gotta love it

Gallup Poll EXCLUDING Nader from Polls becuase of "internal judgement"

To protest the sheer arrogance of the Gallup Organization.

In a recent WSJ/NBC national poll, Ralph Nader pulls 5 percent.

Contrast that to the most recent Gallup national poll, where Nader polls a fraction of one percent.

Why the big difference?

Answer: Gallup, the 800-pound gorilla of the polling world, doesn't list Ralph Nader as one of the Presidential candidates in the primary polling question.

Are you kidding me?

No.

We are not kidding you.

And guess who the Commission on Presidential Debates depends on to do its polling to see which Presidential candidates get to debate before tens of millions of Americans tonight in Nashville?

You guessed it: Gallup.

I called Frank Newport.

Newport is the editor-in-chief at Gallup.

I asked Newport:

Is there an objective standard you use to keep Ralph off your primary polling question?

"No," Newport said.

"We use our internal judgment to decide."

Whoa!

Gallup's "internal judgment" keeps Ralph Nader out of their polling.

So, I tried again.

Any ballpark levels of support Gallup looks to as a threshold?

"No," Newport said.

Again, it was just subject to unidentified "internal judgment criteria."

What a total crock of you know what.

There are some polling agencies -- such as Ipsos/McClatchey and CNN/Opinion Research Corp. -- that include all the major third party candidates.

Not Gallup.

Nader is stealing votes from MCCAIN! NOT OBAMA! - one of the best interviews yet.

http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/10/04/nader-at-commonwealth-club/

(scroll down the page a little)

Going to be on C-span tonight!

Dont worry the sound gets better as you watch

McCain and Obama - both want free markets when we need regulation

How Free Should a Free Market Be?

By ALEX BERENSON
Published: October 4, 2008
Is this the end of hypercapitalism?


For nearly a generation, the United States has driven growth by deregulating markets, lowering tax rates and promoting trade. Across wide swaths of the economy — from airlines to banks to energy to telecommunications — Washington stood aside, believing less regulation would produce broad prosperity, even at the cost of greater income inequality.

Now, with Washington setting aside $700 billion to bail out financial companies, the economy weakening daily and the Democrats likely to enlarge their majorities in Congress, it may seem that the United States is shifting away from faith in markets and distrust of government.

In Europe, some political leaders, including conservatives like President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, have declared the death of laissez-faire economics. “A certain idea of globalization is drawing to a close with the end of a financial capitalism that imposed its logic on the whole economy,” Mr. Sarkozy said last month. “The idea that the markets are always right was a crazy idea.”

What about America? In one sense, the present crisis would seem likely to continue the retreat from the free-market ideas associated with Ronald Reagan and President Bush suggested by the passage of the Medicare drug benefit plan in 2003 and the failure of Mr. Bush’s proposal to privatize Social Security in 2005, the centerpiece of his vision of an “ownership society.” Then, in 2006, Democrats took Congress for the first time in 12 years.

Whoever becomes president in January, lawmakers will be under pressure to strengthen financial regulation and give more resources to agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, which have appeared overwhelmed in recent years. Some critics of the bailout legislation complain, for instance, that at the same time that it empowers the Treasury Department to buy hundreds of billions in troubled debt from financial firms, it fails to fortify oversight of the nation’s financial system.

But Americans are fundamentally suspicious of government in a way that Europeans are not, a cultural and political difference that stretches back centuries. Anyone expecting a major expansion of Washington’s powers after November — whether under a Barack Obama or John McCain administration — may be disappointed. - read more at nytimes.com

Of, By and For the People…Not the Parties.

The idea of opening the debates to include voices beyond that of
the two major parties seems to have the power to unite people
from either end of the broad spectrum of American viewpoints…

"The Commission on Presidential Debates is a corrupt
stranglehold on our democracy." ---Phil Donahue

Many people would likely expect to hear such a quote from
someone described as "having gone off the deep end of the
left-wing", but how many would expect a person so often
described as a "right-wing extremist" to agree…

"I'm for more open debates. I think we have nothing to fear
by allowing people to be seen and to argue and to talk with
each other and I think the very concept of an elite commission
deciding for the American people who deserves to be heard
is profoundly wrong." ---Newt Gingrich

And who would expect an actual participant from either camp
to confess such complicity…

"I'm trying to forget the whole damn experience of those debates.
'Cause I think it's too much show business and too much
prompting, too much artificiality, and not really debates. They're
rehearsed appearances." ---Former President George HW Bush

The following petition is being circulated by Open Debates,
a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
working to ensure the public's interests:

We, the undersigned, support Open Debates' campaign to reform the presidential debate process. We believe that the presidential debates should serve the American people first, not political parties. We support replacing the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates with the nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission, so that inspiring formats can be employed, pressing national issues can be addressed, and popular independent and third party candidates can be included.

Please visit this link to add your name and to see the
growing list of your fellow citizens in support of debate reform.
http://opendebates.com/yourrole/petition/index.php

Whether you choose to sign or not, please check out
http://opendebates.com/ for yourself to find a wealth of reliable
resources on the topic, including this well-documented overview:
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a Tool of the
Major Parties - It's Time for a Citizens' Debate Commission
http://opendebates.com/theissue/

Mark Udall tried - Thanks! (This is his letter to me)

Dear Joe,

Thank you for contacting me about the bill to aid financial firms. I appreciate hearing from you.

When I look ed at it through the eyes of Coloradans, I didn't see what they needed to see. Instead, I saw a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street banks , no assurance taxpayers will get their money back, no sure process for holding CEOs accountable and limiting taxpayer- funded golden parachutes , and not enough to address the mortgage crisis at the root of our economic problems that is forcing hard-working Coloradans out of their homes. What I saw was a "rescue" for Wall Street that did nothing to begin fixing the broken finan cial system that led us to this crisis. I do not mak e the perfect the enemy of the good or operate as a "my-way-or-the-highway" legislator. G reed and l ack of oversight on Wall Street has brought a grave economic crisis demanding Congress ional act ion . Bu t I recall the words of a legendary coach , John Wooden, who told his players, "Boys, be quick. B ut don't hurry." After rejection of the first version, I hoped we would be quick to work together, improve the bill , and pass one that would deserve and obtain broad support in Colorado and across the country. But that didn't happen. Instead, the Senate made just one improvement , then added hundreds of pages of "sweeteners" aimed at winning ov er those of us who had opposed the bill . Many were things I support , including middle-class tax breaks and provisions to aid the transition to a new energy economy . But adding them didn't change the fact that Americans deserve a better solution to our ec onomic crisis than the one the House ea rlier rejected. We could and should h ave added provisions for independent oversight of the program, a stronger equity position for taxpayers , help for responsible homeowners seeking to refinance mortgages, and a guarantee taxpayers will not be on the hook for lavish payouts to irresponsible CEOs. Th e bill lacked those, and I could not support it.

Thanks again for contacting me. For more information, please visit www.house.gov/markudall

Warm Regards,

Mark Udall
Member of Congress