trailing only Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Perot finished second in three states: in Alaska and Utah ahead of election winner Bill Clinton, and in Maine ahead of incumbent President George H. W. Bush.

Of course, there is also the 1860 election which saw Lincoln elected as the first Republican president, launching the Republican party (formed 4 years prior) to prominence. He only got 39.8% of the vote and 180 electorial votes.

What often happens is as a third party gains momentum, one of the big 2 starts including their platform into their own, to keep people "in the fold".

 

[Bob Hubbard]

More opinionating in regards to the upcoming debates follows, read at your own risk.

A healthy reason to get involved with politics is to further your views/goals/opinions thru dialog. Although conversion by sword fits my natural tendencies it is not so much viable today. My problem with third party politics is two fold. First is that I can find no evidence that the goals that they seek to advance are actually getting advanced even after years and years. Instead I see the third party types pointing fingers of blame, loudly (and annoyingly) crying/claiming victim-hood, and resorting to degrading name calling. Election after election cycles the numbers rather than going up (even just a little) seem to get worse and worse and then finally the Party just disappears while accomplishing nothing of value. The second is that I see them seducing good people (especially the elderly) with conspiracy theories, claims of saving the world while actually accomplishing nothing, and made up and reinvented history and paranoid visions of society . The ‘best’ claim that can be made for third party politic is that of spoiler. Speaking for myself, I am looking forward to the debates (especially the Governor debates here in Washington where the dead, the incarcerated and made up votes count but those serving in the military overseas votes do not count (a reference to the last race)) I want to hear the views and see how the candidates handle themselves I do not need to see candidates that will only get a percentage of a percentage of the vote. I feel that having a bunch of people that demonstratively cannot run a campaign, cannot get their message out, cannot further their cause(s) will only distract and do so for no good reason other than (my opinion follows) to satisfy their ego and greed for power. If the message cannot get out in this day and age then perhaps it might be time to wonder if perhaps the message is getting out but it is being rejected.

Warmest regards
Brian King

Both of the Big 2 have major advantages over the thirds.
Obama's warchest is 30+ million bucks.
Barr's in under 1 million.

The big 2 get automatic inclusion on all 50 states ballots.
Third parties have to fight for it, with the qualification deadlines often months before the Big-2 have started weeding their lists of possibles down.

Only the Big-2 are allowed in the debates.

Most media outlets ignore the 3rds. Barr puts out 2-3 press releases a day, yet try and find them on any of the news sources. McKinney and Baldwin are even less visible to the media. None are even mentioned at most election sites as candidates, in fact most 3rd parties are barely mentioned. CNN's recent polls on "Who will you vote for" only mentioned McBama and 'undecided'. "Other" wasn't an option.

So, it's a major uphill battle.

 

[Brian King]

Bob wrote:
Robert M. La Follette ran as a Progressive and split the Democratic Party and helped get Coolage re-elected by winning a whopping single state (his home state) but laughenly even that poor showing put him on the top tier for third party canidates winning states.

George Wallace as link states did win 45 electorial votes and carried 5 states. 1968 was an interesting year with assasinations and race riots but even with hero General Curtis LeMay as his VP that was the best that he did. He ran 4 times as a Democrate and 3 times as an Indepentant Party (how is that party doing now days?) and in fact I think that Governor Wallace later ran strong campaigns but as a Democrate putting his mark on the Democratic Party.

Ross Perot was unable to win a single state in two tries yet is still trotted out as a victory for the third parties.

I see a pattern. Despite decades of trying the results rather than getting stronger show poorer and many of the parties have disappeared altogether and the views that they were trying to advance I doubt were.

“What often happens is as a third party gains momentum, one of the big 2 starts including their platform into their own, to keep people "in the fold".

Examples?

Thanks
Warmest Regards
Brian King

 

[Brian King]

Bob Hubbard wrote:

Both of the Big 2 have major advantages over the thirds.
Obama's warchest is 30+ million bucks.
Barr's in under 1 million.

The big 2 get automatic inclusion on all 50 states ballots.
Third parties have to fight for it, with the qualification deadlines often months before the Big-2 have started weeding their lists of possibles down.

Only the Big-2 are allowed in the debates.

Most media outlets ignore the 3rds. Barr puts out 2-3 press releases a day, yet try and find them on any of the news sources. McKinney and Baldwin are even less visible to the media. None are even mentioned at most election sites as candidates, in fact most 3rd parties are barely mentioned. CNN's recent polls on "Who will you vote for" only mentioned McBama and 'undecided'. "Other" wasn't an option.

So, it's a major uphill battle.

Thank again for the dialog Bob.
The job interview is for arguably the toughest most important jobs that can be imagined, it should be a major uphill battle and I am glad that it is.
A candidate to win his party’s nomination has to be able to demonstrate an ability to win, an ability to convince others and to push their views to the front. A part of that demonstration is an ability to collect money. A dollar bill is like a job well done certificate the better job that a candidate does the more dollars he/she gets. In my opinion if a candidate cannot raise the funds needed, if they cannot convince others to support them that reflects on their leadership abilities and reflects on them poorly.

The debates are private not public. If third parties have such strong support and messages and can offer viewer ship they could hold their own debates and invite who they want and have other parties begging to come to their party. Their messages lacks relevance and their organizational skills are lacking so they get the level of support that they obviously deserve despite the cries of unfairness.

I have read some of Barr’s press releases and ummm found them odd to be honest.

What a third party would have to do is to start out at the root level, winning mayor, governor and state legislator positions, then perhaps after a few years win positions as Senators and Congressmen and then perhaps they might win a national election.
Getting stronger winning more and more power with each additional election demonstrating the ability to get things done and to win is the only way that they will affect change. Bob, It isn’t going to happen which is why I think it is much more sane that if a person really wants to make changes it is much more logical to get involved with the party (that most reflects your ideas) already formed and organized and win that party over to your ideas. That has been done with-in both parties many times while a third party has accomplished what in all their many tries?

I doubt I will be able to convince you tonight with this thread and know that you won’t convince me Bob, but I enjoyed the chance to put my thoughts into words and to read yours, thanks for the dialog.

Thank you sir
Warmest Regards
Brian King

 

[Bob Hubbard]

(Late, so short reply)

The thing is, that is what the LP and GP are doing, though it is slow going. It's an uphill battle against a foe who has much deeper pockets. Barr's $1 mill is peanuts compared to the $288 mill of Obama's. TV spots cost big bucks. Then again, you won't see Obama or McCain on Colbert, or chatting with Mancow.

My only goal, is to get people thinking. I don't care who anyone votes for, only that they make an informed decision, vote, and not rely on their friends opinions, tv news, and soundbytes. I disagree with you in part, but respect your position and can see your points.

In some cases, third parties merge into the "big 2". Example is Farmer-Labor Party which merged into the DP back in 1920 or so. In other cases, the big 2 will adopt parts of the smallers platforms (many are 1 issue groups), such as the DP adopting many of the Populist Party positions back in the late 1800's.