Another coup for Peirce on creativity
Bill Peirce, a Libertarian running as an independent for governor, may not get much media attention but his campaign is definitely thinking outside the box -- or in this case, coop.
In a news release titled "Something’s Fowl in Ohio," Peirce cried foul for the second time this month over being snubbed by the two major party candidates participating in Wednesday's noon debate in Cleveland.
Although he was not invited to debate Democrat Ted Strickland and Republican Ken Blackwell, Peirce plans to join his supporters outside the WEWS-TV Channel 5 studio for an hour before the debate, from 10:45 to 11:45 a.m.
The Peirce campaign said it has invited two "very special guests" to join them at the rally, but didn't elaborate. Peirce, an economist and professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve University, also promised to be available to the media at his office later on.
Peirce said he's happy to answer any and all questions about public school funding, higher education and other topics raised during the debate -- which is supposed to focus on education. The other independent candidate appearing on the Nov 7. ballot, Green Party candidate Bob Fitrakis, also was not invited to the second of four formal debates.
The news release closes, in giant bold letters: "Blackwell, Strickland CHICKEN to debate PEIRCE."
8 Comments:
at 5:01 PM, September 19, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6:27 PM, September 19, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 7:05 PM, September 19, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:41 AM, September 20, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:45 AM, September 20, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 1:43 PM, September 20, 2006 
Josh Krekeler said...
-
-
at 1:44 PM, September 20, 2006 
Josh Krekeler said...
-
-
at 1:44 PM, September 20, 2006 
Josh Krekeler said...
-
-
Post a Comment*Hey Jon, why don't you report on why two candidates on the ballot are being EXCLUDED from the debates!
Vote Independent!
Why is it that unelectable fringe candidates who don't have a chance in h*ll of being elected get all huffy when they are exluded from events with the viable candidates?
brendan,
Bill Peirce has been running a respectable campaign since August of 2005. If the media had bothered to cover this 40-year veteran economist even marginally as much as they do the duopoly, he'd probably be polling at least in the low 20s. What should give us pause isn't that they are mad about being left out, it's that the media only chose to cover two candidates and the rest be damned, viable or not.
If you're complacent about not getting the whole story when someone as qualified as Dr. Peirce is on the ballot, then God help our Republic.
"Why is it that unelectable fringe candidates who don't have a chance in h*ll of being elected get all huffy when they are exluded from events with the viable candidates?"
If their so unviable then why are the corporate Democrats and Republicans too SCARED to debate them?
This is supposed to be a Democracy, right?
Why is Brendan a moron?
Why does his blog suck?
Dr. Peirce and Dr. Fitrakis are both very qualified and have been chosen by the people of Ohio to represent their voices this election.
Fringe bloggers should understand why people who collected over 13,000 signatures for their candidates to be on the ballot would be pissed off that thier being shut out by undemocratic organizations.
Brendan, let's take a deeper look at why Peirce and Fitrakis don't have a chance to get elected. The causes are cyclical, so we can work our way around from any point. Since the media play a significant part, I'll start with them. In virtually all elections, the electronic and print media that the general public gets its political news from give equal coverage only to the Democratic and Republican candidates even when other candidates are running. I'll get to the possible reasons why later, and only point out now that this is a PARTISAN practice that's grossly inappropriate for organizations that have so much influence over culture and public life - but the fact that they all do it makes it okay (right?). On the rare occasions when other candidates are mentioned, they're generally portrayed as spoilers, kooks, or freaks rather than engaged, intelligent citizens or equal competitors. The message to the people who see those stories is that this nut is a threat to society because s/he's trying to upset the balance of power.
So the media reinforce the idea that the major parties are the only worthwhile choices for serious voters, which most people have already been conditioned to believe in other ways. This further entrenches Greens, Libertarians, etc. as nearly unknown quantities. With a minimized cultural presence, they have correspondingly few volunteers and financial resources to generate awareness of them through printed literature and advertising. They therefore rely more heavily on individual contacts, which are rewarding but labor-intensive (even then, they have to overcome unfamiliarity by first explaining what the Green or Libertarian party is). With all of the above factors at work, nobody's surprised to see everybody but the top two candidates come in under ten percent (and often much less) on Election Day. That result leads people to believe that few voters agree with alternative candidates' and parties' positions, but that's not a valid conclusion because most people haven't had a chance to evaluate those positions on an equal basis. It’s kind of like how some people think that anything that’s unfamiliar is weird in a bad way. That idea makes it harder for third parties to win popular acceptance as a reasonable choice. News organizations use third parties’ low public profiles and low vote totals as their main justifications for focusing the coverage that reaches the widest audience on the candidates that most people are going to vote for. By doing so, as I said, they’re deliberately narrowing people’s choices. Excluding Peirce and Fitrakis from the debates is also narrowing people’s choices.
I understand that Greens/Libs/independents and their supporters bear most of the responsibility for breaking out of this cycle, but not all of it. The media have the power to make a difference if they care to. I'm glad the paper's running Peirce's and Fitrakis' answers to its questions to candidates, but how many times have their names appeared in a story about the election? Candidate campaigns are one of the most effective ways for us to let people know about our values. Please don’t act like we’re being impolite by complaining about our candidates being shut out of debates when so few other options are open to us.
