Mediaboss Marketing

Shut out of televised debates, Libertarian candidate for governor Adrian Wyllie filed a lawsuit Thursday that seeks to force the Florida Press Association to allow him onstage with Gov. Rick Scott and Democrat Charlie Crist, the Miami Herald has learned.

Wyllie could not be immediately reached for comment, but the head of the association confirmed Wyllie filed suit in Broward County, where the debate takes place Wednedsay at Broward College in conjunction with Leadership Florida.

Dean Ridings, president and CEO of the association, said Wyllie didnt make the cut because he failed to register 15 percent support in at least one statewide credible public-opinion survey from a nonpartisan polling organization by Sept. 30.

But we want to be fair and consistent, Ridings said. There are 10 candidates for governor and why would it be fair to them to change our criteria?

Ridings said the criteria for candidate participation has been in place since before the 2010 elections. He noted that Wyllie, who garnered as much as 13 percent support in a recent poll from the Republican-leaning polling firm 0ptimus, appears to be improving his standing in the polls.

But its not enough.

Were not going to change criteria in mid-stream because we like a candidate and hes doing better, Ridings said.

Wyllie is planning a protest at another televised debate to be held Friday at Telemundo in Miramar, where Crist and Scott will face off for the first time. The debate will be broadcast at 7 p.m. that night.

The third and final debate between the two major candidates takes place Oct. 21 in Jacksonville.

Crist wanted more debates, but Scott would only agree to three. Scott's running mate, Lt. Governor Carlos Lopez-Cantera, has also ignored calls from Crist's running mate, Annette Taddeo, to debate on television.

Read more here:
Excluded from Fla gov debates, Libertarian sues

The News & Observer asked several political analysts to watch the debate and share their thoughts about the performance of Democratic U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan and challengers Republican House Speaker Thom Tillis and Libertarian Sean Hough. Here is what they had to say:

Craig M. Burnett, assistant professor in the Public and International Affairs Department at UNC Wilmington

Both Hagan and Tillis who largely did not address Libertarian Sean Haugh are looking to link each other to their own records, hoping that voters will focus on their perceived shortcomings. Most of the debates talking points matched the advertisements.

Tillis, in particular, seems to want to reinforce his argument that Hagan is weak on foreign policy and is a rubber stamp for President Obama. Hagan, by contrast, is quite comfortable attacking Tillis education policy, which, historically, has been a bipartisan issue in North Carolina.

One of the most effective paths of attack for challengers is the economy. Unfortunately for Tillis, this option is largely not available as the economy overall has improved and he, personally, must share some of the responsibility as a public figure in North Carolina. Its unlikely that other issues, including ISIS, have the potential to impact and motivate voters in the same way.

This debate, similar to the previous two, is unlikely to change the minds of most individuals. Thats likely good news for Hagan.

Andrew Taylor, NCSU political science professor

There is still clearly a great deal of friction between Hagan and Tillis. But the conflict between them has taken on a predictable feel and the talking points are becoming cliches. Add to that the more intimate setting around the desk and Libertarian candidate Sean Haughs calming influence and I thought the debate was not quite as feisty. Like the previous two debates it will do little to move the needle, an outcome made even more likely by the relatively few North Carolinians who watched the event.

Michael Bitzer, Catawba College political science professor

Well, pretty much what we expected, as it was another round of sharp elbows and continued talking points from both Hagan and Tillis. I thought Speaker Tillis was more aggressive than he was on Tuesday night, but Senator Hagan seemed to keep her cool and returned fire just as much as she did Tuesday.

See the article here:
Interesting dynamic from Haugh

Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

KALAMAZOO, MI LibertarianLorence Wenke was the final 20th District state Senate candidate to be interviewed by the Kalamazoo Gazette's Editorial Board Thursday.

During the 30-minute public interview, Wenke, a former state Rep. who served the Legislature from 2002-2008, was asked a series of questions by Kalamazoo Gazette Editorial Mickey Ciokajlo on issues ranging from why he chose to break from the Republican Party earlier this year, to whether or not he supports the recent minimum-wage increase that will raise the wage to $9.25 an hour by 2015.

Wenke, 69, said in addition to his well-documented support of gay marriage, Wenke said he also disagrees with recent Republican budget and spending practices, which he said have been "irresponsible." Wenke said government employees don't need pensions and life-long health care since those options are virtually unheard of in the private sector.

State Rep. Sean McCann, D-Kalamazoo, was interviewed prior to Wenke Thursday and state Rep.Margaret O'Brien went before the editorial board Monday. Both candidates are also seeking election to the 20th District state Senate seat, which covers all of Kalamazoo County.

MORE: See how Wenke and his opponents responded to MLive's Voter Guide questionnaire.

