Debating The Debate – Letting the media pick your candidates
By Guest Post | Thursday, October 6th, 2011 | Politicsby Steve Batton
Quick. Name four candidates running for the U.S. Senate seat in Virginia currently held by Jim Webb. Can’t do it? How about three then? Two? Ah, that one you can do. George Allen and Tim Kaine. Nice job. Except for the fact that you left out six other candidates, all running hard for the office.
In December there will be a debate sponsored by the Virginia Associated Press and the Virginia Capitol Correspondents Association. These folks have set the bar so high for participants that, guess what, only two candidates qualify. Yep. Allen and Kaine.
That leaves out two candidates who are challenging Kaine for the Democratic nomination. Courtney Lynch, and Julien Modica. There are four Republicans challenging Allen. They are Tim Donner, Earl Jackson, David McCormick and Jamie Radtke. Never heard of them. I’m not surprised. They are all legally qualified candidates, but they don’t have the high name recognition of two former governors. Nor does the media intend to do anything to change that. Try a Google search for “U. S. Senate candidates in Virginia”. You’ll be hard-pressed to find those other six names.
Now let’s think about this for a moment. Should they all be allowed to go on stage in a free and open debate? Gee, that sorta sounds like part of what this country was founded on, right? Maybe there are just too many of them. Let’s see, Allen plus Kaine plus six equals eight. I’ve been watching the Republican primary debates. They seem to have figured out a way to get in a good debate with eight or nine candidates on stage. What if those had been limited to the top two candidates only? That would’ve made for some pretty boring, not to mention narrow-minded, debates.
Now I know we’re talking apples and oranges in that unlike the debates I cited here, the U.S. Senate debate is between one Democrat and one Republican. But why not have them all on stage at once?
Without all eight (or nine) Republican candidates we wouldn’t have some of the best moments of the debates. Like Newt Gingrich acting as quasi-moderator, telling the real moderators how to run a debate. The spectacle of Ron Paul making a whole lot of sense, right up to the moment he starts talking about his foreign policy.
I mean what exactly are we afraid of? Maybe one of them will turn into the “Rent Is Too Damn High” guy? Or, is it that a Herman Cain might actually gain some traction in the race? Without the debates, we probably wouldn’t know anything about his 9-9-9 plan. Or about the man himself, a successful businessman who beat colon cancer. We wouldn’t know he just might be a viable candidate after all.
I understand there are many more people running for the Presidency than just those who have debated, and the need for some kind of criteria for inclusion. But when the total number of candidates for a seat is eight? Really? What would it harm to have all eight on stage? And would that possibly draw more attention to the race than just two?
Besides, we could’ve missed out on the line about Gary Johnson’s neighbors dogs and their shovel-ready business.
OK, maybe now I’m re-thinking my position.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
6 Responses to "Debating The Debate – Letting the media pick your candidates"
I’m going to take the completely opposite position. Kaine and Allen shouldn’t be on the stage either. None of these candidates have even qualified for the ballot yet. To be on the ballot, a candidate needs to submit 10,000 qualified signatures on petitions.
For me, the bar is ballot access. If you qualify for the ballot, you should qualify for the debate. Until then, debates are all too early and premature.
I just signed Earl Jackson’s petition. What an incredible speaker and a solid conservative who doesn’t mince words when it comes to describing the current malaise in Washington and his solutions.
Thanks Steve for highlighting the injustice in letting hostile media and establishment party forces replace our minds in choosing our choices for elective office. Especially thank you for mentioning the plight of Governor Gary Johnson, who despite polling higher than Governor Huntsman and Senator Santorum, and tied with pizza owner and Federal Reserve Kansas City Branch President Cain, is being excluded from polls so there’s no chance he can qualify for invitation to the next debate, Tuesday’s in New Hampshire. Virginians interested in volunteering to get the popular budget-cutting and job-creating 2-term governor added to our March 6 primary can contact me by clicking on “Virginia” at the campaign site, http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/state-contacts.
Or join the state facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/Virginia4GJ?sk=wall&filter=2.
Thanks again Steve!
CharlesFrohman@GaryJohnson2012.com
Perhaps we should encourage the editorial page of the RTD to pick future candidates for the House and Senate in Virginia. Sounds as if the RTD is simply disgusted by those who roam the House and the Senate, simply failing over and over again to do what is best for Virginia. In regard to transportation, that rests mostly with the House, but if they picked, the ax would fall on both parties.
“Fixing the gasoline tax and changing land-use policies are not easy tasks. The current crop of state leaders might not be up to it. But it would be a marked improvement over the existing Richmond way, whose toxic combination of timidity, stupidity and ideological rigidity will soon bring transportation in the commonwealth to a standstill.”
Mike, is there something wrong with you? Do you just randomly post your comments on an article. This post is about the US Senate race and you find a way to attack the House of Delegates and decide to pontificate on your pet projects and a newspaper.
You say “In regard to transportation” when nothing in the post even remotely mentioned transportation.
Of course, the author’s employer doesn’t own a lot of land near an anticipated light rail line either.
Well Brian, the article was about candidates, and my post addresses that, admittedly in a tangential way. On the other hand, given the position of the RTD on the “timidity, stupidity, and ideological rigidity” of our delegates and senators, it is quite possible that would never have found its way onto these pages which seem to protect those qualities if they are descriptive of republicans in office. So if you object to my post, just don’t bother to read it. However, if you object to the descriptions of some of your favorite politicians as timid, stupid, and ideologically rigid in regard to the gas tax and transportation, that is another matter. Since you have shared their views, perhaps the criticism is too close to home.
Leave your response