Lawyers love the (only) two-party system

What is it about lawyers, anyway?

The North Carolina Bar Association refused to allow Libertarian Mike Munger into its gubernatorial debate.

The Virginia Bar Association refused to allow Libertarian William Redpath and the Green Party's Gail Parker into its senatorial debate on July 19:

Kimberly Kovac, communications coordinator for the lawyers' organization, said the association considers polling information, coverage from the media and a level of financial support before deciding whether to invite a candidate. Neither Redpath nor Parker met the criteria, she said.

Predictable, if despicable.

Even the Roanoke [VA] Times chided the Dempublicans for their exclusionary tactics:

Based on the news coverage, you might think Republican Jim Gilmore and Democrat Mark Warner are the only options to represent Virginia in the U.S. Senate. You'd be wrong.

In fact, the Libertarian and Green parties both have fielded candidates. Shame on the Virginia Bar Association for not inviting them to the debate.

Sure, Libertarian William Redpath and Green Gail Parker are long-shots to win, but they can never compete if the political infrastructure doesn't give them a chance. Early on in the campaign, months before November, they deserve the same opportunity to share their messages and try to build public support. Then, later debates certainly could exclude them if they are polling poorly.

Some would argue they are fringe candidates, and maybe they are. Parker's fixation on rail hardly makes her well-rounded . Yet third parties will always have trouble attracting viable candidates as long as the big two cut them out of the process. It's a chicken and egg situation.

Unfortunately, the Ds and Rs aren't about to give up their strangleholds on power even if it has led to bipolar, toxic politics. Voters can still take a look at all of their options for November.

Biploar, toxic politics.

I don't think I can improve on that.

Comments

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 ...

Search This Blog