PBS: Crashing the Parties 2004

The Central Scrutinizer · Post by **The Central Scrutinizer** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:27 am

shanek wrote:PBS is airing a special called "Crashing the Parties 2004" sometime the 29th or 30th (check local listings). They'll be covering the candidates who have been excluded from the debates: Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, and Peroutka.

Why are they excluding the dozens, if not hundreds, of other candidates who are running for president? That is not fair. I'm suprised you support the exclusion of third party candidates.

RCC · Post by **RCC** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:53 pm

Luke T. wrote:
Hexxenhammer wrote:Minnesota has Jesse Ventura's Reform Party breakaways the Independence Party. Almost voted for their candidate for Governor in 2002, but then Wellstone died and everyone jumped in their partisan trenches and the guy got screwed. He might have won otherwise.

And Nader is really running on the Reform ticket? They'll run anyone. It was Buchannan in 2000 wasn't it?
Perot '92.

Actually, Perot in '92 was just independent. For '96 he started the Reform party in an attempt to make the whole thing look less like a product of his own weird megalomania. In '96 he promised that this "Reform Party" would select the best available candidate, which turned out to be, WATFO (what are the odds), Ross Perot.

Then in 2000 one of the best political mechanics of all time who also happened to be one of the worst candidates of all time took control of the Reform party, removed the wheels, and ran it into a ditch.

Now, Nader has grabbed the empty shell as a ballot access tool.

There is great potential fo an absurdist black comedy type historical work on the creation and brief history of the reform party...

NightG1 · Post by **NightG1** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:12 pm

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
shanek wrote:PBS is airing a special called "Crashing the Parties 2004" sometime the 29th or 30th (check local listings). They'll be covering the candidates who have been excluded from the debates: Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, and Peroutka.
Why are they excluding the dozens, if not hundreds, of other candidates who are running for president? That is not fair. I'm suprised you support the exclusion of third party candidates.

Is LaRouche running this time? You know, he "knew" 9/11 was going to happen a full year before but nobody would listen...really, he did....I swear. Just ask one of his drones who hang out in front state license offices.

The Central Scrutinizer · Post by **The Central Scrutinizer** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:17 am

NightG1 wrote:Is LaRouche running this time? You know, he "knew" 9/11 was going to happen a full year before but nobody would listen...really, he did....I swear. Just ask one of his drones who hang out in front state license offices.

I don't know. Is he even alive anymore?

Bluegill · Post by **Bluegill** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:52 pm

I watched the show--sort of, I was dealing with a fussy baby all the while. It was enjoyable and interesting, but not as probing as I wanted. Also, I knew nothing about Paroutka until last night, and the more I saw, the less I liked him, to the point that I really didn't want to see any more about him. About half way through, I started feeling annoyed whenever the Constitution Party was the focus. I wanted to hear more about the others.

shanek · Post by **shanek** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:40 am

Grammatron wrote:Communist, Socialist

Socialist Workers. The Socialist Party is now defunct.

shanek · Post by **shanek** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:42 am

Bluegill wrote:I watched the show--sort of, I was dealing with a fussy baby all the while. It was enjoyable and interesting, but not as probing as I wanted. Also, I knew nothing about Paroutka until last night, and the more I saw, the less I liked him, to the point that I really didn't want to see any more about him. About half way through, I started feeling annoyed whenever the Constitution Party was the focus. I wanted to hear more about the others.

Yeah, Peroutka was about like I figured. Libertarian Party + Religious Right = Constitution Party.

What I want to know is, why did they focus on the nominees so much? Why not focus on the ones who were actually running? It seemed to me like this was made and originally intended to air much earlier in the year.

The Central Scrutinizer · Post by **The Central Scrutinizer** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:29 am

shanek wrote:What I want to know is, why did they focus on the nominees so much?

What I want to know is, why did they exclude all the third party candidates? Shouldn't all voices be heard?

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:53 am

. . . some of them just howl and scream. . . .

It reminded me of a guy in the NH primary who opposed Reagan during his second run. If I remember correctly he wanted to "aquire Canada and annex Mexico."

Mexico I can understand.

Canada?

Flees flying hockey sticks. . . .

--J.D.

The Skeptical Community

PBS: Crashing the Parties 2004

Re: PBS: Crashing the Parties 2004

Re: PBS: Crashing the Parties 2004

Re: PBS: Crashing the Parties 2004