Gore Calls for Scientists to Engage in Politics

At the 2009 International Day of Peace held on September 21 in New York City, former Vice President Al Gore addressed a crowd of scientists and urged them to become involved in politics, but added with a smile, "Keep your day job."

Citing how other scientists have joined the Administration, Gore said, "Scientists can no longer in good conscience accept this division between the work you do and the civilization in which you live...We do have the capacity to make this generation one of those generations that changes the course of humankind. The stakes have never been higher."

US Secretary of Energy Doctor Steven Chu was amongst the first scientists tapped by President Obama to serve in the administration. However, Chu's political engagement had begun before the 2008 Presidential Election cycle, when an organization called Science Debate 2008 entreated Democratic and Republican candidates to engage in a national debate on science issues.



As a sign of the times, faith trumped science in the public arena. Science Debate 2008 chased the candidates throughout the campaign season. During the run-up to the Pennsylvania primary, Obama and Clinton put their campaign markers down on a faith-based conversation instead, which McCain (not renowned for his position on faith) declined. In a last ditch effort to establish a conversation, Science Debate 2008 acquiesced to receive written responses from the final majority party candidates, Obama and McCain, to questions that only glazed the topic on which environmentalists and scientists craved to vet candidates. Ironically, the Green Party, largely seen as the environmentalist party, was shut out despite efforts to get one of its Presidential candidates, Kent Mesplay, Ph.D., an environmental scientist in on the debate.

Desperately Seeking Humor: Penguin Debates Batman

This vintage television piece is making the rounds, as well it should. A slice of humor with a dash of prophecy. Generally, the comments on this YouTube posting comically range from "Golly" to "Friends. Friends. Friends."

Open the Debates

3rd Party Bookends: McKinney(G) & Barr(L) Share Georgia Root

What these two Presidential candidates share in common, aside from a desire to reform Washington D.C. is a history of Georgia politics. Opposite on social issues, their coincidental time in office says a lot about the districts and times they represented. Now, they carry these differences into the Presidential arena.

At a recent press conference called by Libertarian-leaning Republican Ron Paul, McKinney appeared along with Independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitutionalist Party Chuck Baldwin. Bob Barr chose to not share the stage despite agreement on the four principles agreed upon by the third party candidates. According the Atlantic Constitution, Barr's campaign spokesperson Andrew Davis said “Bob had a press conference right after that one,” and “He didn’t want to dilute his message by being on the same stage as people like Cynthia McKinney, who is completely opposite of what a Libertarian is.”

Yet, Ron Paul and the other three candidates understood the need for a unity of the smaller parties in order to break the stranglehold of the two major parties on the substantive content of the political debates, without which voters do not have an opportunity to critically evaluate platforms outside of the corporate influenced parties.

Here's the link to the CSPAN recorded Press Conference:http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=281024-1

read more | digg story

Nader Announces Open the Presidential Denver Super Rally

Currently shut out of the Presidential debates by the requirement thresholds set by the non-profit “Non-Partisan” corporation Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), veteran Presidential campaigner Ralph Nader has called for a Super Rally to be held on the Eve of presumptive candidate Barack Obama’s big night in Denver, Wednesday 27,2008.

The CPD requires that candidates poll at least 15% nationally, as measured by the average of five corporate media polls. In contrast, the League of Women Voters (LWV), who sponsored the debates of three Presidential cycles (1976, 1980, 1984) employed a 5% rule as measured by independent polls.

The LWV ceased to sponsor the debates in 1988, after the George Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns drafted the first secret debate contract, a “Memorandum of Understanding” that dictated who got to participate and who would ask the questions. On October 3, The LWV 14 trustees voted unanimously to drop out of the debates, and issued the following press release:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

The organization Open Debates has criticized the CPD for awarding control of the debates to Democratic and Republican campaigns. It notes that the CPD’s Executive Directors are gaming lobbyist Frank Fahrenkopf and pharmaceutical lobbyist Paul Kirk. The debates are sponsored by multi-national corporations and their presence is quite visible during the televised debates.

