Letter I Posted to Yahoo News

Kelley Shannon's June 22 Associated Press story on the Texas governor's race ("Friedman, Strayhorn get on Texas ballot", http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_el_gu/texas_governor_2 ) called James Werner, who she said is a libertarian, a "lightly regarded" candidate. That sounds like a brush-off by the writer, something that belongs on the op-ed page, not in an AP story.

Shannon identifies the other candidates in the race -- two independents, a Democrat and a Republican -- by party, while saying nothing about their ideology. Did she *mean* to say Werner is a Libertarian, i.e. is running on the Libertarian Party ticket, and the small "l" was just a typo? Or was she singling Werner out to be the only candidate identified by ideology rather than by party?

The AP reporter considers it news that two independent candidates made it on the ballot, and quotes. Yet a libertarian candidate apparently already on the ballot -- at least she doesn't say he's not, just that he "also is running" -- is "lightly regarded?" If he is on the ballot, someone must have enough regard for him to have helped him get on, unless he spent his own money to get on.

If he is not on the ballot and not expected to get on, that is also telling. It's telling me that in Texas, candidates being prevented from being listed on the ballot is a routine occurrence, while candidates making it onto the ballot is newsworthy. No wonder, as Kinky Friedman says, "Not one but two viable independent candidates have made the ballot for the first time in nearly 150 years."

In other words, the two-party cartel is so strong that voters get a real choice with more than two Tweededum/Tweedledee candidates less than once a century. Because it sure as hell can't be true that for the past 150 years, everybody who would have made a good governor and was neither a Democrat nor a Republican simply had no interest in running because they thought all the Demopublican cartel officials in Austin were doing such a great job.

I wish I could say things are much better here in California, but they're not. The situation in Texas is part of a nationwide pattern of electoral abuse by the political cartel that is undermining the status of the United States as a free country.

Shouldn't *that* be banner headline news?

Sincerely,
                    <<< starchild >>>
Outreach Director, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
                        www.lpsf.org

Starchild,

Good letter!

All the best,

Don Fields

Thanks! If you forward it anywhere, please delete the words "and quotes" in the third paragraph, that was an error.

    <<< starchild >>>

Starchild,

Good letter!

All the best,

Don Fields

From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: LPSF Discussion List <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>; Liberty Students <libertystudents@yahoogroups.com>; grassrootslibertarians@yahoogroups.com; California Liberty <ca-liberty@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:08:00 -0700
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Letter I Posted to Yahoo News

Kelley Shannon's June 22 Associated Press story on the Texas governor's
race ("Friedman, Strayhorn get on Texas ballot",
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_el_gu/texas_governor_2 )
called James Werner, who she said is a libertarian, a "lightly
regarded" candidate. That sounds like a brush-off by the writer,
something that belongs on the op-ed page, not in an AP story.

Shannon identifies the other candidates in the race -- two
independents, a Democrat and a Republican -- by party, while saying
nothing about their ideology. Did she *mean* to say Werner is a
Libertarian, i.e. is running on the Libertarian Party ticket, and the
small "l" was just a typo? Or was she singling Werner out to be the
only candidate identified by ideology rather than by party?

The AP reporter considers it news that two independent candidates made
it on the ballot, and quotes. Yet a libertarian candidate apparently
already on the ballot -- at least she doesn't say he's not, just that
he "also is running" -- is "lightly regarded?" If he is on the ballot,
someone must have enough regard for him to have helped him get on,
unless he spent his own money to get on.

If he is not on the ballot and not expected to get on, that is also
telling. It's telling me that in Texas, candidates being prevented from
being listed on the ballot is a routine occurrence, while candidates
making it onto the ballot is newsworthy. No wonder, as Kinky Friedman
says, "Not one but two viable independent candidates have made the
ballot for the first time in nearly 150 years."

In other words, the two-party cartel is so strong that voters get a
real choice with more than two Tweededum/Tweedledee candidates less
than once a century. Because it sure as hell can't be true that for the
past 150 years, everybody who would have made a good governor and was
neither a Democrat nor a Republican simply had no interest in running
because they thought all the Demopublican cartel officials in Austin
were doing such a great job.

I wish I could say things are much better here in California, but
they're not. The situation in Texas is part of a nationwide pattern of
electoral abuse by the political cartel that is undermining the status
of the United States as a free country.

Shouldn't *that* be banner headline news?

Sincerely,
                    <<< starchild >>>
Outreach Director, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
                        www.lpsf.org

Yahoo! Groups Links

<image.tiff>

Dear Starchild;

Some clarification on the article and the points you raised need to be understood in light of how the candidates were placed on the ballot.

The Libertarian candidates were placed on the ballot after the nominating conventions held by the party. See the news article.

http://www.tx.lp.org/news.shtml

The other candidates had to gather nominating signatures to get on the ballot which represents a major difference over the simpler Libertarian process. The real complaint should be why is it so difficult for other party candidates to get on the ballot and so easy for Libertarians to get on the ballot.

The use of the " lightly regarded" was most likely due to the fact Werner only garnered 1.7% of the vote the last time around. Not really enough to create any excitment. Rule of thumb is candidates for positions don't get noticed by the media until they get about 20% of the voter polls or votes. Then the media wakes up. The 1.7% Werner got isn't even a blip on the radar screen.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Ron,

  Thanks for researching the situation a bit more. I'm guessing the difference is due to the LP having "major party" status in Texas, or something of the sort. That usually has to be gained by getting a certain percentage of the vote in a previous election, which is a screwed up system.

  Of course I guessed that calling Werner "lightly regarded" was related to him not getting very many votes. I realize that the media typically dismiss candidates who do not poll well or get a large percentage of votes. But it certainly is not in the interests of the LP, or of a free and fair electoral system, for them to look at things this way. Basically it results in a vicious circle -- you can't get media coverage until you are popular, and without being popular, independent candidates who aren't famous or wealthy have little chance. And to call a candidate "lightly regarded" on such a basis is insulting and shows a shallow analysis. You could take a survey of who peoples' favorite musical artists are, and someone like Dmitri Shostakovich ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shostakovich ) would probably barely show up in the rankings, if at all. Does that make it accurate to call him "lightly regarded?"

  I think Libertarians should be urging the media to give equal coverage and exposure to all candidates, and let voters make up their own minds rather than continually being steered toward those who already hold office, belong to an establishment party, or are popular, wealthy, and/or famous.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>