This came in a little while ago from the Gary Johnson campaign:
Much has been said about the blatant exclusion of Gary Johnson from nationally televised debates by the national news media.
Next week, it could happen again — unless we let CNBC know that there are a lot of people in America who want to see Gary on the debate stage where he belongs.
On Wednesday, November 9, CNBC is sponsoring a presidential debate in Michigan.
Last evening, they released the list of participants, and once again, a mainstream network is denying Gary Johnson the opportunity to take his message to the voters.
Given that CNBC is part of NBC, we shouldn’t be shocked. It was another NBC network who, in September, mysteriously came up with a 4% polling criterion for their debate – when Governor Johnson was polling at 3%…
“What Gary Johnson campaign,” you ask. “What’s he running for.” President, as it turns out.
Gary thinks it’s personal. Me, I think someone somewhere is rationally deciding that the last thing that stage needs is more people among whom to divide the limited time. It would be different if he offered anything different. But I don’t see what’s added by one more person up there saying, “No, I’m the guy who believes in low taxes…”
But maybe he’s right. Maybe the guy in charge of drawing the line is Colonel Cathcart, and he thinks Gary Johnson is Yossarian…
Related Posts
If you’re trying to place the allusion in that headline — I wondered where I got it, too — it’s from this.
But I think it’s all over done.
Exaggerating this and exaggerating that
They don’t have no fun…
Yes, but it up to *US*, the voters to decide which candidate to pick, crazy or sane. It is not for CNN, CNBC or any other news organization to whittle the candidates down for us before we get a chance to hear them. We get to pick, we vote, not them – unless you want to give corporations even more power in picking our leaders than they already have. I personally feel the Gary Johnson is the first candidate I’d be voting for where I wouldn’t feel like I was licking the lesser of two evils. I want to hear what he says and I want to see him in the debates.
So basically, if a million people called themselves candidates, you’d demand that they find room on the stage for all of them, and give each of them .0054 second of time in a 90-minute “debate?”
Because if you wouldn’t, then you’re saying those who put on a debate have to draw a line somewhere. We’re just differing over where it would be drawn.
I’m curious, though, to know what you see in Johnson that isn’t present in any of the other candidates. It’s not like he’s Huntsman — another guy with low numbers who nevertheless has positions and qualities not present in the others on stage, thereby providing viewers with a choice.
Gary Johnson is the only pro-choice candidate out there. You’d be surprised at how many pro-choice Republicans there are. Before Reagan came along, the Republican party was pro-choice. And Barry Goldwater was a staunch pro-choice Republican.
It’s not the only issue that I care about, but it is one of many that separate Gary Johnson, who was a governor for TWO TERMS, versus Romney’s single term, from Ron Paul and many of the other Republican candidates, and because Johnson has experience administrating and governing, it makes him a viable candidate as well.
I do not want “a million people” running. I do however wish to see viable candidates who have proven to be either an effective governor, Representative or Senator to be heard.
Huh. I thought you were alluding to Buffalo Springfield’s “For What It’s Worth”
And, oh, by the way, the debates aren’t run by the debaters. The rules are set by the host organizations.