The Third Party Debates!

Three's a Crowd

By: Jeff Schmidtke

"Crediting C-SPAN, I was able to watch the Third Party Presidential Debate. It was quite a show; however, it wasn't just the Third Party debating himself. There are actually four Third Party candidates… if that makes any sense. Five nominees really, however, Ralph Nader was MIA… and I can't say that I blame him."

In the wake of this unprecedented election year, where there is more mud being thrown than at a rodeo hosted by Tom Delay, four viable yet struggling candidates held an open debate at Cornell University last Wednesday night. Cornell's Mock Election student group presented the 2004 Third Party Presidential Debate in the Schwartz Auditorium, Rockefeller Hall. This debate featured Green Party candidate David Cobb, Socialist Party candidate Walt Brown, Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik and Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka. Independent candidate Ralph Nader declined the Mock Election group's invitation.

With eyes wide open, confident 911 and Fox News a major reason, politics have shifted from an annoyance for many to becoming a mainstream, X-treme sport. Record breaking audiences have now witnessed the last of three Presidential Debates of the two party system in which we participate. Pick up any newspaper in any country, or any magizine in the entire galaxy, and you will read about the blows each candidate took… and threw. What you won't find is information regarding the four, Third Party Candidates.

To briefly summarize these gentlemen, the candidates are as follows.

Michael J. Badnarik, Libertarian Party, of Austin, Texas. He is a senior trainer and consultant with Evolutionary Technologies International. He has been a programmer with Pacific Gas and Electric and a systems analyst with Northrop Corp. He attended Indiana University.

Walt Brown, Socialist Party, of Lake Oswego, Ore. He is a volunteer attorney with the Consumer Justice Alliance, and he has been general counsel for the Oregon Consumer League. He was a judge advocate general in the U.S. Navy from 1952 to 1970, and he was an associate professor of law at the Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark College. Brown received his bachelor's degree from the University of Southern California School of Letters and his J.D. from the University of Southern California School of Law.

David Cobb, Green Party, of Houston. He is a public-interest attorney with the Community Environmental Defense Fund, and he has been general counsel for the Green Party National Committee. Cobb earned his bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Houston and his J.D. degree from the University of Houston Law Center.

Michael A. Peroutka, Constitution Party, of Millersville, Md. He serves as chairman of the Constitution Party. He received his bachelor's degree from Loyola University in Baltimore, and his J.D. from the University of Baltimore School of Law.

For all the political guru's out there that cancelled plans, taped the debates, or threw parties… was there much surprise in how mind-numbing the Presidential debates ended up seeming, especially after the first one? An entire year of build-up, only to be let down. Thanks Kerry! George, you're always entertaining. Covered and aired by almost every major network, I must acknowledge one thing… the professionalism. The Presidential debate may have been hardly informing, but the proficiency it exhibited is a key reason so many tune in. The 32 pages of rules each candidate must follow was criticized and poked fun of by many, including the candidates themselves. But it is the abundant amount of rules that guide the flow and demeanor of the debates.

When we compare the differences of the nationally televised presidential debates to the small unseen Third Party debate, it was the professionalism and proficiency that really set them apart.

The Third Party nominees already face a lack of reliability and a lack of respect. They are not known and considered on the far 'left' of politics by all prominent news broadcasters… if considered at all. In the most critical time of the year for these Third Party candidates, it is not wise to conduct a discredited debate in the heat of biggest and fastest presidential race. Some of the major drawbacks I felt this debate demonstrated were in the selection of the moderator, the selection of the crowd, the absence of prepared questions, no time limit for answers, and no order in which to answer.

The host Theo Lowi, as was seen, is a strong backer for third party politics. At times, it was as if he was a panel member pushing his own agenda. Although knowledgeable, I believed Lowi's actions to be unprepared, extremely informal, and indecisive. After Cobb, the Green party candidate, answered the first question of the evening, applause was heard immediately throughout. Mr. Lowi was even seen encouraging the clap… until three answers later, when it had already become annoying and most importantly, time consuming. "I guess we'll hold the applause until after the debate is over," Lowi expressed. It was an awkward moment.

The average age at this event, excluding the candidates, was around 21. A number that scarcely represents the nation these candidates are vying to lead and protect. Their may have been one individual who actually asked a tough question, pointing out flaws in the agenda for each nominee to defend. That I liked. Mr. Mathew's, where were you. Perhaps more invitations should have been granted to middle aged and elder citizens, rather than just the eager university student.

Giving no discretion or moderation in the question selection is not the brightest or safest thing to do in the all-important presidential debate. During these types of debates, the major responsibility of all involved is to keep the questions fair, in line and moving in a constructive manner. The short 60 minutes are meant for policy, leadership and agendas. This debate, in the way it was structured was left wide open for slander and miss-conduct. It was a good thing for all involved that these "crazy" liberals were not interrupted by the almighty conservative or a disruptful democrat attendee.

Luckily, respectful and civil questions were heard; however, there was a max of about five questions asked. With no green, yellow, or red lights signaling to the candidates of their time consumption, lengthy and repetitive answer were given. It can't be the most flattering feeling when you are told that "everyone gets the point", and to basically shut up, as was seen. The inconsistency is no help to the cause. Long-lasting answers have serious side affects.

Having the members delegate themselves as to who is next in line to answer, again, does not look good… to both undecided and especially to a decided voter. Nominees having to speak over each other, or not knowing when to speak is far from organized. How difficult could it have been to create an order in which to follow? I keep forgetting, though, they pride themselves in difference. New and useful ideas are welcomed by many, but playing by some of the rules is a must for survival.

All in all, inquisitive, exciting, sensible, and useful agendas were discussed. They were just sometimes hard to pick up through the fog. When planning or participating in a Presidential debate, organization and order is a must. When you are already frowned upon by so many, you're in a great disadvantage. When your population has become so ingrained in a certain method of viewing debates, the secure measure to take is to replicate. It is the agendas that will be your primary agent of variation that citizens will approve of.

For more information about both the Primary and Third Party Presidential debates visit: www.cspan.org

Drop by the DbP Liberal Shop