The national media is already starting to pay attention to the upcoming Georgia U.S. Senate run-off. No one got as much as 50% of the vote for U.S. Senate this month. Georgia is the only state that provides for a run-off for U.S. Senate, when no one gets 50%. That runoff will be on December 2. See this article, which focuses on whether or not President-elect Barack Obama will get involved.
This is the third time a Libertarian for U.S. Senate in Georgia has caused no one to receive 50%. In 1992, the vote in November had been Wyche Fowler (Dem.) 1,108,416; Paul Coverdell (Rep.) 1,073,282; Jim Hudson (Libt.) 69,878. Hudson then endorsed Coverdell for the run-off. The run-off, held on November 24, was: Coverdell 635,114; Fowler 618,877.
In 1996, the vote in November was Max Cleland (Dem.) 1,103,993; Guy Millner (Rep.) 1,073,969; John Cashin (Libt.) 81,262. However, since the law had been changed between 1993 and 1995 to require a run-off only when no one get 45%, there was no run-off. After the 1996 election, though, the law was changed again to require a run-off when no one gets 50%.
It doesn’t follow logically that the Georgia Libertarian Party, or Allen Buckley (this year’s Libertarian nominee for U.S. Senate), should endorse either major party nominee in the run-off.
Whenever NPR (the middle initial stands for “Propaganda”) has mentioned the upcoming runoff, it has been very careful not to mention that a Libertarian was the third candidate.
NPR is being consistent. In 1996, when Walker Chandler won a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court against Georgia about a stupid law requiring candidates to take drug tests, NPR mentioned the suit in its hourly newscast, but didn’t mention that Walker had been the Libertarian Party candidate.
To be fair, NPR did, later, mention the LP in its evening news roundup.
Why doesn’t that follow logically?
The ballot roll-off from the presidential vote to the senate vote last Tuesday makes for some interesting possibilities in this race if some of those folks who voted for president but not for Senate turn out on December 2 for the runoff. If we assume that none of the Libertarian voters show up (not going to happen, but bear with me) and that the Obama and McCain voters who didn’t vote in the Senate contest go to Martin and Chambliss, respectively, then, the gap would close to just 15,000 votes, but still favor Chambliss.
But those Libertarians, if they show up next month, are much more likely to support Chambliss than Martin. But being able to activate those roll-off voters may play a role and that’s how an Obama visit could be instrumental.
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2008/11/more-on-georgia-senate-runoff.html
NPR is liberal? Where do people get this shit? It always comes from the right-wing nuts. They have a way of looking at the world and everything in it in dichotomous, simplistic way. Good/Evil. Conservative/Liberal, Right/Left, Black/White. They assume because they are listening to right-wing radio such as Rush Limbaugh and right-wing TV such as Hannity and O’Reily, that therefore those disagreeing with those viewpoints must then be liberal and left.
That is just idiotic. There is left-wing TV (Olberman & Maddisow, Bill Mahr) and left-wing radio too (air america & others), but NPR is not either one.
They avoid all of the partisan shit as much as is possible, given the issues under discussion. They have intelligent panelists from different expertise (not just RIGHT / LEFT arguments like most TV and Radio shows have on, which inevitably leave the listener/watcher no more informed than when he started). When I turn on NPR in the morning with Dianne Ream and some of the others, when listening to the panelists I enjoy not knowing where their ideology lies right off the bat, and have them able to really flush out their answers with nuance and detail.
To summarize, don’t assume because the substance of NPR goes against your right-wing views that it is therefore left-wing. There are of course left-wing TV and Radio shows, but NPR is not “Propaganda” and in fact is the exact opposite. Everything isn’t dichotomous, so quit acting like it is.
I’m not a big fan of NPR, but I took note that they did weekend morning interviews with ALL of the four biggest alternative presidential candidates. I don’t think any other major news outlet did anything like that.
It’s worth noting that Bob Barr lost the 1992 Republican runoff to Coverdell by some 1,500 votes out of about 159,000 cast. In the general election, the Almanac of American Politics says “Others” got 69,889 votes, so someone evidently polled 11 votes.
Georgia’s runoff general election is a by-product of the 1966 election of Lester Maddox as governor. The Democrat Maddox finished second to the Republican Bo Callaway, but there were enough write-in votes for former Gov. Ellis Arnall to deny Callaway a majority. Georgia law then provided that, in that situation, the state House of Representatives made the choice, and the heavily Democratic House elected Maddox.
As a fan of NPR, allow me to make a few comments in its defense;
NPR is probably the official “centrist” media outlet in America. Politically, they tend to appeal to socially liberal, but fiscally conservative listeners, although they do non-political features on films, food, travel, history, etc.
