Democracy Now Asks Third Party Candidates Questions From Last Night's Debate 257
As they did with the first debate, Democracy Now has published the debate questions answered by third party candidates. Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution), and Rocky Anderson (Justice) were present. There's a (long) video with the answers spliced in, and (thankfully) a transcript of all their answers. Gary Johnson was not present, but you can catch him debating Jill Stein Thursday October 18th at 7 p.m. EDT.
Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:5, Informative)
FWIW, Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (the other parties are noted in the opening paragraph)
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:5, Informative)
I thought the Libertarian candidate was Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is a conservative. Conservatism has three pillars:
1. Economic conservatism (low taxes and free markets)
2. Social conservatism (public religion, opposition to abortion)
3. National defense conservatism (high defense spending)
Libertarians only agree with Mitt on #1.
Re:A good step, but not that effective... (Score:4, Informative)
Because the Commision on Presidential Debates is controlled by Democrats and Republicans.
Re:A good step, but not that effective... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Third party candidates have the benefit ... (Score:5, Informative)
Third party candidates have the benefit of knowing what the questions are and are able to give prepared answers.
You don't seem to understand just how badly this debate process has been subverted. From Democracy NOW! [democracynow.org]:
"The town hall debate we’re going to see tonight is the most constrained and regulated town hall debate in presidential debate history. The first town hall debate was introduced in 1992, and no one knew what anyone was going to ask, none of the audience members were going to ask. The moderator could ask any follow-up questions. It was exciting, and it was real.
Well, President George H.W. Bush stumbled in response to an oddly worded question about the federal deficit, and the candidates—the campaigns have panicked and have attempted to avoid that kind of situation from happening again. In 1996, they abolished follow-up questions from the audience.
In 2004, they began requiring that every single question asked by the audience be submitted in advance on an index card to the moderator, who can then throw out the ones he or she does not like. And that’s why the audience has essentially been reduced, in some ways, to props, because the moderator is still ultimately asking the questions.
And this election cycle is the first time that the moderator herself is prohibited from asking follow-up questions, questions seeking clarification. She’s essentially reduced to keeping time and being a lady with a microphone." -- George Farrah, author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates.
It's a goddamn circus, and an obvious one at that. anyone who can't see the forest for the trees in this situation, is probably one of the clowns.
Re:A good step, but not that effective... (Score:2, Informative)
If you're libertarian or green, I'll listen to your arguments about policy changes we should make with an open mind even though I don't identify with those positions usually. If you're trying to pitch why you should get elected, but seem unable to grasp the realities of the election process as they are in this country, however, I really question anything that comes out of your mouth.
Re:the problem with 3rd party presidental candidat (Score:4, Informative)
Why do the parties always go for the big prize? It's like a high school student wanting to become the CEO of IBM immediately after graduating.
Gary Johnson was already governor of New Mexico for two terms.
Even if they do win, then what? they will have zero support from either of the parties that dominate the congress.
Maybe that would be a good thing. Gary Johnson vetoed more bills in his 2 terms as governor than all other governors combined. We don't need tens of thousands of pages of new laws every year.
If a 3rd party wants to be taken seriously start at the bottom. city councilor, mayor, state senator, work your way up, then people will see what you really believe in and have a track record... and while you are at it get more of "your party" elected to those roles as well.
The Libertarian Party has done exactly that: http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials [lp.org]
This is one case of "go big or go home" doesn't work, it just means you are going home empty handed
No, it doesn't mean that at all. In Michigan, if the top of the ticket gets 5% or more, then they get major party status, which means they don't need to waste money trying to get on the ballot the next time around. It helps to build momentum in that you're not wasting money, time & energy on something you had to do previously.
Re:the problem with 3rd party presidental candidat (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, and he got there as a Republican, not with the LP.
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A good step, but not that effective... (Score:4, Informative)