Green Party Gov. candidate Peter Camejo is appealing for funds to air TV ads to raise his profile and get himself into the 'debates' with Gropenator and Angelides. But there seems to be no effort to link the call for his inclusion with the right of the candidates of the other three ballot qualified parties to also be included.

In 2003 Camejo went along with the 4-way debate during the recall election. While he certainly was a far better informed and progressive candidate than Cruz Bustymonty or the phony Ariana Puffington (who dropped her independent charade and shilled for Grave Davis), Camejo never mentioned that there were other ballot qualified parties in California whose candidates should have been in the debates as well, including the California Peace and Freedom Party.

Then in 2004, with hat in hand, he approached the Peace and Freedom Party to get their nomination for himself as VP and Ralph Nader for Prez when Nader's independent bid in California was thwarted (undermined and attacked by the unDemocratic Party). The PFP rejected Nader ( a mistake in my opinion ) and nominated Leonard Peltier to try to draw attention to his case. That effort failed and Peltier remains imprisoned. Now one of Peltier's strongest supporters, Janice Jordan, is the PFP candidate for Gov. and should be in any 'debates' alongside Camejo and others. She's the only woman on the ballot for Guv.

Now Camejo is making an important move to push for his inclusion in the 'debates' again. He deserves to be included but should be linking that effort with a call for inclusion of the Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, and American Independent Parties. Otherwise he is buying into or selling out to the duopoly and not really following the supposed Green line that puts Grassroots Democracy as one of it's Ten Key Values. Grassroots Democracy should include a strong advocacy of multi-party democracy, not just a rhetorical position that only advocates for the party you happen to be registered in at the moment. (Camejo was the Presidential candidate of the Socialist Workers Party in 1976).

Recall that the effort to expose the theft of the presidential election in Ohio was a joint venture between GP candidate David Cobb (the only worthwhile thing he did in 2004) and the Libertarian Party candidate. That's the kind of united front needed now to expose the sham of the failed two-party system and build a real democratice force for progressive change.

It is worthwhile to check Camejo's website http://www.votecamejo.com and follow the link to write a letter to the League of Women voters to urge that he be included in any 'debates.' I would urge people to not just advocate for Camejo's inclusion but for all six ballot-qualified candidates.

-Paul Burton is a writer and musician, a Peace and Freedom Party registrant since 1982 except for 9 years as Green in Massachusetts, and semi-active with the Oakland Greens. He voted for Camejo for Prez in 1976 (or was it '72?), supported and worked with Ron Daniels for President in 1992, worked on the effort to get Nader on the ballot in Massachusetts in 1996, and strongly advocated that the PFP nominate Nader and Camejo in 2004.

For multi-party democracy, socialism, and a green-labor party.

There is no requirement for a debate. All candidates are free to debate with whoever they want or none at all. If somebody refuses to sit next to another candidate, there is nothing anyone can do except possibly not vote for that person which is how it is supposed to work.

The reality is if one of the two major candidates decides he dosnt want to sit next to a green, he wont show which means like it or not the debate is off.

The green party is likely to take votes away from otherwise democrats so the democratic candidate is VERY unlikely to want a green to show. Ditto for peace and freedom.

Libertarian party is likely to disappear this election because of their platform on immigration.

The real Tom Paine would be calling for open debates, not accepting the status quo and going along with the sham duopoly.

The reality is that there will be at least one televised 'debate' between the two duoply candidates, which will be determined by them and some 'bipartisan' sponsor which will exclude anyone predetermined not to be 'electable.' That determination will be made by former Democrat State Party Boss Angelides who doesn't want to lose votes to a Green or PFP candidate. That's inherently undemocratic and not in the best interest of voters - or Angelides.

The fact is that the televised debates are the only opportunity for free media access for the candidates of the independent parties. When they are included in debates, as Jessie Ventura was in Minnesota, or Camejo during the 2003 recall, or Perot in 1992 and 1996, they make an impact, get their message across to voters who wouldn't hear it otherwise, and expanded the political discourse to cover more issues. The media thinks voters are too stupid to follow more than two candidates and the incumbent parties want to maintain a lock on their positions of power. They'll work together to shut out the Green and Libertarian, PFP and AIP.

If all candidates on the ballot were offered equal time we'd see that the Republicans are almost as fascistic as the AIP, the Libertarians have a more sensible drug reform platform than the Democrats, and the Greens and PFP offer more progressive solutions to the crucial issues ignored by the duopoly - like ending mandatory minimum sentencing or prosecuting corporate crime.

Only by opening the debates to all will we have any semblance of democracy. Whether the Libertarian Party will be history because of their position on immigration remains to be seen. To write off any of the candidates without allowing them to participate in the televised debates is short-sighted and just perpetuates the decline of democracy and suppresses participation. That's what the incumbents want but the real Tom Paine would be crying out for common sense, not buying into the two-party excuses for dumbing down democracy.