The presidential debates are over, but questions they raised linger in the air. Was Al Gore too strident? Was George W. in over his head? What I want to know is, why was Ralph Nader locked out? I don’t just mean why was he not given a chance to stand at the podium and contest the issues, I want to know why Ralph was not allowed to even sit in the audience and watch. Mr. Nader was physically prevented from entering the debates in Boston and St. Louis even though he had a ticket to get in. Ralph was barred in Boston because debate officials claimed he was trying to disrupt the proceedings, despite the fact that he hadn’t done anything and despite the fact that Ralph’s ticket would not have gotten him into the auditorium proper, but only an adjoining room with a video link.
In both Boston and St. Louis, news outlets asked Ralph to come to the debate location for interviews. In both cases, police and officials from the Commission on Presidential Debates prevented him from getting to those interviews.
So, guess what? Ralph Nader is suing the Commission on Presidential Debates. Ralph may have his shortcomings working the rope line and kissing babies, but I assure you, he is the last person you want to see staring at you across a courtroom.
By rights, the presidential debates should have been four-way affairs, with George and Al and Ralph and yes, even Pat Buchanan. It was Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas who wrote that the right of free speech extends even to “the miserable merchants of unwanted ideas.” I think that sums up the Buchanan situation in a nutshell.
The Commission on Presidential Debates was founded in 1987 as a way to end partisan bickering over debate venues and formats. As such, the commission is composed of Democrats and Republicans, who have a common interest in excluding third-party candidates. The commission is funded by big corporations looking for yet another opportunity to buy access and influence in Washington, DC. This year’s corporate sponsors include 3Com, AT&T, US Airways and Anheuser-Busch. Corporations will have another chance to go shopping for influence in January, when they’ll help pay for the inaugural party for whoever wins the election. All of these donations are supposed to be “saving taxpayer money,” but after the corporate fat cats get their tax breaks and sweetheart deals, the debates and the party wind up costing the taxpayer six times as much than if we’d paid for them outright.
What’s really sad is that we have given over control of our political debate – not Bush’s debate, not Gore’s debate, but the American people’s political debate – to the control of a small group of wealthy people whose only interest is in becoming wealthier.
So Ralph Nader didn’t get to debate; maybe that’s just too bad for him. But it’s also too bad for us, because the first right guaranteed to Americans is freedom of speech – political speech especially. The corporations that control the Commission on Presidential Debates used police power to exclude Ralph Nader because if Ralph had gotten in to speak, he would have spoken about the corrosive effect of corporations have on democracy. Would that have been such an awful thing that we have to call out the police to stop it? Is there anything Ralph Nader – or Pat Buchanan – might say that is so terrible that American voters have to be prevented from hearing it?
It’s interesting to see how eager Al and George are to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution. It’s also interesting to see how little they did to defend Ralph’s Constitutional rights in the debates.
Barred in Boston
The presidential debates are over, but questions they raised linger in the air. Was Al Gore too strident? Was George W. in over his head? What I want to know is, why was Ralph Nader locked out? I don’t just mean why was he not given a chance to stand at the podium and contest the issues, I want to know why Ralph was not allowed to even sit in the audience and watch. Mr. Nader was physically prevented from entering the debates in Boston and St. Louis even though he had a ticket to get in. Ralph was barred in Boston because debate officials claimed he was trying to disrupt the proceedings, despite the fact that he hadn’t done anything and despite the fact that Ralph’s ticket would not have gotten him into the auditorium proper, but only an adjoining room with a video link.
In both Boston and St. Louis, news outlets asked Ralph to come to the debate location for interviews. In both cases, police and officials from the Commission on Presidential Debates prevented him from getting to those interviews.
So, guess what? Ralph Nader is suing the Commission on Presidential Debates. Ralph may have his shortcomings working the rope line and kissing babies, but I assure you, he is the last person you want to see staring at you across a courtroom.
By rights, the presidential debates should have been four-way affairs, with George and Al and Ralph and yes, even Pat Buchanan. It was Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas who wrote that the right of free speech extends even to “the miserable merchants of unwanted ideas.” I think that sums up the Buchanan situation in a nutshell.
The Commission on Presidential Debates was founded in 1987 as a way to end partisan bickering over debate venues and formats. As such, the commission is composed of Democrats and Republicans, who have a common interest in excluding third-party candidates. The commission is funded by big corporations looking for yet another opportunity to buy access and influence in Washington, DC. This year’s corporate sponsors include 3Com, AT&T, US Airways and Anheuser-Busch. Corporations will have another chance to go shopping for influence in January, when they’ll help pay for the inaugural party for whoever wins the election. All of these donations are supposed to be “saving taxpayer money,” but after the corporate fat cats get their tax breaks and sweetheart deals, the debates and the party wind up costing the taxpayer six times as much than if we’d paid for them outright.
What’s really sad is that we have given over control of our political debate – not Bush’s debate, not Gore’s debate, but the American people’s political debate – to the control of a small group of wealthy people whose only interest is in becoming wealthier.
So Ralph Nader didn’t get to debate; maybe that’s just too bad for him. But it’s also too bad for us, because the first right guaranteed to Americans is freedom of speech – political speech especially. The corporations that control the Commission on Presidential Debates used police power to exclude Ralph Nader because if Ralph had gotten in to speak, he would have spoken about the corrosive effect of corporations have on democracy. Would that have been such an awful thing that we have to call out the police to stop it? Is there anything Ralph Nader – or Pat Buchanan – might say that is so terrible that American voters have to be prevented from hearing it?
It’s interesting to see how eager Al and George are to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution. It’s also interesting to see how little they did to defend Ralph’s Constitutional rights in the debates.
Actions speak louder than words.