Nader/Gonzalez: "Open the Debates"
In their vice-presidential debate Thursday night, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Delaware Senator Joe Biden ended in a veritable draw, not unlike Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama in their first presidential debate.
But what if there were a third (and fourth) candidate on the debate stage? What might he or she add to the discussion?
Former San Francisco Board of Supervisors President and Ralph Nader running-mate Matt Gonzalez said third party candidates would offer Americans more of a "clash of ideas."
"Given the incredible economic time that we're in," said Gonzalez, allowing third party candidates in the debate "would be just a greater call for more ideas."
Nader and Gonzalez, who spent last weekend stumping in Southern California, spoke at a University of California, San Diego rally about the "restrictive, and undemocratic Commission on Presidential Debates" (CPD).
The Nader/Gonzalez ticket, which expects to be on the ballot in 45 states in November, is hovering around 3 to 4 percent in some states in the latest CNN/Time Magazine poll. The low poll numbers bar them from a spot in the CPD-run televised debates.
"I like to remind people that it's a position that's not unequal to these other candidates in terms of giving me enough legitimacy to debate them," said the attorney and former public defender. "The budget of San Francisco alone exceeds, nearly doubles that of Alaska and Delaware.
"Nader and I both have enough legitimacy that there's not a credible argument for why we can't discuss the issues," Gonzalez said.
The CPD limits televised debates to candidates who meet constitutional requirements like age and citizenship, are on enough state ballots to ensure that, mathematically, they could get enough electoral college votes to win the presidency, and who meet a threshold of 15 percent across five national polls. The latter requirement is where the controversy lies.
"We're going at 5, 6, 7, 8 percent in various states according to some CNN polls," said consumer advocate Ralph Nader. "Those are millions of potential voters," Nader said, later adding, "we weren't dropped into this campaign from a UFO."
The nonprofit, nonpartisan CPD was founded in 1987, has produced and sponsored all of the official presidential and vice-presidential debates since then, and to this day is chaired by its co-founders, Former Republican Party Chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Former Democratic Party Chairman Paul G. Kirk, Jr.
In the CPD's 21-year history there was one election cycle where a third-party presidential candidate took the stage in a debate. In 1992 businessman and Reform Party candidate Ross Perot, who won 19 percent of the vote in the election that year, debated George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In 1996 Perot was not allowed on the stage again.
The argument by third-party candidates like Nader as well Green Party and Libertarian candidates Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr is that the CPD has created a two-party monopoly on televised presidential debates.
Gonzalez, who says he went from 6 percent to 47 percent in the polls after entering a televised debate against Gavin Newsom for Mayor of San Francisco in 2003, adds that the televised debates offer the very visibility that candidates need to increase their poll numbers.
"You can't, on the one hand, dismiss candidates who aren't let into debates and sort of say 'well you're not a serious candidate because your numbers aren't high enough,'" Gonzalez said. "McCain and Obama both had weak numbers until they were allowed into televised debates during the primaries."
Nader and Gonzalez say that the solution is to by-pass the organization altogether with television networks and citizen groups holding their own debates.
"The debate commission is like a fortress, a private corporation. We've sued it, picketed it, challenged it. It can't be moved as long as the three networks provide it with a monopoly," Nader said. "As long as the networks are their funnel, they get away with it."
With two debates to go and no other voices on the stage, Nader and Gonzalez argue that it is useless to discuss winners or losers because the Democratic and Republican messages are essentially the same.
For the first presidential debate between Sens. McCain and Obama, Nader emphasizes that we should focus on what won the debate, not who.
"Militarism won the debate. The $10 billion boondoggle Star Wars program won the debate. Nuclear power won the debate. The military-industrial complex won the debate. The blank check $700 billion bailout of Wall Street won the debate," Nader said.
With that argument, it will be interesting to see what wins in November.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It is sad that the Repugs and Demos are SO AFRAID of other voices... in a "Free" society where "free speech" is - gee right there in the FIRST amendment.
Open the debates. What are you afraid of?
Many believe that Nader cost Gore the election and gave us Bush.
This kind of thinking has kept the Democrats out of power.
