Tweet
A nonprofit, Free and Equal, committed to promoting fairness in the US electoral process, hosted a debate last night, which included third party candidates running for president. The debate, held at the Hilton Hotel in Chicago, stood in stark contrast to the Obama-Romney debates put on by the anti-democratic and corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates.
I appeared on Al Jazeera English last night to share some thoughts on the presidential debate. (Video is at the top of the post.)
Former CNN host Larry King moderated the debate, which included Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, Justice Party presidential candidate Rocky Anderson, Constitution Party presidential candidate Virgil Goode and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. King told the audience at the beginning of the debate it had rules but there would be no rule against the audience reacting to the candidates. The audience cheered loudly after they were told they could clap for candidates, who said things they liked (something the CPD does not permit in their debates).
“Tonight, we are all taking part in something good and real and open without secret contracts and private interests controlling the questions we ask and the answers and the candidates deliver,” Christina Tobin, founder and chair of Free and Equal declared in the opening. She later added, “If we don’t pay attention, if we don’t vote, if we don’t protest or discuss important issues with friends, co-workers and classmates, then we get more of the same—the same corrupt dysfunctional system, no matter who’s in charge.”
After the first question in the debate, King said, “I think these people deserve a lot of credit for coming forward. It’s easy to sit back and watch. These people stand up. They may not be counted on November 6, but they’re counting today and they deserve to be heard.”
Candidates were allowed to bank time. If they did not want to give a rebuttal (because maybe there was nothing to rebut), they could use the time later for a longer answer to a question.
The questions ranged from discussion about legalizing drugs, repealing the PATRIOT Act, doing away with the executive power to indefinitely detain citizens, halting drone strikes, ending interventions or wars, cutting back America’s military presence in the world, providing free public education, etc. There was even a question about “top two” primaries, a measure being approved in an increasing number of states, and one about what constitutional amendments the candidates would like to see passed.
I said on AJE, “Every single candidate spoke out favorably for civil liberties. It’s a topic that [was] completely absent in the debates that were sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.”
The host in Doha followed-up, “Why don’t we see more public debates between all the candidates? Why not Gary Johnson against Obama and Romney?” To which I answered, “It’s because of the Commission on Presidential Debates.”
This part of the political process is controlled by individuals with ties to the Democratic and Republican Parties. The contracts are hashed out in secret. The agreements call for the rationing of debates and impose limits on political discussion. In fact, King played a role in transforming Ross Perot into a major independent presidential candidate. He announced his candidacy on “Larry King Live.”
To watch the full third party debate from last night, go here.
29 Comments
Perot got the attention that he did because he used his own billions of dollars to buy lots of TV time.
The number of votes that Perot managed to get without the support of either half of our duopoly led the Republican PTB and the Democratic PTB to make things much harder for all so-called “third”-party candidates. (Odd numerical name, given that about six candidates qualified for matching federal funds this time around alone.)
IMO, Perot’s success in getting votes also led Bill Clinton to focus more on the deficit, which was Perot’s major campaign issue.
I have no idea whether DLCer Clinton would have reduced welfare if Perot had not run.
To be clear, I am not elevating the politics or positions of Perot, when he ran for president. He is mentioned to point out King’s history as someone, who had given a platform to someone who wanted to run outside of the two-party system.
I agree. He gained traction with his money. And, really we should not call them third party candidates, though that is the common reference. They are presidential candidates just like Obama and Romney. They just are not bought and paid for by the elites, like Obama or Romney.
Great to see you on TV and handling the dismissive comments of the Al Jazeera reporters so well. They seemed to have talking points aimed at emphasizing the irrelevance of these Candidates but at least they gave the air time to Free and Clear. I really think there is going to be a groundswell of support for third parties after this election when things unfortunately get worse for the majority of the 99% and these minor media events will get repeated. All in all very well done for all involved even aging Larry.
I greatly enjoyed having Larry moderate. He, unlike Bob Schieffer, Candy Crowley or Jim Lehrer, was able to keep the candidates to following time limits on answers and allowed no one to speak when it was not their turn. He had no problem with cutting people off to keep the debate controlled either.
Well done, Kevin.
Your voice and perspectives are much appreciated and, I am certain, that those who hear what you say and agree with what you propose will grow in numbers in very substantial ways in the years ahead.
DW
If Presidential Candidates, who happen not to be D or R, were so incredibly insignificant, pitiful, ridiculous, worthless and/or a huge sucking waste of time – as some would have it – then WHY has the UniParty monopoly sought so hard to keep such “other” candidates completely out of the spotlight, esp off the debate stage??
Ross Perot spent a lot of money on his campaign and garnered something like 19% of the vote. Unfortunately not all non-UniParty candidates have that kind of money to spend on their campaigns. Clearly the 1% is highly unlikely to support non-UniParty candidates.
That said, there should be at least a somewhat more level playing field for non-UniParty candidates to have their positions/viewpoints/plans presented to the US populace. Why not?
In other countries, smaller parties regularly elect representatives to their federal governing bodies, and those smaller parties definitely get to have a say in how things are run.
I find it rather sad that so many citizens are so vehemently opposed to the notion of having more than just 2 choices when voting for public office, whether for Pres or for Congress/Senate, etc.
Thank you for this important insight into the debate held last evening in Chicago. It’s good to hear that Larry King, at least, was able to follow correct debate procedure. That flew out the window a loooong time ago with the Con-Game called CPG. So-called “Presidential” Debates (and the VP) are jokes, except that I’m not laughing.
Well done, Kevin!
