Re:Re:Re: Gubernatorial lawsuit

[Dan Billings <billingsdan@yahoo.com>]

--- tklaundry@juno.com wrote:
> According to her letter to the FCC Howell recieved
> 1% less votes than the GOP challenger to Kennedy.

Which equaled 12% of the vote.  Which is actually
pretty good for a 3rd party effort, though it had much
to do with the lack of credibility of the Republican. 
Hell, I would have vote for Howell.

> No, to do so would be to do exactly what Howell is
> accusing them of 
> Bi-partisan partisanship, not NON-partisan. This is
> true especially since the news organizations
> themselves are sponsoring the debate.  One portion
> of the letter to the FCC addressed this clearly, it
> says (paraphrasing) that the De Facto effort of the
> TV stations to keep her out of the debate and the
> non-coverage she's been getting (or not getting)
> substantially will suppress the voter turnout she
> can expect and will likely change the outcome of the
> November 5th election for Governor.

So as a newsperson, you want the FCC or the courts to
establish rules that you must follow when covering
elections?  You want someone in the government to
decide what percentage of coverage you have to give to
each candidate?

> IIRC there were 7 Democrats running
> for President at one time (remember the 7 dwarves?)
> all 7 were invited to the debate even though some
> were not given a snowballs chance of winning.

And there were many, many others that were not invited
to participate!  There are usually dozens of
candidates on the NH primary ballot, but the media
uses its editorial judgment to decide which candidates
are serious contenders.

> Actually in Massachusetts Independent IS a political
> party.  If you are not a member of a political party
> in Massachusetts you are UN-enrolled, not
> Independent.

You know what I meant.  

-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine

 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com