GORE lost the election.
Nader lost because the two party system does not allow his voice to be heard.
Nader is NOT a Democrat, he is a progressive. The Democrats have no right to claim a monopoloy on progressivism, especially when they have abdicated their right to do so.
The Democratic party loses credibility when it tries to silence Ralph Nader. By calling him a "spoiler" they become the party that isn't FOR any thing but instead AGAINST Bush and incidentally against Nader - who is a true American hero! Not very inspiring.
Obama represents little choice vs. McCain.
McCain wants to spend the next 100 years in Iraq, Obama says we should send two divisions into Afghanistan to "catch" Bin Laden.
McCain supports nuclear energy, Obama does too
McCain supports the Wall Street Bailout Obama does too
McCain claims he has a bracelet, Obama has one too!
Nader represents and fights for things that Democrats support:
-corporate reform
-safety- Nader fought for and won the mandating of seatbeltsand airbags in cars (can either McCain or Obama point to achievements like this in their years of public service)
-anti militarism.
The two party system is broken. A vote for Nader sends a message that Americans want choice.
Nader supports and fights on principle and I will vote for him on the same basis.
http://www
Wow, you've really got Ralphie's freeze-dried talking points down pat. Don't you get tired of repeating this same s**t every four years? Or maybe you're being paid by the Republican Party for your pathetic efforts.
One question: Do you still think there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush?
I'm waiting.
We will never know how good or bad Gore would have been. It is too easy to rule looking backward.
One thing is for sure, if 9/11 happened on Gore's watch, the Republicans would have raised hell and had him impeached for allowing it.
That is the real difference between Democrats and Republicans.
And who was Al Gore's VP?
A close race in general, of which Nader captured - on average - 2% of the vote and the Dems blame him.
Gore's campaign was lax in the extreme.
Then came the inevitable Supreme Court involvemen
Never mind Gore had to get around the shadow that Bill and his wandering wiener put him into.
But most of it boils down to his pathetic campaign.
A good read, thank you for the information. I started watching Nader on how he is spreading the message since ALL of the third party candidates got together for a recent press conference:
http://www
May i remind us this is not a two party system it is a single right wing party with two factions. Our two faction system has insured public policy will be determined by private interest and that public money will be spent by private interest. If you want real democratic change in this country there must first be democracy. Why are so many of us afraid of democracy? Because it demands our direct participation. We are all experts in the important fields of ipods, movie stars, tv shows, fashion, and an irrational yearning for access to all manner of luxury. Democracy demands its citizens to develop expertise in maintaining vigilance over its governance. Ralph Nader is one citizen who has achieved this goal and is an example for us all.
Please! We don't need to indulge Ralph Nader's insatiable and destructive ego once again. Sit down, Ralph, you've done enough damage to the country already.
Um its interesting that the insults directed Mr Nader never have any facts to back up their claim. Just insults. Countless people urged Mr Nader to run. The 2 parties are so similar in reality. Its rhetoric just like that comment.
Hes polling nationally at 5- 6 percent with a major media blackout so no its not true that "the good that he did all those years ago has been mostly forgotten.
it's mindless, personal insults and finger pointing away from the shortcomings of your own party that have done damage to this country. please. give me one example that isn't derogatory of how nader has done damage to this country. he is certainly qualified. his platform represents everything a democrat (used to) stand for. if he wasn't a crusader against corporate corruption, he'd been allowed to debate in the primaries and he would be decimating both obama and mccain right now. media black out keeps his numbers low and keeps ignorant fools bashing his name and crying 'wah! spoiler!'
the way we play the election game is a laughing stock to the rest of the world- too many of us are more interested in who's slamming who this week, the latest dirt and American f-ing Idol than real issues and real political platforms.
thank god for active, passionate concerned citizens like Ralph Nader who've given their lives to work on REAL change to this country. both obama and mccain have violated that word so many ways from sunday- it means so little these days- and will mean even less to them once election day comes.
a damn shame that some of us have not even an ounce of respect, appreciation and gratitude- only disdain and undeserved blame.
don't you ever tire from scapegoating? as time has confirmed: the dems just don't know how to win an election. best of luck, though.
