What Larry Sabato said about the Presidential Debate Commission is equally true of Ralph Begleiter and the UD Debates

Referring to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson's attempt to get on the October stage with President Obama and Governor Romney, the nationally known UVA political analyst said:

"He's dreaming," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center For Politics. "The debate committee is run by the two (major) parties. They had to let in Perot because at one point he had 40 percent of the vote."

This is, of course equally true of the University of Delaware's Center for Politcal Communication (directed by Ralph Begleiter) that is the supposedly non-partisan entity co-sponsoring this year's statewide debates in Delaware:

It is important enough to keep restating: the eligibility requirements that Mr. Begleiter and Michelline Boudreau (President of Delaware First Media, the other co-sponsor) are NOT non-partisan.

They have consciously adopted standards that will exclude all other candidates beyond members of their own Advisory Council and their doomed Republican challengers, who do not really belong to a major state party any more.

In others words, unless Mr. Begleiter and Ms. Boudreau make the (unlikely) decision to allow the other ballot-qualified candidates like Alex Pires and Scott Gesty onto the stage, it's time for them to admit that they are simply partisan shills for the Democratic Party.

Comments

ChristopherCarlson said…

Gary Johnson will receive a great boost in his national polling during the GOP convention. Ron Paul supporters will gravitate to Gary Johnson. As that happens, more independents will move to Gary Johnson. He needs to get a national rating of 15% to get into the debates. After that let Gary Johnson do the rest.

August 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Unknown said…

This article made the NJ today. Thanks for the plug.

August 18, 2012 at 12:28 PM

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...

Search This Blog