Topic: Media
Third-Party Debate Fiasco: Oct. 19 debate(s) cancelled The October 19 debate will not be happening -- either of them. But a third-party debate may still take place. So, what happened?by George Dance
(libertarian)
Saturday, October 18, 2008
On Friday, October 17, Maria Recio of McClatchy Newspapers reported:
The troubled presidential debate for third-party candidates scheduled for Sunday at Columbia University in New York was canceled Friday after none of the four candidates had committed to the event.
"Due to circumstances beyond our control, several of the candidates decided not to participate in the debate at the last minute," said Lauren Salz, a student with the Columbia Political Union, which was hosting the debate.
Independent Ralph Nader, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin were expected to participate in what was billed as a "historic" event. Barr claimed a conflict while McKinney opted for an online debate originally scheduled for that evening. Baldwin was reluctant to travel to New York. Nader was willing to participate, aides say, but, seeing the debate falling apart all week, held back. (1)
As late as Friday, Nolan Chart and other internet media were reporting that the debate was set to occur, and that Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin were confirmed. (2) So what happened?
The debate idea began as a project of Trevor Lyman of Break the Matrix. Libertarian Lyman was the prime mover behind the 2007 money bombs that raised millions of dollars for Republican candidate Ron Paul, and brought the Paul campaign widespread media attention. Inspired by Paul's September 10 press conference (at which Paul called for the highest possible votes for the four third-party candidates) Lyman decided to try a money bomb for them as well.
Lyman's original idea was a winner-take-all money bomb; whichever candidate received the most pledges would take everything. However, that idea was not well received. Meanwhile, the idea of a third-party debate (which was being promoted on the net even before Paul's press conference (3)) was gaining some traction. So BtM changed plans.
On September 24, Lyman unveiled a new website, ThirdPartyTicket.com (TPT). TPT's goal was to hold a debate among all six presidential candidates with a mathematical chance to win the Presidency (which in practice meant the above four; McCain and Obama were never expected to participate), to be broadcast on the internet by BtM. In conjunction, TPT would hold a money bomb for each particpating candidate. Only the totals of all the bombs would be reported the intent, as in Paul's case, was to report a high figure to capture main stream media attention. (4)
Open Debates (OpenDebates.org), and the Free and Equal Elections Coalition (FREE) also came on board to sponsor the event.
TPT set a goal of 10,000 pledges to its money bombs, and committed to releasing a date when that figure was neared. On October 12, with pledges topping 9,400, a date and time were announced: the following Sunday, from 7:00 - 9:00 pm EST. The format would be an internet conference: the candidates would not be physically present in one location, but would be connected with the moderator via webcam. BtM would stream the event on the net. (5)
Enter Christina Tobin. Ms. Tobin apparently works for both FREE and the Nader campaign (which endorsed the TPT event on September 27). According to an earlier report by Recio:
Third-party advocate Christina Tobin, who coordinates ballot access for Nader but who also has ties to the Libertarian Party, jump-started the idea and in the past week got the Columbia Political Union, a nonpartisan student organization at Columbia University, to sponsor the debate. (6)
Tobin also succeeded in getting a prominent moderator -- Amy Goodman, of Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now" -- as well as the all-important television coverage (by C-SPAN). But that came with a catch: the debate had to be at a physical location (Altschul Auditorium at Columbia); and it had to take place at 8:00 pm instead of 7:00. Most importantly, Tobin did not get the blessing for her event from either TPT or the candidates' campaigns.
On October 15, when Gobin formally announced the debate, it was billed as a co-sponsorship of FREE and the Columbia Political Union -- no mention of TPT, the money bombs, or the internet broadcast. Bob Barr was announced as a "question mark," but it was reported (by the New York Times et al) that Barr, Nader, and McKinney)would all be present.
Meanwhile, at the TPT website, FREE was no longer listed as a sponsor; and TPT continued to promote the idea of an internet debate Oct. 19 at 7:00 pm. Suddenly there was not just one third-party debate in the works, but two competing, overlapping events.