Looking at Ralph Nader's platform, there is very little in common with the Democrats. The attacks from the Democrats are really related to that more than any worry of him stealing votes.
The Commission on debates has a ten percent rule. third party candidates who are getting more than ten percent in the polls are invited. Ross Perot and John Anderson met that qualification in 1992 and 1980, Nader never did. As to this year, Barr, Nader and McKinney don't either.
Also, it's more than possible that McCain, who nearly didn't show up at the first debate, or Obama might not go to a debate where candidates who are getting less than ONE percent of the vote, in the case of McKinney, are invited.
Yeah, they might actually get out-debated by them and that would be embarrassing.
I agree with this. If their names are gonna be on the ballots, they should be invited to the debates.
Ditto.
Wow, here lies our problem. We just signed a blank check for 700 billion dollars, and OBAMA was pushing it through with McCain and Bush. Wake up people! Obama wants to increase the military budget, wouldn't impeach Bush, doesn't plan to end the war in Iraq, want to increase the number of troops in Afghanisatan, and thinks Nuclear and "clean coal" are viable energy options. Nader/Gonzalez is running for the people, not the corporations that Obama and McCain represent. How anyone can rationalize not allowing them into the debates just baffles me. Everyone should be working to get more voices heard. I can't believe that anyone believes Democrats or Republicans have the answers to turn this country around, especially since they put us in the situation we're in now (look no further than the Democrats ending the Glass-Steagall act and continuing to support the ongoing wars). Help change this country for the better and stand up for justice.
Nader/Gonzalez 2008
Being fully awake, I would like to see the country move to the left. Pulling more Democratic votes to Ralph Nader will not help accomplish this.
I respectfully suggest that you are the one who is sleepwalking.
Actually, if you would like to see the country move to the left, voting for Nader is precisely what you should do. When Perot got 19% of the vote, balancing the budget became a priority during Clinton's administration. There is a long history of third party candidates bringing important issues to the table such as abolishing slavery and women's sufferage.
They should teach this stuff in civics classes but instead people decide how to vote (and tell other people how they should vote!) based on a lack of knowledge on how to be an effective citizen. Giving your vote to a candidate that does not represent your views is not an effective way to get them to do what you want!
how would pulling more democratic votes for nader not help accomplish moving the country more to the left? could you explain what you mean, please?
If Mr. Nader is the progressive he claims to be he needs to come to the table called Democracy (as implemented in America) and participate. Insisting on having it all his way or no way guarantees his failure.
Yeah, it would be nice to have open debates. Yeah, it would be nice to have more than two parties that had to build coalitions to get things done. It would also be nice if I had a billion in the bank and could travel the world at will... Not gonna happen!
Nader has, almost single handedly (if you let his supporters off the hook) caused everything he claims to support to become that much more of a pipe dream. If he really means it he should support Obama and stop with the ego trip!
Scapegoat Nader, call him an egomaniac, say that Nader supporters are too idealistic, Nader can't form coalitions, shut up and vote for the Democrat, blah, blah, blah....so
See Chris Savage's Profile
*Sigh*. I actually wish this was a country where people like Ralph Nader and Dennis Kuccinich stood even the most remote chance of being elected to a top-level position..
I agree, Nader has done some great things and I would consider voting for him if he had any reasonable chance of winning, but he doesn't. We'd have to see a radical shift in our political system for someone like Nader to be viable. Right now there is no sign this is going to happen anytime in the near future.
not without a vote on principles.
What a circular argument.
Yes, me too. That said, for Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin and Cynthia Mckinney and Bob Barr.
A recent National Press Conference, lead by Pau, brought Nader, McKinney, Baldwin and Barr together on four fundamental American principles: non-intervention foreign policy, sound money, civil liberties, and process reform.
It is a compelling conference and they all state that on those issues, we are the majority. Here it is, and thanks.
http://www
*Sigh*? it should sound more like, ' i have a dream...'
i can't imagine where we'd be if Rosa Parks and MLK had taken a position like that.
i hope more and more people rise up, grow tired of the helplessness they feel that they can't make an impact on the way this government is run. this country was born out of dissent- as was abolition of slavery, women's suffrage and equal rights.
nader and kucinich are symbols of hope.
be part of a solution-- don't perpetuate the problem!
