Darcy G. Richardson at Uncovered Politics:
“They gave this election dignity,” asserted actor and debate moderator Ed Asner in his closing remarks at Tuesday night’s Free and Equal third-party presidential debate in Boulder.
The 86-year-old Emmy award-winning actor and former president of the Screen Actors Guild was referring, of course, to the three presidential candidates — the Reform Party’s Rocky De La Fuente, Gloria La Riva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle — who participated in the lively two-hour forum at the University of Colorado’s Macky Auditorium.
Though complaining endlessly about their own exclusion from the three nationally-televised debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton earlier this autumn, the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson and Jill Stein of the Green Party — both of whom had initially expressed an interest in attending — inexplicably skipped the only significant third-party presidential debate of this election cycle. Independent Evan McMullin, the “Never Trump” candidate who is running neck-and-neck with his major-party rivals in neighboring Utah, was also a no-show.
Stein and McMullin reportedly based their decision on whether or not the Libertarian Party nominee would accept Free & Equal’s invitation to Tuesday night’s debate — a forum he eagerly participated in four years ago. When Johnson declined to participate, they both ducked out.
“It is interesting that some presidential candidates fighting to be included in the Republican and Democratic debates might also exclude themselves from a vigorous discussion with peers on the issues when invited to do so,” said a disappointed Christina Tobin, a longtime election reform and voters’ rights activist and founder of the Free & Equal Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan organization launched eight years ago.
I’ve looked into it before. It’s not that cheap. 5 figures, especially on short notice. And the Johnson campaign did look at those supposed logistics and found them to be very unrealistic. The McAfee and Petersen campaigns could have gone and debated in DC without Johnson. Why didn’t they?
Chartering a plane is a lot cheaper than you seem to think it is. That wasn’t the only logistical option either. It would have been trivial to fundraise for that purpose.
They were essentially counting on Johnson to pay for the charter. Neither Petersen (despite his sugarbabies profile) nor McAfee (even though, yes, he did once upon a time use to be a multimillionaire; but by that time probably not even a millionaire at all) had the cash on hand. And at that point of the campaign, Johnson’s campaign probably didn’t either, and a cash loan from the candidate was not available, which, yes, you can fault Johnson for, along with his choice of campaign manager, running mate, etc.
The thing about chartering a plane on short notice? Sounds like a pipe dream to me.
paulie wrote:
There is your problem in a nutshell: you are trusting a paid Johnson shill (check the FEC reports) with his mouth surgically attached to Gary Johnson’s ass over some basic common sense about hoe TV works and over multiple other firsthand reports.
paulie wrote:
BULLSHIT!!!
He’s completely full of shit.
Finding a paid Johnson shill who agrees with you (while contradicting multiple other firsthand reports) is not remotely persuasive.
paulie wrote:
Is this yet another Andy Craig propaganda job?
Ask anyone involved with the Petersen and McAfee campaigns.
paulie wrote:
I’m well aware of the burqa ban comment. While stupid, it was not as stupid as Gary Johnson unilaterally pissing away an unprecedented pre-nomination media opportunity.
Well, he’s already there, so just because he is organizing a debate doesn’t mean it will be televised. And even if it does yield content for his show it may not have been the whole debate.
It’s evidence that you may well be correct, in which case you are right about the missed opportunity. However, hindsight is 20/20, at the time that airing had not happened or been scheduled, so whether going to DC would get anything televised or not was an open question. Meanwhile, pissing off a couple of state delegations that had worked hard to promote a planned appearance for months was a consideration.
From Andy Craig at Old Dominion Libertarian blog:
“On April 1st, appropriately enough, John Stossel will air a presidential forum among the “top-three” LP candidates, as measured by an easily-stuffed online poll. This was after Austin threw a very public screaming hissy fit, complete with knowing lies and willful slander, over the fact that Johnson did not cancel a planned debate at a state LP convention in order to have a non-televised debate moderated by Stossel at a conference.”
The logistics they were allegedly negotiating appear to have been a pipe dream, from what I have heard.
I’m pretty sure the whole “burqa ban” thing was earlier, to take just one example.
Several, in fact. And I am having another one even as I type this. Unfortunately more work remain to be done.
Yes, I don’t know what his problem with Christina is. Something vague about her not keeping promises in the past or something like that but no specifics. But I think we’ve established that whatever his problems are it’s not just ducking debates in general. In fact, rereading Andy’s articles at OLDRN reminded that Johnson called for *more* candidates to be included in the Stossel debate.
I agree with you that it would have been better to have had it in front of the SFL audience IF it could have been televised.
