Many will sympathize with the anger that Reform Party candidate Richard Ranzau and Libertarian Party candidate Carl Kramer feel at being excluded from upcoming gubernatorial forums. They will be on the Nov. 7 ballot, alongside Democratic incumbent Kathleen Sebelius and GOP nominee Jim Barnett, and they have ideas to offer voters. But inviting Ranzau, a physician assistant in Wichita and an Iraq war veteran, and Kramer, an assembly worker at Spirit AeroSystems and frequent local candidate, to participate would be more polite than productive. But with only four or five chances for Kansans to hear the major party candidates face off, it would be a waste of precious time to open these events to candidates who’ve raised a reported $1,433.86 between them. Gubernatorial candidate forums are best reserved for contenders.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
23 Comments
“it would be a waste of precious time to open these events to candidates who’ve raised a reported $1,433.86 between them. Gubernatorial candidate forums are best reserved for contenders.”
I cant believe what I just read!!
Your saying that you must essentially have Big BUCKS to gain an political credibility?
I find it appalling that you do not agree that all contenders should have a fair voice.
No wonder this paper endorsed Bush!
There should be limit of support gained to speak at the forums. Politics does take donations for the efforts and raising money is part of the process. Enough has to be raised to compete. Or that person has to gain enough signatures of actual voters to be there and talk.
Anybody can run for office and not be part of the political machine of either major party. They have to show some support of their political beliefs by a group of people, qualifying themselves with the ability to lead a government.
Everybody has a voice, because websites can be made. Time can bought on TV by anyone. Put out street advertising. Make cold calls. At the forum you have to be an established candidate with a group of registered believers.
We might need an alternate Governor someday if things continue to go this political Kansas way. We’re not being served by either political party some are too conservative, others are too waffling on the topics.
People can be voted in by Republican and Democrat voters if that person has great plans for this state in a general election.
Sigh. . .this kind of incredibly stupid view regularly rears its ugly head, and, unfortunately, has had some limited success in the Reaganized courts.
To suggest willy-nilly that minor party candidates should be excluded is nothing more than political apartheid. I particularly like the Catch-22 logic behind it: you, of course, must have “support” to be deemed worthy, but can you think of a greater way to gain support than performing well in a debate? Hey, let’s not bother people with ideas that might disturb their entrenched preconceptions and prejudices.
Excuse me, but there are already statutory hurdles for minority-party candidates to overcome. They have already shown enough support to be taken seriously.
If they have demonstrated enough support to get on the ballot, they deserve a seat at the table. It’s self-evident. To suggest otherwise is an attack on democracy.
P.S. Rhonda, I also heartily concur with Gary C. A candidate lacks $$ to get the message out, and you want to muzzle them further? Perhaps relative pauper Garth McGinn should be forced to withdraw from challenging Tiahrt. OOTH, it’s entirely consistent with the ideology of the modern Repub party: $$ == power == privilege == worth == honor == integrity == responsibility (and on and on, ad infinitum).
Debate with a person who has a singular belief, against another with a group behind him/her. Both have goal to win election.
Why is that fair? The community candidates are trying to represent, don’t we need someone a group wants to win. Not just one or ten people. Thousands are already in place to help a more established candidate.
Conversion of everyone can be made by a few speeches? With no financial ability to force the push until the election happens, how does that work?
Who was the last grass roots candidate that spent almost nothing to win a major election like Governor?
Running for Mayor or a City Council seat, there should equal oppurtunity if enough time allows for debates, all candidates on the ballot. If they want to..but time has to be allowed.
Remember Bob Knights wife running for Mayor on the last weekend, her publicity was free because of her “celebrity” but there no chance to debate her for anyone. She got second in the election over Bill Warren, who spent money and embarressed himself in debates.
Its great to win an election and don’t follow the rules. The rules say debate the established candidates, why? The key is getting the name out there so voters will find it on the general ballot. At no time does a “poor” candidate have to spend money they don’t have getting their message out at the last minute.
It’s too late if that person is waiting on debates to make their self known as a candidate. Since its a Governor’s race, lets keep it real people that have a chance, can push those last days trying to get their message out in political ads, or on the radio, in newspapers.
That’s what it takes to win elections at the higher levels. Winning a seat in a community government is cheaper and easier to accomplish. It takes walking around and making the introductions locally at events or going to businesses. A candidate for an office has to sponsor some kind of community event at least one time.
People want a dumpster on a street if that can happen. A minor party candidate sponsors a clean up. A little money has to be spent. Actions, not just talk. Sponsors a free car wash, something has to be done. Minor party candidates shouldn’t be at gun shows trying to win narrow group. Tries to gain the alcohol and tobacco forces stamp of approval. He/she wants less federal control over those vices rally call.
We need candidates that have a valuable message for a community wants and desires. Clean streets and business oppurtunities, less gun stores, tobaccco and alcohol hawkers is better for most cities.
