Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Chuck Baldwin’

Finally for the first time Ralph Nader will be on a presidential debate. Although he is not debating John McCain or Barack Obama, he is still debating. Chuck Baldwin will be an excellent opponent. Ron Paul recommend that his supporters abandon the mainstream candidates and instead support a 3rd party, to which he recommended Baldwin of the Constitution party.  Tune in tonight live at 9pm EST to see them compete for the 3rd party vote. It will defiantly be more inspiring then those parallel interviews from McObama.

http://www.cspan.org/ has it live

Read Full Post »

The second presidential debate only had 2 of the possible 6 candidates on the stage. The other 4 candidates that were missing were Ralph Nader – the Independent candidate, Bob Barr – the Libertarian candidate, Cynthia McKinney – the Green party, and Chuck Baldwin – The Constitution party.

There are four major differences between the major parties, Democrat and Republican, and the third parties listed above:
1. Single-Payer Health Care, like Canada
2. End all war and bringing all troops home, 6 month withdraw from Iraq
3. Cutting the national debt, 50% of all taxes goes straight to war funding
4. Cut down on Corporate Crime, Wall Street needs to be held accountable.

Here are the videos of Ralph Nader’s responses to the questions asked:
1.

2.

3.

Read Full Post »

Sure was a lot of room on that floor. We could of had the other 4 candidates on there. Too bad that the Commission is owned by the two parties that we did see. If you want to hear some serious answers to these questions, as opposed to the same phrases and the same finger pointing, then you can go to Nader’s page where at 11pm tonight he’ll be answering these questions. If you want to see a real debate then you can go here to 3rd Party Ticket and sign up.

Remember it was because of the third parties that controversial issues where accepted my major parties and enacted into law, such as woman and black suffrage. These four need our support and we need them and the issues that they bring to the table.

Read Full Post »

The national poll Gallup, which is the poll that the Commission on Presidential Debates uses to judge whether a candidate has reached the 15% goal in the national polls in order to get on the presidential debates, refuses to put Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin on their questionnaires stating “internal judgment” for the reason.  Here we have another obstacle to get anything other then the evil and the lesser evil on the debates. I suggest that everyone writes an email to Frank Newport at frank_newport@gallup.com or you can call him at  609-924-9600. Help me open the debates.

I suggest this for a template for your email:

I am writing this email in order to persuade you to include Ralph Nader and other 3rd party candidates in your polls. Your poll is vital to the American democracy because it is your poll that the Commission on Presidential Debates uses to determine whether a candidate has reached the 15% cap in the polls. If you never include the 3rd party candidates then how will the Commission ever know whether they can be on the debates? The second reason is that it is unreal. Nader and Barr are on 45 state ballots and write-ins in 4 other states where the only exception is Oklahoma where write-ins are not allowed. Mckinney and Baldwin are on 32 state ballots which is still enough to theoretically win the presidency.

I’m not aware how much power you have over Gallup polling system and whether or not you can make or influence this decision, but Mr. Newport I’m now going to address you personally. Don’t you think that a two party system is biased and undemocratic? There are over 300 Million people in our country and our voices cannot be summarized by just two parties. Look at history Mr. Newport, it was smaller parties that helped pressed the controversial issues, like woman’s and black’s suffrage, until the major parties were forced to adopt their issues. History shows that 3rd parties are an integral part of our democracy. Even the Republican Party was originally a 3rd party until it gained enough support. As of recently, 1988, 3rd parties have been ever more restricted from taking part in our government, when the control of the debates was taken from the League of Women Voters and given to the Commission on Presidential Debates, owned then by leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties. At first there was 10% cap in the polls in order to get on, I’m sure you remember Perot in 92 on the debates. Then the Commission raised the cap to 15% and when Perot met that limit in 96′, they barred him anyway.

A side note: Perot was a self-made billionaire and was able to put himself on national television, where as the candidates we have today just don’t have that kind of money. The prime networks create the Catch-22 by saying, you’re not going to be elected so why should we give you airtime. But there are many voters who will not vote for a candidate regardless of their political sentiments if they think that candidate isn’t going to win. One clear indication of this is access, the people being aware that they are running. Thus the catch is, a candidate needs a network attention to win but they won’t put them on because they’re not going to win.

Today I’m doing my part to make our democracy better by email you and reasoning with you. Please, help me open these debates. As you read above there are so many obstacles already in the way to stop the 3rd parties. Please, don’t create another one. I’m not asking you to use something objective to judge Nader and the other three instead I’m trying to change your “internal judgment” which, you said, is what you use to decide.

