Gary Johnson For President 2012!

[JimboDaMan]

I would think that the FEC, who congress yet again deferred power to, should rule fairly and allow all candidates that are on actual multiple state ballots to debate all under identical conditions and identical formats and audiences.

I dont see how any rational person could see it should work otherwise. This is no different than not allowing people to debate based on race, religion or creed.

Well, under your criteria the debates would be mandated to include Obama, Romney, and at a minimum the following:

Constitution Party - Virgil Goode

Libertarian Party - Gary Johnson

Green Party - Jill Stein

Justice Party - Rocky Anderson

Party for Socialism and Liberation - Peta Lindsay

and possibly

American Independent Party - Roseanne Barr

There are probably others I just couldn't find enough ballot qualifying information about. Certainly if they were guaranteed equal debate footing with the major candidates, one month before election day, many more would seek to qualify in a couple of states just to share the dais. This is what you believe any rational person must agree is the logical way to conduct the debates?

[SnyderShrugged]

Well, under your criteria the debates would be mandated to include Obama, Romney, and at a minimum the following:

Constitution Party - Virgil Goode

Libertarian Party - Gary Johnson

Green Party - Jill Stein

Justice Party - Rocky Anderson

Party for Socialism and Liberation - Peta Lindsay

and possibly

American Independent Party - Roseanne Barr

There are probably others I just couldn't find enough ballot qualifying information about. Certainly if they were guaranteed equal debate footing with the major candidates, one month before election day, many more would seek to qualify in a couple of states just to share the dais. This is what you believe any rational person must agree is the logical way to conduct the debates?

Yep, if all of those are on the ballot legally in a plurality of states, then why should the FEC allow discrimination against them by the debate committee? Why should they NOT be allowed? Arent they running for President just like Obama and Romney?

[JimboDaMan]

Yep, if all of those are on the ballot legally in a plurality of states, then why should the FEC allow discrimination against them by the debate committee? Why should they NOT be allowed? Arent they running for President just like Obama and Romney?

Because those debates won't take place. Republican and Democratic parties will opt out since there's nothing in it for them to participate in a circus. Very small audiences will be interested in the remaining participants. The major networks won't carry them. Nobody will hear the third party views, and nothing will have been accomplished.

[SnyderShrugged]

Because those debates won't take place. Republican and Democratic parties will opt out since there's nothing in it for them to participate in a circus. Very small audiences will be interested in the remaining participants. The major networks won't carry them. Nobody will hear the third party views, and nothing will have been accomplished.

So again, because the two big party players who have the monopoly over the debates refuse to give debate time to their opponents, its OK by you.

I see the shining light of equity in your views.

Lets change the circumstances a bit and see if you feel the same...

What if the commission was run only by Republicans who refuse to debate the Democrats and will only debate the Libertarian candidate and have gained FEC approval to do so. Still OK with you?

[JimboDaMan]

So again, because the two big party players who have the monopoly over the debates refuse to give debate time to their opponents, its OK by you.

I see the shining light of equity in your views.

Lets change the circumstances a bit and see if you feel the same...

What if the commission was run only by Republicans who refuse to debate the Democrats and will only debate the Libertarian candidate and have gained FEC approval to do so. Still OK with you?

Well sure. Nobody but Republicans will watch. If you think I would view this as unfair to Democrats, think again. Such a debate could only serve to siphon off votes from the Republican nominee, who would therefore never agree to the debate in the first place. It simply ain't gonna happen.

[mcsluggo]

I would think that the FEC, who congress yet again deferred power to, should rule fairly and allow all candidates that are on actual multiple state ballots to debate all under identical conditions and identical formats and audiences.

I dont see how any rational person could see it should work otherwise. This is no different than not allowing people to debate based on race, religion or creed.

no different? really?

[SnyderShrugged]

no different? really?

Yes, really. In both instances someone is not allowed the same privilege as someone else. In both cases someone is discriminated against regardless of the basis of that discrimination.