That has to be some money spent to make an image that people will remember at the general election time. A wierd name might help.
Rage for election. Marksrage for election! Should beat the Bob’s and Jane’s and be more memorable on the ballot.
Who cares what we want, the “rage” will stand out in our names and voters don’t want to take it anymore!
I’ll never be a party member, independent voter. Who is the best candidate, no straight ticket voter in me. I can’t stand many things about both Dems and Repubs.
Of course we should exclude all other candidates from the political debates. We can’t have the people of this state actually hear different ideas, now, can we? Why, they might paint their houses a different color; they might decide to quit watering their lawns; they might decide the democrat and republican front runners are cut from the same business controlled cloth and vote for someone who actually has some new and worthwhile ideas. Shoot, can’t have that, now, can we.
Does that mean if Connie Morris runs as an independant, we won’t have to hear about it? Just asking . . .
How to decide? If 50 people declare they are running do we include all of them? This is a true Catch-22 in that no decision will make people happy.
Brilliant post walker. Brilliant.
I guess there is never any danger of kansas’ next slogan being “the idea state” or the “let’s hear all ideas state” or the “freedom of speech state”… or even…
The state that welcomes newcomers, new ideas, and new money.
heheheheh. Musta been that dagwood sandwich I had before bed that gave me THOSE crazy ideas.
nope. We will remain the “money talks and ideas walk” state.
And anyone has to ask “what’s the matter with kansas”?
Rhonda, for a journalist, you sure have some funny ideas about public discourse, freedom of speech and tyranny of the majority. Your conservative banner is showing. Dont journalists usually FAVOR freedom of speech? And you?
WWWAWD?
What would william allen white do?
Where is that fainting couch when we need it?
I actually disagree! If it is a gubenatorial forum and there are gubenatorial candidates, regardless if they are contenders or not, should get a chance to be heard on their issues.
In Kansas, parties such as the Reform and Libertarian have filed with the Secretary of State as legitmate political parties and satisfies all the laws governing both the political parties and the candidates.
They are legitmate registared candidates that will appear on the general election ballot. To deny them a voice because they won’t likely win and short on time is not an excuse. They should make time.
That is the whole reason why 3rd parties are drowned out, because the Republicans and Democrats don’t want them to sphion votes and be heard.
Perhaps an idea …
Set a rather low bar for inclusion in the first debate of the season – a few % in the polls. This would allow for some ‘third-party’ contenders but probably exclude King David Davis types. Then, as the season progresses raise the bar a bit so we can focus on major contenders.
My problem with including ‘everyone’ is that it can make it impossible to really get a look at anyone. What do you do if there are a dozen up there.
All that said, I would think that the one at the Fair is early and should have the low bar.
“How to decide? If 50 people declare they are running do we include all of them?”
Ben,Let me paraphrase the dissenting judge from memory, from the aformentioned court case (Chandler v. Election Commission, I think):
“We are not faced with a situation where we have 4 candidates, or 44 candidates. We are deciding whether to add another chair. Courts should decide the case before them.”
IMHO, so should we. As I recall, Wichita survived having a 16-candidate mayoral race in 1989 (funny how, when it was non-partisan, no one objected!), but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
Right you are Rage.And having 14 of them show up for a debate made for pretty good television (and I’m not even referring to the incident where George Poulos hit Bill Warren over the head with a mic), even if I do say so myself :)
So you don’t think allowing me to participate in the debate would be productive? What are you basing this on? Have you looked at my website? (www.FreedomForKansas.com)
I know you have not taken the time to speak with me to find out what my views are, so how do you know whether or not what I have to say would be productive? You don’t.
Using money to decide whether or not a candidate is a contender is beyond belief, especially from an “impartial journalist”. It is a perfect example of the problem with our political system. It is based on money, not message. I am trying to change that.
It is not the media’s role to decide who is credible and who is not. That is up to the voters to decide (or at least is should be). The purpose of a debate is to allow the voters to hear from the candidates and let them decide who they will vote for. Setting criteria that caters to the “major” parties does nothing more than encourage the political cartel of the democrats and republicans.
Why do you think people end up voting for “the lesser of two evils?” There is no real competition in our political system, that’s why.
Around 27% of Kansans are registered as independents, while many others are tired of politics as usual. I can assure you that those folks would love to hear from a candidate like myself, and would find what I have to say to be VERY productive.
I have spoken with voters from all across this state and I can assure you that I get a great response from voters when they hear what I have to say. They like my message. They never ask me how much money I have raised.
I find it interesting that you think I should not be included because I am not a contender, yet at the same time you question whether or not Barnett can beat Sebelius (he can’t) but don’t think he should be excluded from the dabate. Oh, but he has money (but no message) so therefore he is a “contender”.
Absolutely pathetic.
