Trevor Lyman’s http://thirdpartyticket.com has released this new video. ThirdPartyTicket now has over 30,00 visitors and 7638 pledges out of 10,000 needed to stage a more inclusive Presidential debate in New York City. They are trying to collect the remaining pledges by October 8. Lyman previously staged “money” bombs which collected $6 million and $4 million for Ron Paul per day. He is asking that viewers share this video with their friends.
Posts Tagged ‘Ralph Nader’
New video from ThirdPartyTicket.com asks that Nader, Barr, Baldwin and McKinney be included in the debatesIn Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Media, Politics on October 3, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Trevor Lyman’s ThirdPartyTicket.com more than half way to 10,000 pledge goal for organizing alternative Presidential debatesIn Politics on October 1, 2008 at 1:43 am
Trevor Lyman is more than half way towards his goal of raising 10,000 pledges to stage a debate with all the candidates who are on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning the election. Lyman is previously known for organizing Ron Paul’s money bombs. Currently, ThirdPartyTicket.com lists the number of people who have pledged to help fund the proposed alternative debate as follows:
9/29/08 – 5,782 pledges
9/28/08 – 4,695 pleges
9/27/08 – 702 pledges
Lyman proposes to hold the debate at a yet to be announced location in New York City. It will be broadcast by BreakTheMatrix.com, which is sponsoring the debate along with Free and Equal and Open Debates.
The candidates who are invited are:
BreakTheMatrix is also soliciting questions for the proposed debate.
As of this writing 6653 people have pledged to donate.
posted at IPR by Ross Levin
Trevor Lyman, the man who organized the Ron Paul moneybombs, is trying to organize a debate for all of the presidential candidates who will appear on enough ballots to win. Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Barack Obama, and John McCain will all be invited.
However, it is not guaranteed that the debate will take place. Lyman is asking for 10,000 donation pledges to his website, thirdpartyticket.com, before he commits to holding the debate. He wants that number of pledges by October 8th. If the goal is met, the debate will be in New York City.
Formerly, the website was taking pledges for a third party moneybomb, and the candidate who would receive the funds would be decided at a later date. But it has since changed to taking pledges for money to run the proposed debate.
Once again, you can pledge to donate toward the debate at thirdpartyticket.com, and 10,000 pledges are needed by October 8th for what could be the most serious challenge to the Commission for Presidential Debates monopoly on presidential debates to take place.
The following is the letter Aaron Starr proposed the LNC send to Ron Paul, offered in response to the letter of apology suggested by Rachel Hawkridge.
September 13, 2008
The Honorable Ron Paul
Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul
837 W. Plantation
Clute, TX 71531
Dear Dr. Paul:
The Libertarian National Committee is disappointed to learn that you have recently urged those in the freedom movement to vote for the likes of Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin, none of whom truly grasp the meaning of Liberty.
More than before, we remain committed to our nominees for President and Vice President, Bob Barr and Wayne Root. We believe both of them boldly present the ideals of limited government, lower taxes, lower spending, and more freedom to the American people.
We invite you to restore your commitment to Liberty by supporting the only candidates on the ballot this year who understand the Constitution and are prepared to restore our republic to what the Founders believe
The Libertarian National Committee:
According to a field report by one of the Libertarian petitioners on the ground in West Virginia, as of tonight’s final turn-in of signatures by petitioners to the campaign, the LP gathered only around 12,000 raw signatures, falling short of the 15,118 required by state law. While additional signatures would be required to survive a challenge, the bare minimum required by law would have been enough if there was no challenge.
Richard Winger reports in Ballot Access News, “No other state is like Illinois, where even a petition with a number of signatures below the legal minimum is sufficient if no one challenges”.
If this field report is accurate, it would mean that Bob Barr can be on the ballot in at most 48 states, unless he wins his lawsuit in Oklahoma.
The Nader and Constitution Party petitions appear to have enough signatures, and the Green Party is on the ballot through its affiliate, the Mountain Party.
In another post at BAN, Richard Winger writes:
West Virginia and North Carolina are tied for having the nation’s second-highest presidential petition requirements (each requires a petition of 2% of the last vote in a presidential election year). Only Oklahoma is worse, at 3% of the last presidential vote.
