Multiple newspapers have gotten the story bizarrely wrong on my testimony at the ballot access lawsuit in Raleigh on Monday. The Traingle Independent did a story, the Greensboro News and Record, and also the Winston-Salem Journal, all had variations on this story.
They point out the following two things:
1. Munger testifies, under oath, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a third party to win any elections under current law. The reason is that the new party has to use up all its money to pay petitioners to collect signatures.
2. Munger "admits, under cross-examination" that the Libertarian Party has failed to win any elections.
Given #1, how hard would a cross-examiner have to work to get me to "admit" #2?
True, I also said that, if the law were eased, that at some point a party's viability would have to be judged by winning at least some elections. But that is only if the law were eased. Under the current law, I specifically said, "Impossible." Not difficult, not really hard: IMPOSSIBLE.
Since it is impossible to win, wouldn't you expect that no one has won?
I hate it when I get chilipunked like that!
UPDATE: In fairness, I should note that the News and Observer played it straight, wrote a balanced story, and made no egregious errors of logic. Nicely done, Titan Barksdale.
No comments:
Post a Comment