The Freedom Bulletin

A group of Boston media outlets agreed yesterday to allow Green Party candidate Jill Stein to participate in a gubernatorial debate that they are hosting on September 21. Previously, they weren’t going to let her take part because she hasn’t raised $100,000 (the other requirements include a campaign office with 3 full-time staff and getting 5% of the vote in at least one poll). I think Stein should be allowed to participate in as many debates as possible, as should all third party candidates.

As it stands, Stein may or may not be able to participate in the October 26 debate sponsored by the same consortium. She got to participate in the televised WBZ debate a week ago, but not the WBZ radio debate tonight or the WTKK one on Thursday.

The media shouldn’t automatically give candidates more time and attention merely because they are supported by more people. As one of my favorite sayings goes, what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. Popular, well-known candidates don’t necessarily have better ideas than little known ones. In fact, if you look at the direction the country has been going lately, third party candidates are likely to be better than the two parties that have been in power.

The Herald’s Margery Eagan writes that it’s unfair for Stein to have the same amount of time and questions as the other three candidates – Deval Patrick (D), Charlie Baker (R), and Tim Cahill (I) - because “she has no chance.” But if the system ignores and marginalizes third parties like the Green Party and Libertarian Party, how are candidates from these parties going to ever have a chance? It’s a vicious cycle: lesser-known, less popular candidates raise less money and do worse in polls, so the media excludes them, making them even less known and less popular. To make popularity (as shown by polls and/or fundraising) a requirement for debates is unfair, because popularity is not an indicator of how good a candidate’s ideas are. The system punishes candidates who have no chance, which gives them even less chance, when the fact that they have no chance is largely the fault of the system!

Ideological diversity is always a good thing. Who cares how much money a candidate raises, how many staffers they have, or how they are doing in the polls? Let’s allow all viewpoints to be heard, and then maybe America can have real change and voters will have real choices.

It just keeps getting better! Not only is Virginia suing against the federal requirement to have health insurance, but a man named Michael Merlina is suing the Massachusetts Health Connector Authority, the entity in charge of implementing the state’s health insurance mandate. He was fined $2000 for failing to have insurance, and the Connector denied his appeal.

It’s awesome that someone is challenging the state’s individual mandate in the court system, but even better that three of out the four gubernatorial candidates (at least to some extent) support Merlina and criticize the individual mandate.

Republican Charlie Baker isn’t explicitly anti-mandate, but he makes a good point about Massachusetts’s long list of benefits that all insurance plans must cover:

“The whole plan was for people to have more affordable options, and Gov. Patrick eliminated them. Michael Merlina is arguing that the price of health insurance has become unaffordable, and he’s right.”

Said Independent Tim Cahill (I’m pleasantly surprised to learn that he’s against the mandate):

“He’s not asking for a handout – he just wants to be left alone. I feel for him. I hope he wins, and throws the whole insurance mandate up in the air.”

And Green-Rainbow candidate Jill Stein is surprisingly anti-mandate as well:

“All health-care nonreform did was created a windfall for insurance and pharmaceutical companies that are in bed with Beacon Hill.”

Health-care nonreform…what a great name! I might have to start using it.

A couple of years ago, the individual mandate was considered a moderate measure, supported by Democrats and Republicans alike and only opposed by the “far right.” In the early stages of the federal health-care nonreform debate, the individual mandate was considered a given and was rarely mentioned. All of the debate focused on the public option, Medicare cuts, abortion funding, and other things that, although important, are not as important as the mandate from a pro-liberty point of view. Now almost every time federal health-care nonreform is mentioned in the news, the individual mandate is mentioned, and usually called unpopular and/or controversial. How awesome that three out of four gubernatorial candidates in Massachusetts, where the individual mandate was first enacted in 2006, disapprove of the mandate to some extent. People are finally realizing what freedom truly is and how severely the individual mandate violates it.