David Cobb to Crash Debate, Risk Arrest

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.

Comments

I don't understand

[j0nb0y]

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.

Re:I don't understand

[dTaylorSingletary]

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.

It just doesn't matter.

[Noodlenose]

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.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[BillyBlaze]

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.

Re:Inconsistency

[BlueFashoo]

Actually, the debates were run by the LWV until 1984. The CPD let Perot debate in 1992, although these days they don't let third parties in by contractual agreement; which is hardly nonpartisan. See http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Commi ssion_on_Presidential_Debates

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[egrinake]

Well, democracy usually implies that you have more choices than just the two branches of the business party (ahem, excuse my sarcasm).

Anyway - here in Norway (and it's the same in pretty much any other democratic country) we have about 8 main political parties, and quite a few smaller ones, ranging from communist to ultra-rightwing. In the pre-election TV-debates even parties which only have about 0.5-1 percent in polls are represented - in total around 10-12 people.

Now, I've been following the US presidential debates on TV with great interest, and I believe the norwegian debates are vastly better than the US ones, for obvious reasons. To pick a few; there are usually more than two solutions to a problem, there are more people likely to contest false statements, and you get shades of gray in moral and political dimensions.

Of course, you always have to exclude someone from these large events, but in a democracy it is vital that multiple opinions be heard, and both the media and the political system has a responsibility for making this happen.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[Bitsy Boffin]

If these were real debates, I'd disagree. But the fact is that these are little more than mostly scripted, well rehearsed, mutually and contractually agreed soapbox speeches.

If these were real debates, then it's important that you bring in as many views as possible, not because the "smaller" candidates might have a chance of winning the election, but because they are the ones who will ask the hard questions and to help expose the truth behind the candidates so that the population can make a more informed decision, on all the issues - not just "The War".

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

The debates are run by the two main parties, they contractually agree between themselves, behind closed doors, as to how the debates are run. A 3rd candidate would have to be wielding an very large stick indeed to have any chance of getting in.

http://www.opendebates.org/

Re:Inconsistency

[shanek]

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?