Cornell to host Third Party Presidential Debate

Wow, this is good news. I hope Nader reconsiders. Although I disagree with him, I think that, unlike Kerry, he genuinely represents the viewpoint of many liberals, and it's important to have all sides represented for a good debate.

 

I watched some of last night on CSpan. It became very apparent very quickly why these people are third party candidates, and it became very apparent why including them in teh presidential debate would have been absolutely the wrong thing to do. IMO, it was a horrible attempt at dealing with issues, and very poorly handled. It looked like it was in teh basement of some bar somewhere.

It seems appropo that it was sponsored by the Mock Election group from Cornell.

 

The part that I saw contained no answers of substance. It showed Peroutka repeating the nonsense about a "declaration of war" in clear ignorance (apparently since I don't assume he would lie about it) that the UN Congress authorized the president to take this action in Iraq. David Cobb fo the Green Party sounded so out of touch with reality that it was a wonder anyone takes him seriously. Apparently very few do.

To get to the national scene, you ought to have a clue about what is going on in the world and how politics work. You ought to have to have a showing in teh national polls of at least 15% to prove yourself a viable candidate. If you watched the Democratic debates in teh spring, you know how absolutely stupid it was to have 9 people involved, 5 of whom did not have a chance in teh world to win. The presidential debate would be no different if there were not standards of support. I am all for third party candidates having a voice. I have said many times that if Michigan in not in play on Election DAy I will consider voting for Peroutka to help a third party in the next election. But I will not shirk my duty and help this country regress faster by failing to vote for the best electable candidate if he needs my vote to sin. That is just common sense ... Unfortunately, it ain't all that common.

We have a responsibility of stewardship in teh country that many are exercising unwisely. We need better candidates, but we have to live with the ones we have right now.

 

I saw that debate. It was weak and pathetic. After all the hoopla I've read about Peroutka I expected more from him. He comes off as a lightweight. It was easy to see why those people have little support.

 

I missed it, but I can't imagine it was any worse than Bush and Kerry arguing over how best to expand the federal government.

 

No, not actually. The declaration of war does not have to be in those exact words. The congress very clearly authorized the president to take this action, and it is by definition a declaration of war.

That indeed is a problem but it must be addressed by the three branches of government. The way it is currently run, the Supreme Court does have the power to decide the constitutionality of laws and thus, is the supreme law applier at the time. The Congress and President do have to work in that system. That is why this election is so important. A vote for Bush is a vote for more conservative judges who will likely restrain the power of the judiciary. A vote for Kerry or Peroutka is a vote for more liberal judges who will legislate from the bench through judicial activism. Which do you want? I believe the former is the better choice.

 

He can't understand, JGrubbs.

 

"Protect Reproductive Health Services for Federal Employees
Take Action — The Bush administration recently announced its latest initiative to shape federal programs to match its own anti-choice ideological agenda: a Catholic health care plan for federal employees that does not provide coverage for contraception, abortion, sterilization, or artificial insemination. Urge the US Office of Personnel Management to make sure federal employees have access to the full range of health care services"

Thats from planned parenthood.


Peroutka isn't being honest. He knows he won't be able to do what he states. He knows its not that simple but trys to fool people into thing it is.

Kerry just supports pure evil in partial birth abortion.

 

Thanks for the link, JGrubbs. I use a dial-up connection so it won't work for me, but hopefully others will use it.

 

[qutoe]Your not being 100% truthfull, or you are simply ignoring the facts.[/quote]Actually, neither. Contrary to Jim's false statement, I do understand. Contrary to your false statement, I am being truthful and not ignoring the facts.

Bush has said that he will appoint judges who believe in strict constructionism, which most rightfully understand to mean pro life. The pro abortion crowd fears Bush because for they understand what some on the Christian right do not, for some reason. They understand he is a threat to abortion.

I have said that Bush may appoint a pro choice judge. But he may not. Kerry will definitely appoint a pro choice judge. Peroutka will appoint no judges. Therefore, voting for Bush is the only chance for life. If you value life, as I do, then I think you should vote for the person who gives life the best chance, and then next time we can progress even further. The risk with Kerry is the furtherance of the court to the left and that will not be overcome for at least 20 years. Right now, we have a chance to get some small victories. I do not believe in the all or nothing theory. I think you take what you can get and work for the rest.

Now, you are not being 100% truthful and are ignoring the facts. Peroutka "will not" get the chance. There is no "may" about it. He does not show up in any national poll that I know of. Three weeks before the election, virtually no one knows who he is. He could not win a mayor's race, much less a presidential race. I would think that in the interest of honesty, we need to point that out. You have always been honest in here so far as I know and I appreciate your comments, though I disagree with them at times. I would have expected that statement out of others, but not out of you.

I agree. I haven't criticized. I have said that I think you guys mean well, but are making a wrong choice. That is not criticism, anymore than you telling me I shouldn't vote for Bush is criticism. I am voting my convictions based on principle. You apply the same convictions in a different way and that is fine. I believe there is too much at stake to vote for someone with absolutely no chance of winning. In politics, you take your best shot and go with it. Life is not ideal; you have to live in reality. As I have told Jim before, we likely agree on 99% of the issues. But we choose different paths to accomplish that goal.