Caller is on drugs.

Thanks to Randi for pointing out something we've been screaming about! The League needs to be in charge of the debates.

NOW they want to bring back the real debates....

Exactly!!! Why do they think it's our fault that the other candidates aren't there? We aren't in control of how your candidates are treated.

Well, in the caller's defense, not all of us have been around politically for ALL that long. I've only really been involved since 2000, even though I first voted in 1992. I guess it wasn't as obvious to me that third party candidates were being so excluded since Perot was in the debates that year. But NOW it is painfully obvious to me. I also wasn't aware until Nader pointed it out in his video that the commission on presidential debates is run by two former democratic and republican heads. So, the fact that some of us are getting more involved now shouldn't really be held against us. That being said, of course we are aware that this is not in Randi's power to include these candidates. But the more we get the word out that other candidates are running, we are hoping that other people will demand these third party candidates be included, rather than just having a two person Q&A (they're not really debates anyway).

Although, even if they were to be included, my faith in the moderators is pretty low anyway based on the types of questions they asked during the primaries:

"did you ever see a UFO"
"why don't you wear a flag lapel pin"

stupid audience questions like:
"do you prefer diamonds or pearls"

The dumbing down of this country is almost complete now.

So, maybe this caller didn't come across as well as he had hoped, but I think what he wants is for people to be more aware of these facts (the corporatization of the debates) so that people will demand that it be changed. If they don't know any better, people will think all is as it should be.

I think that caller was a right leaning independent who wanted to blame democrats. I don't think there's much else to it.

Now that makes no sense at all. I didn't hear him blaming democrats for anything. In fact, he pretty much discounted mccain as a viable candidate at all and it was his opinion that the media was only presenting us with one viable candidate.

Just because someone mentions other parties doesn't make them right leaning. Most right leaning people aren't going to mention mckinney and nader.

Yeah, he was upset because there isn't a viable republican candidate. It makes sense to me. I doubt he would care if there was no viable democratic candidate. Why is he so concerned about the debates that he's yelling at people who have nothing to do with it if he's supporting Obama? Nader is not left wing IMO and why do you think he wants the left leaning people in the debates? To take away support from Obama.

EDIT: They should all be in the debates. I agree. But that guy just wants to bitch because a left wing person is probably going to win the debate and the presidency.

He mentioned Bob Barr. I recommend that he does a wrtie-in vote for Bob Barr. I bet ol' Bob would have a chance to participate in the debates if the LOfWV was in charge of the debates again.

Yeah, do a write in for Bob Barr and don't bitch at us guy. lol We always seem to get blamed for the third party candidates not being there or not being on the ballot. I find that highly suspicious. Most of the third party people are right leaning IMO. Did he mention Ron Paul?

EDIT: The only issue I have with any of them is Nader. Because I don't really think Nader gives a crap. I mean he resurfaces every four years during the year of the presidential election and announces his candidacy way after everyone else. I don't trust Nader. Not even saying he shouldn't be in the debates. I just don't trust the guy.

Honestly, though, the criteria for being in the debates should not be polling numbers. It should be based on gaining ballot access. Do you have any idea of the hoops these folks have to go through just to get on the ballots in most states? It's frustrating that it is assumed that the republicans and democrats always have access while the other candidates need to gather signatures and submit them for every state. I was laughing pretty hard at the fact that both the republicans and democrats didn't file in time to get on the ballot in TX. Barr has sued over that to keep them off the ballot there. Yes, it's not a very libertarian position to keep them off the ballot, but I don't blame the move when the dems and reps try so hard to get third party candidates off the ballot on a regular basis. It serves them right. Can you imagine if neither mccain nor obama were on the ballot in TX. Damn, that would be funny.

Nader will be on in 45 states this year. That's an incredible amount.

Well I agree with you there. They should be on the ballots and stuff, it really isn't fair if they aren't. I just think that caller only called Randy to bitch because he blames us for it.

Actually, it's a fact both dems and reps try to get third party candidates off the ballot on a regular basis. Check out thirdpartywatch.com or greenpartywatch.org for more details.

There was a big blowout a couple of months ago where about a dozen democrats (in PA) were charged with using taxpayer money in 2004 in an all out effort to get Nader off the ballot. Yes, they actually used taxpayer dollars (and some people were working on this FULL TIME) to give us LESS choice in the election. I find that pretty disgusting.

Let's not be naive here. BOTH the republicans and democrats will do whatever they have to to win. Removing the competition is a part of that effort.

I didn't say dems didn't do that stuff.

I was trying to make the point that I never or rarely hear third party people complaining about the republicans doing that, which they do. It's not only dems that do it.

The third party people also are involved in stuff like that so they need to stop acting like their people are saints.

I am watching live with you Randi. Love ya GODDESS! Thats a capital Goddess. hehehe