During the presidential primary they did several good stories on Ron Paul, especially when he raised all that money online. Some of the guest commentators have been Libertarians.
They are pretty good at bringing on opinions from a diverse range of people, including libertarians, and — at least in Minnesota — have made some effort to include more then two candidates in their election coverage.
Ryan,
I can’t say if NPR has a political spectrum biaas. But I can certainly point to the KQED Forum show and demonstrate that it’s coverage of Nancy Polosi is highly suspect of being pro Polosi biased.
I conducted a search of the KQED Forum archives and found that Nancy made no appearance on the Forum program until just before this election and in her final appearance she was alloted a half hour segment by herself and her three opponents were given a combined half hour segment. A similar search for Cindy Sheehan revealed that she had never been a guest on the Forum Show.
From a letter I sent to the NPR Ombudsman
The One hour segment of the KQED Program Forum that we are discussing is
described on the KQED web site as.
———————————————————————————
Forum | Wed, October 29, 2008 — 10:00 AM
Nancy Pelosi / California’s 8th Congressional District
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was the target of criticism this week by John
McCain, who warned against one-party control of Washington. In the first
half hour, we talk with Speaker Pelosi about the presidential campaign,
the economy and the battle for control of Congress. In the second half
hour we talk with the Republican and Libertarian candidates who, along
with Independent Cindy Sheehan, are running against Pelosi for
Congress.
———————————————————————————
My point is very simple. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi has all the
advantages of being an incumbent of being the house speaker. Her
completion has enough challenges with out the local Public Radio Station
giving her three times the amount of free time on a prime well listened
to program then was given her opponents less then a week before the
election.
If this program had only an hour it could have been split into 4 fifteen
minute segments one for each candidate or the candidates could have
agreed to merge the blocks each willing.
Look I understand that Forum is considered a news program and Nancy is a
news maker, Forum covered her speech at the Democratic National
Convention, spoke with her about her book and on Oct 29th spoke with her
for a half hour about “potential one party control”. But between Nov
2006 and July of 2008 how many other times did Nancy appear on Forum it
looks like she didn’t exist until just before this election and then She
gets heavy coverage and her opponents are marginalized into a fraction of the time she was allotted.
Steve Meier
For reference a search on the KQED archives show the following results
Forum | Wed, October 29, 2008 — 10:00 AM
Nancy Pelosi / California’s 8th Congressional District
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was the target of criticism this week by John McCain, who warned against one-party control of Washington. In the first half hour, we talk with Speaker Pelosi about the presidential campaign, the economy and the battle for control of Congress. In the second half hour we talk with the Republican and Libertarian candidates who, along with Independent Cindy Sheehan, are running against Pelosi for Congress.
Forum | Tue, August 26, 2008 — 9:00 AM Women and the Democrats
Speeches by Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Caroline Kennedy kicked off the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Hillary Clinton will speak tonight. We discuss the role of women at the convention and check in with Clinton supporters about the call for party unity.
Forum | Thu, August 14, 2008 — 10:00 AM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joins the show to discuss her new book, “Know
Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters.”
Forum | Thu, April 17, 2008 — 10:00 AM
Marc Sandalow
Forum speaks with Marc Sandalow about his new book, “Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi’s Life, Times, and Rise to Power.” Sandalow is a political analyst and former Washington bureau chief for the San Francisco Chronicle.
Forum | Mon, November 13, 2006 — 9:00 AM Pelosi’s Rise
Forum discusses the ascension of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to the post of House speaker-elect.
On the Congressional level in Missouri, the Libertarian candidate for the 9th district received 2.5% of the vote……the exact percentage which the DP candidate lost by. With two Indie candidates running for state rep positions, one received 23.2% with the other receiving 25.5%.
By the way, we have yet to determine who won Missouri…..Obama or McCain. McCain currently holds 49.4%,Obama 49.2% with several thousand ballots yet to be determined if eligible.
Given the fact that Sen. Chambliss supported the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and the Bail-out for bankers & billionaires, and the Democrat opposed the bail-out it makes more sense for Georgia Libertarians to vote against Chambliss in the run-off.
The last time there was a Senate runoff in Georgia in which the Libertarian candidate came in third, the Libertarian endorsed one of the candidates in the runoff, and that candidate won. Although we can’t be sure whether the Libertarian endorsement helped, at any rate it did achieve the desired effect.
I don’t know whether the Georgia LP or Allen Buckley do have a preference about who wins the runoff election, but if they do, it does follow logically that they should endorse their preferred candidate, since it worked for the Libertarian candidate the last time this happened.