From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Herschensohn response to Genis
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:30:23 GMT

In article <194mtuINNmej@news.aero.org>,
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>Though I respect your positions and I think you would make a good
>Senator, I wonder if asking for equal time is just a little bit
>un-libertarian. Why shouldn't the people who organized the event
>be able to do so in any manner they want. Why should they be obligated
>to give everyone equal time?

They organizers were free to do whatever they wanted.  Note that the
third party people did not pull out when we were told at the last
minute that Bruce would not agree to share the stage eith us.  It
was Bruce who apparently got what he wanted by saying it was his way
or no way.  We had been in touch with the organizers for aver a
week before the event and those I and my staff talked with seemed to
be concerned with providing an equal opportunity for third party
candidates.  Remember that many Perot people were upset by the
attempts of the Republicrats to exclude Perot from equal
consideration.  After talking with people in the lobby after the
event I believe that the vast bulk of the attendees shared that
sentiment and that Bruce got his way only because one manipulative
individual was able to strong arm other with less organizational
experience.  Frankly the Perotistas make Libertaians look organized.

>What is the total number of candidates running for the Senate? If
>they each get equal time, how much total time does it take for
>someone who believes that only the two major candidates are likely
>to win, and only want to compare them to get say a half hour for each?

Only three of us showed up and only two were ballot qualified.  If
I think bruce could have done without the 10 minute intro to by
Sonny Bono to give the rest of us a bit more time.  Alternatively
they could have drawn the line at people who had qualified for the
ballot (which Cortez had not).  Since everything was running late
anyway (after our even Tom "Billy Jack" Laughlin) was allowed to
ramble on interminably so that many people missed their prepaid
lunch) I think we could have been accomodated except for the
Herschensohn forces who were working to make sire that we weren't.

One thing I didn't mention before is what happened when my people
put up a "Genis for U.S. Senate Banner" on the balcony railing.
Bruces'd dogs immediately set out to get it put down and put so much
pressure on one of the organizers that they had her in tears.  We
took down that banner and replaced it with one that said "Vote
Pro-Choice" and the dogs were loosed again.  Finally we were allowed
to keep up the banners that said "You Have a Choice", "Use your
Voice" and "1-800-894-JUNE", but Bruce's people fought it all the
way.

>Suppose we require equal time for all candidates for all offices? Is
>this wise? Is it efficient? Is is libertarian?

Every event organizer has to use their judgement in defining the
limits of an event.  Obviously you can't accommodate every person
that shows up at an event and says they're a candidate (although
that's what the LP does at it's conventions as long one has a
nominator and seconder).  I think the organizers should try to pick
objective criteria which fit within their constraints and serve the
needs of their anticipated audience.  Since Perot people are
actively looking for *alternatives* to the major parties right now
I don't think that guideline was followed in this case.

>Never the less I wish you well. I am just trying to keep things in
>perspective.

I as well.

>Richard Foy

/June
Newsgroups: ca.politics