Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan ought to be in the presidential
debates. And not just because they'd make good theater out of what
now looms as a George W. Bush-Al Gore version of the old KISS rule -
in this case Keep It Safe (and dull), Stupid.
Wouldn't you love to see Buchanan, that sharp-tongued veteran of
``Firing Line,'' grill Gore on national TV about the veep's ``iced tea''
defense in the probe of his campaign money-grubbing in the White
House in 1996?
(You know, Gore's story to the FBI that he drinks a lot of iced tea
and must have been in the bathroom when the shady stuff got
discussed.)
And Nader could make it uncomfortable for both Bush and Gore on
corporate reform, the environment and a few other issues the major
party nominees might just glide over.
Nader - to be formally nominated today by the Green Party at its
convention in Denver - and Buchanan, a lock to be the Reform Party
nominee, are not fringe candidates.
Pitchfork Pat won the New Hampshire Republican primary in 1996,
after all. A TV commentator, he's been an articulate, strident
spokesman for conservative causes for years. And he turned the
Republican National Convention of 1992 on its ear with his fiery,
cultural warfare speech in Houston.
Nader has been a household name as a champion for consumers and
political reform since his best-selling expose of auto industry safety
practices, ``Unsafe at Any Speed,'' was published in 1967. He was
the Green Party nominee in 1996 but didn't work hard at it. This year,
he's stumping the country and has finished in the high single digits in
polls in some key states.
Yet the Commission on Presidential Debates, dominated by - surprise!
- leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties, is shutting out
any candidate who hasn't reached at least 15 percent in national
opinion polls.
That's unfair. It's too high a threshhold and a built-in Catch 22 for
candidates like Buchanan and Nader.
They can't be in the debates unless they rise in the polls. Yet -
without the money Gore and Bush have raked in from special interests
- they can't rise enough in the polls without the national TV exposure
the debates would provide.
The debate commission's rules are a recipe for self-preservation for
the two major parties. And the absence of Nader and Buchanan on
the stage at UMass Boston on Oct. 3 (and at later debates Oct. 11
and 17) mean several serious issues are likely to get short shrift:
cw-2 Who will speak for opponents of the China trade bill? Who'll talk
about steps to ease short-run pain for many American workers, even
if there are long-run gains for most of us? Who will prod the
front-running candidates - who both supported the trade bill - to
keep the heat on China on human rights?
cw-1 Neither Gore nor Bush has shown the zeal on campaign finance
reform of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Bush is rolling in oil money and
loves unregulated ``soft money'' as much as soft pillows on a hard
bed. Gore talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. He was raising a
million bucks for the Democrats as the news came that yet another
top Justice Department official (though not Attorney General Janet
Reno) has called for an independent counsel to investigate Gore's
fund-raising for 1996.
So how best to get Nader and Buchanan in the debates? The
commission's 15 percent rule is a bit self-enforcing: If no candidate is
at least at that level in the polls by Oct. 3 (with election day Nov. 7),
he or she isn't truly viable and would just suck up valuable air time
from those who have a chance, commissioners contend.
Now that makes a certain rough sense. (Though, by that logic, if
Reno should defy all predictions, sic a special prosecutor on Gore and
he sinks like a stone in the polls, should he be declared not viable and
the debates called off?)
But, ah, suppose the outsiders could be given more time to prove
themselves and given a legitimate chance to shoot up in the polls?
Herewith, a modest proposal to achieve that:
Add a fourth debate and hold it early enough - maybe soon after
Labor Day, traditional start of the fall stretch run - so that a good
performance gives the minor party candidates a chance to gain in the
polls.
The criteria for admission to that first debate could include a
candidate scoring 5 percent or better in horse-race polls and at least
50 percent in name recognition. That would keep truly fringe
candidates from cluttering the stage.
cw-2 The first debate could become a kind of play-in for the final
three debates in October. If either or both Nader and Buchanan hit 15
percent by Oct. 3, they'd be in. That's the same idea as the first
round of the Big East NCAA basketball tournament, when the
lower-ranked teams have to beat each other to move on against the
better teams.
At least the lesser teams have a chance to compete and score an
upset. There's democracy in sports. Why not in presidential politics?
Oh, the motivation for the two major parties to keep Buchanan and
Nader out is clear enough. Bush doesn't want Pat B. in there to rock
his boat from the right. Much better for W. to talk that good ol'
middle-of-the-road ``compassionate conservatism'' than to be forced
into a more socially conservative stance on abortion or guns.
And Gore allies, like Rep. Barney Frank (D-Newton) know the danger
for him in November if Nader's appeal grows.
Frank recently told disgruntled Democrats in Wisconsin - where
current polls show a surprisingly close contest - that liberal votes for
Nader could put Republicans in control of the White House as well as
Congress. Nader also is pulling 7 percent in California polls and could
threaten Gore's lead in that must-win state.
Teamster President James Hoffa, unhappy with Gore over the China
trade bill, invited Nader to meet with the union's executive board on
Thursday, and publicly lambasted Gore and Bush.
But let Gore patch up those rifts and work harder for those votes.
Don't exclude guys like Nader and Buchanan. We need a host of
issues discussed seriously at those debates - not attack rhetoric and
middle-ground mush.