They are jokes. When one praises an alternative debate for keeping to time limits and allowing audience members to react unlike the Obama-Romney debates, there is no question.
Trying to sort out the difference between Obama on Romney on foreign policy (and a lot of other issues) reminds me of the old Soviet joke:
Q. What’s the difference between Communism and Capitalism?
A. Under Capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism, it’s just the opposite.
Yes. I get infuriated with how the so-called “Debates” run by the CPG are handled. It’s a lot of fawning by the so-called “moderator,” who basically permits the “candidates” to say or behave any way they want. And I see little, if any, attention paid to time-frames, staying on topic & so on.
I seem to recall that it was different a couple of decades ago, where rules were more strictly enforced.
Let’s not get into the notion that utter cluelessness, stupidity and lack of knowledge gets a big fat old pass in what’s called the “media.” RMoney’s spewing about how Iran, for ex, has “no access to the sea except through Syria” is just one egregious example.
I’ll stop now. Thanks again.
This whole Kabuki Show entitled “Presidential Election Campaign 2012″ is totally depressing.
Bring back the League of Women Voters!
Nice job on AJE, Kevin.
Amazing, these political castles built on sand!
Kevin, thanks for your efforts.
What struck me about the Free and Equal debates last night was how thoroughly all the candidates supported civil liberties and abhor NDAA and the Patriot Act.
Kevin, was that your first time on Al Jazeera? Nice interview.
The debate last night was great. The candidates did a really good job explaining who they were and what the believed. Even though I disagreed greatly with Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson I still think they did an awesome job telling me what they believe. I, of course, loved Stein and Anderson. I wish they could have fleshed out more in terms of their plans on stuff like education but overall I was pleased with their positions.
I just squared off with an Obama booster on Al Jazeera’s The Stream. I cannot wait to put that up with my comments I was unable to share during the program.
Yeah, they were all worth hearing, even Goode.
I appreciated (though didn’t buy) the argument that the price of education has gone up due to Universities snatching up money from Pell Grants. There is a point to be made there about Corporate Capitalism fed by government coffers. The answer, of course, is to make higher education free or very, very low cost at public universities rather than merely eliminating the Pell Grants. If the public ultimately pays for services, the government should find a way to provide services at the lowest possible cost. Eliminating Pell Grants will just allow fewer kids to get a college education. Not a solution.
I think there should definitely be a discussion on how we proceed forward on secondary education. It’s an important component on maintaining global competitiveness and maintaining a decent standard of living. Making things free and low cost also has it’s concerns since we’d have lower wages to attract talent to teach at these institutions. I definitely disagreed with Goode and Johnson though that the answer was to ignore the problem and hope that given time it goes away. We can’t afford a lost decade or two of learning while the “market” corrects itself.
I was honestly surprised (and disappointed) that neither Stein nor Anderson made that exact point. I mean, we know libertarians have goofy ideas about economics, so Johnson’s response was predictable, but not terribly difficult to debunk.
I honestly kinda like Johnson, and really want to start a Stein/Johnson-Johnson/Stein 2016 facebook page. I like Anderson a LOT, but I’m thinking I like Jill better. She seems to understand that money is the real, core issue in a slightly more sophisticated way than Anderson does. She also just seems really…umm…Presidential.
Also, in case you guys don’t know, they’re livestreaming another debate right now. You can find it at the Free and Equal website:
http://freeandequal.org/
Here’s the thing…public universities need some structural adjustment to make them more functional for the public who uses them, namely students. Administrators should not be making huge salaries, for one, and professors should always be paid well. Education is a public service not a for-profit business and no one should be grossly enriched by running a school at the expense of the students or the general taxpaying public.
Students and their families pay for public education one way or another, either through taxes or through taking out loans with interest. Why not just create a more efficient system that doesn’t leave students in debt for life. Public money well spent on education raises the standard of living of the entire country.
I secretly loved Gary Johnson, too. Don’t tell anyone. (‘Cept for those crayzee Ayn Randian, sociopathic, free-market-as-a-religion ideas.)
I totally agree that the system needs to be fixed. When someone tells you that they have just finished paying off their student debt in their 50s(as Obama said he did) then you know there is a problem.
The base cost of a Bachelors degree is over $30,000 even if you were to go to 2 years of community college. That’s without books or living expenses for the 4 years you are in school. Even being frugal you are looking at $60-75,000 for those years of schooling if you move away from home. It isn’t hard to see how someone gets behind when they have a $600-$750 loan to pay( unless they work while in school )to cover once they leave.
I like them both but I think Jill has a slightly better chance. She actually is on the ballot in more states and has been a little more noticeable in her activism. I’m also waiting to see if the Justice Party folds after this cycle or if their intent is to be persistent in creating a movement. I do think Rocky was a little better in terms of speaking skills. Jill still sounds hesitant some times and not quite comfortable when she speaks(and I can appreciate that public speaking is hard.)
Jill Stein is better when listening instead of watching. I agree about her level of confidence.
Call her presidential. Let’s use words loyalists of the Republican and Democratic parties or pundits use. That’s how we stir debate and start to open up opportunities where we can really get at the truth.
Oh, by the way, thanks Jane and others for the praise.
Hmmm…point taken. Maybe.
I’m thinking about 2016. Rocky kind of just looks kind of skatter-brained (not in an atrocious way, but it’s just something I see) to me, at times, when caught off guard. I think a Prez who can appear calm under pressure *is* important for our long-term goals. I say this as someone who was seduced by Bush on the day of 9/11. On that day, his calm, cool confidence and oath to kill the bastards delayed my political progression for years.