League of Women Voters withdraws from NY debate due to Green exclusion

[Temporary1]

http://syracusegreens.wordpress.com/2006/10/18/league-of-women-voters-withdraws-senate-debate-sponsorship-to-protest/


Fair, unfair? What do you guys think?

[Nite Owl]

1. I think it's fair

I don't know what he is polling at, they seem to think it's enough though. I wish Hillary had debated Tasini, she can't just turn off the opposition to her, in the end it won't really help the citizens of NY. She should stand up to him if she disagrees not try to walk away.

[Temporary1]

2. I think Hillary not debating Tasini was the last straw for m

It showed that she doesn't care about voters at all -- she won't give them a fair choice between an antiwar progressive and herself. She's just like the rest of the "Washington Club"

Democrats in Maryland let there be huge primary debates; the Dems in that state are also letting Greens debate them. Why did Hillary have to do what she did?

[Nite Owl]

3. She has an enormous bankroll

something like 35million. She is likely planning a run for '08 and doesn't want to trip herself up just running for Senate, doesn't want her words to be used against her later. She has been ok as a Senator but she has not proved herself the leader that NY needs. She is the 'Washington Club'! NY is strongly against the war and she comes out with statements like we need to send more troops, signing on to a flag burning law is not on the list of things NYers are wanting to pass either.


Welcome to DU too!

[low_phreaq]

4. I think the LWV did the right thing

I think some of these incumbent Dems need to have the fire of a good honest debate lit under them. All legitimate candidates should be allowed to debate, even if the 3rd party candidates usually don't have much chance to win. If they have a more progressive platform than the Dem, maybe an open debate will force the Dem to adopt a more progressive platform which more accurately represents the will of the people.

I recently tried to illustrate this by posting a story about how the Green party challenger to Sen. Kohl was excluded from the debate by Wisconsin Public TV. I must not have done a very good job, because the post was misconstrued as my advocating for the Green party candidate, and did not last very long. I hope your thread lasts longer.

[Temporary1]

5. Unfortunately some people have the patriofascist mentality about this

The love it or leave it crowd apparently extends to our Party too a little too often. They don't understand that constructive criticism of Democrats is not only good, it is required if we're going to have a party worth supporting.

[pampango]

10. I would be encouraged by the debate participation by third parties.

I think there tends to be more discussion of issues and beliefs when you have third parties included in debates. Dems and Reps tend to spend more time slinging mud at each other than in discussing issues. The third parties seem to use debates as an occasion to get their ideas out.

Perhaps it is a subjective perception, but it seems to me, that there is more sympathy for Green participation in Hillary's debate than there would have been for Lamont-Lieberman or other more popular Dem candidates.

[Temporary1]

11. For one, the debate would've had an antiwar candidate

nt

[sandnsea]

6. If Greens learned how to campaign

Beat hell out of the Republican, be the proud "loony left" in sharp contrast to the Dem sensible center, get the Green message out, and create a two party system of Greens and Dems. Everybody wins.

But noooo, they have to keep spewing their 'they're all the same bullshit', guaranteeing they won't be welcome at the table.

New York was the perfect opportunity to run a first rate grown up Green - and they chose this idiot instead.

Too bad so sad. No sympathy from me.

[Brian Stevens]

8. Isn't that what debates are?

A form of campaigning? Let the green in. They have a right to be heard.

[tkmorris]

9. Well, maybe

But where do you draw the line? Can anyone who registers themselves as a candidate, Green, Socialist, Independent, Reform Party, Anarchist, Communist, or anyone else demand a podium at the debate?

I think a line has to be drawn somewhere. Restrict it to the candidates of partys that drew 3% or better of the vote in the last general election in that district/state, or whatever is deemed fair. There must be a line or debates will become useless circuses.

[Temporary1]

12. Howie's an idiot?

He strikes me as plenty intelligent; their campaign doesn't seem that much off.

[theHandpuppet]

7. This only increases my respect for the LWV

The LWV does a lot to sponsor/organize these types of debates all over the country and they have a reputation for being non-partisan. If the Green Party candidate wished to participate in the debate they should have been allowed to do so. Hell, ANY candidate legally on the ballot should be included -- that's what this country is supposed to be about. So yes, I think the LWV did the right thing.