In an editorial, the Las Vegas Review-Journal calls for full inclusion in debates.
The newspaper says “voters are purposely kept ignorant of other candidates who may be listed for president on their November ballot by the Commission on Presidential Debates,” and argues, “The presidential debates should be returned to the control of a legitimate nonpartisan organization. And the standard for debate participation should be simple: Any candidate appearing on enough state ballots to win the 270 Electoral College votes needed for elevation to the White House gets an invitation.”
5 responses so far ↓
1 NewFederalist // Aug 24, 2008 at 9:34 am
Who can argue with that conclusion? I don’t believe Ted Weill would qualify by their own simlified method, however.
2 Steve LaBianca // Aug 24, 2008 at 10:30 am
Every 4 years, the calls for having a more inclusive debate, which many polls and surveys substantiate that majorities of voters would favor, falls flat. Even well known media publications calling for the requirements for presidential debate participation to be simply qualified ballot status in enough states to theoretically obtain enough electoral votes to win the presidency falls on the same deaf ears.
Politics is a racket. The state is a racket. The “mob” is a racket. The only difference between the state and the mob is that the state is called “legitimate”, and the mob isn’t.
The debate commission knows damn well that almost nobody outside of the political cartel of Democrats and Republican will ever qualify for the debate requirement of 15% support in “selected” polls. If someone ever did, they would just change the “selection”. The moment the duopoly of the 2 major parties loses its grip, its “racket”, martial law is next.
This year, I do not personally care if Barr gets to debate. He simply doesn’t represent libertarianism. However, the principle of the duopoly racket continues. This is an abomination, especially considering that the duopoly continues to ram the sham idea of “participatory democracy” down the voters throats.
Even though the federal government isn’t a “democracy”, it is a sham marketing scheme by the feds to even promote that it is because of the exclusion of several candidates in these debates.
3 G.E. // Aug 24, 2008 at 2:58 pm
NF – I’ll argue with it, just to be an ass. But I think the debates should be private affairs, with the organizers inviting whomever they want to invite.
4 Trent Hill // Aug 24, 2008 at 10:02 pm
We should all email the owner or chief editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and encourage them to HOST a debate of this type.
5 G.E. // Aug 24, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Here’s what will happen:
Obama and McCain won’t show up because the debate won’t be one of their CPD-owned joint press conferences
Barr and Nader won’t show up because they’re “too good” to debate Baldwin and McKinney
The debate will be canceled since no one wants to hear Baldwin vs. McKinney
Leave a Comment