Skip to main content

Amy Goodman's Democracy Now captures a surreal scene.  Stein contention  is that there should be a return to League of Women Voters criteria that "anyone who does the work to be on the ballot in enough states to win electoral vote" should be allowed to debate.  As the arrest is taking place, the arresting officer can be heard professing concern for the flag Dr. Stein and her VP Cheryl Honkala are holding, and that no one step on it by accident.

This video clearly shows that Jill Stein is one gutsy and classy lady.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Why was this Stein's big stand? (7+ / 0-)

    That's what I don't understand about this. Of all the things to protest, of all the things that she could have shed light on with her arrest, I have trouble understanding that this was of paramount importance in comparison with all of the many, many, many other issues America faces, so much as drawing attention to Ms. Stein, first and foremost. That's my particular opinion of this. And I say that as a very big supporter of political protests.

    I'd have liked to see her protest a hundred things that I can list off the top of my head which take precedence over this. Maybe that's just a skew of my priorities, but I feel like this symbolic gesture remained very much "symbolic," rather than drawing attention to so many things we have real issues with right now.

    I didn't think I would talk about it. I really didn't. Because I tend to support protesters and their convictions. This one, however, left me scratching my head. It wasn't strategic, I felt. Sorry for the "everyone's a critic" remark, but this whole stunt struck me as a bit short-sighted.

    •  Makes perfect sense to me. If you can't speak, (13+ / 0-)

      you can't "protest" all the multitude of issues you are talking about.  Protesting starts with getting your muzzle off.

    •  Gal folks shouldn't be runnin' no debates anyhow! (8+ / 0-)

      You ladies with your rules and politeness, you just don't understand how man-folks debate.

      Besides, when you ladies get on "that time of the month" you start asking embarrassing questions and insisting that us men-folk stick to the rules we agreed to ahead of time. BORING!

      We men folks of the Republican and Democratic national committees took the debates from you "League of Women Voters" FOR A REASON and that reason was so we could bar anyone but Republicans and Democrats from getting into the national spotlight, and so WE could make the rules about who could ask what.

      I'll just go ahead and add the snark tag here, 'cause we all know you feminists got no sense of humor.

      On a serious note, do you honestly wonder why this woman made an issue of being barred from the debates that the two major parties control? Really, you can't fathom why she might be making THIS, of all things, her issue de jour?

      She was barred from the debate, which would not have happened under the League of Women Voters, back when they ran the debates.

      Hope that clears this up for you.

      •  I think she could have used her time (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, edrie

        more wisely.

        I don't appreciate your patronizing tone, to be honest, as a woman, a feminist, a (d)emocratic Socialist, and a long-time protester; I actually am exactly the best sort of person in terms of ideological sympathies to address strategical dunderheadedness.

        •  And what would you have done? (4+ / 0-)

          If you think she could have used her time more wisely, and you are not just concern trolling, then I'm sure you can say exactly what you think she should have been doing. I await your response.

          Your confusion seemed disingenuous to me. If you were honestly confused as to why she might protest this way, I apologize. I mean, I could be wrong but it sure feels like you just want her and all third parties to disappear.

          Why might a political candidate who has done the work to get on the ballot protest not being included in the debates, rather than some other issues? Because she has been excluded from mainstream coverage by the one thing our two parties are bi-partisan about: there shall be only two parties.

          Unless she can find some way to move out of the third party ghetto, there is no way her protests will even be noticed.

          I have a question for you, do you think it is a good thing, or a bad thing that the debates are run by the two major parties now, instead of the league of women voters?

          •  I am not being disingenuous in the least (0+ / 0-)

            If it were me, I would have more directly tried to protest issues which were overlooked by both parties, as the fan man states here: http://www.dailykos.com/...