---------- Post added September-26th-2012 at 12:55 PM ----------

Well sure. Nobody but Republicans will watch. If you think I would view this as unfair to Democrats, think again. Such a debate could only serve to siphon off votes from the Republican nominee, who would therefore never agree to the debate in the first place. It simply ain't gonna happen.

I give up, you are being intentionally obtuse. I think any reasonable person can see that its unfair to allow only 2 political parties to be represented in national debates when there are more than those 2 running for office. It's no wonder our system is so filled with corruption when folks with blinders on sanction it for no better reason than "that's just how it is". Enjoy the head in the sand approach to life.

[mcsluggo]

Yep, if all of those are on the ballot legally in a plurality of states, then why should the FEC allow discrimination against them by the debate committee? Why should they NOT be allowed? Arent they running for President just like Obama and Romney?

Your categorization of what constitutes a legit candidate is (of course) way too loose. you think that the debates are useless because they only represent two views, but seek to make them MORE useless by throwing in <basically> anybody that wants to be there. The end result would be a clownshow. Ross Perot demonstrated that he was a serious candidate (in areas other than in his own mind), and was included in these debates. Roseanne Barr (not to mention David Dukes and Lyndon LaRouche any number of other loons that would really quickly RUSH in to get themselves included on the ballot in whatever state has the most lax rules for inclusion (and several states would also rush to the bottom to accomodate them)

I want a meaningful debate between the individuals that have some legit shot of actually winning. not a late-night public access <look-at-me-mom,-i'm-debating-the-president> circle jerk

---------- Post added September-26th-2012 at 05:00 PM ----------

Yes, really. In both instances someone is not allowed the same privilege as someone else. In both cases someone is discriminated against regardless of the basis of that discrimination..

i am sorry.. but you HAVE to recognize that this statement is more equivelent to saying: "i am being discriminated against because the rolling stones wouldn't let me sing for them, while they DO let that chump mick jagger" than it is to saying: "I am discrminated against because that landlord wouldn't rent to me because i am black"

right??

[SnyderShrugged]

Your categorization of what constitutes a legit candidate is (of course) way too loose. you think that the debates are useless because they only represent two views, but seek to make them MORE useless by throwing in <basically> anybody that wants to be there. The end result would be a clownshow. Ross Perot demonstrated that he was a serious candidate (in areas other than in his own mind), and was included in these debates. Roseanne Barr (not to mention David Dukes and Lyndon LaRouche any number of other loons that would really quickly RUSH in to get themselves included on the ballot in whatever state has the most lax rules for inclusion (and several states would also rush to the bottom to accomodate them)

I want a meaningful debate between the individuals that have some legit shot of actually winning. not a late-night public access <look-at-me-mom,-i'm-debating-the-president> circle jerk

Did I say "just anyone"?, I'm certain I said that if a candidate is a formal nominee of a legally recognized political party, and is on the ballot in the plurality of the states then they should be allowed to participate in national debates.

How could anyone argue against that criteria? If you can, why?

---------- Post added September-26th-2012 at 01:03 PM ----------

Your categorization of what constitutes a legit candidate is (of course) way too loose. you think that the debates are useless because they only represent two views, but seek to make them MORE useless by throwing in <basically> anybody that wants to be there. The end result would be a clownshow. Ross Perot demonstrated that he was a serious candidate (in areas other than in his own mind), and was included in these debates. Roseanne Barr (not to mention David Dukes and Lyndon LaRouche any number of other loons that would really quickly RUSH in to get themselves included on the ballot in whatever state has the most lax rules for inclusion (and several states would also rush to the bottom to accomodate them)

I want a meaningful debate between the individuals that have some legit shot of actually winning. not a late-night public access <look-at-me-mom,-i'm-debating-the-president> circle jerk

---------- Post added September-26th-2012 at 05:00 PM ----------

i am sorry.. but you HAVE to recognize that this statement is more equivelent to saying: "i am being discriminated against because the rolling stones wouldn't let me sing for them, while they DO let that chump mick jagger" than it is to saying: "I am discrminated against because that landlord wouldn't rent to me because i am black"

right??

Singing for the rolling stones isnt public office, is it? Apples and Oranges to any person with rational thought.

