Friday, August 10, 2012

Here's the answer to the exclusionary rules at the UD/Delaware First Media debate

I will make this really simple.

1.  The debate is being sponsored by the "nonpartisan" Center for Political Communication at the University of Delaware, of which Ralph Begleiter is the Director.

2.  Among the candidates running for re-election this year who will be appearing on stage at the October debates are Governor Jack Markell, Senator Tom Carper, and Congressman John Carney.

3.  Senator Carper will, given the rules adopted by the "nonpartisan" Center, face only GOP nominee Kevin Wade, and will not have to share the stage with Independent Party of Delaware nominee Alex Pires or Green/Libertarian Party nominee Andrew Groff.

4.  Congressman Carney will, given the rules adopted by the "nonpartisan" Center, face only GOP nominee Tom Kovach, and will not have to share the stage with Libertarian/IPOD nominee Scott Gesty  or Green Party nominee Bernard August.

5.  This is all, of course, according to standards set by the Pew Center Debate Standards Project about ten years ago, and is complete, utterly, totally, and beyond dispute NON-PARTISAN.  We know because Ralph Begleiter told us.

6.  Finally, here is a screen shot of the ex officio members of the Advisory Committee of the COMPLETELY TOTALLY AND UTTERLY NON-PARTISAN Center for Political Communication:
Naw, there couldn't be any conflict of interest here, could there?

If you really want to know how Mr. Begleiter defends this position, why not ask him yourself.

Here's his email address:


kavips said...

Hmm, I'm wondering if we could sponsor a debate simultaneously with cardboard cutouts of the main party's candidates and completely steal the news away from the "sanctioned" debate which would be undeniably boring....

My gut feeling is that a couple of YouTube clips could outmessage the official message.... After all, Crazy Eileen buried Mike Castle. Question for you, is could we pack a hall with people really genuinely interested in real government?


Dana Garrett said...

I don't know how Libertarians feel about this, but I believe that electoral practices (like candidate participation in debates and ease of access to voting) are as much a public interest as anything governments enact and enforce. As such, they should be governed by law. Therefore, if your name will appear on the ballot, the public has a RIGHT that should be codified to hear you in candidate debates. That should be the case both locally and nationally.

NCSDad said...

I'd pack ONE seat!

tom said...

Has Tom Kovach been invited to participate in the "Debate"?

He does not appear to meet the UD:CPC's qualifications!

"The candidate has received 10 percent or more of the vote, tested in a trial heat, in a professionally conducted public opinion survey ..."

perhaps i'm mistaken, but I am not aware of any poll meeting these criteria having bee published for this race.

"The candidate has reported in legal documents filed with federal, state or local governmental entities the receipt, during that election campaign ..."

the Dept of Elections has not seen fit to make Kovach's filings available to the public yet, but based on the summary at Open Secrets it looks like he fails on this one.

"The candidate is the official nominee of a political party that: (a) received at least 10 percent of the vote"

He isn't. At least not until after he defeats Rose Izzo in the Primary in September.

And he's never run for this office before so the last two can't apply.