On June 27, two days from my penning this letter, our current president, and the president who preceded him, are scheduled to debate. There will be no third-party candidates to listen to. The last time a presidential debate did include a non-Democrat and non-Republican was 1992. That “outsider” was Ross Perot. He qualified for a spot on the stage because he happened to be extremely wealthy. With a small chunk of his bankroll, he bought enough air time to pitch his message to the public. By having that media exposure, he polled above 15%, the minimum number required to be part of any presidential debate goes.
What a system, eh? Want to run for president? Well, either have millions and millions of dollars to spend on ads, or you get shut out. Perot crashed that 1992 debate. He went on to get about 19% of the vote. In spite of the corporate media having nothing good to say about his platform and proposals. He was not towing the two-party line.
Ah, the media. You know, the same media that gave, and continues to give, one of the two debate candidates massive amounts of free air time, in spite of his having tried to overthrow our government. In spite of his being a convicted felon (oh and much, much more proven transgressions for which more court dates await). Yeah, the corporate media.
The incumbent certainly gets “free” air time too. While the convicted felon is free to psycho-babble, threaten to become a “dictator on day one,” and swear revenge on perceived enemies, the incumbent appears to be getting a free pass on fact-based criticism pertaining to the now almost nine-month-long Israel/Hamas conflict.
Fact: our government funds the Israel military. Fact: about 38,000 Palestinians, including about 15,000 children have died in that conflict, compared to about 1,500 Israelis.
This scheduled debate offers a Hobson’s Choice of two clearly immoral candidates.
Really, is this the best the country can do as far as who might get elected?
Fact: We need better choices. Much, much better choices.
Joseph Harrington, Oak Park