In closing, let me say that I that I am the only candidate that has a plan to reduce illegal immigration, is prepared to aggressively protect personal propterty rights, and has pledged to NOT raise taxes. The voters of Kansas deserve hear from someone with those positions.
I have served this country in two wars. I believe that I have earned the right to have my voice heard just as much at the other candidates. Most rational people agree with me.
I challenged you or anyone else to look me in the eye and tell me otherwise.
Richard RanzauReform Party Candidate for Governorwww.FreedomForKansas.com
Rhonda’s suggestion regarding minor party candidates is almost as vile as her support for raping, diseased, vile third world invaders!
I for one want to hear what the Greens, Libertarians and the Reform parties have to say. I despise the dems and repukes and it would serve us all well if those traitors went the way of the Whigs and the Federalists, into the political graveyard.
By the way, KFG, it was the dems and that little rat gore that worked overtime to keep Ralph Nader out of the debates. The dems are still whining about Nader, don’t you know? The truth is that our “two” party system is actually a one part nightmare. The terms conservative and liberal have no meaning any longer and the scum only wish to keep the rotten, corrupt, pro-zionist, globalist status-quo intact!
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!!
So, Rhonda, why not take your argument one step further? Why bother holding ANY debates? Why bother holding an election at all? Why not just award the seat to the candidate who has the most $$ pledged on Nov. 1st?
What, after all, is the purpose of an election? Sounds like you believe it’s just to pick the winner of the horse race, and not to engage in any real debate about the important issues of the day. Well, maybe your vote’s already been bought and paid for; mine hasn’t. I say, anyone dumb enough to pay the filing fee deserves to be included in the debate. Nyah.
Oh, yeah, one more point: “precious time…” Bull—!
Precious time away from your ipods, soap operas and playstations, maybe.
That was some intelligent shit there, IPODS, sheeesh.BUT, right ON TOPIC.
playstations….mumble, mumble…IDIOT.
Every person on the ballot should be invited to the forum. What are the two parties afraid of? Maybe someone with an opposing view that makes sense to people might actually be heard?
Hang on every voter…one day a candidate will rise from obscurity, or didn’t make waves publicly in politics, but did things improving the community where he/she lives.
So what, a forum exists where the two parties reign supreme. That person has already made strides and publicity in other area’s, again doing business that benefits a community.
Seats like Governor, Senator, President, that person needs to have controlled some group of people in a structured way. Lead a company. Lead a community. Sat on the school board, did those duties benefiting a community.
The actions of that candidate transcend needing to talk in a debate against the two party candidates.
I don’t know our minor group candidates here in the community, they may stand for great policies. But have their beliefs been put to the test?
It’s not words, but deeds and great deeds don’t need glorifying.
An election can be won, without following the rules. But that person has to be well known by their actions. The political machine of both parties has their process. Forget them and win in a general election.
4 or 5 debates won by a minor party candidate and nothing to show in policies that changed a community, means little.
I think its terrible, who was it, Sandy Pregar..she’s led an office with Republican policies, just by saying that, it will win her the election?
Bush today on ABC said, he thinks Republicans are better to protect America with his war on terror policies. He wants rubber stamp politicians that him served him well making bad things happen for this country.
There has to be better people outside of the major political parties. Just decent people in office trying to make things right and stands on convictions, no matter if its a singular vote of obstruction to bad policy.
The red/blue state bull, harms America.
I don’t agree minor party candidates need to talk in a forum if they can’t back up their policies by showing a community or business has improved with his/her beliefs.
“That was some intelligent shit there, IPODS, sheeesh.BUT, right ON TOPIC.
playstations….mumble, mumble…IDIOT.”
Tracy, did you take your meds today? Just asking .. . . .. …
This is yet another reason we have so much voter apathy. Most people believe that the person with the most money (special interest groups “puppets”) will just in essence “buy” the election. In most successful businesses, fresh, inventive, future-oriented people are encouraged…in politics, it would seem….don’t ruffle any feathers, keep up appearances, and stifle anyone that might change the status-quo. Growth means change…go third parties!
It might help if the candidates could write a complete sentence or form a complete thought. Some of their rationales are just so out there, they have no credibility.
As a Libertarian, I want all serious candidates to be allowed into the debates. I’ve been amazed at how I have unintentionally guided debates in the past as a candidate. Those pesky non-political-establishment ideas. With the two party system I have a hard time believing we are not under the control of a ‘ruling class’.
As for journalists. I was told during my candidacy by the Winfield Courier/Ark. City Traveler what I needed to do to EARN more media coverage and hence a few points in the polls. The Eagle had no such standard, just what they felt like doing right then.
All serious candidates should be heard. Set a realistic bar to reach that doesn’t involve some polling data, like a real media presence for the state races. For the federal race they always exclude the minor party candidates. However, anybody on enough state ballots to actually be able to mathematically win the electorial college is a serious candidate. Unless you ask the WE, then I bet they would move the bar again.