<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Whose party are we spoiling?</title>
	<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/06/17/whose-party-are-we-spoiling/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: disinter</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/06/17/whose-party-are-we-spoiling/#comment-654040</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:36:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/06/17/whose-party-are-we-spoiling/#comment-654040</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;A key to keeping third-party candidates invisible, he notes, are the debates that are rigged in favor of the Republican-Democrat duopoly.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

But the barfers have been claiming all along that the reason it was good to nominate a statist like barf was that he would get into the debates...

Barfers, where are you now?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>
<blockquote>A key to keeping third-party candidates invisible, he notes, are the debates that are rigged in favor of the Republican-Democrat duopoly.</blockquote></p>
	<p>But the barfers have been claiming all along that the reason it was good to nominate a statist like barf was that he would get into the debates&#8230;</p>
	<p>Barfers, where are you now?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Open Letter From Don Lake</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/06/17/whose-party-are-we-spoiling/#comment-653659</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:20:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/06/17/whose-party-are-we-spoiling/#comment-653659</guid>
					<description>Jan:   Thx for the essay, as now republished on ReformTalk@yahoogroups.com.........</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Jan:   Thx for the essay, as now republished on <a href="mailto:ReformTalk@yahoogroups.com&#8230;......">ReformTalk@yahoogroups.com&#8230;......</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Anti-Corporate</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/06/17/whose-party-are-we-spoiling/#comment-653440</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:42:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/06/17/whose-party-are-we-spoiling/#comment-653440</guid>
					<description>This year presents much better opportunities for Barr and Nader to get into debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) only puts together a small number of debates, but there is a lot of interest among candidates and the public to have more. According to Rasmussen Reports, 77% of people like McCain’s idea of having 10+ town hall style debates. These town hall debates would not be controlled by the CPD and thus could include more than McCain and Obama.

With respect to getting into the debates, the presence of Bob Barr in the race could help Nader and vice versa. For one thing, since both of them are trying to get into the debates, that doubles the pressure to make the debates more inclusive. For another thing, Republicans who see Barr as a potential spoiler, will be motivated include Nader; and Democrats who are worried about Nader would be motivated to include Barr. Arguing for the inclusion of both Barr and Nader also makes it seem that the demand for inclusive debates is principled, rather than just in the interest of a single candidate.

And if the major party candidates don’t play ball, Barr and Nader should debate one-on-one. If a debate like that (which could be moderated by Jesse Ventura and/or Mike Gravel) attracts a lot of attention and interest, that increases the pressure to put Barr and Nader in debates with McCain and Obama.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were both unfairly excluded from debates during the primary season. Now, Ron Paul’s new organization should put together a debate between Bob Barr and Ralph Nader, both of whom are trying to earn the support of Ron Paul’s supporters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>This year presents much better opportunities for Barr and Nader to get into debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) only puts together a small number of debates, but there is a lot of interest among candidates and the public to have more. According to Rasmussen Reports, 77% of people like McCain&#8217;s idea of having 10+ town hall style debates. These town hall debates would not be controlled by the <span class="caps">CPD</span> and thus could include more than McCain and Obama.</p>
	<p>With respect to getting into the debates, the presence of Bob Barr in the race could help Nader and vice versa. For one thing, since both of them are trying to get into the debates, that doubles the pressure to make the debates more inclusive. For another thing, Republicans who see Barr as a potential spoiler, will be motivated include Nader; and Democrats who are worried about Nader would be motivated to include Barr. Arguing for the inclusion of both Barr and Nader also makes it seem that the demand for inclusive debates is principled, rather than just in the interest of a single candidate.</p>
	<p>And if the major party candidates don&#8217;t play ball, Barr and Nader should debate one-on-one. If a debate like that (which could be moderated by Jesse Ventura and/or Mike Gravel) attracts a lot of attention and interest, that increases the pressure to put Barr and Nader in debates with McCain and Obama.</p>
	<p>Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were both unfairly excluded from debates during the primary season. Now, Ron Paul&#8217;s new organization should put together a debate between Bob Barr and Ralph Nader, both of whom are trying to earn the support of Ron Paul&#8217;s supporters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
