[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The debates ...

Good post.  Course, my feeling on this is that not allowing minor parties in 
the major discussion always benefits incumbents - the fewer voices allowed 
means less issues the incumbents have to worry about discussing.

I think ALL the voices should be heard, at least in one form or another.  If 
the rule is that a candidate has to have received 3% in a prior election 
then upon achieving that, the candidate should be included in debates, etc.  
Perhaps its different on a national level, the media couldn't possibly let 
everyone speak, but on a state level, why not?  You're right its just a 
bunch of hogwash.

>The case made the idiots sponsoring the first debate was that they didn't 
>have the technical logistics to handle more than two candidates. This is 
>just a bunch of hogwash. For over a year, debates were held all over the 
>state between five Democratic [later four] candidates for Governor. In 
>1998, there were 10 Democrats running for Congress in the 8th Congressional 
>District and all the television stations managed to handle that many 
>As an aside, I ran as an independent in that race and I was kept out of all 
>the television debates - as were the lone Republican and Socialist 
>candidates. I spoke to all the television stations, pleading for inclusion, 
>but they refused and later, refused to sponsor or air any four way debates 
>between all of the final election candidates. So, I am a tad partial to 
>including all the candidates who make the ballot.
>Lastly, WB56's "Keller at Large" and WGBH's "Greater Boston" aired quickie 
>interviews with all of us kept out of the congressional debates in the 
>final leg of the campaign.

Do you miss radio the way it used to be? Hear it again, the classic 
stations, the Disc Jockeys, Jingles and more at www.airchexx.com - "Where 
Classic Radio Lives"!

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com