Should Nader be allowed in the debates?

[doubles]

On the plus side, if Nader cooperates, it could be two against one.

On the negative side, Republicans will cry fowl that Bush is being ganged up on.

I also believe Kerry is good enough to nail Bush one on one.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. In principle, YES

But with our current election system, Nader talks so convincingly he could swipe voters from Kerry's column if John is having a bad night or something.

[nodictators]

17. Why is Nadir running in the hard-core right-wing Reform Party?

Answer: He's not liberal anymore. He hangs out with Repubs like Grover Norquist and Phyllis Schlafly . The Reform Party has had people like Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and that former professional wrestler jerk as front men. Behind them are a band of right-wing throwbacks.

The sham Green Party is supposedly liberal, but is heavily funded by Repubs who want to siphon off Dem votes. Nadir got 2.7% of the presidential vote in 2000. He'll probably be lucky to get 1% in 2004, if he stays in.

Nadir has flip-flopped from the supposedly liberal Greens to the openly hard-right Reform Party. His whole campaign is one Big Lie..

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. Sham Green party? *lol*

Just because a few repubs try to donate money to us makes us sham?

And Dems _never_ throw money at Libertarian candidates in order to siphon off votes from Repubs. Right.

Hope you see how badly we need some major election reform around here.

[Killarney]

2. No, fuck him.

He didn't get his 5% last time, too bad.

[napi21]

3. Yes, and if GW doesn't have a RW'er on his side to help.....

TS! I wanted everybody to be in the debates last election when the FEC wouldn't OK it, and I'm not changing my mind now.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Karl Rove Thanks You

All this garbage about Nader means nothing as long as he's not on ballots. If he's not on the ballot in ALL 50 states, he shouldn't be included. Why should he participate if people can't directly vote for him?

In 2000, I didn't think Nader should have particiapted...and that unless the candidate polls a minimum of 10% he/she shouldn't be allowed to particiapte...or inversely, they are required to be included.

I wanna see Kerry go at Bunnypants one-on-one...more time to show how inept and arrogant Dubya is. Unlike Gore, I expect Kerry will actually fight.

[union_maid]

5. Not unless we could have real debates.

Having seen the Democratic debates and the horrible questions and moderation I can only imagine what it'd be like if Nader is in the debates. I bet Kerry never gets a chance to discuss issues and that he and Nader get questions about their differences exclusively, while Bush is allowed not to answer any difficult questions that are accidentally sent his way.

The American people are going to have to choose between two candidates, no matter who they vote for. Seeing them one on one is one chance to define them each and if Nader is present, the way the debates have been presented, that's just not going to happen.

[bowens43]

6. If he is on the ballot in enough states

to make it theoretically possible for him to win the presidency , yes.

[Cheswick2.0]

7. If he reaches a reasonable amount of support in the polls

I think about 15 percent is reasonable. Then of course. Otherwise each debate organizer is going to make their own requirements as well they should, and some will include Nader and the libertarian candidate and some will not.

[Zero Gravitas]

8. No Fuck Him

He's a fringe candidate unable to generate much support for his ideas. He is only relevant because he's hoping to get Bush re-elected if the election is very close. If he was in the debate it would be two against one all right: Bush and Nader against Kerry.

[JohnLocke]

9. NO.

Unless he's pulling 20% or more, there is no reason to waste valuable debate time by including Nader.

[Puglover]

10. No way.

I believe what Randi Rhodes says about Nader. It's ALL about his ego. He has no plan.

[Tinoire]

11. Yes he certainly should. This is after all a democracy.

Besides, I keep hearing that Kerry is such a great Liberal that he's untouchable so what is there to fear? What could Nader possibly say against Kerry that would make him look bad :shrug:

If Nader's not in the debates, they'll be totally boring and not even worth watching because niether Bush nor Kerry dare really debate pressing issues such as war, oil & Israel.

[Nlighten1]

12. Hell YES!

But he will NEVER be allowed to be in the debates because, unlike the Democrats, he will speak the truth about the media and the corporate whores...

http://gnn.tv/countdown/

Watch the video at this link. It is of a speech that Ralph gave during the 2000 election. When you watch it you will know why he was marginalized back then and even today.

[Toronto Ron]

13. Where do you draw the line?

There will be other fringe candidates (Constitution, Libertarian, Communist, whatever); how is it decided who gets to participate in the national debates?

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. You might find an answer to that here

http://opendebates.com/

But yeah, obviously there would have to be some ground rules. X% of votes in previous election or X number of registered voters.

It could and should be done, if not for this election then by the next one.

I'd love to see John Kerry put Democracy at the front of his campaign. I hope he'll do something about election reform, I really, truly do.

[Sparkly]

15. NO.

[funkybutt]

16. Why not? we could all use a good laugh

he's pretty good at making himself look like a crazy ass...could be fun to watch

[Rowdyboy]

18. Only if all the other pretend-candidates are on stage too

Why not include the Libertarians, the neo-fascists, the Communists, the Socialists, the various minor party candidates have at least as much right to be on that stage as Dickhead Nader.

He deserves absolutely no special treatment and certainly should not be included as an equal in a Bush-Kerry debate.

[w4rma]

20. No. If he is allowed to muddy the debate then others will, also. (nt)

[robbedvoter]

21. Gore said yes (although Nader never admitted - kept ranting at him)

So, Kerry should not repeat Gore's mistake.