We already know that it will be the red-hued Hot Wheels versus the blue-colored Cold Fish in this fall’s 9th district congressional race, which has drawn national media attention and bucket loads of cash – far more of the latter for the GOP’s stooge of right-wing appeasement than to the former high school hoopster hoping to reclaim the seat he lost in 2004.Sodrel, Hill in tentative debate deal, by Lesley Stedman Weidenbener (short shelf life for Courier-Journal links).
U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel and Democratic challenger Baron Hill have tentatively agreed to a televised debate on Aug. 31. It would be at WTIU in Bloomington, though key details of the event's format are still to be worked out.
According to Weidenbener, it has yet to be determined whether a third candidate for the seat, earnest Libertarian Eric Schansberg, will be permitted to participate in the debate.
Frequent readers of NA Confidential are aware that the senior editor has little use for pliant tools of the Republican junta against modernity, especially when it comes to social matters, while at the same time he laments the absence of alternatives in races like this one, where Democrats typically resort to various shadings of GOP Lite to win over the mega-church habitués of the exurb.
As a card-carrying contrarian, Libertarians aren’t my chosen cup of tea, either, seeing as they tend to be a bit too trusting of human nature sans a greased Kalashnikov, but from the standpoint of principled positions that generally derive from the intellect and not the fleeting andultimately empty pleasure afforded by a partisan ward heeler’s erection, Schansberg’s platform is deserving of a close look … and he categorically should be included in the debate, if for no other reason than to make the two major party candidates break a sweat, exhibit consternation, and be forced to answer real questions about genuine issues.
Schansberg for Congress
Dr. Schansberg – Eric with a “c”, not a “k”, as in the case of the fallacious academic poseur at the Yokel Arms blog – is a professor at Indiana University Southeast, and during his tenure there has visited my pub on occasion, although not once in my memory to drink, but rather to participate in a semi-regular book discussion forum that meets there from time to time.
I can’t say that I know him very well at all, and not all planks of his evangelical-leaning platform appeal to me, but as a candidate for political office who is aware of his microscopic prospects for election, Dr. Schansberg brings a vitally important element to the contest.
He is a thinking man … and we need more of that.
Dr. Schansberg’s presence alongside Sodrel and Hill at least offers some degree of reasonable hope for platitude reduction, a temporary concentration of attention, and basic coherency. It may count for precious little outside the confines of his IUS office, and yet it’s something to be desired as an urgently needed antidote to the grandstanding and pandering that otherwise will pass for dialogue.
Make no mistake: My original plan for the fall election remains largely as before, the primary objective being to illustrate the abject futility of the polling day ban on alcohol sales by drinking stockpiled spirits in the comfort of my book-lined study before toddling off through New Albany’s garbage-strewn streets to vote for the major party candidate most likely to defeat the other major party candidate that I dislike more intensely than the first.
I don’t recommend it to everyone, although it’s worked for me … and take my word for it, the guilt fades over time.
9 comments:
You'd better check now to insure that you are properly registerd on all of the various forms and ledgers, for if I read the paper correctly today, something like 5000 of us citizens were recently purged from the voters records for a variety of indiscretions, either real or imagined!
Roger,
"a card carrying contrarian," I like that. :) I also like your fall election plan. I'm leaning towards just staying in the book lined study until someone puts NOTA on the ballot.
I agree with you that Schansberg should be in the debates. Last week's column was on that very topic. It's on my blog with the title "I Want To See Naked Politicians."
To Tim:
Interestingly, libertarians are nearly split down the middle on the abortion debate. Basically the disagreement runs along the same line as it does with all other groups: it comes down to when you believe life begins.
Also, libertarians would want to give you the freedom to educate your child as you see fit. If government were out of the equation, there would be no need to argue or fuss about what theory is taught to your children. You'd simply choose the school that matched your values.
May I join you in said study?
Tim,
I don't know what practical/purist argument you are referring to, can you explain? I'm just saying the debate hinges on when you believe life begins. Everyone believes that each person's right to life begins at some specific point in time and when that specific point in time is reached, then this right to life trumps the freedom of someone else who may not want that life around. So even if someone believes a woman should have the freedom to be pregnant or not, it's still based on their personal threshold as to where life begins. If someone believes the woman has a right to abort at any time during pregnancy, as soon as the baby is out of the womb, almost everyone thinks the baby is then protected life and should not be eliminated because the mother doesn't want it around. And that's because their threshold of when life begins has been crossed.
As to your comments on the candidate issue, you do realize who sets the thresholds, don't you? You do realize who defines major party status, ballot access rules, etc. don't you? Isn't it pretty convenient that they can say, "well they haven't proven themselves, so they shouldn't be included." Seems to me that anyone who says they believe in having voters fully educated before going into the voting booth would certainly demand that any candidate who will be on the ballot be included in the debates. Don't you want the voters to be fully informed?
I don't think Schansberg should be allowed in the debates. I think he should be required to participate, along with every other candidate on the ballot.
There should be a series of at least four or five debates, each covering a major topic like education, the economy, healthcare, transportation, and the environment. They each should last at least an hour per candidate and the candidates should be required to answer questions from each other.
I also think that every television and radio network that uses public airwaves should be required to broadcast all of them in their entirety and that tapes and transcripts should be made available to the public via mail order, public libraries, and the Internet.
While I disagree with Libertarian philosophy in general, the party, when seeking fodder for their arguments of government failure, need only point to an FCC who's consistently sold out legally mandated civic responsibility to corporate interests, leaving the public to make potentially life changing decisions based on insular two-minute comments and heavily edited sound bites.
The problem with such an argument for Libertarians, whether it's inherently more fair or not, is that it traps them in the usual conundrum, forcing them to call for more government involvement and regulation as a means to better spread their anti-government message.
I'll join Lloyd in urging voters to check their registration as well. I registered at our current address last year. When I voted in the May primary, my registration was questioned.
After handing me a provisional ballot, the poll worker explained that my record would be checked and I would be notified of any problems. More than a month after the election, I received a letter stating that there was indeed a problem and that my vote had not been counted.
When I went to the City/County Building to investigate the situation, state records seemed to indicate that I actually was registered to vote in New Albany-- at a former address where I hadn't lived for ten years, even though I had lived in other cities and another state in the interim.
A few days after Mrs. bluegill and I corrected the record and received confirmation in the mail, she received a post card from the state election division asking if she still intended to vote from our previous address in another town, explaining that she could do so for another three years with no further correspondence.
Save another seat in the study, will ya?
I agree that Dr. Schansberg as a candidate should take part in the debates.
My reasoning here being that with only the two major parties participating, we the public, only get to hear from whom they have chosen for us to. Even if there are other voices within the two that may have a better message, we rarely get to know of them.
I agree with NAC that although 3rd party candidates historically have little chance of success, their involvement at least brings another dialogue to the table and results in a better informed voting public. With more choices hopefully comes more thought about the process prior to marking ones ballot.
As to the Roe v Wade debate, I wish we would just get over it! As a nation, we thump our chest constantly about how zealously we defend one's individual rights. We then go forward with equal zeal to legislate just who does or does not get to exercise which rights.
In my most recent book (the one to which Tim is referring), I am quite critical of both the Religious Left and the Religious Right. On the latter, I devote three chapters to what Richard John Neuhaus rightly labels "a target-rich environment". Feel free to read it.
Thanks for stopping by.
From my website:
http://www.schansbergforcongress.com/issues-all.html#5
Post a Comment