Both the Libertarian and Constitution Parties are making a massive effort to finish their West Virginia petitions, which are due August 1. This newspaper story about the Libertarian petition says 40 to 50 circulators are working in the state. The story doesn’t feature the Constitution Party, but it also has many circulators in the state this week.
West Virginia was one of 4 states in which Ron Paul didn’t get on the ballot in 1988, when he was the Libertarian nominee. The Constitution Party has never been on the West Virginia ballot for president, but the party has more organizational strength now than it has ever had. In 2000, its presidential nominee, Howard Phillips, was only credited with 23 write-ins in West Virginia, but its 2004 presidential candidate, Michael Peroutka, was credited with 82 write-ins in West Virginia.
Nader did his West Virginia 2008 petition earlier in the year, collecting 30,000 signatures, double the requirement. The Green Party’s affiliate in West Virginia, the Mountain Party, has been ballot-qualified starting in 2000.
LP Presidential candidates normally don’t get this level of media exposure, ever. Senator Mike Gravel’s switch to the Libertarian Party is causing a great deal of positive mainstream media attention. Below is an excerpt from the Newsweek interview, posted today. I will note that Last Free voice beat Newsweek to the punch, interviewing Senator Gravel within 48 hours of his decision to run as an LP candidate.
After the crowded presidential primary shrunk from eight Democrats and 11 Republicans to only three viable candidates between the two parties, what’s a spurned presidential hopeful to do? Well, if you’re Ron Paul, you ignore John McCain‘s inevitability and keep running anyway. If you’re former U.S. senator Mike Gravel, you switch parties.
Last Monday, the former Democrat swung by the Libertarian Party‘s national headquarters and defected. “We handed him a [membership] card on the spot,” says Shane Cory, the party’s executive director. Two days later, Gravel formally announced he would run to be the Libertarian candidate for president, joining a field of 15 others. Cory wouldn’t comment on Gravel’s chances at the convention, which will take start in Denver on May 22, but he did say that Gravel’s party swap has garnered some much-appreciated exposure for the Libertarians.
Gravel spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Sarah Elkins about the 2008 race and why he’s still running. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: You’ve been a Democrat for your entire political career. Was it a tough decision to switch parties?
Mike Gravel: It had been eating at me–believe me–ever since I was a senator [he served from 1969 to 1981]. When I was in the Senate, I was a maverick and, at the end of my term, I was not particularly happy with my progress in terms of partisanship with the Democrats and Republicans. So when I left office, I stayed away from partisan politics altogether. But when I decided to get back in the game and to get my message out to the American people about the National Initiative [a political movement that would allow ballot initiatives at the federal level], I had to pick a party that would allow me to get into the debates … But of all the parties I was probably closest to the Libertarians.
It sounds like you’ve been interested in leaving the Democratic Party for some time. Why didn’t you make the move sooner?
It wouldn’t have made any sense for me to enter the race as a Libertarian. [As a Democratic candidate], I got into the debates and got a fair amount of visibility up until General Electric [which owns NBC] along with the Democratic Party leadership, said they would get me out of the debates. And they did. GE said I did not meet their criteria for participating in the debates. I think it’s very interesting that a defense contractor said I had to meet their criteria in order to participate in the MSNBC debates. We’ve really come down in democracy when a defense contractor can decide what the American people hear from a candidate. It was a [Democratic National Committee] sanctioned debate, so we complained to the DNC and found out that Howard Dean had agreed to it and that not a single one of the other Democratic nominees raised a finger in protest, meaning that they were totally tone deaf to the censorship of the military-industrial complex.
So you didn’t consider running as a Libertarian from the get-go?
I would have preferred to run as an independent or Libertarian or Green Party, but I knew that none of those candidates would have gotten any traction. So I used my position as a legitimate Democratic candidate to get my name out there.
You still have to win the Libertarian primary in order to run as the party’s candidate.
I am probably the most well known and certainly the most experienced in terms of running for president and as a government official. I have 16 years of experience in elected office and have been a senator, and I have a great deal of foreign-policy experience.