It blows my mind that anyone actually pays any attention to Nader. At this point, it should be obvious to any sentient human that he bears significant responsibility for Bush's theft of the election in 2000, and that he has done absolutely nothing in the interim to justify making him President of the United States. He seems to hibernate every four years and then emerge from whatever rock he hides under to renew his claim to be the savior of the country. But what has he done to justify this claim? Spare me all the tired blather about how great he used to be in his previous incarnation as a consumer advocate. Nader is now an advocate for Nader, pure and simple. The biggest joke is that even the Green Party, which "nominated" him in 2000, now repudiates him. Like Lieberman, he is his own political "party." What a loser. Why would anyone actually WANT him to be president anyway? He is extremely off putting and divisive -- just ask most of the people he abused when they worked for him.
In short, he's nothing but a sociopathic megalomaniac. Despite his notoriety, he has only garnered miniscule percentages of the vote. He's not even the real candidate of any recognized political party, and he sat out the last 18 months of campaigning only to emerge at the last minute with the demand that he be considered a viable candidate. He's a sick joke, and should be ignored.
So, you have a big list of Democratic Operative " talking points" used to perpetuate the malicious , libelous character assasination of Ralph Nader, destroy his reputation, smear his name and bully others into feeling that they shouldn't even entertain voting for him, let alone looking at his website or record. Most of what you say is absolutely untrue and the rest is bigoted ad hominem. I've looked into almost every attack on Nader and found them all to be untrue, whether absolutely false or little twisted lies. The character attacks like he's a "sociopathic megalomaniac" are just malicious namecalling using a big vocabulary, but namecalling nonetheless. Something any school yard bully does.
You say things that are just factually inaccurate, like he's not the candidate of any recognized political party...do your research. Otherwise, you are just being ignorant.
Neither scapegoating nor Machiavellian disinformation campaigns take much integrity or intelligence to pull off. There is something very cynical about it. Using any means to justify your ends means you may never end up where you want to be.
Nader destroyed his own reputation. He's broke down to a fool, and the good that he did all those years ago has been mostly forgotten.
It's really been sad to see what Ralph Nader has done to his own legacy. For a guy who started out making a real difference progressively, he spends his last years trying to insure the election of right-wing reactionaries. He's personally responsible for electing George Bush and giving us 8 years of death, destruction and economic disaster.
For your information, I am not a "Democratic operative.
You talk about all the stuff Nader has done in the last 8 years since the fatal election of 2000. Since that date, Al Gore has gone on to champion the cause of enlightening the world about the dangers of global climate change, and has been awarded numerous times for his efforts, including the Nobel Peace Prize. Please give me one example of anything constructive, really constructive, done by this charlatan Ralph Nader during that time period.
Simply put, Nader is no hereo. He is an egotistical human being.
So, you actually follow what he does in between election cycles? Then you know he does fundraisers for 3rd party candidates, publishes at least one book a year, tours campuses exhorting young people to make a difference, donating 80% of his earnings to non-profits, testifying before congress (most recently in early 2007 about the impending implosion of Freddie and Fannie).
He's single-handedly saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people here and around the world. He is the primary reason we HAVE an EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, OSHA, etc., etc.
He is arguably the greatest American of the late 20th century. The fact that Democratic robots seek to flay his character every 4 years to protect their lame, right of center, candidates doesn't alter that fact. When the Dems have a candidate with the legislative record even approximating that of Nader's, and an agenda that isn't unbelievably wishy-washy, then we can talk about who's qualified, ready and able.
He's raised 3 million dollars this year and is on the ballot in 45 states, more than any other non-duopoly candidate.
I think people are frightened of putting him in the debates beacause then the Dems would have to actually address WHY they don't want single payer, why they won't end BOTH wars, why they won't shrink the Pentagon, why they won't regulate corporate America, why they won't reform lobbying and campaign finance, etc., etc.
OPEN THE DEBATES!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
