Editorial: Let Gary Johnson debate
Millions of American voters are distressed by the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Recent polls suggest voters find both presidential contenders dishonest and untrustworthy. Nearly half the voters in a recent Fox News poll agreed that both are “terrible” candidates.
When asked if they had a favorable view of Clinton, Trump or neither, a plurality of respondents in a Monmouth University poll — 35 percent — chose “neither.” As The Wall Street Journal wryly noted, that means the candidacy of “neither” would meet the 15 percent threshold to secure a spot in the presidential debates.
Millions of American voters are distressed by the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Recent polls suggest voters find both presidential contenders dishonest and untrustworthy. Nearly half the voters in a recent Fox News poll agreed that both are “terrible” candidates.
When asked if they had a favorable view of Clinton, Trump or neither, a plurality of respondents in a Monmouth University poll — 35 percent — chose “neither.” As The Wall Street Journal wryly noted, that means the candidacy of “neither” would meet the 15 percent threshold to secure a spot in the presidential debates.
Alas, “neither” won’t get a podium.
But Gary Johnson should.
The Commission on Presidential Debates should allow the former New Mexico governor, the nominee of the Libertarian Party, to participate in the presidential debates, the first of which is Sept. 26. Inclusion in that first of three nationally-televised debates is critical for Johnson to be able to present another option to a dissatisfied electorate.
Now, it’s true that Johnson does not yet meet the standard for debate inclusion — a minimum 15 percent support in an average of five national polls chosen by the commission.
But he comes reasonably close, despite Trump and Clinton consuming the national media coverage. His support has been on the upswing.
And this is, let’s face it, an unusual year.
Johnson is neither gadfly nor perennial candidate. He is an accomplished businessman turned two-term governor of New Mexico, a Republican who governed a blue state. We may not agree with him on every issue but he is well-informed and would bring reason and civility to the debate stage.
The fact that Johnson chose former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld to be his running mate speaks well of him, too; sometimes you can judge a man by the company he keeps.
On the polling issue, we understand the idea of a cutoff to keep debates manageable. A Politico tally finds Johnson and Weld short; they have 9.2 percent average support in the polls chosen by the commission (though 12 percent in an Investor’s Business Daily poll last week).
But we’ll take 9.2 percent and a three-way debate with Johnson included — over a “manageable” two-person scream-fest, any day.
Johnson’s name is expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states. His support is greatest among younger voters which ought to be attractive to debate organizers and television networks. Allowing Johnson to debate on Sept. 26 would provide a valuable service to an unhappy electorate. The commission should give him a microphone.
Tags
Who is online
66 visitors
What are they so afraid of?/S
I'm not a Libertarian, though I like their social agenda, but I'm all for it. I'd like to see a number of alt parties at the table. The two parties are too big, too moneyed, to corporate and so on. I expect no one else will be there because they don't want them there. They have the clout. We'll see though. As insane as this cycles circus is, who knows?
I'm with ya Tex!
Nothing wrong with one more choice.
Gary Johnson demonstrated today that he does not keep up with current world events. Sorry, only Donald Trump gets away with that. No debates you for you Gary.
I know it's most important to be knowledgeable of domestic issues, but one would expect the POTUS to at least be aware of international ones, especially where the USA is involved. Considering the volume of news in every media about it, the fact that he had no idea what Aleppo was is scary.
Notwithstanding that fact, I would still choose him over the two major candidates if I were qualified to vote.
It's just all that unregulated free market capitalism bull shyte and never ever wanting to give money to anyone or anything that alleviates suffering that loses me with the Libertarians. Basically they are Republicans who are better than Republicans yet still bidness kooks. As per mentioned, I do like their point of view on social issues.
I just wish there was still a viable Wobbly Party around. Oh well. Such is life.
Dog Save Us.
Didn't know we were at war with Syria, so why in the hell should he know where Aleppo is? There are a LOT of cities that have had the shit kicked out of them and I'm willing to bet that NONE of the candidates know where, or even the names of, most of them.
lol. Good luck electing someone president who doesn't read the newspaper.
