Should Third-Party Candidates Like Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, and Cynthia McKinney Be Included in the Presidential Debates?

Turbo Tax

Greeting. A neurosis is a secret that you don't know you are keeping.

I am from Monaco and also now'm speaking English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Where to buy online cheap synthroid that ships to kentucky."

Thank you very much ;-). Ellie.

THE MEDIA DOES NOT HONOR THE PEOPLE OR THE NATION

The media doesn't care about democracy, the U.S. Constitution, or merits as the winning hand for Presidential Elections. They want the UNWANTED STATUS QUO unchallenged, when Election Day is for CHALLENGE DUE for GOOD or preferably BEST leadership on track, not the corruption of war not wanted by anyone, OFF TRACK, acknowledged by the voters to a poll in October 2008, 89% said, "OFF TRACK" when asked "Do you believe this country is on track or off track?"

Even if the people liked the current government after four years, all the candidates were supposed to be nationally visible so that the VERY BEST can win.

The two parties are corrupt and not even close to good or best. Having the view that they are the required vote is pure insanity and illegal. I say the election should be voided by the people and a valid election of the required contest of SIX not TWO where the incompetent incumbents have to face the challengers where we had four on a majority of state ballots, Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, and Ralph Nader....to challenge the warmongers who lie and offer red ink in the trillions and war rackettering. They are not offering honest politics or honest government, and they are not even offering a functional corrupt government, which is what the lazy american majority voted for...as if that would carry...it is not functional, it is intentional failure of red ink and bailouts of corrupt failure and nothing good or solid or honor, increasing troops by a man who would never lead out in front, is egregious and heinous and Coward In Chief, not a commander in Chief, and the people DID NOT VOTE FOR WAR.

The Election was supposed to net the upholding of our country ON TRACK with the honest government that requires people vote for the war, not a corrupt Coward In Chief who spends the taxes on everything that is the opposite of good. He is evil, and the way he got there is proof, no democracy allowed, the contest is due and overdue.

Be Fair and Open, Let Third Party Candidates Debate!

I found Minow's argument extremely disturbing. The debates are a chance for us to hear from the candidates we can choose from, not necessarily the candidates or candidate most likely to win. If either the Democratic or Republican candidate was expected to win by a landslide, would the “debate” only include the one candidate expected to win? If Third Party candidates have qualified to be on the ballot, then of course voters should have the opportunity to hear about these candidates. Democracy is a varied and crowded landscape. Certainly it gets easier and less cluttered when power & decision-making are centralized, but it also becomes less democratic. I don't need anyone to make my decision easier by making the field "less crowded". I trust the media & all involved in publicizing election issues & candidates to keep me properly informed, not to whittle down my choices for me. If it’s true that the CPD aims to provide "the best possible information to viewers & listeners” then surely it is those choices we know the least about that they ought to be the most concerned with. The debates should not be about preempting voters' choices by deciding what those choices ought to be, which are "acceptable" or which are "probable winners". Some people use their votes strategically. Others chose to vote for the candidate they believe in, whether or not that candidate will win. Some people hold a position that is different from the Democrats & Republicans, & without a Third Party to case a vote for, how would anyone even know that these positions are on the political landscape? People who do not see their views represented in the 2 largest parties sometimes don't vote at all, which is typically interpreted as a vote for the status quo by the status quo. Do Democrats & Republicans sincerely want citizens to feel free to vote, or do they only want people to vote if it's for them? Shame on the CPD for being so anti-democratic, so exclusionary, and so shockingly dishonest! At the very least, the CPD should disclose at the beginning of every debate that they are the creation of the 2 largest parties and have chosen to exclude other parties or candidates, rather than hiding this important piece of information. It's clear to me that Mr Nader is absolutely right when he says, "Its purpose is to give the parties cover when they bar other legitimate candidates from debating." If voters do not know who a candidate is, what he or she represents, & how he or she is different from other candidates, both the voters & the candidates are at a disadvantage. These debates add another layer of legitimacy to participants. No wonder the CPD doesn't want others in its house. Voters are entitled to know what their choices are and not be spoon-fed by the CPD, which has decided which candidates are "viable" or healthy picks. Perhaps the Republican Party has forgotten their history as a Third Party. Rather than worry about moderators' biases, perhaps the CPD should worry about its own.