True. The excuse I have seen is that he did not want to ruin his chances to be in the main debates with Clump because the contract there does not allow candidates who participate in those debates to participate in any other debates so he had to wait until it was 100% certain he would not make any of the Clump debates before scheduling any others. Although, it should have been pretty obvious he would not be in the Clump debates at least a month ago or more.
On that we agree, despite all my lobotomies.
paulie wrote:
BULLSHIT!!!
Stossel doesn’t organize debates for shits and giggles. He has a television show and he is looking for content. The debate that actually happened later — without a live audience of over 1,000 young libertarians — is proof of what would have happened with the DC debate; namely, it would have been televised on Stossel.
paulie wrote:
BULLSHIT!!!
Very sad that you have developed memory and reading comprehension problems in your absence. Best wishes on a speedy recovery.
paulie wrote:
It was completely foreseeable that an amateurish convention debate would have worse video than a real television show.
paulie wrote:
He was justly slammed for unilaterally throwing away an unprecedented media opportunity. Nor was it an either / or choice: Petersen and McAfee were negotiating the logistics to do both. Johnson prevented that.
It was a boneheaded, reprehensible move. It was the stupidest thing Gary Johnson had done up until that point — though of course he outdid himself later.
I find it truly shocking that you continue to defend his behavior. Perhaps you had a full frontal lobotomy of which I am not aware.
paulie wrote:
In the universe that 1,000 young, energetic libertarians many of whom are not yet LP members or activists despite their strong leanings is a 1 million times better audience than 30 random people who wander off the streets of NYC.
I am literally shaking with anger that anyone involved in the libertarian movement could be so monumentally stupid that he doesn’t see the benefit of that. This is why we as a Party make practically no progress in 40 years.
I can understand why Knapp defended the decision at that time… he apparently had no idea how the Stossel show works or how many people attend Students for Liberty conferences. You knew better then and you know better now.
paulie wrote:
He ducked Castle, McMullin, etc. He ducked the potential for much larger coverage than PBS — Free and Equal was going to seek coverage from other sources, which was a non-starter without Johnson, Stein, or McMullin. He ducked debates back when they could actually move poll numbers and back when many more people were persuadable, rather than now when most have already made up their minds. He ducked debates from back when potential new supporters could have contacted the campaign and local affiliates, gotten involved, and become invested in the campaign and the Libertarian Party. Now all he can do is move a few election day votes.
Johnson is a day late and a dollar short, as usual. Better late than never, but let’s not confuse late with on time.
Looked it up in old threads. A debate was tentatively offered at the DC event but no plans to televise it.
From what I recall reading, no such debate was in fact scheduled and no one had made any promise to broadcast it if it was.
No one had any idea about the audio/video problems before they happened. Johnson had made a commitment to a state party months earlier, they had spent a lot of time and energy and probably money promoting it. Other candidates made plans to attend on the basis that Johnson would be there. Johnson has been justifiably slammed that there were times when he left other state parties holding the bag when he changed his plans and did not attend their events after they promoted that he would be there. This time, he is being unjustly slammed that he kept his commitment and for audiovisual problems that he could not have possibly known about when he made decisions about where to be.
Unless I am mistaken, the alternative would have actually been either showing up at the conference with no debate scheduled at all or a debate that would be in front of a larger audience but with no TV. The later event, albeit with a smaller audience, was on TV and with time to promote the TV appearance, schedule watch parties etc.
In what universe is attending a debate you had long since committed to, in order to attend one that you had never committed to, and may have never been scheduled at all – and then debating all the people that would have supposedly been at the other event, plus others, among other times you debated them – “ducking”? Johnson also hasn’t ducked Stein, as he just debated her on Travis Smiley’s show. He did have a problem with Christina – I’m not sure why, I think the 2012 debate was fine – and maybe with being on the stage with e.g. La Riva (but maybe not). But in general, ducking debates is not one of the criticisms that legitimately applies to him.
That larger point is true.
Jose is talking about Johnson ducking the debate scheduled in front of a studio audience of over 1,000 young libertarians to instead attend a forum with horrific production values at a libertarian state convention (terrible sound, bad video)… thankfully a Stossel debate was later rescheduled, but in front of an audience of 30 people instead of over 1,000 young libertarians. What a wasted opportunity…
Johnson ducking that debate was shocking, reprehensible, and should have been a disqualifying error if the delegates had been paying attention. Indeed, Johnson has only doubled down on his campaign errors since then — but the delegates selected him with full knowledge of his horrible campaign strategy.
