Skip to main content

Cape Gazette: UD/Delaware First Media exclude Libertarians, others, from major debate

From the Cape Gazette today:

Libertarians say UD debates exclude third parties
October debates sponsored by the University of Delaware and Delaware First Media are a major opportunity for candidates for statewide office to let the public know where they stand on certain issues.
But Libertarians say the media event excludes third party candidates.
UD Distinguished Journalist in Residence Ralph Begleiter and Delaware First Media President Michelle Boudreau recently informed ballot-qualified candidates of inclusion criteria for the debate. Begleiter and Boudreau say the qualifications insure participants are serious and have significant public support.
In an Aug. 5 press release, Scott Gesty, Libertarian candidate for Congress said, “To be invited, I’d have to raise $125,500 from 2,511 different donors, have already received 40,000 votes in a previous election or pay thousands for a poll proving at least 10 percent of Delaware voters already support me.”
New Castle County Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Delaware Steve Newton said, “These restrictions will keep other important candidates out of the debate.”
Newton asked, “Why have UD and Delaware First Media determined to exclude citizen candidates while providing another forum for career politicians like Tom Carper and John Carney?”

Comments

Anonymous said…
“I think it’s a huge, huge moment for the state of Delaware,” Boudreau said.

Her major selling point of public radio is that it’ll educate Delawareans about their communities, government and the “history of this shared place.” she said.

Guess not so much huh? http://www.doverpost.com/entertainment/arts/x1783279776/WDDE-FM-91-1-Dover-to-hit-airwaves-this-summer?zc_p=0

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...