As the SWP leadership infringed upon the rights of Alan Gelfand, so did Bill Van Auken infringe upon mine. Here is Bill Van Auken’s excuse:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/11/beck-n04.html

The fact is Glenn Beck identifies as an independent or a libertarian. He has been compared to a Howard Stern or a Madonna, more involved with presentation and quip-making than advancing any thoroughgoing political theory. Even his anti-socialist stance begins to bend with his utopian-socialist summer camp based on the constitution and the ideas of the revolution of 1776.

From a 2015 radio interview with Howard Stern:

http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/06/glenn-beck-too-libertarian-for-fox/

Stern: Who will you vote for?

Beck: Third Party.

Stern: Let’s say you have got to choose between those two, who do you choose?

Beck: What is this; is this the Soviet Union?

— —

So why did Bill Van Auken really turn down an opportunity to appear on national television, in front of an audience likely numbering in the millions? Anyone participating in the campaigns to put Bill Van Auken on the ballot was denied their rights as a party member to have the message they campaigned for delivered to the widest possible audience.

I was not informed of this decision or offered an opportunity to vote. This was not a personal decision, but a decision made on behalf of the entire campaign staff, both from 2006 and from 2004. The last article I wrote was in July, 2006, while the last meeting I had with Fred Mazelis and Bill Van Auken was in 2007, in April, I believe.

I should have been given notice about this decision and a vote on the matter. After his appearance on CNN’s “Glenn Beck”, he could have turned up on various different television programs, creating a completely different dynamic for campaign staff. Bill Van Auken should not have had a choice; it should have been incumbent upon him to accept Beck’s invitation.