            My personal concerns probably veer toward ending nuclear energy as an alternative to other energy sources; it's not sustainable. I also dislike the ongoing support of NAFTA despite that repealing it seems to have been shelved. As someone not running for President, these are in no way representative of "the most important" issues for all Americans that aren't being discussed. I think, again, that linked comment covers these nicely. While we're seeing some motion surrounding DOMA, I'd push harder on that as well. I'd say we needed a serious national dialogue about austerity and how it fails, to pick up the work that Occupy smartly laid ground for, to discuss the criminality of reckless, late-stage Capitalism and Wall Street as the mechanism of this, and to call out the media's complicity in all of these issues. But this is, again, not about me but about what Stein does while on the stage (which she got onto, only to say "I'm not allowed on the stage," instead of using that stage to the best ends, again, in my opinion). That stage was an opportunity for the Green Party to define itself to the public, was it not? And what was the public's takeaway? "There exists a Green Party." Well okay, they already knew that though. Pushing for a more comprehensive dialogue about ISSUES would have been what I'd have liked to see. In terms of ideology, as I look at the Green Party's platform, there are few I fundamentally disagree with (with a few exceptions here and again). But in terms of strategy, this sort of thing gives me no particular faith in their ability to LEAD A NATION.

            •  I'll be as clear as possible here: (6+ / 0-)

              Jill Stein, and all third parties have been excluded from the national political conversation. If they can not find a way into the conversation, nothing they say will be listened to. Therefore, getting into the debates is the very thing they need to focus on, first and foremost.

              She was not allowed to be on stage. She had no opportunity to say anything except, "I am not allowed on this stage." And THAT was the public's take-way: the two major parties have seized control of the debates and excluded all other parties.

              Making that fact known was the first step towards saying anything else important. Sorry if I came across as condescending, but that fact seems so obvious to me, I truly can not comprehend how anyone could question it.

    •  because, like MOST of the third party candidates, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pistolSO, FG

      "it's all about MEEEEEEE!!!" and the rest of the nation be damned!

      who CARES if "i" spoil the results in a tight election!  stein is the female nader - and she stinks just as much as he does.

  •  I'm not supporting Greens (7+ / 0-)

    and I don't really know Jill Stein, but no presidential candidate from any of the multi state organized parties should be harassed.  

    Never believe your own press, never drink your own KoolAid

    by Mindful Nature on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 01:43:00 PM PDT

  •  This is crazy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    uciguy30, ffour, ladypockt, CuriousBoston

    I ripped Jill Stein a new one for making the audacious statement that President Obama was going to put Social Security on the chopping block.

    However, I don't think any presidential candidate, regardless of party affiliation, should have to go through what Jill Stein deals with.  The Green Party has a considerable voice in politics, particularly with regards to pro-environment views.

  •  When Greens get a constituency that send reps and (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yella dawg, dougymi, pistolSO, FG

    Senators to Washington DC so a Green president can then work to create change then I'll be more concerned about a Presidential candidate not being allowed into the debates.

    The message is really simple:

    Greens, get a constituency before demanding a spot as President.

  •  Don't forget Roseanne Barr, Peace and Freedom. (0+ / 0-)

    The video is the first time I've heard Stein speak.  Barr would be way more enjoyable to listen to.

    Your request has bad syntax or is inherently impossible to satisfy. --httpd_err400form

    by Bob Novak Douchebag of Liberty on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 01:52:42 PM PDT

  •  Here's my thing... Arrested? (8+ / 0-)

    For trying to get into a debate for a office which you are on the ballot for?

    That's the insane part.  I don't support her, or consider her candidacy viable, but actually arrested is just nuts.

    Willing to bet the response from the people running the debate to be a big fat "No Comment."

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 02:00:16 PM PDT

    •  I'm thinking she was arrested for trespassing, (0+ / 0-)

      not for trying to get into a debate.

      Your request has bad syntax or is inherently impossible to satisfy. --httpd_err400form

      by Bob Novak Douchebag of Liberty on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 02:11:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You say tomato... (7+ / 0-)

        I say big ugly red fruit that really makes a huge disgusting mess when you throw it at somebody...

        Arrested  when it was very clear what her presence was about.  Gotta love how democracy can be completely silenced by just putting up a "Private Property" sign.

