Skip to main content

Mike Munger flips a well-deserved bird to the Demopublicans


From the press release carried by the Libertarian Party of North Carolina:

Dr. Mike Munger, Libertarian candidate for governor, won't disclose the personal financial information requested by The News & Observer and the Charlotte Observer unless he's allowed to participate in the gubernatorial debates.

"I categorically refuse to participate in this farce, unless I'm allowed to participate in the debates," the Duke professor said. He said he doesn't object to the request itself because both newspapers have covered all three campaigns fairly.

"They believe the voters of North Carolina — and not some elite group representing the wealthy and the politically powerful — should decide," he said.

"What I object to is the intrusive scrutiny of financial disclosure when I'm not to receive the benefit of simple fairness. The fact that McCrory and Perdue have excluded me from even one of the debates is an outrage," he said.

"My opponents have refused to ask I be invited to even one debate," he noted. "I find it ironic that I'm being asked to disclose anything, when it's my Sphinx-like opponents who refuse to open their mouths and say, 'We should include every candidate who qualified under state law.' "

Munger has pledged to prepare the financial disclosure packet, believing in good faith that either the sponsors of at least one debate, or the candidates themselves, will awaken to a sense of their obligations in a democratic society.

"I intend to sit by the phone, waiting for their call," he quipped.


Just promise me that you won't be holding your breath, Mike.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Bravo Mike!!!
Anonymous said…
Were I a member of either major party I too would not want Munger on the stage with me.

For how could I defend against him?
I love the "Sphinx-like opponents" line.

Touche, Michael Munger !

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 — ...

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 ...

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...