That’s incorrect. Johnson had a prior commitment to the Alabama-Mississippi convention and had agreed to that debate with a larger number of candidates. McAfee and Petersen had a plan to go to Students for Liberty instead the same weekend, even though it was practically impossible to make both events. There was no plan for or promise of TV coverage for the DC debate if there was to be one, and iirc McAfee and Petersen did participate in Mississippi. Then the Stossel event with three candidates was scheduled for later and televised in two parts. It was never planned to be in addition to another TV debate. Johnson was at a number of other primary debates as well. However, since he teamed up with Weld, it looks like his attitude towards debates has changed, and not for the better.
He was at that debate. We covered it here. I believe you commented on it, but I’d have to go back and check. I’ll have to see the Smiley show to see whether it was more like a town hall debate (ie same stage) or separate segments like CNN.
There were two debates. The first debate which would have been shown on Fox Business News is the debate he refused the invitation to participate in. It would have been a three person debate. Because he refused the invitation the debate was cancelled even though Peterson and McAfee were willing to debate each other.
Jose,
He was at that debate. We covered it here. I believe you commented on it, but I’d have to go back and check. I’ll have to see the Smiley show to see whether it was more like a town hall debate (ie same stage) or separate segments like CNN.
Darrell Castle said, “Once again, my socialist friend [La Riva] has hit the nail on the head. Shame on Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, in particular, for not coming. They are so high and mighty. They want to be Democrats and Republicans so badly…But they should be here. . . But they are afraid of us. They are afraid to come out and get down on the same level with people like us.”
I believe Gary Johnson was and is afraid to debate his opponents which is why he was not at the Free & Equal debate. During the Libertarian Party “primary season” when he had opportunities to debate those seeking the nomination more often than not he declined. Remember that when he had an opportunity to engage in a debate that would have been shown on Fox Business news he refused. He could have been playing it safe because he was the front runner but during the main event he obviously is not the front runner. What is his excuse this time? Is fear the reason he has not engaged in and is not going to engage any presidential candidate’s debate?
If elected President how can Gary Johnson interact with foreign leaders if he can not interact with Castle, La Riva, Stien, . . ?
We get it. You hate Libertarians. You aren’t even one of the guys who just hated GJ for not being libertarian enough. You strongly support anti-libertarian positions and candidates. It makes as much sense as “Libertarians for Trump” claiming to support that dude for his libertarian bona fides, when it’s obviously about supporting his “alt-right” cultural conservative rhetorical BS.
If you support the socialist parties or some vague “reform” candidate with no consistent principles, there will never be an LP candidate good enough for you.
Meet Rocky, America’s forgotten candidate.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rocky-De-La-Fuente-Americ-by-Darcy-Richardson-2016-Presidential-Election_Donald-Trump_Duopoly_Gary-Johnson-161018-925.html
In terms of economic and fiscal policies alone — redirecting the Federal Reserve’s (Wall Street) flow of money and credit away from short-term speculative and non-productive ventures and into the productive economy here in the United States — Rocky De La Fuente would arguably be the greatest president since John F. Kennedy.
JFK’s policies, which were in effect from 1961 to 1966, a couple of years after his assassination, resulted in a real increase of 30 percent in income and wages for all income groups, a 33 percent increase in GNP and a doubling of after-tax corporate profits.
Everybody should read economist Walter Heller’s outstanding book, “New Dimensions of Political Economy” (Harvard University Press, 1966) and University of Pittsburgh professor Donald Gibson’s “Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency” (Sheridan Square Press, 1994) to understand precisely how that happened. Heller, incidentally, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors during Kennedy’s tragically short-lived presidency.
Gary Johnson, of course, doesn’t understand any of this and has absolutely no clue how an administration might make America productive again.
“They wouldn’t have looked presidential next to La Riva, De La Fuente, and, to a lesser extent, Castle, as all three are a bit ‘out there,’ not to mention the overwhelming majority of people have never heard of them.” — mARS
Frankly, there’s nobody running who has looked more “out there” and unhinged than the Libertarian Party’s stoned-looking Gary Johnson. Thankfully, most Americans have now heard of him.
Johnson, Stein, and McMullin declining to participate is not inexplicable. They wouldn’t have looked presidential next to La Riva, De La Fuente, and, to a lesser extent, Castle, as all three are a bit “out there,” not to mention the overwhelming majority of people have never heard of them. Johnson, Stein, and McMullin, while virtually guaranteed to lose, likely enjoy being taken at least somewhat seriously, which participating in this debate would have negatively affected. McMullin, by far, would have had the most to lose by appearing here, since he actually has a shot at winning a state.
Don’t get me wrong, I would have liked to see all three participate (it might have actually been worth watching this year), but I don’t blame any of them for not doing so. Were I advising them, I would have recommended doing exactly what they did.
Disappointed that Stein, Johnson, and McMullin were no shows. Third party folks need to support each other.