As previously noted not just once or twice but thrice, both of L.A.'s mayoral debates have reflected L.A.'s rich political spectrum: all five candidates who were invited to the debates were Democrats.

Now, this is getting a bit of attention from the minor MSM:

So far, there have been two televised debates for L.A.'s 2005 mayoral election. In each, the supposedly reform-minded sponsors took the path of expediency by inviting only professional politicians. For all the talk among liberals and reformers about demanding that free air time be provided to candidates, when push came to shove the League of Women Voters and the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters excluded all the unfunded and underfunded candidates from their debates.

We got to see Mayor James Hahn go up against four challengers. Missing were seven other people who have qualified to be on the March primary election ballot.

The ones invited were all men and interestingly enough, all Democrats. The one Republican who might make a respectable showing was pointedly excluded...

One might have thought that given a chance, the League of Women Voters and the L.A. League of Conservation Voters would at least take a stab - just one tiny little shot - at this most sacred of liberal goals. Why not let some of the small-money candidates come to the party too? Let them try to sell their ideas. Give them a chance to have their say with the voters. Perhaps one or two, untainted by the stain of political contributions, would surface as legitimate candidates.

That didn't happen. Whoever they are, whatever they would try to communicate, they were excluded.

When questioned about the choice of who gets to participate and who doesn't, the debate sponsors' answer comes down to one dreary little word, a word that aptly summarizes the conflicted motives in our liberal universe.

That word is viable...