Brendan, let's take a deeper look at why Peirce and Fitrakis don't have a chance to get elected. The causes are cyclical, so we can work our way around from any point. Since the media play a significant part, I'll start with them. In virtually all elections, the electronic and print media that the general public gets its political news from give equal coverage only to the Democratic and Republican candidates even when other candidates are running. I'll get to the possible reasons why later, and only point out now that this is a PARTISAN practice that's grossly inappropriate for organizations that have so much influence over culture and public life - but the fact that they all do it makes it okay (right?). On the rare occasions when other candidates are mentioned, they're generally portrayed as spoilers, kooks, or freaks rather than engaged, intelligent citizens or equal competitors. The message to the people who see those stories is that this nut is a threat to society because s/he's trying to upset the balance of power.
So the media reinforce the idea that the major parties are the only worthwhile choices for serious voters, which most people have already been conditioned to believe in other ways. This further entrenches Greens, Libertarians, etc. as nearly unknown quantities. With a minimized cultural presence, they have correspondingly few volunteers and financial resources to generate awareness of them through printed literature and advertising. They therefore rely more heavily on individual contacts, which are rewarding but labor-intensive (even then, they have to overcome unfamiliarity by first explaining what the Green or Libertarian party is). With all of the above factors at work, nobody's surprised to see everybody but the top two candidates come in under ten percent (and often much less) on Election Day. That result leads people to believe that few voters agree with alternative candidates' and parties' positions, but that's not a valid conclusion because most people haven't had a chance to evaluate those positions on an equal basis. It’s kind of like how some people think that anything that’s unfamiliar is weird in a bad way. That idea makes it harder for third parties to win popular acceptance as a reasonable choice. News organizations use third parties’ low public profiles and low vote totals as their main justifications for focusing the coverage that reaches the widest audience on the candidates that most people are going to vote for. By doing so, as I said, they’re deliberately narrowing people’s choices. Excluding Peirce and Fitrakis from the debates is also narrowing people’s choices.
I understand that Greens/Libs/independents and their supporters bear most of the responsibility for breaking out of this cycle, but not all of it. The media have the power to make a difference if they care to. I'm glad the paper's running Peirce's and Fitrakis' answers to its questions to candidates, but how many times have their names appeared in a story about the election? Candidate campaigns are one of the most effective ways for us to let people know about our values. Please don’t act like we’re being impolite by complaining about our candidates being shut out of debates when so few other options are open to us.
Brendan, let's take a deeper look at why Peirce and Fitrakis don't have a chance to get elected. The causes are cyclical, so we can work our way around from any point. Since the media play a significant part, I'll start with them. In virtually all elections, the electronic and print media that the general public gets its political news from give equal coverage only to the Democratic and Republican candidates even when other candidates are running. I'll get to the possible reasons why later, and only point out now that this is a PARTISAN practice that's grossly inappropriate for organizations that have so much influence over culture and public life - but the fact that they all do it makes it okay (right?). On the rare occasions when other candidates are mentioned, they're generally portrayed as spoilers, kooks, or freaks rather than engaged, intelligent citizens or equal competitors. The message to the people who see those stories is that this nut is a threat to society because s/he's trying to upset the balance of power.
So the media reinforce the idea that the major parties are the only worthwhile choices for serious voters, which most people have already been conditioned to believe in other ways. This further entrenches Greens, Libertarians, etc. as nearly unknown quantities. With a minimized cultural presence, they have correspondingly few volunteers and financial resources to generate awareness of them through printed literature and advertising. They therefore rely more heavily on individual contacts, which are rewarding but labor-intensive (even then, they have to overcome unfamiliarity by first explaining what the Green or Libertarian party is). With all of the above factors at work, nobody's surprised to see everybody but the top two candidates come in under ten percent (and often much less) on Election Day. That result leads people to believe that few voters agree with alternative candidates' and parties' positions, but that's not a valid conclusion because most people haven't had a chance to evaluate those positions on an equal basis. It’s kind of like how some people think that anything that’s unfamiliar is weird in a bad way. That idea makes it harder for third parties to win popular acceptance as a reasonable choice. News organizations use third parties’ low public profiles and low vote totals as their main justifications for focusing the coverage that reaches the widest audience on the candidates that most people are going to vote for. By doing so, as I said, they’re deliberately narrowing people’s choices. Excluding Peirce and Fitrakis from the debates is also narrowing people’s choices.
I understand that Greens/Libs/independents and their supporters bear most of the responsibility for breaking out of this cycle, but not all of it. The media have the power to make a difference if they care to. I'm glad the paper's running Peirce's and Fitrakis' answers to its questions to candidates, but how many times have their names appeared in a story about the election? Candidate campaigns are one of the most effective ways for us to let people know about our values. Please don’t act like we’re being impolite by complaining about our candidates being shut out of debates when so few other options are open to us.
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home