The next day, Goodman had McKinney and Nader on her show to promote the Columbia event. Nader was non-committal, while McKinney gave a definite no, saying that she was committed to the TPT debate -- a fact that escaped Goodman, who seemed unaware that there were two competing debates scheduled:
AMY GOODMAN: ... And will you also be at the debate on Sunday night, third-party debate at Columbia University? RALPH NADER: Well, I just heard about it after you told me about it last night, and-Amy, and I've got to look at the schedule and see. AMY GOODMAN: Well, if- CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I'm with Trevor-I'm with Trevor Lyman at the thirdpartyticket.com from 7:00 to 9:00 on October 19th. AMY GOODMAN: And we'll put information on our website, because supposedly I will be moderating this debate if it does happen, and we'll let our viewers and listeners know. (7)
That there were two debates, that McKinney would not attend the one at Columbia, and that Nader was hedging, went mostly unnoticed in the blogosphere, which was instead predictably bashing Bob Barr for not committing. Those facts did, though, catch the attention of Recio, who contacted the three candidates and discovered that none of them had committed:
Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney is a definite "no," saying she'll participate that night in an online debate, appearing remotely via Web cam. The Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin didn't get the invitation until Thursday afternoon, and his campaign manager isn't promising anything. Libertarian Bob Barr was a no-show from the start, saying he had a scheduling conflict, and independent Ralph Nader, the biggest draw, is hedging his bets.
"I'm sure McCain and Obama don't have these problems," said Baldwin campaign manager Gary Odom.... Thursday afternoon [Nader] national campaign coordinator Jason Kafoury was noncommittal. "I'm hearing all kinds of conflicting things," he said.... Odom wondered, "Is there going to be an event at all?" (6)
Recio also discovered that McKinney, like Barr, could not be in New York on the 19th due to a scheduling conflict: "McKinney, it turns out, also had another reason for staying in her hometown of Atlanta, said her running mate, Rosa Clemente. McKinney is attending the Black Panther Party annual reunion." (1)
Recio's story in turn caught the attention of Independent Political Report (IPR) investigative journalist Paulie Cannoli, who began making calls ...
IPR spoke with Christopher Thrasher of Free and Equal.... Thrasher said that in fact, Free and Equal had learned that Nader was "likely" to attend their event and that McKinney "would be" attending it from the NY Times (that is, from the article posted on their site).
It appears that in the case of McKinney, the NY Times reporter may have been confused, and that she was in fact referring to the ThirdParty Ticket debate, which is the one her website says she will be at.
According to Thrasher, national Green Party members reported being told by McKinney staff that other candidates (including Barr) had confirmed that they would be in the Third Party Ticket online debate. (8)
Cannoli also discovered that "Chuck Baldwin will not be available for either debate," and that even "Amy Goodman will not be available to moderate". [stress in original]
In his original story, Cannolli also reported that "Thrasher said that Trevor Lyman lost interest in the Third Party Ticket debate;" however, he later added an update quoting BtM's side of the story:
About one week ago, we at BreakTheMatrix.com decided that due to the scheduling difficulties, we would serve the community best by offering an online debate as per our original intent, while Christina Tobin and FreeAndEqual.org continued to pursue the live event.
Today the candidates have two options available to them. The live debate event scheduled in New York City on Oct 19th at 8pm EST at Columbia University, or the online event to be streamed via BreakTheMatrix.com/ThirdPartyTicket.com on the same date from 7pm to 9pm EST. At this moment, the only candidate who is confirmed (for the web event) is Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party....
Cannoli added in a further update: "We received another call from Christopher Thrasher.... There will not be a debate at Columbia University, and he is no longer with Free and Equal."
So that's it: No debate at Columbia; no debate on the internet. The October 19 debate is dead (and, no, Bob Barr did not kill it).
However, Cannoli had some good news to report as well. First, BtM says that "BreakTheMatrix.com / ThirdPartyTicket.com are offering a standing web cam debate to all candidates on any day from here until the November 4th election. We are asking all candidates to submit to us the dates they are available and in turn we will offer the candidates a debate on a day they are all available."
Second, the Barr campaign says that "We are open to the idea of a third party debate if Bob's schedule permits and it is organized properly with details laid out clearly to the campaign more than a few days before the debate is supposed to take place."
Third, Chuck Baldwin "is interested in being in a debate in the future."
Fourth, "High level negotiations are under way between the Nader and Barr campaigns for a debate."