[mcsluggo]

participating in a voluntary debate isn't public office either. If one of the mainstream candidates chooses not to debate the other.. the debates don't take place (and the candidate that refused to debate presumably suffers at the voting booth). if a non-mainstream candidate builds up public support, the pressure on the mainstream candidates to include him/her in the debates will similarly rise. Just entering the race isn't sufficient, in my opinion.

[JimboDaMan]

I give up, you are being intentionally obtuse. I think any reasonable person can see that its unfair to allow only 2 political parties to be represented in national debates when there are more than those 2 running for office. It's no wonder our system is so filled with corruption when folks with blinders on sanction it for no better reason than "that's just how it is". Enjoy the head in the sand approach to life.

I'm being obtuse? I have my head in the sand?

There's absolutely no benefit to the major candidates to share the spotlight with the lesser candidates. That can only serve to splinter and send votes away from the majors. You know this to be true. It's why you want this kind of debate, so the minor candidates can gain strength. So there's no way the major candidates will agree to this voluntarily. They certainly will agree to including a third party, if that third party has enough support that the major guys can hope to gain rather than lose. But this year Gary Johnson and Roseanne Barr don't bring enough to the table to entice the front-runners.

[SnyderShrugged]

participating in a voluntary debate isn't public office either. If one of the mainstream candidates chooses not to debate the other.. the debates don't take place (and the candidate that refused to debate presumably suffers at the voting booth). if a non-mainstream candidate builds up public support, the pressure on the mainstream candidates to include him/her in the debates will similarly rise. Just entering the race isn't sufficient, in my opinion.

again, no-one is saying "just entering the race" should qualify you (for all the very valid reasons of chaos and dilution that you mentioned before), but for those who are official nominated candidates from a recognized national political party and are on the ballot for a plurality of states, there is no reason to exclude them.

---------- Post added September-26th-2012 at 03:38 PM ----------

I'm being obtuse? I have my head in the sand?

There's absolutely no benefit to the major candidates to share the spotlight with the lesser candidates. That can only serve to splinter and send votes away from the majors. You know this to be true. It's why you want this kind of debate, so the minor candidates can gain strength. So there's no way the major candidates will agree to this voluntarily. They certainly will agree to including a third party, if that third party has enough support that the major guys can hope to gain rather than lose. But this year Gary Johnson and Roseanne Barr don't bring enough to the table to entice the front-runners.

The fact that you name them "Major" and "Minor" candidates is all I need to hear to validate my "Obtuse" perspective on your views. Why should a candidate need to "entice" their opponent again?

[Koala]

I dont think JimboDaMan is being obtuse, I think he's just describinbg the reality of the situation. Anyhow, debates are voluntary, so long as they are voluntary, it will remain designed in order to only prominently feature the candidates from the 2 biggest parties. If you dont like that, you're gonna have to start legislating debate format, and thats one helluva a can of worms right there.

[SnyderShrugged]

I dont think JimboDaMan is being obtuse, I think he's just describinbg the reality of the situation. Anyhow, debates are voluntary, so long as they are voluntary, it will remain designed in order to only prominently feature the candidates from the 2 biggest parties. If you dont like that, you're gonna have to start legislating debate format, and thats one helluva a can of worms right there.

I dont see why they have to start legislating debate format at all, they simply have to prevent discrimination. No biggie at all to enforce and apply.

[Larry]

Well sure. Nobody but Republicans will watch. If you think I would view this as unfair to Democrats, think again. Such a debate could only serve to siphon off votes from the Republican nominee, who would therefore never agree to the debate in the first place. It simply ain't gonna happen.

I think you're highlighting one of the reasons why the two parties limit attendance at the debates.

It's the same reason why the heavyweight champion doesn't agree to fight anybody who wants to.

If I'm Mike Tyson (I'll confess, the last heavyweight champion I can name), why would I want to agree to fight some complete unknown? If I beat the guy in 10 seconds, it doesn't help me in any way. If the guy gets lucky and I get hit by lightening, then he's the champion.

In a situation like that, I have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

And, by a similar token, that's pretty much all these "third" parties are good for. They can't win. They can't even win one state. But they can take enough votes away from one of the major candidates, to make him lose.