Strict control of the poll threshold, particularly in conjunction with ballot access regulations, also instituted by the two major parties, assures that the Democrats and Republicans need not fear the invasion of dissident voices on the debate stage. However, disident voices do resonate with the public when provided the opportunity. Consider Governor Jesse Ventura who explains his surprising win thusly, “I was allowed to debate. I proved that you could go from 10 percent to 37 percent and win if you’re allowed to debate. Rest assured these two parties don’t want to ever see that happen again.”

Earlier this year, an organization called Science Debate 2008 had tried to convene a debate between then Democratic contenders Clinton and Obama and Republican McCain. No takers. Science Debate orgnizers then hoped that they might get to host an event in the fall. Obama has agreed to just three debates as controlled by the CPD. Perhaps the Science Debate 2008, Google and Open debates could get together and present a debate which allows for the 5 per cent threshold candidates. If Obama and McCain choose not to come, they must have their reasons, but at least we’d hear from the likes of Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin - maybe we can have some spontaneous dialogue that way. A novel approach to debate, spontaneity.

If you are interested in opening up the debates, you can e-sign this petition. If not for this election, than for the next.

League Of Women Voters Wikipedia Page
Open Debates
Science Debate 2008

Nader Calls a Super Rally in Denver for Eve of Democrats' "Big" Night

Currently shut out of the Presidential debates by the requirement thresholds set by the non-profit "Non-Partisan" corporation Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), veteran Presidential campaigner Ralph Nader has called for a Super Rally to be held on the Eve of presumptive candidate Barack Obama's big night.

The CPD requires that candidates poll at least 15% nationally, as measured by the average of five corporate media polls. In contrast, the League of Women Voters (LWV), who sponsored the debates of three Presidential cycles (1976, 1980, 1984) employed a 5% rule as measured by independent polls.

The LWV ceased to sponsor the debates in 1988, after the George Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns drafted the first secret debate contract, a "Memorandum of Understanding" that dictated who got to participate and who would ask the questions. On October 3, The LWV 14 trustees voted unanimously to drop out of the debates, and issued a press release:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

The organization Open Debates has criticized the CPD for awarding control of the debates to Democratic and Republican campaigns. It notes that the CPD's Executive Directors are gaming lobbyist Frank Fahrenkopf and pharmaceutical lobbyist Paul Kirk. The debates are sponsored by multi-national corporations and their presence is quite visible during the televised debates.

Strict control of the poll threshold, particularly in conjunction with ballot access regulations, also instituted by the two major parties, assures that the Democrats and Republicans need not fear the invasion of dissident voices on the debate stage. However, disident voices do resonate with the public when provided the opportunity. Consider Governor Jesse Ventura who explains his surprising win thusly, "I was allowed to debate. I proved that you could go from 10 percent to 37 percent and win if you're allowed to debate. Rest assured these two parties don't want to ever see that happen again."

Earlier this year, an organization called Science Debate 2008 had tried to convene a debate between then Democratic contenders Clinton and Obama and Republican McCain. No takers. Science Debate orgnizers then hoped that they might get to host an event in the fall. Obama has agreed to just three debates as controlled by the CPD. Perhaps the Science Debate 2008, Google and Open debates could get together and present a debate which allows for the 5 per cent threshold candidates. If Obama and McCain choose not to come, they must have their reasons, but at least we'd hear from the likes of Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin - maybe we can have some spontaneous dialogue that way. A novel approach to debate, spontaneity.

If you are interested in opening up the debates, you can e-sign this petition. If not for this election, than for the next.

League Of Women Voters Wikipedia Page
Open Debates
Science Debate 2008

CPD has had it with Google, Goes for Withering MySpace Instead

Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader Calls for an Open Debate, posted: August 6, 2008

The vibe for a quality third party debate has never been more prime, but who would air it? How would it be paid for?

Google recently offered to include Nader in a debate with the Republican and Democratic nominees if he reached 10 per cent in the polls. Now, up to 28 ballot lines, the veteran candidate-activist may well succeed in attaining the goal of 45 state ballot lines which could improve his poll numbers. However, Barack Obama has announced that he has agreed upon 3 debates only, as set forth by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a "non-profit" "non-partisan" group controlled by the Republicans and Democrats which requires a 15 per cent showing in the polls. MMMM. Obama has not agreed to an earlier consideration of townhall meeting appearances as proposed by the McCain campaign.