Read Full Post »

As expected the first presidential debate was deprived of content, meaning and effective moderation and full of biased rhetoric. Overall I’m convinced that the two senators where not even debating, let alone debating the topics that needed to be debated. If one observes the finer details, then it’s possible to see how both McCain and Obama avoided debating each other and avoided discussing key points that would have given the debate any significance. In this critique I want to cover some details that had a large impact on how the debate was conducted and I want to point out a particular instance where senator John McCain had neglected to raise a major issue to avoid actually debating.

A large part of the debate was focused on the financial crisis that is affecting Wall Street. It is clear to see that the failures of Wall Street were the result of a lack of oversight in the housing market. As Marx says, “if you give them enough rope they will eventually hang themselves with it.” This topic in the debate contained many issues where McCain had a chance to shine but when asked about the financial crisis on Wall Street John McCain outright avoided debating.

In 2005, John McCain along with many republicans proposed legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but it never passed because the democrats blocked it. The bill returned in 2007 only to be opposed by senator Obama and to die on the senate floor. Take a look at Obama’s recent and present economic advisers: Jim Johnson was the managing director of Lehman Brothers between 1985 and 1990, CEO of Fannie Mae 91-98, and now on the board of Goldman Sachs; Franklin Raines was the vice chairman of Fannie Mae 91-96 and CEO of Fannie Mae 99-04, who received a $25 million golden parachute when he left Fannie. As the second highest person of all the senators to be paid-off, Obama received 45 times more money in contributions from these Wall Street crooks than McCain had.  The republican candidate had many opportunities to expose Obama for his poor judgment. But they didn’t debate, instead they talked about earmarks for 15 minutes and ended up comparing their bracelets.

The language expressed by the two senators was in the wrong voice for a debate. If one observes, they were using proper nouns and rarely to almost never addressing one another. In wasn’t until 20 minutes into the debate that Obama began to refer to his opponent in the 2nd person. Although as the debate progressed he slipped back into the 3rd person, which seemed to be the only way he could address the republican senator. As Tim Daily had said “like a 6th grade drama teacher”, Jim Lehrer, the moderator, tried to get the two candidates to debate.  Despite Lehrer’s soft nudges, McCain failed to acknowledge the notion while Obama was coerced once or twice only to find his way back to the comfortable and safe 3rd person voice.

The very construction of the stage was designed in order to keep this sham from being a debate. The podium was topped with a desk whereby they could conceal and refer to notes. A podium without a desk, or at least an open one, would force them to use what they know and not refer to what they don’t, thus they would have debated their points instead of just listing them. The podiums were positioned pointing inward 20 degrees to ensure that the candidates look at the moderator and not at each other, hitherto distorting the face to face ambiance. McCain barely looked at Obama and instead just stared out into the black of the audience rarely acknowledging the senator from Illinois.  Not just the positioning and form were problems, but the quantity of podiums represented the biggest intended obstacle. We have 6 presidential candidates this year who are on enough state ballots to win but only two podiums to conduct a debate.

I cannot call this a debate without paring my index and middle fingers together and putting them in the air. They weren’t debating; they were giving speeches as though this were a press conference. My favorite part of the “debate” was when the candidates thanked the commission for hosting and having them on. As the presidential candidates of the Democrat and Republican parties, they effectively run the debate commission. That’s like the boss thanking his employees for allowing him to come to work and manage for the day.

This was a mockery of a debate. If it has one merit, it shows just how the Democrats and Republicans play the American public for fools. What these parties need to understand is that they are the fools, because we are aware of their game. The news media that regurgitates their sloppy dialog and one liners doesn’t represent us. It is only caricaturing our opinions with blunt crayons. We the people don’t care about lapel pins or lipstick; we can tell when responding to a problem that Sarah Palin is as Paul Krugman said more like “a freshman in college who hasn’t read the material and is failing to answer an essay question”; we the people know that these two parties aren’t worried about us – the homeowners and taxpayers – in this crisis, because they are putting the burden of their advisor’s and colleague’s poor choices on our backs and on the backs of our children. Instead what we the people care about is our future and our children’s future and what we the people know is that these aren’t going to be debates until the commission allows the 3rd parties to attend. When we called and wrote to the commission, to the sponsors of the commission, to the Democrats and Republicans who own the commission and demanded that the 3rd parties debate, we were speaking with one voice that reflected our cognition exclaiming “open the debates!”

In a debate there are winners and losers. And as the independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader had said about this the first of three presidential debates “Militarism won. Nuclear power won. The bloated military budget won. Corporate crime won. Bailing out Wall Street crooks won. Peace advocates lost. Workers lost. Tax Payers lost. Solar Energy lost.”

Read Full Post »