weblog.timoregan.com — Most candidates are excluded from the debate simply because the Media (big M) deems them minor/unknown/unpopular candidates. Well, of course they're unknown; they're not allowed to debate on national TV!! Bit of a Catch-22, wouldn't you say?
May 10, 2007 View in Crawl 4
gangstercomputeMay 11, 2007
@UtahApocalypse"The last part about the people putting together there own online debate is intriguing and I wonder how we could get support for it."Get a media sponsor.
nosecohnMay 11, 2007
If you liked this article and want to learn more about the "oligarchy", watch The Money Masters, a great documentary from 1995. You can get a little taste of it here: <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2xNkiw_ps8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2xNkiw_ps8</a>Also, the article doesn't mention that third-party candidates with adequate support USED be allowed in the debates when they were run by the League of Women voters. Then Ross Perot managed to steal enough thunder from the major party candidates one year that the Republicans and Democrats moved to make sure it never happened again. They colluded to cut out the League. From Wikipedia: ...on October 3 [1988] they issued a dramatic press release: The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.In the aftermath rose the "Commission on Presidential Debates", invented, run and controlled entirely and exclusively by the Republican and Democratic parties. They, and only they, decide who gets to participate. (If only the two parties could cooperate as well on legislation.)That's why you don't see any candidates from other parties.
lokoluis15May 11, 2007
You make a good point about the sorry state of things. I think that more people vote for American Idol candidates than presidential candidates, and it certainly seems that people care more about the content in American Idol than the content in politics. There should be a TV show that just highlights political issues and every candidates stance on it for a whole season. maybe then people will care more? I don't know, the fact that some people care more about who wins American Idol than the presidency is enough to depress me for now.
wacerMay 11, 2007
They should have listened to George Washington when he said that there shouldn't be political parties. Of course they formed shortly thereafter.
Closed AccountMay 11, 2007
all you morons who love gravel and paul shouldn't be able to vote. libertarian economic policy is extreme right wing, while democratic economic policy calls for federal oversight of things like pollution, unfair business/labor practices, and monopoly.
dvdtlrMay 12, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvAGAkseh1w">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvAGAkseh1w</a>
notqueJun 4, 2007
You must vote Gravel in all online polls right now to help secure listening to other candidates.