THIRD PARTY DEBATES: WHAT HAPPENED
an editorial by Christina Tobin
Throughout the 2008 Presidential Campaign, the four major independent and third-party candidates called for the Commission on Presidential Debates to include on stage all candidates who appeared on enough state ballots to at least theoretically attain the 270 electoral votes required to become president. As expected, their requests fell on deaf ears, as the so-called “non-partisan” commission is controlled exclusively by Democrats and Republicans.
Enter Free & Equal, a non-profit group dedicated to furthering ballot access and open elections in the United States.
Through my own work with various third parties on ballot access, I was made painfully aware of the onerous restrictions placed on third party and independent candidates. Nowhere are these restrictions greater than those that determine who will be included in debates. The candidates are told they must meet a polling and support threshold to participate. The media largely ignores the candidates, saying they have no support. Of course, these candidates have limited support because the media denies them the opportunity to get their message out. It is a vicious circle, and this is exactly what played out in this past election. Unfortunately, the short-sighted and narrow-minded attitudes of some of the third-party candidates only made matters worse.
After serving as the National Ballot Access coordinator for the Ralph Nader campaign, I took a leave of absence from the campaign to partner with Trevor Lyman of Thirdpartyticket.com in the hopes of having a third party presidential debate. The odyssey that followed was one I will not soon forget. Let me be as direct as I can: Third parties will never draw a following unless they grow up!
Working with one other person (that’s right, only two of us), I originally hoped that Lyman’s third party ticket debate would fit right into the plans. Unfortunately, Lyman was put off by several campaigns and became disenchanted with the whole idea. From there, Free and Equal took the helm.
Free and Equal worked to have the debate hosted by the Columbia University Political Union on a Sunday afternoon in October. It was clear from the outset that despite their lip service supporting opening the debate to third-parties, the candidates were less than enthusiastic about appearing onstage with one another.
Libertarian candidate and former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr’s campaign actions were mean-spirited, and the hubris and utter foolishness of his campaign tactics were appalling. After the well-documented Ron Paul press conference snub, the Barr camp stated many times that Barr would only debate Nader, and that he would not be “seen on the same stage” with Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. The Barr campaign flat out refused to participate, stopped taking our phone calls and emails, and lambasted us on blogs. The “warmest personal regards” on the fax rejecting the invitation to the Mayflower Hotel debate was particularly hypocritical.
Claiming “unprofessionalism” and “bias,” the Barr campaign attempted to drag us through the mud. They were not the only campaign to do so. The Cynthia McKinney campaign was even more deliberate in its attempt to derail the Free and Equal debate.
To make matters worse, after Trevor Lyman and thirdpartyticket.com
stopped working with us, they began working against us. A debate was scheduled for the same day as the Columbia University debate. This debate was to be broadcast live on the internet, and the candidates would participate by webcam. From our dealings with the campaigns, we knew that this would not be acceptable to most of them.
But Cynthia McKinney nevertheless decided to participate in the Third Party Ticket debate. The Thursday morning before the Columbia debate was to take place, McKinney and Nader appeared on Democracy Now! With Amy Goodman. During this show, McKinney repeatedly stated that she would be participating in Lyman’s debate, not the Columbia University debate. Nader had every opportunity to correct her, or to challenge her on the other debate, but chose not to.
Faced with an impossible situation, the Columbia Political Union decided against pressing forward with the debate. With no confirmed candidates, due in part to the confusion surrounding Lyman’s debate, the Political Union had no choice but to pull out. Enough cannot be said about the time, effort, and dedication that the Political Union, and publisher Allon Bran in particular, put forward. I thank them for their tremendous effort, and hope that we can work together in the future.
After the Columbia debate was canceled, Free and Equal began preparations for a Third Party presidential debate to be held at the Mayflower Hotel. Free and Equal attempted time and time again to contact the Cynthia McKinney campaign. E-mails were rejected, calls not returned, and once again their blogs were peppered with “conspiracy” charges.
McKinney, in what can be described as a delusional act, posted a video decrying the debate as “The Nader Debate.” The campaign then accused us of working exclusively for Nader, and for not allowing her campaign to participate in the preparations. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t see how you can denounce someone for not working with you when you refuse and reject all attempts at communication. After the debates were held, press releases were sent out containing not only outright lies, but new stories as to why the campaign declined to participate in the debates.