Obama's declaration implies that he will not engage in a Google YouTube debate. The debate was to be held in September in New Orleans, a seat of controversy since the Katrina Federal Response debacle. Instead, the commission announced a partnership with social website MySpace, through a MyDebates.org social networking portal.

“For the first time in American history, viewers of the debates will be empowered to watch the event in real time online and review candidate responses on demand," said company CEO Chris DeWolfe in a statement Wednesday morning. For the first time? Really? MMMMMMM.

MySpace has good reason to vie for the privilege. Media mogul Rupert Murdock paid $580 million for MySpace in 2005 and advertising on the website has fallen. To attract new advertising dollars, the social networking site is now offering larger ad spaces.

Murdoch recently said Facebook was a "flavor of the month," according to a British tech news site.

Now is the time Google. The CPD has had enough of you and your open democracy style. Put on that third party and independent candidate debate. Set a threshold for qualification that is reached based on ballot access and/or poll numbers. Provide the opportunity for conversation that the Commission, Obama, McCain denies you, the other candidates and the voters. Play your part in prying open this juggernaut.

Peace and Freedom Convention this Weekend - Four Candidates, including McKinney and Nader stand-off

The State Convention for Peace and Freedom Party will convene on Saturday, August 2 and 3 at the Hawthorn Suites, 321 Bercut Drive, Sacramento California. At the convention Brian Moore, Gloria La Riva, Ralph Nader, and Cynthia McKinney will be seeking the Peace and Freedom Party’s presidential nomination. A debate among the four presidential candidates will be at the same location on Friday, August 1 at 7 p.m.

Green Party Presidential Candidates to Debate on Miller Politics Podcast Show

Dan Miller offers a nonpartisan political podcast show on which he interviews candidates of all stripes. He's a very mellow host who lets people explain their positions fully.

This Saturday, at 5 pm, he is hosting a debate with Green Party Presidential Candidates. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/millerpolitics.

The 1.5 hour show is recorded live and there is usually an opportunity to call in and ask questions. You can also listen to the show anytime afterwards.

Google Opens Opportunity for Nader to Debate

Google will be hosting a debate in New Orleans in September and talk is that Ralph Nader may be included. According to a recent poll by CNN, Nader stands to earn 6 per cent of the vote, that is, if he can get on the ballot in enough states, which is a major challenge for the Independent candidate.

In 2004, Nader said he'd play safe with the election if Senator and candidate John Kerry would take up 3 of his platform issues. When Kerry failed to agree, Nader committed himself to a run. A pounding measure of lawsuits led by Democratic leadership pummelled Nader off a considerable number of ballots in that year.

In 2008, you can bet he's offered Obama the same. As of yesterday, Obama committed the DNC to refusing corporate lobbyists' money, though there may be some loophole a lobbyist or corporation could squirm through which Nader would surely flush out.

What other two issues could Obama take up? He could review his health care plan and his stance on nuclear energy. That would please Nader.

If the three (and dare we dream four or five) candidates get to debate together, it would certainly be the most interesting and civil debate we've ever seen.

Buried Science Debate Scratching its Way to Surface

Science appears to have fallen into the dark ages. Ignored by the Democratic Candidates and politely declined by McCain during the primaries, Science Debate 2008 organizers focus on the post-primary period to reassert the need to have the candidates discuss important matters of science. Democrats were able to "debate" over faith (McCain declined). The Green Party briefly had a seat at the table - quite briefly, the irony being that the Green Party candidates, particularly Kent Mesplay, Ph.D. are unafraid to discuss science and would be quite eager to debate on the matter. Despite qualifications and willingness, polling status leaves this party out in the cold, even over Global Warming issues.

read more | digg story

Third Party Watch Gazes at the Green Party

This read from Third Party Watch is fascinating for its comments. Third Party Watch, a mostly, but not wholly Libertarian authored site, has been turning its eye to the Green Party lately. The author of this article will be a delegate to the party's convention in the summer.

