Skip to main content

I love people who simply don't do their research. . .

. . . and then spout off about it.

This from Independent Political Report about the Nader campaign's pipe-dream of being invited into the fall presidential debates:

In his “Washington Whispers” column on the U.S. News and World Report website, Paul Bedard writes, “Ralph Nader’s bid to win the White House might not be as hopeless as people think. Consider wrestler Jesse Ventura, says Nader’s team. He started with little support in the polls, got invited to the Minnesota gubernatorial debates, and eventually won after people got a chance to compare him with his foes. ‘Given the fact that people are largely dissatisfied,’ Nader spokesman Chris Driscoll tells Whispers, ‘it’s not surprising that some are starting to look to alternatives.’ An Associated Press poll has Nader at 6 percent. If he can reach 10 percent, Driscoll figures entry into the fall presidential debates should follow, and the rest could be history.”


The debates are rigorously controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which pompously declares its non-partisan intent to exclude everyone but the Democrat and Republican candidates based on a very careful selection process:

In each of the last five elections, there were scores of declared candidates for the Presidency, excluding those seeking the nomination of one of the major parties. During the course of the campaign, the candidates are afforded many opportunities in a great variety of forums to advance their candidacies. In order most fully and fairly to achieve the educational purposes of its debates, the CPD has developed nonpartisan, objective criteria upon which it will base its decisions regarding selection of the candidates to participate in its 2008 debates. The purpose of the criteria is to identify those candidates who have achieved a level of electoral support such that they realistically are considered to be among the principal rivals for the Presidency.


What are the criteria?

1) Constitutional eligibility
2) On the ballot in enough states to provide 270 electoral votes
3) National polling at 15%

So the Nader's camp's idea that somehow 10% polling will get their candidate into the debates, when it's also highly unlikely he'll be on the ballot in 270 electoral votes' worth of states is simply . . . delusional.

None of this, however, is as honest at the response that one Delaware Libertarian reader received from Mr. Allan Head, Executive Director of the North Carolina Bar Association regarding the exclusion of Dr Michael Munger from the state's gubernatorial debates:

Months ago before any third candidate was qualified to be on the ballot we planned our forum for those who were announced candidates. Since then we have scripted our morning to the minute and even if we wanted to add another candidate we just do not have time now to do so. We are sorry that we cannot accommodate Dr. Munger's desire to participate and we hope you can understand our situation.


In other words, we've got our agenda set, it involves two parties, and we really don't give a shit about democracy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...