Every once in a while, there's a petition worth signing, if only to tell the world you're not happy with how it's being run. Here's another:
We, the undersigned, demand presidential debates that include the real choices before the voters this November. The debates must include every candidate who is on enough ballots to win the White House and who has demonstrated a minimal level of support -- meaning either 1% of the vote in a credible national poll, or qualification for federal matching funds, or both. In 2012, the Green and Libertarian party candidates both meet all of these criteria.
We call on the national news media, the League of Women Voters, and every other civic organization that speaks up for the rights of regular people to organize a 2012 presidential debate that includes all the qualified candidates.
We call on the Commission on Presidential Debates to change its arbitrary rules to include all the qualified contenders. And we urge our fellow Americans to rise up and demand democracy in our presidential elections, beginning today with the presidential debates. These debates belong to the people, not the politicians or Wall Street.
We Demand Real Debates!
It is an effort by Jill Stein, the Presidential candidate of the Green Party, to have her and any other "qualified candidate" at the debate.
I can hear the Obama Nation rising up right now, warning that this will lead to a Republican victory, cats and dogs sleeping together, etc.
Since I was a boy, which is quite some time ago, every presidential election has been talked about as crucial to our survival, blah, blah. We’re all going to hell of the wrong guy is elected. Well, guess what. We’re already in hell. We were brought there by the guy I was supposed to vote for last time, because we’re on the way to hell, and ya know, we just can’t afford that any longer. As far as I’m concerned, there’s never been a less crucial election than this. Until there’s a presidential candidate who is actually willing and capable of leading us out of it, nothing of much real importance is going to change, at least not for the better.
That's why hearing from candidates who still have principles is important. It will make the main parties' candidates step up their game, at least rhetorically. It might actually make the debates worth listening to again.
I’d rather listen to people with firmly held principles, even if, as in the case of Gary Johnson, I probably won’t agree with them. At least they'll try to make a reasonable argument, rather than simply pander to the people most easily swayed by a particular flavor of nonsense.
4 comments:
It occurred to me just the other day that all the horrible things that happened because Bush was elected only happened because of 9/11. He was busy tanking and taking the republicans with him when 9/11 made him a brave war leader for some reason. So all the whining about Nader destroying America as we knew it, is just a willful ignorance of recent history.
True. I think you can also say that one of the reasons he was considered so effective was that Democrats didn't oppose him, even on things like the Patriot Act where he clearly was over the line. They never stood on principle, which is the same behavior that gave rise to Nader's candidacy in the first place.
I voted for Obama in 2008 (primary, too).
Didn't think he'd be any kind of liberal, but he's been a bankster's pawn and been horrible in so many other regards (e.g. the Catfood Commission).
I'm voting for Jill Stein in November.
~
Same here, assuming that's an option in my area. If not, it will be one of the other third party candidates (even Gary Johnson is preferable), or "none of the above".
Post a Comment