Third Party & Independents: Archives

David:

Two good points you make there. I guess it leaves us only Nader to vote for, though he has no chance of winning. I suppose a vote for Nader might enhance a future 3rd party’s chances, though the votes in the past for Ross Perot and for Nader have not had that effect in the past.

You do a nice job of illuminating the gamesmanship that both parties play. As far as debates go, it is standard fare for the “leader” to not want to debate anyone below him. And Kerry shows that he isnt above that game. Nor would Bush be, though I’d love to see Bush jump in and say he’d debate with Nader any time any place. Of course, thats frought with danger for Bush, so he wont do that either.

You reference the “the Right’s attempt to censor Fahrenheit 9/11”, which isn’t really a fair assertion. The use of the word “censor” is used so blithely these days that it diminishes the entire argument. Its fair for the “Right” to be ticked off by this movie, which is essentially a campaign against Bush. Moore’s movies are partisan and biased, and filled with his movie making tricks to make the audience think one way, when of course there are multiple angles to view from. This isnt censorship at all.

The tragic demise of our Democracy is linked to the privatization of the media. Today, even the Newshour begins and ends with ads. If Congress had reserved ad space for free politiking, the public interests would have been better preserved. Today you cannot run for the Presidency, unless you first sell your soul for TV ads. Kerry’s refusal to face Nader is part of a broader conspiracy by Republocrates to limit issues and questions in ways which do not expose bipartisan corruption, hypocrisy and incompetence. The Presidential campaigns are about clever headlines and soundbytes, perpetual optimism by never discussing serious problems, acting aloof and circumspect, and being willing to say or do anything to win. Refusing to debate Nader is an integral part these bi-partisan stategies.

Joe thanks for your comment. I have to reassert however that some on the right are in fact attempting to censor Moore’s movie. Check out Move America Forward where a campaign is underway to stop movie theaters from showing the movie.

This amounts to censorship no matter how you cut it. It is one group with an opinion trying to prevent another’s opinion from reaching an audience. That is the definition of censorship.

Bayviking, while I agree with many of your points, it is impossible for me to imagine a 1st Amendment society that ultimately would not marry speech with money. It is one of the opportunity costs of free speech.

David- when Ann Coulter was fired from her job for making racist comments against Muslims, did you consider that censorship? If the NAACP were to boycott a racist movie and pressure movie theatres not to show it, would you consider that censorship? I dont see the difference between those forms of pressure and what the conservatives are doing.

If you want to hit the right for censorship, you should be attacking the shameful FCC’s crackdown (which both Kerry and Bush support, it seems!), not critizing people for using the first amendment right to speech out against movies they dont want to see, and using that speech to inform movie theatres about the effect of showing the movie on potential customers. The threat of economic boycotts are something the civil rights movement used with great effect and to great ends, you should not disparage it because it now comes from a source you dont like.

Regarding Kerry’s debate comments, do you really expect politicians to be frank about stuff like that? To admit to playing back room political hardball? I don’t.

Regarding the Arizona petition challenge, I see even less of a problem. If you want to be on a Presidential ballot in a state, shouldn’t you have to qualify according to the rule of law of that state? And shouldn’t your political machine be strong enough to withstand a challenge to the validity of your signatures? If the petition is, in fact, invalidated, then I say throw it out.

I also read that article this morning and was frankly shocked at the magnitude of how crappy Nader’s petition signatures were, if the allegations are in fact true. Nader should be required to get a solid number of valid signatures, period. The spirit of the law is to prove that the candidate is sufficiently popular to be worthy of inclusion on the ballot. It violates that spirit to cram the petition with the names of out-of-state voters (if that is proven to be true) and, almost as bad, with people who actually don’t want Nader to be President. It nearly enrages me that 46% of the signatures on that Arizona petition were from registered Republicans!! This shows how Nader’s supporters are relying on their own mortal enemies to help them skirt the spirit of the law and squeak their way onto the ballot.

In short, if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. Presidential politics is the big leagues. It’s part of the qualifying rounds for what should be the toughest job on earth. If you can’t get 14,694 *real* supporters, you’ll never get important legislation passed, you’ll never get political support for needed policies, and you’ll never put a good judge on the bench.

Finally, to address your general condemnation of both major parties: Sure, both sides play dirty pool (although I would argue that recent redistricting efforts across the country put the Republicans on top of the slimeheap). But the Republican side plays dirty pool in order to accomplish markedly more backward and destructive goals than the goals of the Democrats.

-Cf

David:

I’m not much in favor of censorship. I dont really agree with stopping the movie from being shown, but I do agree with the practice of letting theatres know the possible repercussions of showing it. For instance, I’d be in favor of boycotting theatres that choose to show it, rather than preventing those theatres from showing it. That way, they get the freedom to make an informed business decision.

Lets take that to an extreme….lets say Mattel decides to manufacture a series of toy figures called “K-K-K-Kids”, with kids in sheets with ropes and guns. If that happened, I’d be first in line to boycott any and all Mattel toys until they stopped selling such a toy. Would still be their decision, but they would see the business ramification.

