On August 16th, Denmark’s top newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, ran a full length article focused exclusively on my campaign for the Presidency.
On August 13th, Australia’s top newspaper, The Australian, ran a long story describing my candidacy, laying out my position that our country is insolvent and impugning Clinton and Trump for not mentioning this grave fact, let alone offering plans to resolve it.
On August 23rd, one of Germany’s top two newspapers,the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, ran an extensive story about my candidacy.
Die Welt, Germany’s other top newspaper, ran an even longer story the following day.
The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, BusinessWeek, The Boston Globe, The Dallas Morning News, PBS’ Next Avenue, Forbes, Money, CNBC, The John Batchelor Show (interview is tonight), Ozy, Investment News, Politico, and many major radio stations, including NPR, have covered my candidacy or interviewed me.
The big outlier is The New York Times.
The Times has a host of political reporters and columnists, none of whom seem to yet understand three things.
First, I’m the only write-in candidate in the United States.
Only registered write-in candidates can have their votes counted and I’m, apparently, the only write-in candidate registering in all the states with registration requirements — many incredibly arduous, time consuming, and expensive. If there are other nationally registered write-in candidates, my apologies to them. Write to me and I will publish a correction.
Second, being a registered write-in candidate is not really different from being a “ballot” candidate.
The only difference is how the candidate’s name is embossed on the ballot — by a printing machine or by a human hand. A printer is, of course, a robot. Is the NY Times letting robots decide who is a viable candidate for President?
Third, there are only 6 people who can be elected on November 8th. Two — Johnson and Green hold extreme views and may be less popular among the general public than either Clinton or Trust. One, McMullin, is, apparently, fond of printers, and is trying to be a “ballot” candidate. But he’s too late in over half the states to get a robot to write his name. Then there’s Clinton, Trump, and I. (Sorry, professors are sticklers for predicate nominatives.) Hence,
This is a actually a three-way race — between Trump, Clinton, and me.
Yes, Trump and Clinton have a major lead in negative name recognition. As the NY Times and other media keep reporting, the parties have produced the two most unpopular candidates in modern history. Clinton’s nicer memes are “Lies, Cheats, and Deletes” and “Lock her up.” Trump’s nicer memes are “Small hands, small beep, small brain” and “I’m with stupid.” If either of these two people is elected, we’re going to have political civil war starting day one. And nothing will get fixed.
So here’s point three.
I’m the only person standing between our nation electing a President that a) over half the public deeply dislikes and b) someone that everyone can respect and who will intelligently fix and strongly protect America.
I spoke early in the campaign with one brilliant NY Times political columnist whose work I love. She told me that she deeply respected what I was doing but that her policy is never to write about write-in candidates.
When we spoke, I didn’t fully appreciate the registered write-in process and how tough it is. Nor, I now realize, did she even know there is a registration process. She thought that if she wrote about one write-in candidate, she’d need to write about thousands.
But that’s not the case. Non-registered write-in candidates aren’t candidates for anything because no one will count their votes.
There are two other points I want to make before letting the NY Times out of the woodshed.
I’ve gotten all this way with very little money. You don’t need much money to become a registered write-in candidate. Nor, given regular and social media, do you need any money to get out your message.
I think that the NY Times believes you need to be very rich to run for President. Indeed, rich is all it takes to get their dogged attention. That’s why they covered pizza-pie mogul Herman Caine’s campaign, but, so far, not mine. But for a newspaper that laments the Citizens United decision, this is passing strange.
The stated goal of opponents to that decision is to get money out of politics. Here I’m getting almost all money out of politics and the NY Times is saying I need to have money to be in politics. With that kind of mentality, it’s the NY Times, not Citizens United that is putting money into politics.
Here’s my final, but most serious points. And they have nothing per se to do with my candidacy. As someone who has written a number of op eds for the NY Times over the years and who loves the NY Times (I also love the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Forbes, PBS NewsHour, CNN, the New Republic, etc.), let me suggest its time their political reporters and columnist did their homework.
These writers are happy to pen article after article about Trump and Clinton’s soundbites, their disregard for the truth, their murky/sordid pasts, and in Trump’s case, his hate mongering.
But what they aren’t happy to write about are things that we, the public, actually care about, for example, our wretchedly inefficient insolvent healthcare system, which neither Clinton nor Trump has a sensible plan to fix it.
They don’t write that Social Security is $32 trillion in the red, even when it’s printed in black and white in the Social Security Trustees 2016 Report (look at table VIF1).
They don’t write that our tax system and other fiscal institutions need to be jointly fixed to eliminate the work-disincentive poverty trap facing the poor and that Clinton and Trump are offering minor, and generally misguided, tax reforms.
They don’t write about the humongous size of those work disincentives although they are also available in black at white in a paper I just co-authored.
They aren’t discussing the two candidate’s failures to advocate a high and immediate carbon tax to limit U.S. CO2 emissions. Here’s a recent co-authored paper discussing this.
They aren’t discussing why having lots of small highly leveraged, incredibly opaque small banks, which Clinton and Trump both seem to advocate, is any less dangerous more sense than having a few very large highly leverage, incredibly opaque large banks. Nor are they asking why Clinton and Trump aren’t proposing to fix our core banking problems — leverage and opacity — with the obvious answer, 100 percent equity-financed and fully disclosed mutual funds.
They aren’t discussing why North Korea’s testing of ballistic missiles, which can be armed with their rocket-ready nuclear weapons, include one just yesterday from a submarine, constitutes the equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis and that neither Clinton nor Trump is saying boo about this.
I could go on, but you get my drift.
I’m sure The New York Times and, for that matter, The Washington Post, will come around, do their real job, write about substance and even cover the only viable candidate that the entire nation can get behind.
But if doing so is too challenging, they could easily set up links to top foreign newspapers.