The Utah Debate Commission has decided to exclude the campaign for Craig Bowden, candidate for Utah’s 1st Congressional District, as well as candidates for the Gubernatorial race and Attorney General race. This measure to exclude candidates is egregious on its face, and will be challenged. For far too long, systems set up by the two major parties have worked to keep alternate voices from being able to be heard. Whether it is with debates or ballot access, the drive to maintain power has kept third party ideas out of the eye of the public.
The Debate Commission is in direct violation of election laws, and will be held accountable for what it is doing. Under the Equal Time Rule, candidates from opposing parties are able to receive equal air time at the same rate that is offered to other candidates broadcast. Normally, this would not apply as a law, as it does exempt organizations that hold their own debates as long as it is not the broadcast station itself. Where the Utah Debate Commission violates the law, is that the news media sits on the board for the commission. They are instrumental in planning these debates, and dedicate non-regular air time to have these debates. As such, it does not fall under “on the spot news” as required to be exempt from the law. The media is helping manufacture the news under the guise of a private entity.
As such, the campaign of Craig Bowden, will be seeking the price of 30 minutes airtime from every broadcast station, both televised and aired on radio, on the prime time slot. This lawsuit will go away if the campaign is included in the debates.
Further, Craig Bowden’s campaign will be seeking equal damages for every third party candidate and independent who was excluded. This is in combination with any fines the Federal Communications Commission may seek to impose on the Utah Debate Commission. The monies awarded on behalf of other third party candidates will be paid to each candidate that was excluded from the debates.
I had promised to deliver an analysis of the 2016 Libertarian Presidential Candidates before the Convention in May. I will be releasing my findings one at a time, as many developments happened between when I first stated I would begin, and today.
There have been more candidates that stepped forward, several dropped out, debates have been occurring at various locations, including a live televised debate on the Stossel program. The myriad of changes had caused a pause in what I was trying to do earlier.
The order that has been chosen to have the candidates discussed is as follows:
- Darryl Perry
- Marc Allen Feldman
- Austin Peterson
- Gary Johnson
- John McAfee
- Shawna Sterling
While there are other candidates who have stepped forward for the Libertarian nomination, these are the ones who have put forth the most effort in the nomination process, and as such, I reserved the right to only put forth candidates who were active enough by my criteria to be included.
I would also like to thank the following candidates who have dropped out of the race since I began my evaluation process. Your contributions to the Party are well appreciated and I personally thank you for your continued dedication to liberty: Steve Kerbel, Cecil Ince, and Joy Waymire.
Expect the release of each evaluation at a minimum of one per day.
Several third party candidates, including me, are on the ballot this November but are being excluded from participating in the debates, even though the debates are being held on tax payer funded venues like universities. Supporters feel that in order for true non-partisanship and voter education, ballot qualified candidates should be allowed to debate.
Please go to http://utahdebatecommission.org/contact-us/ to send the debate commission a message you want third party voices heard.
You can sign the petition at http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/let-third-parties-debate
You can also join our Twitter and Facebook campaign by using hashtag #LetThemSpeak especially on their pages
@UtahDebateCom and https://www.facebook.com/pages/Utah-Debate-Commission/302816553199941
Let’s do this Utah!
It is time for third parties to be allowed to debate. This petition is for the Utah debates to be hosted throughout September and October. Please add your signature to be delivered to the Utah Debate Commission.
Last night was fairly eventful in my world of debating, explaining, and writing about policy in the United States. To give you a little background: I have been writing letters-to-the-editor since I was eleven years old, and have been attacked by people on each letter, blog, debate, etc. that I have ever participated. Every time I have heard retort from a liberal on something I wrote, I have gotten one of only a few responses.
1) Baseless attacks. The liberals will sit there and send attacks that mean absolutely nothing to the issues at hand. I have been called a baby killer supporter for defending the second amendment (even though the same liberal supports abortion that actually kills babies). They do this all the time, and nearly every time an attack comes from unofficial channels, there will be cursing, name-calling, and disgusting language used.
2) Baiting. Liberals are really good at the bait trap to try to get you to slip up on what you are saying. They ask specific questions that are intended to get you to seem like you are somehow a monster. A good example was an idea I posted that those who are on welfare benefits should not have the right to vote, since they continually vote in people who will keep expanding the benefits. The liberal I debated made me out to me a unAmerican monster for saying that I was trying to take voting rights away based on an income limit.
3) Twisting words. Liberals have a very unique skill to take something you say, and squeeze out the most interesting interpretations. It was quite shocking when I first saw this happening to me, but it happens every time. They don’t see your context, or use your words in a misguided manner.
4) Changing to multiple issues. When a liberal realizes they cannot come up with a legitimate counter argument, many times, they will merely attempt to change the subject. They key here when this happens is keep things on topic. If they change, answer the question and move right back to the issue at hand.
5)Threats. This one is hilarious. For the peaceful, loving, all for humanity and harmony people, they are some of the most violent. I have been threatened more times than I can count. Everything from simple assault threats to death threats. It doesn’t bother me, because I believe in the second amendment and will be ready to defend myself if necessary, but they will threaten you when you hit the issue in a more articulated manner or use more logic than they can handle.
6) Run away. The last thing they will do is run away from the debate. If they can’t argue, they will usually try to make it seem like you are just too ignorant for their superior minds, and hence, will end the argument. In reality, they are giving up because they do not have anything to defend their stance. Especially when faced with overwhelming evidence against their position.
So when you debate a liberal, be prepared for this. It is going to happen to you. Just keep your cool and stick to the truth, use your evidence, and don’t let them get under your skin. Eventually they will lose the validity to their issue by using one of these reaction.
In the many years I have been doing this, I have only had two civil, full on discussions with someone of a liberal standing, so what I have told you today is the norm for most liberals. It is sad, but true. Most are guided by emotions and as such fly off the handle easily. Logic, truth, and evidence will win every time.
Numquam cede. Libertatem aut mors.