But, only if said third party candidate were to somehow gain some credibility. Some exposure. Say, by appearing on a stage with me, and being treated like he's some kind of equal.

[Koala]

I dont see why they have to start legislating debate format at all, they simply have to prevent discrimination. No biggie at all to enforce and apply.

No, very biggie, there's no legal basis to do what you're suggesting? What law are they enforcing and applying? Anti-discrimination laws? What exactly is this law you are referring to that forces candidates to enter debates they are not comfortable with entering. I dont think you are acknowledging the fundamental point: debates are optional. Because of this, candidates can get their way by simply refusing to enter debates that do not have formats they view as favorable to them. So long as they are optional, they are not likely to enter debates that allow broad participation.

[SnyderShrugged]

No, very biggie, there's no legal basis to do what you're suggesting? What law are they enforcing and applying? Anti-discrimination laws? What exactly is this law you are referring to that forces candidates to enter debates they are not comfortable with entering. I dont think you are acknowledging the fundamental point: debates are optional. Because of this, candidates can get their way by simply refusing to enter debates that do not have formats they view as favorable to them. So long as they are optional, they are not likely to enter debates that allow broad participation.

I see what you are saying now, You think I am somehow suggesting mandatory participation in a debate, and no, I wouldn't want that at all. I am only suggesting that any candidate who is a nominee from a nationally recognized political party and is on the ballot in a plurality of states should be allowed to participate in the national debates if they so choose to. If someone doesn't want to participate then so be it, they don't participate. If that results in a childish move to protest the debates by non participation, then it will only,y reflect negatively on the candidate who is that much of a coward to go toe to toe in a debate format

[Larry]

Just went to visit the guy's web page.

(Note: The link in the OP is to a doman name that has lapsed, and is being squatted by a domain squatter. I used Google to find what I assume sis the current page.)

I go to the "issues" page. And look at his page on taxes and the economy.

I observe that he announces that "Unchecked deficits are the single greatest threat to our national security.".

(I'm not certain that I agree with that claim. But I do think they're important, which is why I went there, first.)

The sentence immediately following is "Unless we take significant steps soon, our federal debt will equal the entire economic production of the United States.".

And I wonder how many Americans, right now, are in debt for more than one year's salary, And how many of them think that this is a catastrophe, and the biggest threat to them?

(But I also observe that the two aren't exactly analogous.)

I observe that he demands that the President submit a balanced budget. For 2013.

I observe that attempting to instantly balance the federal budget would be a bigger economic disaster for the US than the Great Depression was.

I observe that Gary Johnson does not appear to have laid out a proposal from himself, explaining how he would attempt to meet the demand he has made.

I observe that his third point on that list is "Reassess the role of the federal government and identify responsibilities that can be met more efficiently by the private sector.".

I observe that I don't see him pointing out a single thing that he thinks the government should abandon, and hand over to corporations.

----------

I'd like to point out, after making the above observations, that the reason I went to his web page was not because I was looking for things I could find, so I could label the guy as a loon.

I went because it occurred to me that this might well be a really good year to vote third party. Especially libertarian.

I had the thought, for example, that there are probably record numbers of Americans who really dislike both political parties. (Although, granted, Americans always say that. They just don't vote that.)

And that, even though we all know that the guy doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Dallas, that even if the guy doesn't carry a single state, that a vote for him might still "count".

That, say, if the guy could, by some miracle, get 5% of the vote, then both of the "major parties" will sit up and take note, and will at least make a show of moving in his direction.

That if, say, even 1% of the voters, vote R or D, it likely won't even be noticed. But that if 1% vote L, it will be.

In effect, a vote L has a much bigger effect on the political landscape than an R or D vote. It will get noticed more.

That, just because the guy doesn't win, doesn't mean you "wasted your vote".

----------

Show me a candidate who wants to move the country in a more libertarian direction, and I'm there.

(I thought Obama was there. I think S_S did, too.)

But, show me somebody who wants to balance the budget instantly? Frankly, somebody who thinks that the Fed is a major campaign issue?

