Skip to main content

Here we go again: Now Allen Buckley has to fight for debate access

It is obviously in incumbent Saxby Chambliss' best interest NOT to have Libertarian Allen Buckley invited to any Georgia Senatorial debates this year. Buckley's reasoned positions on fiscal responsibility, and his ability to point out Saxby's porcine wallowing at the Federal trough for farm subsidies and other earmarks would make him a more uncomfortable debating adversary than either Democrat still in the running (Vernon Jones and Jim Martin).

So Chambliss, trying to stage-manage the whole thing, has set up a strategy to exclude Buckley, as reported by the Peachtree [GA] Weekly:

Atlanta, Georgia (August 4, 2008) - According to an August 4th article by Jim Galloway of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, tomorrow, hand-delivered envelopes from Saxby Chambliss will be delivered to Vernon Jones and Jim Martin, requesting the winner of the Democratic primary face Mr. Chambliss in a series of debates. No mention was made of an invitation to Allen Buckley, the Libertarian Party’s candidate for U.S. Senate.

Mr. Buckley placed a call with the Chambliss campaign this morning, asking if he’ll receive an invitation to the debates. Michele Grasso of the Chambliss campaign returned Mr. Buckley’s call, saying no invitation to a series of debates was made. Rather, Mr. Chambliss merely said he looks forward to debating the other U.S. Senate candidates in the fall. Ms. Grasso said Mr. Chambliss wants to debate.

Buckley said: “The majority of the voters in Georgia are conservative. I’m the only conservative candidate in the race. The strategy of the Chambliss campaign is obvious: try to cause the media and the people to focus on only the Republican and the Democratic candidates and hope the voters will decide Mr. Chambliss is the better of the two options/lesser of two evils. I request the press include me in any and all debates and that as many debates as possible be held.”

Joe McCutchen, lifelong Republican, said the following about the debates invitation exclusion of Mr. Buckley: “I think Allen Buckley represents the interest of at least 60 percent of the voters in Georgia because, unlike Saxby Chambliss, he does not support pork, farm subsidies or waste. It would be a terrible injustice if Allen Buckley is not included in the debates.”


Ballot access rules. Polling exclusion. Media coverage. Debate exclusion. GOP officials publicly calling for Libertarians to drop out of their races at both the State and National levels.

Ya think somebody's getting worried?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Chambliss is a dolt, he’s a sponsor of the wasteful “Farm Bill”, a truly socialistic subsidy that benefits wealthy corporate farmers, his suck-buddies.
He is also in lock-step with the current administration’s misguided ethanol subsidy policy, which places fuel over food (not to be totally confused with the UN’s “Oil-For-Food”, but close!).
Anyone who thinks Chambliss is a conservative- LOL. A social conservative perhaps, more like a Huckabee -i.e. social conservative-economic liberal POPULIST

I am a true economic conservative who believes the governement should do us all a favor by LEAVING US

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 — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...