Saturday, August 20, 2005
More debate on the debate, and this time I'm right!
There has been much ado on the debate on the debate lately. Larry Sabato penned this response to several editorials imploring the debate commission (and Jerry Kilgore) to include Independent Russ Potts:
“To the Editor: “Regarding your editorial on independent gubernatorial candidate H. Russell Potts Jr. ("A Radical in Virginia"), and his exclusion from candidate debates, you make a serious error. The editorial reads: "That arbitrary condition [the 15 percent rule for inclusion] was set by the Kilgore campaign and agreed to by the debate's sponsor, the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia." Nothing could be further from the truth.
“First, the 15 percent rule is certainly not arbitrary. It is the established standard at the national level, via the Commission on Presidential Debates, and it is the established standard in Virginia. Just to cite one example, when we had our 2001 gubernatorial TV debate (sponsored by the Center) in October, we used the very same 15 percent standard, which resulted in the exclusion of Libertarian William Redpath, who had filed the necessary signatures and secured a place on the November ballot. When we consulted with legal experts before making our debate proposal this year, the one thing they insisted upon was that we should be consistent and not arbitrary, and therefore should maintain the same standard used for years and years in considering Mr. Potts' independent candidacy. That is precisely what we did, and so your word "arbitrary" should in fact have read "consistent."
“Second, the Center, not the Kilgore campaign as your editorial states, proposed the 15 percent rule in our original proposal to the campaigns in May. The Kilgore campaign immediately balked. We could have had a debate agreement in May had we caved in, but instead we held firm for about four months, insisting that the debate needed to provide a reasonable, consistent way for Potts to qualify. At several points, it appeared that our debate had been shelved permanently because we would not budge on that principle. Finally, under pressure to agree to a statewide TV debate, the Kilgore campaign relented a couple of weeks ago. Our position never changed; the Kilgore camp's position changed.
“Our debate is the only one of the three organized this year to provide a reasonable opportunity for Mr. Potts to participate. We are pleased to have achieved this, and we hope he qualifies.”
Dr. Larry J. Sabato
Director, Center for Politics
University of Virginia
The biggest problem with Sabato's argument that the national standard is good enough for us is presidential elections are far different than the ones we have here in the Old Dominion. It is truly overwhelming in a Presidential race to even consider getting all the candidates together simply because there are so many, some being on the ballot in just a single state. Yes the Know-Nothings (recently revived) might have something interesting to say, but if they're only on the ballot in Wyoming, they aren't really relevant to the national discussion.
I pushed debate organizers for Redpath's inclusion in 2001, and I'm pushing for Potts' inclusion this year as well.
I will say 15% is hardly a "standard" in Virginia. I note Independent (and high school government teacher) Seth Davis' inclusion last year in the televised congressional debate held in Roanoke. The only difference between then and now is that Boucher and Triplett didn't give a lick if he was included because he was truly a non-factor and not a potential spoiler. Did Davis bring interesting ideas to the table? A resounding yes. Was he ready for prime-time? A resounding no. Seth ran mostly as a lesson to his students, and should be commended for his honesty, determination and plain ol' guts. He was on the ballot and was an option for the voters. This is enough for me.
Sabato and Co. knew Kilgore would not accept a debate proposition if Potts was guaranteed a spot, so they fell back on the "standards" excuse in an attempt to get him to the podium.
What do you think will happen if Kaine or Kilgore was mysteriously caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy a week before election day? Or run over by a dump truck? Or caught getting a "massage" from Tai Collins? (sorry, had to bring that one up) How do you think the race would end up then? Don't you think it would probably be a good idea to hear what Russ has to say? Potts is a legitimate choice, and the voters in Virginia should be able to hear his ideas.
Somebody needs to invite all of the candidates to a televised debate, say "here are the rules" and not worry about whether Jerry shows up.
“To the Editor: “Regarding your editorial on independent gubernatorial candidate H. Russell Potts Jr. ("A Radical in Virginia"), and his exclusion from candidate debates, you make a serious error. The editorial reads: "That arbitrary condition [the 15 percent rule for inclusion] was set by the Kilgore campaign and agreed to by the debate's sponsor, the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia." Nothing could be further from the truth.
“First, the 15 percent rule is certainly not arbitrary. It is the established standard at the national level, via the Commission on Presidential Debates, and it is the established standard in Virginia. Just to cite one example, when we had our 2001 gubernatorial TV debate (sponsored by the Center) in October, we used the very same 15 percent standard, which resulted in the exclusion of Libertarian William Redpath, who had filed the necessary signatures and secured a place on the November ballot. When we consulted with legal experts before making our debate proposal this year, the one thing they insisted upon was that we should be consistent and not arbitrary, and therefore should maintain the same standard used for years and years in considering Mr. Potts' independent candidacy. That is precisely what we did, and so your word "arbitrary" should in fact have read "consistent."
“Second, the Center, not the Kilgore campaign as your editorial states, proposed the 15 percent rule in our original proposal to the campaigns in May. The Kilgore campaign immediately balked. We could have had a debate agreement in May had we caved in, but instead we held firm for about four months, insisting that the debate needed to provide a reasonable, consistent way for Potts to qualify. At several points, it appeared that our debate had been shelved permanently because we would not budge on that principle. Finally, under pressure to agree to a statewide TV debate, the Kilgore campaign relented a couple of weeks ago. Our position never changed; the Kilgore camp's position changed.
“Our debate is the only one of the three organized this year to provide a reasonable opportunity for Mr. Potts to participate. We are pleased to have achieved this, and we hope he qualifies.”
Dr. Larry J. Sabato
Director, Center for Politics
University of Virginia
The biggest problem with Sabato's argument that the national standard is good enough for us is presidential elections are far different than the ones we have here in the Old Dominion. It is truly overwhelming in a Presidential race to even consider getting all the candidates together simply because there are so many, some being on the ballot in just a single state. Yes the Know-Nothings (recently revived) might have something interesting to say, but if they're only on the ballot in Wyoming, they aren't really relevant to the national discussion.
I pushed debate organizers for Redpath's inclusion in 2001, and I'm pushing for Potts' inclusion this year as well.
I will say 15% is hardly a "standard" in Virginia. I note Independent (and high school government teacher) Seth Davis' inclusion last year in the televised congressional debate held in Roanoke. The only difference between then and now is that Boucher and Triplett didn't give a lick if he was included because he was truly a non-factor and not a potential spoiler. Did Davis bring interesting ideas to the table? A resounding yes. Was he ready for prime-time? A resounding no. Seth ran mostly as a lesson to his students, and should be commended for his honesty, determination and plain ol' guts. He was on the ballot and was an option for the voters. This is enough for me.
Sabato and Co. knew Kilgore would not accept a debate proposition if Potts was guaranteed a spot, so they fell back on the "standards" excuse in an attempt to get him to the podium.
What do you think will happen if Kaine or Kilgore was mysteriously caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy a week before election day? Or run over by a dump truck? Or caught getting a "massage" from Tai Collins? (sorry, had to bring that one up) How do you think the race would end up then? Don't you think it would probably be a good idea to hear what Russ has to say? Potts is a legitimate choice, and the voters in Virginia should be able to hear his ideas.
Somebody needs to invite all of the candidates to a televised debate, say "here are the rules" and not worry about whether Jerry shows up.
