Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

David Cobb to Crash Debate, Risk Arrest

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the good-luck dept.

RobertB-DC writes "The Washington Post reports that Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb plans to travel to St. Louis to protest his exclusion from the presidential debate. In a press release, the Cobb campaign says to expect 'non-violent civil disobedience' as the candidate enters the restricted area around the debate site." Alan Keyes tried that once. So did Ralph Nader.

7 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. I don't understand by j0nb0y · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't understand what he's trying to accomplish. A few more people will hear about him this way, but most of them will think he's a whacko. This isn't a very good way to make a first impression...

    The media, in general, doesn't seem to be very friendly to protestors these days.

    --
    If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
    1. Re:I don't understand by dTaylorSingletary · · Score: 3, Insightful


      You say this and you have a Robert Anton Wilson quote in your sig? He's doing this because he can, because he should, and because it's his right and for the benefit of America that his voice is heard even if he is not allowed to speak aloud.

      He is not doing it for himself. Or for what the media is friendly towards. People can think he's a wacko, but people as a rule are stupid. Individuals are what's he after, not "people".

      There's a fine line in the difference, and it is abstract, perhaps intangible. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

      --
      d. Taylor Singletary,
      reality technician techra.el
  2. It just doesn't matter. by Noodlenose · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Alternative candidates have no hope in hell in a country that likes to export its sense of democracy with Black Hawk helicopters and carpet bombs, as the democratic process in the US is unfortunately as corrupt as a borderguard on the Algerian border:

    As long as Members of Congress, Senators and Presidents get their main financial contributions from lobbygroups and multinationals (think Bush and the Carlyle Group and the Oilmultis), Democracy in the US just means that you intellectual halfwits vote for the guy with the more commercials.

  3. At some point common sense must prevail by fmaxwell · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is an example of what happens when people don't use common sense.

    What kind of meaningful debate would we have if we invited not only the mainstream candidates, but also Presidential candidates Stanford E. "Andy" Andress (Independent), Lawson M. Bone (Write-In), David C. Byrne (Write-In), John Joseph Kennedy (Write-In), James Alexander Pace (Write-In), Tom Trancredo (Write-In), Thomas J. Harens (Christian Freedom Party), Deborah Elaine Allen (Write-In), Andrew J. Falk (Write-In), Gene Amondson (Prohibition Party), Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party), Walter F. "Walt" Brown (Socialist Party), Roger Calero (Socialist Workers Party), David Keith Cobb (Green Party), Earl F. Dodge (Prohibition Party), Charles Jay (Personal Choice Party), Ralph Nader (Reform Party), John Parker (Workers World Party), Leonard J. Peltier (Peace & Freedom Party), Michael A. "Mike" Peroutka (Constitution Party), and Bill Van Auken (Socialist Equality Party)?

    All of the above are exercising their right to run for the office of President of the United States, but that doesn't mean that it's in the best interest of the country to allow them all to share the stage in a debate with the only two men who actually have a chance of winning the election. If one of those candidates was looking at 20% or more of the likely vote, you can bet your butt that they'd be invited, but .0013% - 2% doesn't cut it.

    1. Re:At some point common sense must prevail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only about 5 or 6 candidates are on enough ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning the Electoral College. Invite those.

      Have more debates or whatever. The people should rightfully expect to hear the views of all/most of the candidates BEFORE we decide who has a "legitimate chance" of winning the presidency. No one gets to 15-20% of the vote without a lot of exposure that we haven't been giving these 3rd party candidates a chance to get.

    2. Re:At some point common sense must prevail by BillyBlaze · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Most of the reason none of those people have a chance is that they are excluded from the debates. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - nobody knows what these people stand for, so nobody will vote for them in polls (on which they're often not included), so they can't get into debates, so nobody knows what they stand for, and so on. And the election system is set up so that anyone with less than probably 20% of the popular vote won't get a single electoral vote, and so that a vote for a third party candidate is often a vote against your second choice.

      It's possible that you just don't want a multiple-party system, and that's fine. But be honest about it - it's not necessairily against our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, even if it's against yours. Frankly, I'd like it for an "outsider" to be able to ask questions in a debate - though first we should work on giving the two already in the debate the ability to do so, in order to, uh, debate. The whole thing's a sham.

  4. Re:Inconsistency by shanek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps you've forgotten that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, that the Constitution says that Cobb and Badnarik are valid candidates, that they're both on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning, and, as such, they have every right to be up there with Bush and Kerry?