Briefly, the story reports Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney's substantial win of Wisconsin delegates, with Ralph Nader, Kent Mesplay, Kat Swift and Jesse Johnson following.

To clarify some of the concerns of the readers and commenters, Ralph Nader is not seeking the Green Party nomination, according to many sources including the man himself. However, he would have sought it had Cynthia McKinney not committed to the run, says fomer Candidates and Campaign co-chair, Cat Woods; as late as January, some were unsure if McKinney would sustain her campaign.

There's little reason to expect that Nader will suddenly appear on the Green Party's Convention doorstep to wrest the nomination. For one, his running mate, Matt Gonzalez has stated point-blank that he has no intention of going. For another, (being frugal and frustrated) many of the Nader delegates who are from California and the East Coast have said that they will not be going to the convention. They find it difficult to justify the $1000 for travel/room and board expenses when they feel that their draft candidate was unrepresented on many state party's ballots. State officers on the other hand, feel that they only wanted to represent people on their ballots who had declared an intention to run which Nader did not do until late February. Some of the Nader delegates have branched off to support Nader's Independent run, while others, like early founding member, Howie Hawkins will support both Nader and McKinney campaigns to the degree possible - stopping at the polling booth.

In the meantime, Nader appears regularly in the press while McKinney has garnered a complimentary mainstream piece in Essence Magazine and a nice interview with Amy Goodman, Democracy NOW. Getting press is not all there is to campaigning, but being a household name is something any national politician must succeed in doing; something the lesser known grassroots candidates (Kent Mesplay, Jesse Johnson and Kat Swift) are learning to do.

Perhaps the parallel Progressive campaigns will bring new voters to the table for both the Green Party and for the newly forming parties sprouting up to support Nader's state-by-state ballot access campaign. However, it is more likely at this point that the campaigns will snag, not tear at the Democratic Party fabric.

Faith Before Science Leaves Greens In the Cold

While presidential frontrunners Clinton and Obama have refused to debate over matters of Science at the Science Debate 2008 on April 18, the Democratic candidates are eager to address issues of Faith at the Forum on Faith Issues on April 13. McCain has not yet committed to either. Logistical conflict has been cited, but given the importance of Science, why does it get the short shift?

"This is not a niche debate, the future economic success of the United States depends on out-performing the competition with smart people and smart ideas. Without the best education system and aggressive investments in basic research and development we will become a second rate economic power. We hope the candidates for president take this very seriously."

-Craig Barrett

Chairman, Intel

Green Party Presidential Candidates would love to take this seriously, but they were not invited, nor even responded to when inquiries were made, according to Green Party Presidential candidate Kent Mesplay, Ph.D. of Science. He along with fellow Grassroots Presidential candidates Kat Swift and Jesse Johnson will stage their own debate in Pennsylvania mid-April, both to discuss their deep concerns related to Science and to protest their non-representation at a forum where they feel they have some stake in being heard.

The supporters of the Science Debate 2008 include a list of prominent institutions, company executives and politicians. It has been planned for months, but what do you do if you throw a debate and no one shows up?

Depending upon what happens to Clinton in the next few primaries, perhaps after Pennsylvania's, the organization will hope to have a debate in Oregon before the state's primary in May.


resources:
Science Debate 2008
Forum on Faith
Plan B for the Science Debate

Blog Talk Dec. 2007 Interviews of Presidential Candidates: Mesplay and Schriner

Pulling this out from the recent past is an interview by BlogTalk of two candidates who are seeking the Green Party nomination for President. Kent Mesplay and Joe Schriner first met at the Green Party Convention in 2007 held in Reading, PA.

Mesplay, who has been a member of the Green Party for more than ten years, is an environmental scientist from San Diego. He ran for the Presidential nomination in 2004 as well as the California Senate in 2006.