I have to admit I had to look it up. For me, a Pre Geezer Moment. Perhaps for Mr Johnson as well.
"Didn't know we were at war with Syria..."
Tomahawk missiles being fired from the warships USS Philippine Sea and USS Arleigh Burke at ISIL targets in Syria
So it's not necessary for a Presidential candidate to have knowledge of what's going on there?
Maybe this will give you some information.
Well, how many security briefings is he receiving? Aleppo is a City in Syria. There are other cities in Syria. There's a meme going around about how Hillary was:
Former Secretary of State
Former Senator
Former First Lady
But claims she has no idea that a (C) preceding a paragraph in a document denotes that paragraph is classified 'Confidential' which is a protected category of classified information.
So if not knowing 'Aleppo' is a disqualifier, so is not understanding the rules of classified material/protection.
Let the man on the stage with the others.
Aleppo is at the center of a struggle between the rebels who seized the city in an attempt to overthrow Assad and the Syrian government forces on the verge of taking the city back (with the support of the Russians, Hezbollah, and Iran). This is not a TV geography quiz to stump shoppers at k-mart. The next president will walk into a mess in Syria that will shape the policitcal and military dynamics of the region for decades. He needs to know what he's doing on day one. Our adversaries watch our TV just like we do. If they know the next president is unprepared to act on day one, they will act before he gets up to speed.
If he has never heard of Aleppo, then he couldn't possibly be knowledgeable enough to debate Middle East foreign policy and certainly wouldn't be prepared to be president on day one. Plus, Trump doesn't need any help dumbing down the debate.
As far as I am concerned, there is no reason why a person running in a third party should be prohibited from participating. Otherwise the other two parties own the White House, hook, line and sinker
I think to be in the debates your party must have got at least 5 percent in the most recent presidential election. That would be fairer than the 15 percent requirement but still something that indicates it is not a joke party.
That sounds fair.
I think to be in the debates your party must have got at least 5 percent in the most recent presidential election.
Has that ever happened in modern times John?
Have we ever seen a third party step up like that, (from cycle to cycle), or hasn't it been pretty much about a "Personality" rising up during a given election?
As best I can tell only Wallace & John Anderson got more than 5% of the popular vote when they ran and they both came out of nowhere, (American Independent Party & just an Independent respectively). No previous cycle of votes to build from and no follow up growth after their high water marks.
I wonder what laws or traditions we'd have to change to encourage a vibrant, multi party system like most other Democracies use.
How do we get to a point where the 435 representatives in Congress are made up of 100 D's, 100 R's, 10 Libertarians, 10 Socialist, 5 Communist, 4 KKK, 3 Greens, 2 Rent's Too Dam High party, etc.
Or do we, (for all practical purposes), already have that? Don't we just umbrella all those philosophies under our current "Big Two" system?
As far as I am concerned, there is no reason why a person running in a third party should be prohibited from participating.
Got to set parameters somewhere Perrie and the 15% popular support goal is as fair a cutoff as any I suppose.
Or do you think a crazy, unwieldy group, like the R's had in the primaries, would be good for the process?
THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES ON 20+ STATE BALLOTS:
CONSTITUTION PARTY OF THE U.S.:
Darrell Castle (Tennessee) Presidential Nominee
Scott Bradley (Utah) Vice Presidential Nominee
GREEN PARTY:
Dr. Jill Stein (Massachusetts) Presidential Nominee
Ajamu Baraka (Virginia) Vice Presidential Nominee
LIBERTARIAN PARTY:
Former Governor Gary Johnson (New Mexico) Presidential Nominee
Former Governor Bill Weld (Massachusetts) Vice Presidential Nominee
THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES ON
LESS THAN 20 STATE BALLOTS:
INDEPENDENT (NO PARTY):
Evan McMullin (Utah) Presidential Candidate
Nathan Johnson (Ohio) Vice Presidential Candidate
PARTY OF SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION (PSL):
Gloria LaRiva (California) Presidential Nominee
Eugene Puryear (District of Columbia) Vice Presidential Nominee
REFORM PARTY USA:
Rocky de la Fuente (Florida) Presidential Nominee
Michael Steinberg (Florida) Vice Presidential Nominee
SOCIALIST PARTY USA:
Emidio "Mimi" Soltysik (California) Presidential Nominee
Angela Walker (Wisconsin) Vice Presidential Nominee
SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY (SWP):
Alyson Kennedy (Illinois) Presidential Nominee
Osborne Hart (Pennsylvania) Vice Presidential Nominee
THIRD PARTY & INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES
ON LESS THAN FIVE STATE BALLOTS:
ETC....ETC...ETC.
