The 3 little pigs, Peter Shumlin, Dan Feliciano and Scott Milne are going to the debate at VPR Sept. 23, 2014, APPARENTLY BEING HELD IN BRATTLEBORO, and we could ask, is this all about women-hating???
No, it is worse than being woman haters. This appears to be criminal money laundering. Governor Peter Shumlin signed a budget bill giving taxpayer dollars to VPR, Vermont Public Radio. He also did this in past years. VPR, Vermont Public Radio, refused to allow Ms. Cris Ericson, a woman, to participate in the general election governor candidate debates on VPR. They might have also refused to allow Emily Peyton to participate in general election governor candidate debates on VPR. Because VPR excluded Ms. Cris Ericson, a woman candidate, in past general election debates, then Peter Shumlin KNEW, or should have known, that because he signed a budget bill giving VPR taxpayer dollars, that they would refuse to include her again. This appears to be criminal money laundering.
Not only does this appear to be criminal taxpayer dollar money laundering, by using taxpayer dollars to benefit Governor Peter Shumlin by excluding governor candidate Ms. Cris Ericson from the VPR general election gubernatorial candidate debate, it also appears to be serious and willful and intentional election fraud on the part of VPR for failing to warn and inform the audience that there are FOUR other candidates for governor that they are excluding from the Sept. 23 debate, (Ms. Cris Ericson, Emily Peyton , Pete Diamondstone of the MAJOR PARTY – the Liberty Union Party – and Bernard Peters, another independent candidate, WHILE ABSENTEE AND EARLY VOTING ARE CURRENTLY GOING ON.
taxpayer dollars for VPR
Just felt the need to clarify something in this article. I have no idea why VPR did not invite certain people but it had nothing to do with giving taxpayers money to VPR. The state budget, as developed by the Governor and Legislature, passed by Legislature and signed by Governor, has never had an allocation for VPR. I believe this was part of an agreement when VPR was first forming. Vermont Public Television gets an allocation but Vermont Public Radio never has, not even a one time allocation for any special project.
Early voting, party loyalty, undue media influece and hate
I’m pretty sure that the majority of early voters, which on the state level is 45 day before the election, vote on, or, a little closer to the misnamed election day.
The point of undue influence in media’s deliberate narrowing down the list of candidates is well taken. That is an artifact of the corruption long employed by the American two-party system.
Other artifacts, of course, include, excluding parties without mainstream support, either in the polls, in voting patterns and in a morbid social consciousness of party loyalty.
Women historically have been on the lower rungs. While it’s true some men and politicians might prefer this out of hatred, it is more likely, again, a morbid social consciousness of women as second class citizens. Whether or not Pete, Dan or Scott are women haters is not clearly established in this article.
Has anyone noticed that Hillary has started wearing dresses rather than a trademark pantsuit only fairly recently?
Independent thinker-hating
When two of the four candidates you listed as being denied a chance to debate are male, it’s hard to call it “women hating.” And, in fact, LUP candidate Peter Diamondstone was invited to participate in the debate – suggesting that VPR was discriminating on the basis of party affiliation.
Personally, I think voters should have equal access to the views of every candidate on the ballot, and that includes access through coverage and debates sponsored by private and public media. I can’t think of one good reason to exclude independent candidates from a debate on VPR – as long as VPR doesn’t stand for Vermont Party Radio. It’s not media’s role to prop up the party system.
During the recent primary, Peyton received 1,060 votes (albeit as a Republican candidate, not an independent) compared to Diamondstone’s 133. To put it another way, 927 more Vermonters have expressed interest in a candidate that wasn’t invited to the debate than one who was included. How does that serve VPR listeners?
Very narrow % of ‘eligible’ voters
Since the late Sixties the generation I grew up in has been vocal about candidate inclusion, to no avail. We also saw the Equal Rights Amendment come and go, nevermore to be taken up with any significance.
Getting back to this particular race: Peyton jumped on the Republican Bandwagon, where she lost to the “party” Republican candidate very significantly.
Currently, the 3 independents do not speak with one voice and do not represent a “party” Each of the 3 carry some similar yet differing views that in, one way or the other, appeal to a very narrow % of eligible primary voters. (Remember – Non-Voters Do Not Count.)
The difference, I think, between Diamondstone (who received a very small %) and the Independent’s is that he represents a “qualified” recognized party.
Puny by comparison
Full text:
http://vtdigger.org/2014/09/24/margolis-colossus-comparison/
By
Jon Margolis is VTDigger’s political columnist. He is the author of The Last Innocent Year: America in 1964, left the Chicago Tribune early in 1995 after 23 years as Washington correspondent, sports writer, correspondent-at-large and general columnist.
Story:
Before he could do anything else, said the late and legendary Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, a politician had to learn how to count.
Brilliant political strategist though he was, Hizzoner may have missed something. Even before learning how to count, a politician should learn how to talk.
Preferably in English. Using standard pronunciation and at least somewhat grammatically correct. In sentences, those things that have both a subject and a verb and convey meaning and/or information comprehensible to the average listener…..
Oh, the fourth candidate, Peter Diamondstone of the Liberty Union Party?
To be gentle, there is in this country an intellectually impressive left-of-left-of center (left, indeed, of Sen. Bernie Sanders) political faction. (Check the online journal “Jacobin”). Peter Diamondstone is not part of it. His presence at the debate merely revives the question of why Vermont’s standard for qualifying as a “major party” is so generous that Liberty Union qualifies.
Meanwhile, Peter Shumlin bestrides Vermont politics like a Colossus. Less because his is colossus – though he is a formidable candidate – than because his opponents are puny by comparison.