What the media DOESN'T want you to know about third parties!

[poltr1]

Just got this on the Ohio Libertarian email list.

Originally from mellifluous's blog at xanga.com:

On October 8th at 9PM, two third party candidates were arrested for attempting to enter the Washington University complex holding the second presidential debate. The candidates, Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party, chose civil disobedience to fight the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Over half of Americans believe third party candidates should be included, yet politicians continue to funnel public funds into the bi-partisan Commission. S.W.A.T. teams were used to deny the will of the American people while mainstream media ignored this historic event, a shameless suppression of political diversity.

Americans deserve to know about the unjust takeover of our political process. I posted this to take matters into my own hands. If you believe that real democracy thrives on diverse political voices and that it’s time to use alternative methods to support these voices, post this in your Xanga, profile, or Livejournal, or e-mail it to those who care.

The above quote was included in a recent press release from the Badnarik campaign, complete with pictures and chronology.

The Green party has issued this press release.

The story is making ripples. It's been covered on several other forums, including slashdot.org and e-thepeople.org. But not the mainstream media! Here's a clip from the e-thepeople article:

You would think that Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC would be all over this affront to the democratic process, but no, not a peep.

Badnarik was also attempting to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates with a "Show Cause Order", issued by an Arizona judge, requiring the CPD to appear at a hearing concerning the Libertarian Party’s lawsuit to stop the upcoming debate at Arizona State University, as an illegal campaign contribution to Bush and Kerry, an unconstitutional use of Arizona state funds to support selected candidates, and a violation of the LP’s equal protection rights, since they are a recognized political party in Arizona.

If this happened in some other country, what would we call them? Undemocratic? Human rights violations? Unbelievable?

If you think America is a free country, you are sadly mistaken. If you think the news media aren’t controlled by the same people who control the Democrat and Republican parties, think again.

The last time there was a third party reprented in a debate was Ross Perot, in 1992. Since then, the CPD (COmmittee on Presidential Debates) has raised the bar, so that a candidate must have at least 15% of the polls in order to vote. Can someone say "lock-in"? Can somone say "Conspiracy"?

Finally, here's the webpage for PBS' NOW with Bill Moyers, which covered the situation of the third parties on their installment which aired 10/1/04.

Comments

[billroper]

While I have substantial problems with denying third (and fourth, and fifth) parties access to getting on the ballot, I have less problem with their exclusion from a debate when they have yet to show any signs of life in the polls. I recognize that this creates something of a chicken and egg problem, but I think that's more reasonably addressed through other media, such as newspapers. (Not that they're going to cover them either...)

Of course (hang on, my tongue is heading firmly for my cheek), you could give candidates time to speak that's proportional to their standing in the polls. So if Bush or Kerry (hanging around 45% in the national polls) get two minutes to speak, then someone at 1% would get 2.67 seconds to speak on an issue.

This might not be illuminating, but would be entertaining to watch.

[poltr1]

...I have less problem with their exclusion from a debate when they have yet to show any signs of life in the polls.

Which makes me wonder: Are these other parties and candidates even mentioned in the polls? Two weeks ago, I got a call from what I believed to be the Nader campaign. And they gave me only four choices for the first question, which what who I would vote for: Bush, Kerry, Nader, or Undecided. I chose "Undecided", and got the second question: "Would you support Nader?" I chose no.

someone at 1% would get 2.67 seconds to speak on an issue. This might not be illuminating, but would be entertaining to watch.

Especially if it's John Moschitta Jr. running for office and doing the talking. :-)