        I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

        by detroitmechworks on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 02:20:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Democracy was silenced? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Murphoney

          Seems a bit over the top.

          My take is that she went there with the intention to trespass and get arrested, which would get a lot of people to talk about her and watch the video.  Much cheaper than buying air time.

          She got the exposure.  Success for her.  We are freely discussing what happened.  Success for democracy.  The cops seem to be the only ones who were inconvenienced by the whole thing.

          Your request has bad syntax or is inherently impossible to satisfy. --httpd_err400form

          by Bob Novak Douchebag of Liberty on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 02:38:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You enjoy your "Free Speech Zones". (6+ / 0-)

            And I'll continue to claim that they are both degrading and inherently against the concept of the first amendment.

            There is no success for democracy here, since the very issue that she was there to deal with is not being discussed.  Instead we are arguing about whether or not her "Protest" conforms to standard "Time, Place, Manner" restrictions.

            Instead of discussing the standards of the political debates, the political discourse, and the question of whether or not having third parties a part of the process COULD lead to us electing more and better Democrats.

            I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

            by detroitmechworks on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 02:52:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I watched the whole video and didn't see anything (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Murphoney

    about Stein being handcuffed to a chair for 8 hrs, as you claim. Also, the title of this makes it seem like an officer made her watch a flag during the time she was handcuffed.

    As for the arrest, they gave her a warning, asked her to move it along, she didn't, and she was arrested. And?  What were the police supposed to do? Let her in the debate hall without the credentials to get in that they asked for and she didn't have? What are you proposing that they should have done instead?

  •  If her allegations about her treatment are true... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamorgaine, buddabelly

    ...I disagree with the way she was treated by police, and think she deserved to be treated more humanely.

    However, that being said, I don't think the police were wrong to remove her from the premises in the first place, given that she lacked the credentials to be allowed in—and I don't think the debate's organizers were under any kind of obligation to allow her to participate in the debate.

    Quite simply, barring a "God-forbid" accident, there are exactly and only two people who have any chance at all of taking the Oath of Office on the Capitol steps in January: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

    Taking time away from them informing (or, in Mitt's case, misinforming) Americans about the actual decision they are making, to give it to people who have less chance of becoming president than I have of winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine next year, would be doing a disservice to the process.

    It was the debate organizers' platform and their choice of participants—in essence, a situation no different than Kos not allowing advocacy of Republicans or third parties on the website he owns.

    Unless you're seriously suggesting that anyone who gives one or two candidates a platform should be obligated to give all of them an equal platform, there's really no justification for any claim that she had a "right" to be heard in the debate.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 02:47:23 PM PDT

    •  Greens are on the ballot in a majority of states (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, lysias, jakedog42, CuriousBoston

      States I believe.  That ought to be enough in a free country.

      •  another way to look at it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Murphoney

        Then perhaps it is too easy to get on the ballot.  If every state had the same rules as Louisiana for instance, it would cost $5500 to get on the ballot in an electoral college majority of states.  I'm not arguing that it should be harder to get on the ballot, but it is sort of a chicken and the egg.  You can't both argue that there should be liberal ballot access so as to not exclude candidates, and then turn around and say that anyone who gets on the ballot should be included in the debates.

        •  I guess I have a quaint view of democracy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jakedog42, CuriousBoston

          No taxation without representation, consent of the governed etc.  There ought to be enough candidates to represent views on significant issues.  I don't get the fear of too much choice.

          •  the fear (0+ / 0-)

            the fear is that with the American attention span being what it is the debates are only 90 minutes.  The more people you include the less substance you hear from all of them including the frontrunners.

          •  depending on the number of ways you can define (0+ / 0-)

            what will constitute a "significant issue," that could well be more candidates than microphones.

            Even if you had your druthers, issues represented by candidates would never ensure that those pet issues would enter into a debate, anyhow.

