The word came down last Friday. The shadowy Commission that controls the televised Presidential Debates, a body that claims it aims to educate the American voter, announced that Gary Johnson would not be included in the first debate.
Not that such an announcement was a surprise. But, when 62% of Americans want a different choice than the one the media has foisted upon them, isn't that enough reason to add additional candidates for our consideration?
And, lest anybody suggest that adding Johnson to the stage is akin to the media pushing its own agenda for a better, more interesting storyline, isn't that how we got here in the first place? The media's inane coverage of a candidate so fully not qualified to become President that they have to be scrambling for a do over to save face?
It's time for the media (and its advertising sponsors) to attempt to redeem itself and provide Gary Johnson a level of visibility in this embarrassing moment in American history.
If he truly represents the viewpoint of only a sliver of the American people, what would be the harm? Taking twenty minutes away from candidates whose positions we already know and would only be repeated?
If, after seeing him debate, his numbers skyrocket, what could be the harm? Maybe Americans could be persuaded that the system isn't rigged against them (though most still know better.)
#LetGaryDebate. What could possibly be the harm?
Recent Comments