Sorry. Not drinking that Kool Aid.

[JimboDaMan]

I see what you are saying now, You think I am somehow suggesting mandatory participation in a debate, and no, I wouldn't want that at all. I am only suggesting that any candidate who is a nominee from a nationally recognized political party and is on the ballot in a plurality of states should be allowed to participate in the national debates if they so choose to. If someone doesn't want to participate then so be it, they don't participate. If that results in a childish move to protest the debates by non participation, then it will only,y reflect negatively on the candidate who is that much of a coward to go toe to toe in a debate format

Please define "the national debates". If by that you mean the debates next month coordinated and sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, then you indeed do wish to coerce this private organization to extend invitations to people they don't wish to include. I'm not sure of the legality of such a move, but in any event it would be pointless because the major party candidates would most likely decline the invitation. Sharing a platform on an equal footing with the rest of the pack - some of them serious candidates who have been unable to gain any traction, some of them outright goobers - gives them no benefit at all. Cowardly it may be, but they will be too busy at a major fundraiser that day.

[SnyderShrugged]

Please define "the national debates". If by that you mean the debates next month coordinated and sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, then you indeed do wish to coerce this private organization to extend invitations to people they don't wish to include. I'm not sure of the legality of such a move, but in any event it would be pointless because the major party candidates would most likely decline the invitation. Sharing a platform on an equal footing with the rest of the pack - some of them serious candidates who have been unable to gain any traction, some of them outright goobers - gives them no benefit at all. Cowardly it may be, but they will be too busy at a major fundraiser that day.

National debates are debates that are televised nationally

Yes, I wish to coerce them to enforce anti-discrimination rules upon that private organization responsible for the debates that allow us to really meet the candidates and better understand their positions. Or they should lose their monopoly over the debates and allow someone who will enforce equality regardless of political affiliation.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Romney is absolutely a lost cause. I'll be voting for Johnson, because voting for Romney is a complete waste.

[nonniey]

Romney is absolutely a lost cause. I'll be voting for Johnson, because voting for Romney is a complete waste.

Not that you really have to worry about Johnson winning but I lived in New Mexico when he was a Governor. Thing I remember him most for was putting his drunken former college roommate in the position of Adjutant General for New Mexico's national guard. This guy got a Major General 's pay for four years and went to official military functions as a flag officer. Bottomline, Johnson is an idiot.

[SnyderShrugged]

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/01/two-sponsors-pull-out-from-debates-over-exclusion-of-gary-johnson-

Two Sponsors Pull Out From Debates Over Exclusion Of Gary Johnson

Multinational corporation Philips Electronics and the women's organization the YWCA both dropped their sponsorship after being flooded with E-mails and letters from supporters of former Republican New Mexico Gov. Johnson, as well as two election watchdog groups, Open Debates and Help the Commission.

"I've been trying this since 2004 ... and this is first time any sponsor has peeled off from supporting the commission," says George Farah of Open Debates, who wrote the book No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates. "For this to happen on the eve of the first presidential debate is a remarkable act."

The Commission on Presidential Debates, which runs the debate logistics, didn't immediately respond to request for comment from Whispers. But the commission, which is a non-profit, 501©(3) corporation and relies heavily on sponsors, is likely to feel the impact of its missing sponsors.

Read full article at link

[mcsluggo]

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/01/two-sponsors-pull-out-from-debates-over-exclusion-of-gary-johnson-

Two Sponsors Pull Out From Debates Over Exclusion Of Gary Johnson

Read full article at link

THIS is the way to try to get him in the debates.

as a side note... if Romney continues to implode, this would be the year for conservatives to throw their vote towards the libertaerian candidate. Conservatives obviously don't want to undercut the GOP candidate if it means that a DEM will win.... but if the election is already in teh bag???? why not??

[thebluefood]

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/01/two-sponsors-pull-out-from-debates-over-exclusion-of-gary-johnson-

Two Sponsors Pull Out From Debates Over Exclusion Of Gary Johnson

If there's any way to get Johnson into the debates, this is it. Hit 'em where it hurts: in their wallet.