The list of registered candidates just goes on and on.
Presidency 2016
A question, I don't recall form those years ago. Did they allow Ross Perot on the debate stage?
I agree with someone's clown car comment.....
Did they allow Ross Perot on the debate stage?
Yes.
How many votes did his party receive the election prior to that election?
Someone has narrowed the rules. Could it be to stifle choices down to the 'hand-picked' 'chosen' candidate(s)?
Bernie was blocked by preference of the leaders - not the voters. He was the selected candidate, but under Constitutional rules, the monied Electorates decided on Billary/Killary.
The libertarian party is on the ballot in every state except Rhode Island.
"Otherwise the other two parties own the White House, hook, line and sinker"
This is by design. The Duopoly made all the rules that make it so difficult for a third party to play in their sandbox. It has worked for over 100 years too.
Of course he should be allowed to debate. And also that moron from the green Party.
Let 'em all into the clown car!
Best President of the USA that I can think of would be Jeb Bartlett, but unfortunately his Chief of Staff and closest friend and advisor Leo died. If not Jeb Bartlett, then Michael Douglas (The American President) would be pretty good - in that movie Jeb Bartlett (Martin Sheen) was his Chief of Staff. Hell, even Jack Nicholson (Mars Attacks) would be better.
Actually, Hollywood could create a scenario of the crappy choices there are now - just think of the movie that could be made. It would be stranger than fiction.
The original goal of debates was to encourage the major party candidates to voluntarily debate each because there's nothing that requires them to participate. Including minor candidates in debates (even though they have no chance of winning an election) may be good for democracy but it may also lead to major party candidates refusing to waste their time debating a nobody. If one major party candidate drops out, then the other will likely do it too. The debate platform will fall apart because the audience for watching nobodies debate each other will be too small to attract sponsors. So, to me, the third party candidate needs to be prominent enough to keep the major party candidates on the stage.
The third and other party candidates need to be heard, and the debates seem to be one of the only ways that the public can see them and vet them. Paid advertising is not to be trusted.
For example, the "Aleppo" incident will most likely damn him Johnson, and the others will certainly make that clear to the public if they hadn't noticed it themselves. On the other hand, Hillary wearing an almost hidden earpiece to be fed answers to town hall questions is pretty damning itself. As for Trump, he damns himself out of his own mouth constantly.
What bothers me about Johnson's Aleppo incident is not that he didn't know what the word meant. That's probably true of 95% of voters, so they're not going to be upset.
But his reaction on hearing, "It's a city in Syria" was "Got it, got it!"... as if there were no difference between City A and City B. The essential fact of Syria is its complexity; the large number of very different players. Johnson's reaction tells me that for him, "Syria" is a topic that fits on a single file card.
Kinda short.....
His response "Got it, got it" certainly didn't answer the question he was asked.
I say let Gary Johnson on stage for the debates.
If knowledge of foreign affairs is so important, Trump shouldn't be on the stage at all. His numerous blunders re foreign affairs are constant and embarrassing, yet no one seems to care.
Good point.
Of course... You could make the same about economics, education, ... just about every domain which a President would have to manage.
Nor would Billary/Killary 'cause she can't remember where she was "over there" when she TOOK SNIPER FIRE.