Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate
The New York Times has a long profile (7/13/12) of presumptive Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. Though I could have done without some of it (“ever polished in bright scarves and slim pantsuits”), reporter Susan Saulny gives readers a good–and rare–look at a third party political candidate.
Stein actually debated Mitt Romney in the 2002 gubernatorial race, and Saulny notes that many viewers thought she’d won. (“It’s easy to debate a robot,” as she put it.)
Barring a miracle, she’s not going to get another chance to beat the robot. The Times tries to explain why:
She longs to be included in the nationally televised debates, a high hurdle for any third-party candidate. According to the Commission on Presidential Debates, a candidate must have “a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate” as determined by five national polling organizations.
Ms. Stein’s problem, then, is of the chicken-and-egg variety: To get national name recognition, she needs television exposure in debates. But she does not qualify for debates because of a lack of national name recognition.
She thinks that is by design, to benefit major parties.
“If they actually have to debate a living, thinking, informed person, it’s very hard for them,” Ms. Stein added, referring to Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney. “They have kind of a mutual agreement, which you can see evident in the nature of their debate right now. If it’s important, they won’t go there. Many issues are not on the table.”
That’s a pretty good explanation of the absurd presidential debate rules, but it’s important to note that they are, in fact, rigged by the two major parties. This is not just something Jill Stein thinks.
The Commission on Presidential Debates was set up by the parties themselves in 1987, in order to take the debates away from the League of Women Voters. As FAIR founder Jeff Cohen shows (9/28/00), some of this history has been reported by the New York Times:
The CPD was launched in 1987 by the then-national chairs of the Republican and Democratic parties, Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk, to promote the interests of the two major parties and to ward off third-party interlopers. Mr. Fahrenkopf and Mr. Kirk head the CPD today.
“Mr. Fahrenkopf indicated that the new Commission on Presidential Debates was not likely to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates,” the New York Times reported. “Mr. Kirk was less equivocal, saying he personally believed the panel should exclude third-party candidates from the debates.” Mr. Kirk explained: “As a party chairman, it’s my responsibility to strengthen the two-party system.”
Not much has changed in 12 years–Fahrenkopf is still one of the two co-chairs, but Kirk’s place has been taken by former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry.
TV networks have followed along with the CPD structure, but there’s no reason they have to. Why not invite all legitimate candidates with ballot access to an open presidential debate? The candidates who don’t show–probably the ones named Romney and Obama–can be represented by empty podiums.
You’ll notice how the Times leaves itself and the rest of the corpress out of the equation when it comes to “national name recognition” for candidates outside of the duopoly.
Covering them would have some impact on that factor, wouldn’t you say?
And rather than strengthening that duopoly, I would think that the responsibility of the chairman of the Democratic Party might be to … I don’t know …
Strengthen democracy?
We have a similar problem in Canada. The televised debates of the various party leaders–we have at least five major political parties–are organized by, and the terms dictated by, the major networks (in Canada, that’s CBC, CTV and Global). The leaders agree to the format, but the networks decide who gets to participate. In the past, they have stipulated that national support is irrelevant; a party must have an elected member in order to appear before the cameras.
This became an issue during the 2008 campaign, when the Green Party was locked out of the debates, despite their national presence and relatively high polling numbers. After an outcry, the networks relented and the Green Party leader was permitted to debate the other leaders.
However, during the most recent election campaign, in 2011, the networks used the same reasoning, and this time–despite another public outcry–the Greens were shut out. They nonetheless went on to elect their first member to Parliament.
It’s important to note that, like the US, the other parties–particularly Canada’s more left-wing parties–have offered little support for the Greens, or any other party that wishes to gain national exposure. And sadly, our elections commission does not organize its own debates, leaving it to the private sector to manage what is possibly the most crucial democratic forum during any election campaign.
Well dog gone it, if you let them third parties in, they will just drink all the punch and breakup all the furniture, then leave.
Put in real world terms, the Two parties would (as Ms Jill Stein says) have to actually think, and that wouldn’t allow them time to spew their Bull-shit Talking points, aka the sound bites, that are given thought for same length of time frame as the Higgs-Boson particle exists.
The duck speakers would have to stop quacking up, and actually deal down on the issues and that would hurt their little brains.
The Republicratic Party wants to have an exclusive debate with itself only. I wonder how long the public will be allowed the privilege of listening in to the party insider’s conversations among themselves before a winner is selected.
And surprise, surprise, the winner of the 2012 selection is projected once again to be a Republicrat.
Congratulations to Mr. Obamney on his victory over his worthy opponent, Mr. Romboma.