I’m assuming this position is closer to yours, and that we have found agreement? If not, I look forward to your rebuttal.

Lastly, the FERC is looking at whether Moore can advertise within the 60 day window before the election. I’d say that he cannot, since his publicly stated goal is to “defeat George Bush”, which makes his movie essentially a campaign tool. To me, that is far different from censorship.

Misha, there is a HUMONGOUS difference between boycotting and censorship. Boycott means withhold your spending of your money, time, or activity in protest. Censorship means to withhold free speech from the public.

Now as you well know Misha, there is a need to distinguish between legal free speech and illegal speech (falsely yelling fire in a movie theater), so just to clarify, I am talking about censorship of legal free speech.

I have no problem whatsoever with persons boycotting for a cause or idea - I am currently boycotting Wal-Mart, myself going an extra couple miles to the Target. I had no problem with teens and burning Beattle records after Lennon’s comments about the Beatles and Jesus, though John statement was not outrageously inaccurate by any means.

What I have problem with is the attempt to prevent other members of a community from ever having the opportunity to view the movie because of members of the right taking action to shut it out of their community as if there values were representative of all members of their community.

It is a subtle distinction in part, but, the difference is huge. I boycotted the Christ movie about Christ’s crucifiction, but, I would not even pretend to want to deprive Christians or anyone else from their right to see the movie in my neighborhood.

So, David, I take it if the NCAAP were attempting to get movie theatres not to show a clearly racist movie, you would call that censorship and oppose that? Did you oppose the outcry that led to the firing of Rush for ESPN? I think that firing was stupid, but I did not think that those that were offended by Rush’s comments were doing anything wrong or cencoring him by expressing their outrage to ESPN and demanding that they take him off of the air. I just dont see ANY difference between that sort of preasure and what conservatives are doing now.

joe, we are in perfect agreement. As I said to Misha, there is a huge difference between boycott and censorship, though the distinction can be subtle. If the aim of the boycott is to intimidate others from seeing the movie or to bankrupt the movie theater out of showing the picture, then boycott treads into censorship area. If the aim of the boycott is to register complaint and dissatisfaction and temporarily diminsh profits, then it is not an infringement into freedom of speech.

BTW, this is my own personal opinion on the matter. If a similar situation ended up in court with 1st Amemndment on one side and restraint of trade on the other, I don’t think there is any doubt that 1st Amendment side would win (unless it was an all Republican jury on a sleepless day — grin!)

Misha, if the intent of the NAACP was to prevent the movie from being shown then Yes, I would say that amounts to censorship and I would support a cease and disist order. If the intent was to register complaint or heighten awareness, then no, it is a boycott pure and simple.

It boils down to whether the intent is to prevent political viewpoint from being heard or to simply express one’s own viewpoint. The former is censorship, the latter is not.

Dave,

Quite right. And we do have C-Span (for a price). Public ownership of media in Europe isn’t a curall for spin, but they have no homeless people to speak of. Advertising costs will remain the biggest roadblock to the emergence of any third party capable of challenging the staus quo. Something the Republocrates have no interest in changing.

CF said “Regarding Kerry’s debate comments, do you really expect politicians to be frank about stuff like that?”

Christopher, only if we voters expect it and demand it will it ever hope to be.

I agree, if the allegations are true, then Nader has no claim to be on the ballot based on those signatures. If however, the Dem’s claim is not true, they should be prosecuted for filing a frivolous lawsuit, and be subject to suit by the Nader campaign based on violation of their civil liberties or whatever applicable laws would apply, as well as charged with violations of criminal statutes regarding libel and slander.

Seen in light of Nader’s recent statements in support of Kerry’s candidacy, perhaps Kerry was not being duplicitous but simply trying not to disclose the fact that Nader supported him before Nader had a chance to make the statement himself. After all, if Kerry knew at that point that Nader was going to make these statements, then he would also have known that there would be no reason for them to debate each other, wouldn’t he?

As for the challenge to Nader appearing on the Arizona ballot, I see no reason for you to decry this so loudly when a) you admit you have no idea at this point of whether or not the charges are true, and b) it is the action of the arizona state democratic party and not an action undertaken by the democratic party as a whole. Either of these two points show that the information about this challenge in no way supports your premise that Kerry and the Democratic Party as a whole are undemocratic.

Jarin, I wrote when Kerry and Nader had their meeting in response to those who said nothing came of it, that that was not likely. I wrote that there was likely a bargain being struck that would benefit either third parties or a more open process in some other way if Kerry had the wits to see the potential return for him and his party.

It appears Nader is living up to his end of whatever deal was struck, now it remains to be seen if Kerry has the integrity to live up to his end, whatever that was. This is big league politics and Nader has been around long enough to know how the game is played.

> only if we voters expect it and demand
> it will it ever hope to be

Humanity will likely wipe out disease, starvation, war, poverty, and violence long before we are able to expect people who posess or desire power to renounce unsavory political shenanigans.

-Cf