Here are Wenke's responses to 10 questions he was asked by Ciokajlo:

You broke from the Republican Party earlier this year and joined the Libertarian Party. One of the most prominent and often-cited reasons was your difference in position from the GOP on gay marriage, which you support. Are there other major issues on which you differ from the Republican Party?

Wenke said in addition to supporting gay marriage, he also departs with Republicans on budget spending.

"I have come to realize the last to few years when it comes to budget spending in Washington, the Republicans are just as much as part of that as what the other parties are," Wenke said.

More:
Libertarian Lorence Wenke talks split from GOP, minimum wage during Kalamazoo Gazette Editorial Board interview

Monster Progressives: Coronado #39;s Gold Slot Bonus - Free Spins, Nice Win
A nice, free spins win in WMS #39;s new Coronado #39;s Gold slot. This is one of the base games for Monster Progressives. This is a clone of Winning Fortunes Progres...

By: BeamMeUpSlotty

Original post:
Monster Progressives: Coronado's Gold Slot Bonus - Free Spins, Nice Win - Video

Common wisdom would purport that those on the so-called right are and have always been hawkish and pro-war, while those on the proverbial left have always been the tree-hugging, peacenik, anti-war folks. For many conservatives, unfortunately, this is more or less correct. However, progressives have once again airbrushed their own past, which is about as anti-war as, well, war.

Much of this perception is relatively recent and primarily boils down to the Iraq War. The neoconservative warmongering was in full swing and for his part, Barack Obama gave a rather pleasant speech about his opposition to the war before it began. In his book, Obama elaborated,

What I sensed, though, was that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent, the Administrations rationales for war were flimsy and ideologically driven, and the war in Afghanistan was far from complete.[1]

Not terribly bad, at least for a politician.

Obama then proceeded to escalate the war in Afghanistan, go to war with Libya without Congressional approval, authorize airstrikes in Iraq as well as drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan while saber-rattling at Syria, Iran and the Ukraine. Even the American withdrawal from Iraq he oversaw which is now being ballyhooed by clueless neoconservatives was hardly different than the schedule George W. Bush had already agreed to.

Indeed, as far as Democratic, and ostensibly progressive, politicians were concerned, Obama was actually abnormal in his tepid opposition to the Iraq War. Senate Democrats voted in favor of letting George Bush go to war 25 to 20. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, and John Kerry all voted yes.

Furthermore, it wasnt long ago that the supposedly conservative Republicans were the ones against war and the supposedly liberal Democrats in favor of it. The big difference seemed to be nothing more than which partys politician was in office. For example, regarding the military action in Kosovo in 1999, Senate Republicans opposed the resolution giving Clinton authorization for military action 13 to 32 while the Democrats supported it 38 to 3. The 2000 Republican Party platform even criticized the Democrats for being too militaristic abroad. Only later, after almost unanimous support on both sides of the aisle for the war in Afghanistan, did the parties switch for Iraq. Well, sort of switched.

Progressive opposition to the Iraq War has been very much exaggerated. Both the left-liberal New York Times and Washington Post backed the war. Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, Jacob Weisberg, George Packer and Jonathan Chait all supported the invasion. Current Senator and liberal-favorite Al Franken noted that I believed Colin Powell. I believed the presumption that the President is telling the truth. So I thought, I guess we have to go to war. The popular liberal blogger Matt Yglesias explained his support for the war as having been because he adhered to the school of thought (popular at the time) which held that one major problem in the world was that the US government was unduly constrained in the use of force abroad by domestic politics. In other words, progressives werent getting as much war in the 90s as they would have preferred.

Sure, most of them eventually repudiated their former support (with the notable exception of Christopher Hitchens). But almost everyone outside of a few neoconservative perma-hawks have done the same. When Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher was asked in 2010 how many of his Republican colleagues thought the war was a mistake, he responded, I will say that the decision to go in, in retrospect, almost all of us think that was a horrible mistake. Being against the Iraq War now is kind of like being against slavery now. Its certainly the correct moral position, but its not a particularly brave or impressive stance to take.

And while there were more on the Left who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, it must be noted that anti-war movement amongst progressives quickly dissipated as soon as Barack Obama was elected. And while some on the Left have opposed Obamas many interventions (albeit quietly), youll find more support than opposition amongst progressives for Obamas kinetic military actions. For example, Nancy Pelosi was pushing for a war with Syria while Progressive-favorite Elizabeth Warren wants to bomb Iraq. DNC Chair Michael Czin even channeled his inner-neoconservative by declaring that Rand Paul blames America for all the problems in the world because of Pauls (unfortunately short-lived) criticism of intervening in Iraq once again.

See the rest here:
Left and Right Agree: War Is Popular