At some point it seems, in the name of efficiency, the party’s discussion will be held in total secrecy, and the public will have to wait—with an appropriate measure of anticipatory excitement—for the announcement of the Supreme Court’s presidential appointee.
Oh, wait. That already happened in 2000.
At least there were some nonpartisan standards (not ideal by any stretch) prior to the formation of the CPD, which merely exists so that the duopoly can jigger the debates to the mutual benefit of tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum.
Another horrible irony is that most “progressive” media is actively campaigning for Obama -like Randi Rhodes- or telling their listeners that we have to re-elect Obama even though he’s not that great…etc. -seems like every alternative media out there, that was loudly against Bush, have now all resigned to the “reality” that we need to accept Obama’s further expansion of Bush’s policies as the cost of keeping Romney out.
Nevermind the more pressing reality that if we do not stop Obama’s policies from destroying what is left of our human rights, democracy, and the earth, we WILL lose those things forever and there won’t be another ‘next time’ after 2012…
To summarize Chomsky explanation- if you believe there is no hope, your actions will guarantee there is no hope. [ …and I wonder, Obama supporters, how did “Yes We Can” turn into “No We Can’t” get rid of George Bush’s policies (now Obama’s policies)?] If you believe there is a chance then there’s the possibility your actions might bring about that change.
Watching Obama supporters (like Randi Rhodes or MoveOn) ignore the truly evil man he really is, is the most depressing thing I have ever experienced in my life and I am having the most difficult time believing in humanity right now.
So is it too late to change the CPD (Commission on Presidential Debates) to allow Jill Stein into the debate with Romney and Obama?
Where is the movement to do that? Where is the petition we should sign?
FIRST Party, like you’re In LABOR, You ARE! Anderson/Justice Ticket!!
With discontent high, Congressional approval low, the two-party conspiracy to limit democracy and maintain the status quo for the 1% resembles terrorism wrapped in the American flag. Obama abandoned hope&change as soon as the votes were counted. Citizens registered in the D/R parties should “bail out” and register as third-party independents to compel real debates and restore American liberty and ideals.
FAIR criticizes the capitalist media for doing exactly what they were created to do, namely, defend the interests of capital. People must ignore the capitalist media and read alternative and anticapitalist media. They largely do this by ignoring many important stories and anticapitalist points of view. Whenever necessary, they lie, and it is frequently necessary. It makes my head spin every time I think that people actually pay to read capitalist propaganda like the New York Times. As long as people keep willingly subjecting themselves to capitalist mind control and even supporting it financially, they will continue to support the two major parties, which are also controlled by the capitalists and merely pretend to oppose each other.
This crap has been impacting campaigns all the while…with both Democrats and Republicans happily excluding those with non-commercial opinions from being heard.
From a Green Party news release dated 16 April 2002, in discussing the CPD’s 3 October 2000 threat of arrest made to Ralph Nader for trying to watch the debate from which he had been excluded:
“The Commission on Presidential Debates was formed in 1987 to replace the non-partisan League of Women Voters, which included independent candidate John Anderson in the first 1980 presidential debate and prohibited the major party candidates from selecting the debate panelists in 1984. Frank Fahrenkopf, then chairman of the Republican National Committee and now the leading lobbyist for the gambling industry, and Paul Kirk, then chairman of the Democratic National Committee and now a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry, created The Commission on Presidential Debates.
Financed by Anheuser-Busch, Philip Morris and other multinational corporations, the Commission on Presidential Debates has excluded popular third-party candidates, most of whom are critical of the Big Business agenda. Although he received $29 million in public funds, captured 19 percent of the popular vote in the previous 1992 election, and 76 percent of eligible voters wanted him included, Ross Perot was excluded by the two parties from the 1996 presidential debates. Both Pat Buchanan, who collected over $12 million in federal matching funds, and Ralph Nader, who attracted the largest paid audiences during his campaign appearances, were excluded from the 2000 presidential debates, although in a national poll, 64 percent of eligible voters wanted them included. “
I think people are ready for a spoiler vote. What about Rock Anderson? I had actually decided for the first time not to vote. Then I began to think, maybe its better to vote for someone who has answers. Is that Ms. Stein or Mr. Anderson?
I wonder what it will take to get these various progressive parties …. Greens, DSA, Justice …. to come together to hammer out a platform. Such coalition politics, practiced all over the world, allow smaller parties to unify and counter the stranglehold of large parties. The progressive parties are similar enough in their socio-economic views to allow for such a common platform. As is, their isolation from one another maintains their weakness. Really, when you look at Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson, they should be running on the same ticket.