So a third-party debate may still take place -- possibly between Barr and Nader only, possibly among the four candidates, possibly (who knows?) even including McCain and/or Obama -- in the two weeks left before Election Day. I hope so.
-
UPDATE, Oct. 19: Gobin and FREE are trying again for Thursday, October 23. FREE sent a release to IPR and others late Oct. 18 stating:
The Independent/Third Party Presidential Debate to have been held in New York at Columbia University on Sunday Oct. 19th has been rescheduled, and will occur on Thursday evening at 9pm EST, October 23 in Washington DC.
All six candidates who qualified for enough state ballot lines to be eligible to win the presidency on November 4th are invited.
An update on confirmed candidates, location in Washington DC, debate format, and other details will be made available at a press conference in Washington DC on Tuesday, October 21 at 10am EST on the ground floor of the National Press Club building.
UPDATE, Oct. 20: As of noon October 20, the candidates appear to be free for the night of October 23. Baldwin has no events listed that day. Barr has one, a speech at 3:00 pm at Georgia Tech. Nader's calendar lists nothing later than October 22. McKinney's website has no events listed that I can see (and still has the October 19 debate as its lead story).
(7) "Breaking the Sound Barrier: Third-Party Candidates Ralph Nader & Cynthia McKinney Respond to Final McCain-Obama Debate," Democracy Now!, Oct. 16, 2008. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_third_party
(8)All quotations in italics are from: Paulie Cannoli, "Update on third party Presidential debate proposals," Independent Political Report, Oct. 17, 2008. http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/10/update-on-third-party-presidential-debate-proposals/
-
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 32 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of George Dance only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. George Dance 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.
Posted By: Angry as he..
Date: 2008-10-18 20:19:20
I am so angry I can hardly see straight. Can we set the record straight for once and for all? Trevor Lyman is an opportunist who stole all of the email addresses when he put up a website for an idea that thousands helped to create for the first money bomb. He then pretended he did all the work when he did next to nothing.
If I see one more irresponsible fool write something like this I might scream: Libertarian Lyman was the prime mover behind the 2007 money bombs that raised millions of dollars for Republican candidate Ron Paul, and brought the Paul campaign widespread media attention.
No, Lyman was not the prime mover behind the money bombs. WE WERE. We the people who supported Ron Paul. Many of us worked 100 hour weeks to make those money bombs successful while Trevor created a website in a few hours and did nothing else! Got it? WE did the work. WE spread the message. WE made those money bombs successful, NOT TREVOR.
Why do you think that nothing he has done since has been worth a plug nickel? Because he didn't do anything in the first place.
I was there. So were a lot of others. Stop giving this man credit for creating a website. Many others offered to create that site. He got to it first. We all hated it and he refused to make any changes - this at a time when thousands of us were working for free for Ron Paul and all working together. Trevor was the first one to take the product of our hard work and hoard it for himself. We got the people to his site and then he sold himself as some marketing genius and sold those email addresses a dozen times over. We needed the names to get things done, and Trevor refused to share them with the rest of the Ron Paul community.
So, once again, it is no surprise that something that Mr. Lyman planned did not come to fruition. When will the whole world learn that he is not all that?
Look, I was one of the people who worked day and night for Ron Paul. At first there were a few of us, and then there were more. We worked tirelessly. We had to fight the campaign at times and we had to fight the establishment. But we, that's right, we, spread a message that is starting to catch on. Don't you dare give credit for the work of thousands to one man. It is bad journalism and you falsely give this man credit for things he did not achieve. That is not fair to his future employers.
All of this information can be easily found on websites. I have transcripts of it all in case Mr. Lyman decided to delete it all. I am only telling the truth here. Something I dearly wish people who write articles would do.
Signed,
One of the thousands of Ron Paul supporters who made it all happen. We worked together. No one was special. We all worked hard. My hats off to each and every one of you who were there. You know who you are.
One of the thousands of Ron Paul supporters who made it all happen. We worked together. No one was special. We all worked hard. My hats off to each and every one of you who were there. You know who you are.
Thumbs-up, brutha! Nice work! The third parties need to get together and spend some money on setting up a serious debate, not just once, but every cycle - one that can be counted upon. If its a regular occurance, it's more likely to be covered by the MSM.
And after 4 years of Obama and 8 years of Dubya, people might be ready to hear a dissenting opinion.
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.
