Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Are these things really of importance? I mean, what the hell can you tell from these things apart from what nice hair or teeth the eddie dude has? At least they can both speak and seem pretty smart.

 

The prez one is a bit better, because we can just see what a primate he is. lol.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought the one last night was quite interesting actually.

 

Looking forward to the next one on Sat morning. I want to see some direct punches and blood,

I tell ya. That would make it more interesting.

This 2nd one is like a town hall meeting format, right? Sure its still pretty much fixed up thogh

Link to post
Share on other sites

News Release

Home | Press | Print

 

 

Cobb Arrested for Civil Disobedience at St. Louis Debate.

COBB/LaMARCHE 2004

http://www.votecobb.org

 

October 9, 2004

 

Contact: Blair Bobier, Media Director 541.929.5755 or 414.364.1596

Marc Sanson, Contact in St. Louis on Friday & Saturday, 217.415.7641

 

COBB ARRESTED FOR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AT ST. LOUIS DEBATE

 

“The real crime is the corporate hijacking of our democracy”

 

David Cobb, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, was arrested tonight in St. Louis for committing civil disobedience to protest the anti-democratic presidential debates which are restricted to participants from two political parties and sponsored by their corporate contributors. The debates’ sponsor, the Commission on Presidential Debates, denied the Cobb campaign's repeated requests to participate in the debates with Bush and Kerry and denied Mr. Cobb’s request to attend the St. Louis debate as an audience member.

 

Cobb was arrested shortly after the start of the Washington University debate, one of three sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization founded and operated by the two old establishment parties. Cobb was arrested by St. Louis City police officers when he pushed through a line of police with shields who were preventing entry to the debate.

 

“The real crime is the corporate hijacking of our democracy. The corporations sponsoring these restricted, scripted and staged events, and their two-party accomplices, don’t want the American people to know about the choices they have in this election. Both Big Business and the duopoly don’t want you to hear voices calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or for health care for every single American citizen,” said Cobb.

 

“Debates aren’t just about who is going to win an election; they are the only forum where we can have unrestricted dialogue about the critical issues facing us. Third parties have a long history of changing the political landscape of this country. Restricting debates to two parties severely limits our potential for progressive change,” said Cobb-LaMarche Media Director Blair Bobier.

 

“All real social change came about in this country because of the pressure brought by a third party. Slavery was ended because of pressure brought to bear by a third party called the Republicans. The Greenback-Labor Party pressured this country to give women the right to vote. The Socialist Party created the momentum for the creation of Social Security. The Progressive Party brought pressure to bring about the direct election of the United States Senate," said Cobb.

 

Debates including third party and independent candidates have had a profound effect on recent American politics. Ross Perot’s participation in the 1992 presidential debates is widely credited with putting the issue of a balanced federal budget on the table. Jesse Ventura’s victory as a gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota was due in large part to the fact that he participated in debates with his two-party opponents.

 

The Cobb-LaMarche campaign supports debate participation standards which are fair, objective and allow for the participation of more than two candidates. Specifically, the campaign supports debates which include candidates who are on enough ballots to win the presidency. In this election, that would be only six candidates, a very manageable number and far fewer than participated in many of the Democratic presidential primary debates this year. Obtaining ballot access in a sufficient number of states is a very rigorous and complicated process which would serve as a reasonable threshold for participation. “Participation in presidential debates should not be dependent on polls commissioned by the corporate media,” said Bobier.

 

Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik pushed his way through the police line at the debate site about a minute after Cobb and was similarly arrested. Cobb and Badnarik have debated four times in this campaign; a fifth debate is scheduled for October 15 at Eastern Tennessee State University with a number of other candidates.

 

For more information:

Cobb-LaMarche campaign votecobb.org

Green Party gp.org.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bobby, If I could trouble you, you come off as trying to sound like an expert on Decmocracy. Please, provide reasonable examples of a better Democratic situation than the one in the US. The private broadcast companies in the US have the right to invite anyone they want to to their programming. It's a free-market as well as freedom of speech. While it's not my aim to make you THINK (I don't have that much faith). If you could, please exlpain an example of a democracy that has worked more effectively than that of the US. While you're ignorant sarcasm has humored me, I'm sure your thoughtfull investigation into the matter will be enlightening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that would be most Western European countries where the electorate is far more aware of issues due to a comparatively aggressive media. While no democracy is perfect, at least most Europeans feel that their vote is not going to fall down some cynically engineered memory hole. Kintaro, are you fully confident that your vote is secure? Another thing about European democracy is that new parties emerge and have access to power even in old democracies (some of which parties are extremist, but better that they have a voice rather than going underground). Any country without this turnover goes rotten.

 

The system of US democracy itself is widely admired, but it doesn't work anymore. Quite obviously.

 

Kintaro, for the sake of comparison, look at the UK. Blair is widely hated now for Iraq, but he may yet survive because he also has other policies of interest to Britons (the Kyoto Agreement for one). Within his party there are more popular leaders available too. This means that Labour will have to find a way to respond to a wide swathe of the populace. I don't see that happening in the US, whoever wins. Do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw them all, and was not particularly impressed with the quantity or quality of lies spoken. Cheney however is an old pro and can lie though his teeth (reptiles have teeth, right?) and made it look convincing.

All in all, as one person said, "You never vote for someone, you always vote against someone". So if Kerry does win, it only means that people hate him less than Bush. The half of the population that bothers to vote, that is. Yay for democracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...