Margery Eagan, author of this hit piece on democracy and one half of the Eagan/Braude team who arbitrarily decided to exclude the ballot-qualified candidate Jill Stein from their radio debate, makes a weak case for exclusion. Proclaiming to protect the voters by excluding Stein, she made it clear that it’s all about Jill Stein’s fundraising prowess, asking “where’s the Green Party’s cash” and stating that Stein doesn’t rise to Margery’s required level of credibility.
Most of the panel was wishy-washy, agreeing that Stein doesn’t have a chance and perhaps does not deserve to be in all the debates.
Callie Crossley, on the other hand, stood apart from the pack, and stood up clearly for democracy:
“I am Pollyanna about this, I am Citizen Vote. If they make the ballot, if they get the signatures, they ought to be in all the debates. I am more than creeped out by the consortium setting a set of criteria. They just came up with a set of criteria, and so it’s arbitrary, and I find that distasteful.”
She even continued on to criticize the Commission on Presidential Debates for kicking out the League of Women Voters and putting influence-peddling rules in place.
Please take a moment to THANK Callie Crossley for standing up for our democracy when her colleagues would not. Add a comment to her “whiteboard” here, or to the story here.
so include them in the beginning — so they have a chance to gain momentum. But by late October if you’re polling under 5% in a 4 person race, all you’re doing is sucking up teevee time that the voters can use to learn about the viable candidates.
<
p>The other bit is this: why debates? It doesn’t make any sense. How is being good at a debate — fast on your feet, good working in talking points, silver tongue — have anything to do with managing the state day in and day out. I’d much rather see in depth interviews with the candidates, one-on-one.
An interview with a candidate still allows that candidate to dodge and obfuscate. Whether an interview is in depth or not, it still leaves it up to the interviewer — who may or may not be up to the task — to catch the candidate in those dodges etc.
<
p>A free-wheeling debate, however, allows candidates to act as checks on each other. They have all the incentive not only to make the best cases for themselves, but to scrutinize the cases of their rivals.
<
p>For that reason alone, I find debates usually more interesting than interviews. But candidates should be fairly unrestricted. Rules that restrict the ability of candidates to respond to their rivals’ comments can turn debates into pretty sterile affairs.
The 1-on-1 is a good idea, but sometimes the debates are entertaining.
<
p>Jon Keller NEVER had to be ‘up-front’ about his right-wing preferences…it RADIATES from him.
The trouble with the argument that third party candidates only suck up “valuable time” is that it suggests that the views of a substantial segment of the electorate–already excluded from governing due to our electoral “winner-take all” system–should also be excluded from one of the few chances they have to make their case publicly, which in turn only perpetuates the catch-22 situation in which they perenially find themselves–it’s well-nigh impossible to have your ideas treated seriously (and to build towards critical mass) without acceess to the public press/airwaves, but you can’t get that access without what the self-anointed gatekeepers define as “critical mass” (for Dame Margery, that’s a critical mass of corporate campaign contributions).
<
p>Are anti-casino and pro-pot-legalization positions “fruit loopy” and fringe?” A substantial number of MA voters flat-out oppose casinos. I’m still uncertain, even after wading through a waist-deep pile of studies and counter-studies, as to whether I’m among them, but this being the red-hot issue it is, I believe their voice should be heard. A slim majority of Americans now favor the wholesale legalization of marijuana–their voice, too, deserves a hearing. Nor are these fringe issues–if the name of the game is jobs and tax revenues, BOTH these issues should be debated. Without a third-party candidate, you’d be led to believe, watching the debates, that the good people of the commonwealth were wholly in favor of casinos and totally opposed to considering the legalziation of marijuana. In other words, in advancing their propositions, third pary candidates speak for far more than their polling numbers–they have the courage to say what so many–even the majority!!– are thinking, but that ever-so-cautious politicians dare not say. So much for “change.”
<
p>The Romans created the position of “tribune” to ensure that the voice of the plebiscite was heard–today, it’s third-party candidates who best serve that purpose: they really are the people’s tribunes (they also had the right to call for capital punishment against any who interfered with their duties, conjuring up unhappy images of Jon Keller in the arena, naked and wielding a trident and net. Sorry. I know it’s lunch time as I post).
<
p>There are really two questions at issue. The argument here, as usual, revolves around the question: “should low-polling candidates be invited to participated in big-time debates?” To my mind, the more relevant–and chilling–question is: should Emily Rooney and Jon Keller and Dan Payne be determining who’s included? Because they’re doing more than arguing that a third party candidate shouldn’t get some 8 minutes of precious debate time (if that’s so troubelsome, expand the debate from an hour to 75 minutes)–they are–seriously–determining the course of democracy. Look at it this way–this approach will only serve to guarantee that in the future, third parties won’t even bother. “You’ve achieved ballot access? Great! We’ll include that in one of our stories about the other candidates. And that’s the last you’ll be heard from.” The chilling effect of this ruling goes well beyond this season’s race for governor here in MA. What we’ve done, essentially, is to have privatized the debates–and Keller et al make no bones about it. I find that more than scary–I find it disgusting.
<
p>Those of us who belong to third parties understand very well that we’re political footballs. The right will tend to support the Greens’ admission (odd that CB didn’t…?), just as Democrats will tend to embrace the Cahills, and, presumably, the Carla Howells. And, too, presumably, in the minds of many here at BMG, at this point in a dead-heat race, their role is to see their guy elected–I get that. But at what point do we stop sacrificing principle to politicking?
<
p>
It would be harder to dismiss a third-party candidate if the third party actually put some effort into building a political party– by electing people in a series of local elections– alderman, school committee, city council, state rep– instead of just these quixotic bids for governor every four years.
Not too many, but there are some.
<
p>Tim Cahill is the counterargument. He’s not even third party — he’s indie. He’s in the debates. Why? He’s proven he has (had?) a reasonable shot at winning by lining up endorsers, campaign donations, visibility, and numbers in polls.
<
p>At this point, Jill Stein has gotten far more time in the debates than she’s polling.
<
p>
<
p>So as CMD points out, you’ve got to get more folks lined up at lower levels. A hand-full of Town Meeting Members and one off-beat city councilor simply isn’t enough.
<
p>P.S. Want to really spin heads? Get fusion voting on the MA ballot as a constitutional amendment. If you got fusion voting, you’d instantly take two steps forward — see the Conservative and Working Family parties of NY for example.
are the true fruit loops.