Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
It's Not Up for Debate "Debate is the death of conversation." - Kitty O'Neill Collins. And indeed, every four years, the CPD throws us just that: a news conference. Do we, as libertarians, stand a chance to liven it up this year?by Spencer Jayden
(libertarian)
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
On May 25th, 2008, after a contentious six-round nomination, Bob Barr was crowned the libertarian nominee for President of the United States. It did not sit well with many radicals, and I will not cover the breadth of the 30-year old faction-war for control over the LP. Bite the bullet and accept the risk the LP is taking this year. No kicking and screaming on either side is going to change the nomine.
We have a huge opportunity on our hands. But the question is who's ready to capitalize on it? Some of you, I'm sure, will want no part in this party from now on. Fine, that is your choice. For the rest of us, however, this is a time when raising the profile of the LP is top priority. And that is why I would like to turn focus to constructing a plan for getting Barr and Root into the presidential debates.
Note: The bulk of this article involves the Commision on Presidential Debates. For those not familiar with the history of the CPD, this organization is possibly one of the greatest obstructors to free speech and democracy in this country.
"The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.
The simple truth is that the CPD is actually FOR-PROFIT and *shock* BIPARTISAN. There are many excellent sites [1] that cover the true history of the CPD, which wrestled control from the League of Women Voters and turned the debates into 90-minute news conferences. In each of the debates since 1988, there has always been a Memorandum of Understanding between the nominees of the two major parties which typically include all of the following:
A provision that the candidates will only attend these debates.
The nominees refuse to debate anyone else who might be considered viable from the *Appleseed criteria. This includes third party candidates.
Screened audience, staging, moderators, and network coverage, etc. All the minor details.
But in 1992, things were different. When Perot rejoined the race in the late fall, he grabbed 8% in the polls instantly. Based on reports Bush had at the time that determined Perot could serve as a spoiler for Clinton, he negotiated to have Perot in the debates. Long story short: Perot swiped 19% of the popular vote, the highest ever for a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Bullmoose ticket in 1912. There's a reason they don't let us debate. ;)
Here's what we already know:
2008 is already a historic election year simply by the fact that no incumbent VP is running.
It's not a re-election year.
The Democrats are favored to win from the get-go due to several unpopular policies on part of the neocon Bushites holding office.
The more austere readers will note that Barr is already pulling almost exactly what Perot had when he re-entered the race in 1992. Now obviously, no two situations are identical. But let's consider the possibilities. The match-up this fall will most likely be McCain v. Obama. There's much that can be done NOW to prepare for this and other scenarios. Let's look more closely:
Barack Obama gets the nomination as everyone suspected he would. The media has even told us so, and we know they're never wrong, right? According to Rock the Debates, a 527 group lobbying the CPD to allow third parties to participate, Obama was asked if he would support 3rd party candidates in the debate. RTD declared his answer as no, but I viewed it as the passive answer he always gives to woo audiences. Now consider this angle: Obama actually has a better chance at getting Barr into the debate than anyone else. Why? Because Barr and Obama agree a lot on foreign policy areas, somewhere Obama knows he needs to outspeak McCain in, and it appears going into this, he won't be able to on his own. Secondly, I'm sure his campaign has seen the polling data as well and knows that Barr hurts McCain more than him, as well as diminishes the chance Nader might reprise his 2000 role. Let's assume that campaign is successful. Then, because McCain doesn't want to alienate voters further, and certainly not his base, he reluctantly accepts.
The Democratic nomination battle soldiers onto the Convention, as I believe it can, after Hillary gets half or all of the delegates in Florida and Michigan seated. This situation would lead to less voter interest because the fight will have lasted well over a year. If Obama gets the nomination through this, we're still in good shape, as we all know he isn't the usual CFR rookie and tends to "liven it up". Prospects dimmer however, if Hillary wins the nomination through a brokered convention, as many people fearfully suspect she will (myself included). Is this our best situation? No. Again, RTD's video of Hillary leaves us puzzled. It's safe to say though, that one of the leaders of her husband's impeachment trial is not welcomed. Then again, we have been shocked time and time again by her opportunism. Barr would probably grab an extra 2-4% in the race instantly, which then puts Hillary at an almost equal risk of losing votes as McCain. However, if attendance is down this season, she will need all the help she can get splitting the party faithful from voting for McCain.
If we fail in convincing them, we could always try McCain himself. Unfortunately, there are some drawbacks. We don't know where he stands on the matter. And obviously, he's the least likely to accept Barr on stage unless we could form a convincing counter-argument of why Barr would hurt the Democratic nominee over him. After all, these are people (Democrats) who want to see the war end and emphasizing this point could siphon votes from either nominee. There are other ways McCain could differentiate himself from Barr and win back some support; I know, it sounds like I'm being counter-productive, but you have to go out on a limb here to get some exposure, even if that means appealing to your enemies.
Many of you may be thinking now, well, why would they even cave to us? The CPD is nothing but a CFR mouthpiece for the two-party duopoly. How true that is...but in the end, we know it will likely be a Democrat in the White House. What can be done now is aggressively petitioning the CPD to agree to the Appleseed criteria. As Louis Brandeis once said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant".
No matter what you believe the outcome will be, the point is clear- the CPD integral to the duopoly's plans and they will only accept a third-party candidacy when it benefits them. By looking at their current prerequisites, you'd think that they'd only want celebrities to run independent or third-party. Well, now the LP has one. And once a third party is added to the mix, all bets are off. You might even ask Ventura in 2012 ;) [3]
[2] Appleseed Task Force Criteria as suggested by Citizens Debate Commission would allow candidates who: 1)are on enough states to win an electoral majority, 2) garner 5% in national polls, 3) gain 50% approval to participate in national polls.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Spencer Jayden only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Spencer Jayden is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Great article, Spencer. Getting Barr in the debates is vital, obviously. I don''t buy the argument that Hillary will eventually secure the nomination in a brokered convention. The superdelegates are going to rubberstamp Obama's victory.
Barr's avenue to substantial fundraising, his entry into the polls, and into the debates is through Obama and the democrats. Barr's needs to present himself to Barrack as his knight in shining armor, prepared to siphon votes from McCain.
I agree in concept-but I think that the televised debates are becoming irrelevant. Additionally, I doubt the candidates will be able to stick to the rules much longer.
I disagree that televised debates are becoming irrelevant. Debates are one of the sole ways, though draining in significance, of how we can get an image of our prospective candidates.
I believe in the future we will see more debates as we have this season, though I don't think they'll have as many large venues and be broadcast on major networks like these.
One of the ideas I've floated is that if we were to invest as much effort into sponsoring a citizen's debate as we were supporting Ron Paul and Bob Barr, etc, we could compel a few candidates to sign on. It could even be a multi-third party debate and we could pick a location in the midwest and buy airtime in the Heartland area. Even stream it on the net.
Obviously, the Democrats and Republicans aren't likely to agree with this, and the media doesn't care about ratings if it might spread the truth, so.. I think it could be very effective.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
When Perot rejoined the race in the late fall, he grabbed 8% in the polls instantly. Based on reports Bush had at the time that determined Perot could serve as a spoiler for Clinton, he negotiated to have Perot in the debates. Long story short: Perot swiped 19% of the popular vote, the highest ever for a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Bullmoose ticket in 1912. There's a reason they don't let us debate. ;)