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.

Third Party debate participation & media coverage

How can we call ourselves a democracy and limit coverage and participation to two parties when many more viable options are out there??!! Isn't it time to end the notion that we must always pick the "lesser of two evils" when it's time to vote? I'm a firm believer that a 3rd party vote is not a wasted vote. Selecting a candidate representing a party that you don't fully identify with is a lie to yourself and is sending the wrong message to our politicians. What a joke.

third party in debates

Yes,they should be allowed in the debates. The Repubiecan and Democrate party have been a serious joke to society.

Should third party candidates be included in the presidental debates

If they are on my election ballot, yes.

Reader Imput

The Author is asking readers whether or not Mr NAder should be covered by the mediahttp://blogs.courant.com/on_background/2008/10/nader-why-wont-you-cover-me-na.html

Third party in debates

No, they should not be allowed to debate. They are a threat to the Republocrats of which I am a member. They must be silenced at all cost. Hile McBama!!!

Sankhara

Who cares now, the people have made their own debates.

The solutions to debate boredom and constitutional trampling that the government and insurance industries don’t want you to know. They will make the Democratic and Republican debates seem like the stifled public conversations of an elite ruling class, or something...

Third party debates will happen October 23rd, 2008. Today! This Thursday!

Chuck Baldwin, the lean, mean, Ron Paul certified, conservative, drilling, preaching machine will duke it out with the original, constituational, conservational, irrepresable, non-susceptible, civic crusader, Ralph Nader.

LIVE on C-SPAN tonight, 10/23/08!

Also, it will be streamed live by Restore the Republic radio at http://www.rtrradio.com/ .

Please check out http://www.freeandequal.org for more info.

Barr and McKinney were invited, asked for input, and given plenty of time to help coordinate. Ask them to come, as they are still invited, but the people's time is running short, so we must move on...

Credible Candidates?

What I would like to know why these people are not considered by most voters to be "credible candidates." The only reason that these candidates are not considered to have a credible shot at winning the presidency, in my eyes, is because they are kept out of events like the debates. It is a paradoxical situation, but one that is easily rectified; let them share their message with the voters, and give them the same opportunities as the two traditional parties. It doesn't seem to be that far fetched of an idea, considering that we are a country that was founded on the principles of freedom and equality.

Not only are these candidates kept from the debates, but they do not have the large political parties full of corrupt business people throwing mountains of money at them to fund their campaigns. I don't think that I'm alone when I say that I am sick of this two party system that is perpetuated by money and lies. These people are kept out of the spotlight because the Republicrats are afraid that the general public will realize that there are other options available. Our entire government is based on the principle of checks and balances, and I think that these politicians have gone unchecked for far too long. Until we embrace the third parties, our country will continue to be run by two groups who claim to be polar opposites, but are really just different brands of the same product. They preach "change," but the only way to bring real change is to bring in fresh faces with fresh ideas. Until then, we're just "putting lipstick on a pig"...