From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: AGRAN, Democracy, and UseNet (II)
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:42:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1992Apr8.084257.29054
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services

Harel Barzilai writes
>But giving that answer would concede to the fervently anti-demoratic
>sentiments implied: if you're "only" a mayor, part of The System --
>meaning one of the 150-person elite in the entire US of Senators or
>Governors (or perhaps a larger pool of still under 600 people) -- you
>do not deserve to be President, in fact, you do not deserve to be
>heard by the people, in fact, you do not deserve to be taken
>seriously, no matter your record or your positions, since you are a
>"tiny mayor or a tiny city" (Irvine is the country's largest
>master-planned city, 110,000 -- but again that answer would have
>missed the point).

Agran is perfectly free to run for president.  He's doing it now.  He  
doesn't have, as he seems to think, a God-given right to national air time.

Clinton, Brown, Kerrey, Tsongas and Harkin have all demonstrated that they  
can muster at least statewide mass support.  Tens of thousands of people  
have shown that they are willing to support the campaigns of these people.  
They've all had experience at the national level of politics.  Since they  
have demonstrated track records at the ballot box, most attention is  
concentrated on them.

Agran was the mayor of a small city and has never run a statewide campaign,  
yet alone a national campaign.  Most people in *Irvine* probably don't know  
who he is.  (Quick: name your mayor.) He has no prior record of success in  
large campaigns.  He doesn't even have a record of failure in large  
campaigns.  He has no demonstrated constituency. He has _a_ poll that showed  
him at 5% in NH, with a margin of error of about 6%.  His actual showing at  
the ballot box: about 280 votes.  That rounds down to zero percent of the  
votes cast in the Democratic primary.  Even when he was included in  
televised debates, as in South Dakota, he finished dead last with an  
insignificant portion of the votes cast.

(I suspect from the methodology of the poll that he was being used as a  
control to test for the "out of my face" factor among the public.  They put  
a random name in with the major candidates and see if the public picks him.   
If they do, that's indicative of a electorate that's not paying a lot of  
attention to the candidates yet.  If they had put "Francios-Maire Arouet" as  
one of the choices he probably would have gotten a few percent too.  But  
using dead French writers wouldn't be very ethical, so they picked an  
unknown fringe candidate instead.  It's laughable to think that *ALL* 10,000  
or so of the Democratic primary voters who putatitively supported him at the  
time of the poll suddenly decided not to vote for him because he wasn't in a  
televised debate.  Why would 97% of his supporters suddenly desert him?   
Maybe because the poll was inaccurate, and he never had anything like the  
support attributed to him in the first place?)

Now, what sort of Stalinist would insist that Agran receive air time when  
the vast majority of voters clearly prefer the other candidates?  Why should  
a tiny minority of Agran supporters be able to force coverage of their  
candidate?  

If Agran wants TV coverage, he has to demonstrate that he actually has a  
following. That's up to him to accomplish, and the media has no duty to help  
him.  Until then he doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
 
--
Don McGregor             | "I like maxims that don't encourage behavior
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu|  modification"   --Calvin
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7776 alt.censorship:3337 alt.conspiracy:6397 talk.politics.misc:18423