Schriner thinks it would be good to have just an average guy in DC. A part-time journalist and activist, he became a Green in 2007 at the Convention. Though he has not been recognized as a Green Party candidate on the National He (and his family) have been traveling for over six years campaigning for the Presidency. They drive around in a old trailer

Candidate Jared Ball Cedes Campaign to Endorse Cynthia McKinney

At the Green Party Debate held on Sunday, January 13 in San Francisco, the DC based activist Jared Ball announced that he would give up his campaign and fully support Cynthia McKinney. This came as a surprise to the other candidates who had all come there to introduce themselves to the Bay Area Greens and beyond.

The debate is experiencing a life beyond a sunny Sunday. Recorded live with commentary by Pacifica's KPFA, it was later rebroadcast with a call-in hour following it. There were also a smattering of videographers. Link TV and Polidoc Productions teamed to provide the footage for the party's archival purposes which has been posted.

So why, at the point where Dr. Ball would receive a national ear did he turn over his campaign ? Having interviewed him several times, it was evident that he was brooding over something throughout the debate. He is normally a vibrant, generous and warm powerhouse.

All of the candidates have come from activist backgrounds, working with their local Green parties to highlight the issues affecting their own communities. Dr. Ball's message is not one about environmentalism as many understand it. However, the lack of voting rights for residents of Washington D.C. is both one of social and environmental justice. Residents of that political enclave cannot vote for who the next President will be, yet they are very much affected by whomever is in office. The last 7.5 years have been particularly bad for them.

Cynthia McKinney's platform includes one of Dr. Ball's main concerns, which is the systemic imprisonment of black men. Perhaps her evident strength among California constituents was enough to persuade him to relinquish at the venue. After the debate, Dr. Ball had a private meeting with Ms. McKinney, presumably to discuss how they will work together in her continuing campaign.

While campaigning in California in mid-December Dr. Ball and Head-Roc stopped in for an interview with Dave Brooksher of KHSU 99.5 FM Public Radio in Northern California.

To understand Dr. Ball's campaign, it is well worth listening to the following radio program provided courtesy of Head-Roc in two parts:

part one
part two

Bay Area California Green Parties Host "A Debate that Matters"

Presidential Candidates vying for the Green Party nomination will debate on Sunday, January 13 at the beautiful Herbst Theater in San Francisco, CA from 2 pm - 4 pm.

Those in attendance include:

• Jared Ball
• Jesse Johnson
• Kent Mesplay
• Cynthia McKinney
• Kat Swift

Undeclared candidate Ralph Nader, who appears on the California ballot as well, will not participate in the debate, according to the most recent agreement, but will address the audience after the debate.

The debate will be moderated by Activist Cindy Sheehan and Bay Area Green Party members and office holders Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, School board member Mark Sanchez and former Supervisor Matt Gonzalez and On-Air personality Aimee Allison. Candidates will also address audience questions.

The debate, which was planned over this last month by Alameda and San Francisco County Green Parties, is very significant. It will be the only opportunity for these candidates to face off before Super Tuesday. Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney will be the major draw for the event. Greens are eager to hear the two leading candidates hammer at the issues that seem to escape the debates of the Democrats and Republicans. The Iraq War, Economic Justice and the Ecology will dominate the floor. Yet to be seen is how well will the the lesser known candidates appear against these two mighty contenders. They are each articulate and caring and informed in their own rights, but have only worked on local and state levels previously.

The short notice of the debate puts the less robustly financed candidates in a difficult position as they scramble to find a home at which to stay in the Bay Area. To not show up slices him/her out of a significant opportunity to get their message and name known on a national level. The debate will be videtaped and uploaded to YouTube and promoted on Green Party list-servs and websites.

Jared Ball of Washington D.C. returns to the Bay Area after having just campaigned in California in mid-December, despite the pressures of having a new baby at home and a professorial job. Jesse Johnson, who is challenging the West Virginia Election Board to get the Green Party on the ballot, was caught by surprise by the short notice; his delay in confirming his attendance resulted in his name not being included in on-air and print material. Kat Swift, the sixth candidate has made a sudden change as well and will be coming out.

Elaine Brown, activist and former Black Panther Party leader, removed herself from the race two weeks ago.

The video will be available several days after the debate. KPFA will be broadcasting the debate. Democracy Now and Polidoc Productions will be working together to create an archival video of the event.