            It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

            by Murphoney on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 04:53:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I looked (0+ / 0-)

          Easiest states to get on the ballot per electoral votes: states ranked by signatures/electoral vote:

          11 > Tennessee  - 25
          25 > New Jersey - 58
          33 > Louisiana - $63
          39 > Mississippi - 167
          45 > Arkansas - 167
          51 > Utah         - 167
          61 > Minnesota - 200
          65 > Idaho      - 250
          71 > Iowa       - 250
          75 > Rhode Island - 250
          93 > Ohio       - 278
          96 > Vermont - 334
          106 >Wisconsin - 400
          111 > Nebraska - 500
          140 > New York - 518
          149 > Alabama  - 556
          158 > Colorado - 559
          166 > Kentucky - 625
          170 > New Hampshire - 750
          183 > Virginia    - 770  
          189 > Kansas   - 834
          200 > Massachusetts - 910
          210 > Missouri    - 1000
          213 > South Dakota - 1057
          220 > Connecticut - 1072
          223 > Alaska     - 1091
          232 > South Carolina - 1112
          236 > Hawaii      - 1134
          242 > Nevada    -  1202
          262 > Illinois      - 1250
          265 > Montana  - 1250
          285 > Pennsylvania  - 1250
          288 > DC          - 1303

          That's plenty for 270+ and certainly doable for a determined crank and $250k to blow.   He won't bother with Oklahoma's 6269, but if all he wants is to get invited to the debates...

      •  It should be enough to create an obligation... (0+ / 0-)

        ...for a private press organization to cover the candidate?

        Should their being on the ballot also be enough to create a legal requirement that every newspaper have an equal number of column-inches with news about Jill Stein as they do about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?

        Should their being on the ballot also be enough to create a legal requirement that websites like Daily Kos not be allowed to bar advocacy for Jill Stein?

        Because that's essentially what you're proposing here: that Jill Stein's being on the ballot in an electoral majority of states gives her a right to overrule the freedom of the press and legally demand that they give her a platform.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 04:13:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seems instead we have a conspiracy of ALL (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CuriousBoston

          Major networks and the two major parties to deny free media to any other party.  

          •  Why is any other party owed free media? (0+ / 0-)

            The phrase "deny free media" implies that the third parties are somehow entitled to free media, and that they are being wronged when the media doesn't talk about them.

            I'm of the opinion that the media—like any other press, like any person—is free to talk about, or not talk about, whichever candidates they want, and that they don't owe third-party candidates any more attention than they feel like giving them.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 06:25:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  The platform is irrelevant. The airwaves belong (7+ / 0-)

      to the public and as such must serve the public interest, and that means allowing to be heard whomever has met the considerable hurdles of being on the ballot in enough states to mathematically win.  

      I could care less about what you or anyone else thinks about who has a chance of winning.    I will hear whomever has earned the right to be heard and make up my own mind.

      •  I don't think that policy would turn out well. (0+ / 0-)
        The airwaves belong to the public and as such must serve the public interest, and that means allowing to be heard whomever has met the considerable hurdles of being on the ballot in enough states to mathematically win.  
        So the terrestrial broadcast stations should be barred from airing any debate that doesn't have every candidate on stage who is on the ballot in an electoral majority of states?

        Because the end game of that policy wouldn't be Jill Stein and Gary Johnson on the debate stage with Barack Obama and Mitt Romney; it would be that the cable nets (which aren't subject to the "public interest" requirement) would sponsor and broadcast the debates, and the terrestrial broadcast networks would get back a profitable evening of television where they could sell commercials against their regular programming rather than running an hour and a half of commercial-free news television.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 04:09:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  But I really really really (0+ / 0-)

      want to be on that stage.  Isn't that enough?

      Your request has bad syntax or is inherently impossible to satisfy. --httpd_err400form

      by Bob Novak Douchebag of Liberty on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:09:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  2 Party System is exclusionary. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jakedog42, CuriousBoston

    We should air it out, after this round.

    Job Crater Republicans Made Our Lives Miserable. Drop Them.

    by renzo capetti on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:58:46 PM PDT

  •  You tell em. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm with you renzo.

    If liberals really hate America, we'd vote republican.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site