Here’s a video with highlights of Tuesday’s (Oct 24, 2012) third party presidential debate:
http://youtu.be/iiPtJkK58lo
Participating were Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Virgil Goode, and
Gary Johnson. Moderating was Larry King. Larry was a bit unprepared, but
his questions were far superior to those asked at any of the corporate
funded debates thus far. They weren’t his questions, though, as they’d
been submitted through the internet and selected by http://FreeAndEqual.org
Also contributing to the debate was an audience that was permitted to
applaud and frequently did so. Johnson was the clear favorite of the
crowd before any words were said.
The first question dealt with election reform, and Stein and Anderson
made clear they would clean the money out of elections. Goode proposed
to ban PACs but to let the money flow through individuals. Johnson made
no proposal to limit private election spending, even though it’s the
primary reason most Americans have no idea he’s running for president.
Instead, Johnson claimed he’d like politicians to wear NASCAR suits
advertising their funders. However, he was not wearing one.
Following the first question, it was pointed out to King that he’d
skipped opening statements. So those were made. Stein and Anderson
described a nation in crisis, suffering from expanding poverty, lack of
healthcare, homelessness, and an erosion of civil liberties. Goode
tackled the pressing issues of the deficit, immigration, and his desire
for term limits (as he would throughout the evening). As a former
constituent of Goode, I’ll have you know we had to vote him out before
he would leave. Johnson focused his comments on the need to end wars,
including drone wars, as well as the war on drugs. He agreed with Stein
and Anderson on civil liberties, proposing to repeal the PATRIOT Act and
indefinite detention. But he also proposed to virtually eliminate
taxes. Johnson tried to address the apparently unfamiliar topic of
poverty that Stein and Anderson had raised, referring repeatedly to
policies that “disparagingly” impacted the poor (he meant
disproportionately).
The second question dealt with the drug war, and all but Goode
proposed to end it, and to reduce incarceration. Anderson said that he
would pardon all prisoners convicted of only drug crimes. Goode said
he’d keep marijuana illegal but cut funding for enforcing that law.
Cutting funding in his view is clearly desirable even when he approves
of the funding.
The third question was whether military spending should be so
incredibly high. All four agreed with the majority of the rest of us
that it needs to be cut. Goode didn’t specify how much he would cut, and
his record suggests he would cut little or nothing. Johnson proposed
cutting 43%. Stein and Anderson failed to specify but have both said
elsewhere, including on their websites (which will always remain the
best source of most information debates provide), that they would cut
50%. Johnson, Anderson, and Stein, listed off the wars they would end.
Stein stressed that climate change is where she would move much of the
money.
Tuesday’s debate included a great deal of denouncing the Obama-Romney
position on a range of topics, and a great deal of developing slight
differences among agreeing candidates. But the fourth question brought
out dramatic disagreement. Asked about the cost of college, Goode said
he would cut spending on education, apparently because cutting spending
is just more important than anything else. Johnson, in a slight
variation, said he’d stop funding education because without student
loans students would just avoid education and eventually schools would
have to lower their costs. With at least one leader of the Chicago
Teachers strike in the room, Stein and Anderson said they would make
college free. This resulted in Johnson and Goode arguing that there is
no such thing as free, that the money must come from somewhere. A flight
attendant on the airplane I took out of Chicago shared their view when I
asked her if the online internet was free and she rather angrily
informed me that “Nothing is free, sir.” But of course the
porno-cancer-scans and gropes from the TSA are free. What we choose to
fund collectively is often not thought of as a consumer good at all.
Stein and Anderson came back with an argument that “we cannot afford NOT
to invest in education.” But neither of them pointed out that by
cutting the military and/or taxing billionaires we could have far more
money than needed. At no time in the course of the debate was the room
full of libertarians (who imagine we all have an equal right to spend
money) informed that 400 Americans have more money than half the
country.
The fifth question dealt with the presidential power to imprison
anyone forever without a charge or a trial, a power contained in the
2011 National “Defense” Authorization Act, and a power which Obama’s
subordinates are currently struggling in court to uphold. All four
candidates, coming from very different places, agreed that this power
needs to be removed, along with powers of assassination, warrantless
spying, and retribution against whistleblowers. Clearly there is a broad
public consensus on these issues that is derailed by lesser-evilism,
with half of those who care about such things holding their nose and
backing Republicans, and the other half Democrats.
A sixth and final question, before closing statements, asked the four
participants for one way in which they would amend the Constitution.
Goode and Johnson proposed term limits, a rather silly solution that
would not fix elections but just remove one person from them,
accelerating the pace of the revolving door between government and
lobbyist jobs. Anderson proposed an equal rights amendment barring
discrimination based on gender or sexual preference. And Stein, to huge
applause, proposed an amendment clarifying that money is not speech and
corporations are not people.
Here’s the full video:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Third-Party-Presidential-Debate/10737435220-1/
No comments:
Post a Comment