Ron Paul has been screaming this for years now.This is absolutely true.The two parties play exclusionary games with everyone else.I would give my right arm to see him debate Obama.
Dont let it be thought I give credence to the green party.Stien beat out Roseanne Barr to get the job ,and that says a lot.Stien wants government to control a whole host of things(for our own good of course).Most of it can not be sussed out in any realistic way.
I am not steeped in politics, so pardon my ignorance.
But it seems clear to me that, according to the CPD, if Stein wants an invitation to the debates, then the Green Party needs to make sure she has sufficient media exposure to acquire the requisite 15% support level.
If she can’t garner sufficient support, then either the populace isn’t interested (in which case there’s no point in her being at a debate), or the Green Party isn’t doing enough to promote her.
It sounds to me like the CPD is simply limiting out frivolous candidates who have no shot at being elected.
@Scophi – I wouldn’t call you ignorant, just naive. So, here’s a quick rundown of what’s really going on:
BigFinance and BigCorporate are the ones really in control (“he who controls the debt controls everything”). Both the Dems and Repubs (aka most of government) are merely the puppets being controlled by these sectors. Given that mainstream media is beholden to their corporate/financial masters, there’s no way they would allow a third party (typically anti-corporate/finance) to have a (serious) voice on their media outlets. To do so would be suicide because once the populace learns what’s really going on, they will take to the streets with torches and pitchforks.
So, it’s not that the populace isn’t interested in a third party candidate, it’s just that the corporate-owned media doesn’t want them to be aware that they have other options.
Recent polls show that more than half of the public think a third party is needed. See: . Lack of popular support for Stein mostly is the result of minimal media coverage of her campaign. Most people don’t know who she is or what she stands for. Indeed, that is the fault of a corporate dominated media that discriminates against third party candidates, especially those who don’t serve corporate interests.
Apparently I can’t post the poll website address here. See “Support for Third U.S. Party Dips, but Is Still Majority View” on Gallup’s site.
First, Ms. Stein is Dr. Stein. She is a physician. The very salutation used by the Copress is to minimize her stature. Second, I bet half the people here who are complaining about the CPD, the media, the Dems and the Reps will end up voting for Obama!
Thanks, Kathleen, for your accurate remarks. @m.e.: You mis-spelled Stein twice, numbnuts. All you had to do is go to the top of the article and check her name. My God, do you have any class at all? I think Sean Hannity is a fuckin’ imbecile, but by God, I’ll at least spell the dummy’s name right. Buck up! Do something right! Try Hard! These are basic U.S. values, and you piss all over them routinely. Why do you hate America? Try, for Christ’s sake.
he NYTimes, Washington Post, and NPR are Fox News for people who can read.
Great discussion! The potential for nat’l TV debate participation is right up there with the nitty-gritty of the Electoral College as fundamental changes anyone with a brain should be concerned about. Everyone posting here has provided ideas we should attend and broadcast as best we can. These national elections do provide strong context for at least talking about such matters, all matters democratic. I teach at a community college, and will definitely discuss this article and these comments with my classes this fall as the election rages on. (“Rages” is a good verb for what they do, isn’t it?)
Ideologically, until someone convinces me to vote for the greater-of-two-evils, I’ll generally be voting Democratic; but we ought to be able to figure out how to trigger a popular momentum-shift for ‘third-party’ candidates, especially the coalition-type parties Gene Therapy speaks of. The party of non-corporate-dominance, sustainable economic development, and international cooperation. Maybe it should be called the Science Party? I myself am a registered Independent, in a state (CA) with open primaries. In Oakland, we even have ranked voting, which won Jean Quan the mayorship despite having the second-most first-place votes in 2010!
Glenn: I think it would be Rombama, not Romboma. Otherwise great language for what Howard Zinn termed “the bi-partisan consensus”.
Gene Therapy: YES!!! You’ve got it right in my view: Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein could win–especially if Stein were the Presidential candidate. How about Bernie Sanders & Chuck Hagel? Maybe even Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich? Michael Moore and Grover Norquist would probably be a bridge too far.
Electoral College / Candidate Selection by Corporate Media / Third Party Lock-Out
In Egypt The Counsel manipulated the choice of candidates to eliminate the ones from the revolution
In Mexico they bought the election by bribing TV networks
In the Philippines they buy votes from the poor
In America we allow corporations to leverage our ADHD population, for their shared learning disability of being stuck to taking in new info from their TV’s (because they can’t do personal research, and have no context for understanding how they’re being manipulated).
Which is sicker?
(I’m just PO’d at finding I have ADHD, looking back and seeing it quite clearly…no more corporate news pour moi.)