As for the Nader connection, yes, I was indeed the National Ballot Access coordinator for the campaign. I have also helped secure ballot lines for numerous independent candidates and alternative political parties including the Constitution, Green, Libertarian and Socialist Equality parties. I took a leave of absence from the campaign to organize these debates and, by the way, neither I nor the other person I was working with voted for Nader.
Despite all of these maddening hurdles, Free and Equal hosted a successful Presidential debate at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate (the only campaign to be 100% straightforward with us from day one), and Ralph Nader participated in spirited and cordial debate broadcast live on C-SPAN in primetime, and covered by the three major networks.
The next week, a debate organized by the Barr campaign was held in Ohio. It was not nationally broadcast, and reportedly did not appear to be professional in nature.
The Sunday before the election, Free and Equal hosted our second debate, this one a Vice Presidential Debate in Las Vegas. Only the Green party was unrepresented at this debate, despite offers to pay their travel expenses.
It is my opinion that the Libertarian and Green Parties would do well to question the motives of the Barr and McKinney campaigns. After all, they are responsible for the actions of their candidates.
The Barr campaign failed to gain ballot access in any state it attempted, while the states that were handled by the Libertarian Party itself were mostly successful. The McKinney campaign had four different websites throughout the course of the campaign, every one of them underwhelming, the last one offline until after the election. Both campaigns had dismal showings in this election, whether the standard be fundraising, media exposure, or votes. Both campaigns attempted to derail and usurp Free and Equal’s ambitions to provide a media platform for the candidates. Both campaigns routinely ignored the suggestions of their respective party’s leadership. Both campaigns have been accused of being disorganized, incompetent, and arrogant. Both campaigns had the effect of stagnating their respective parties.
Both candidates are former Congressman from safe-seat Congressional Districts in Georgia.
Furthermore, ever since the Libertarian Convention, there have been rumors and speculation that Barr will [again] run as a Republican for Congress in 2010. If this does come to pass, what does it say about the integrity of 3rd parties to be infiltrated and taken over without effective opposition?
All third parties, in my opinion, should think twice before nominating former seat-holding Democrats and Republicans, just for the name recognition. The third party movement should focus on creating its own media opportunities instead of relaying on has-been Democrats and Republicans for media exposure. This is what Free and Equal will strive for.
Even after this very trying experience, Free and Equal remains undaunted by the task of securing ballot access and free and fair elections for independent and third party candidates. Free and Equal also wishes to thank everyone who helped make the debates a reality.
At the beginning of next year, Free and Equal will begin campaigning to challenge ballot access laws across the country. We hope to break the hold of the two party duopoly on our electoral process by helping place as many third party and independent candidates on the ballot in 2010 as possible through lobbying, petitioning, recall, and referendum efforts. Our Campaign for Ballot Access will begin the day after Inauguration Day. Stay tuned as more is sure to come. Please feel free to visit our website-in-progress att www.freeandequal.org
.
# # #
Inquiries may be directed to Christina Tobin@ (312) 320-4101, or by e-mail [email protected].
As State Chair of the Washington Libertarian Party during this debacle the Barr campaign was hard to contact and even harder to understand.
We had invitations to a debate and several critical press conferences that Mr Barr chose to skip. Showing the same type of closed minded rhetoric that keeps Libertarians out of the two party debates (and press), Mr Barr refused to share the stage with other parties (as in the Ron Paul endorsement), thinking that would somehow diminish his position.
He opted for no press instead of a humble and COMPETITIVE environment.
He did not shake my resolve to support Libertarians, but he sure turned many away from the Libertarian party with his actions.
I won’t dispute that he acted on principle, but rather his principle reflected the current textbook republican/democrat exclusionary tactics instead of what citizens (Libertarians especially) needed. Dare I say what we the people deserve, but fail to demand, year after year.
You can dispute Christina’s credibility as much as you want, but you cannot dispute the general theme. The fact is, Barr and McKinney had the opportunity to show off their positions/party but they chose not to. How can you even begin to justify such cowardly actions? McKinney should participate in the debate whether it is a ‘Nader Debate’ or not. Honestly, how biased could it be? Even if it is extremely biased, believe it or not Nader and McKinney share many important positions, so actually it would play in her favor. And furthermore lets not kid ourselves on Barr- he is a republican in libertarian clothes. Can we really expect anything decent out of him?
Listen, we can either split hairs all day or we can face up to reality. Barr and McKinney are making wimpy excuses, and that is the last thing third parties need to do. Call me crazy, but I am pretty sure the ballot access laws and the media do a good enough job at suppressing the third party voice.
It’s a mystery to me. On the one hand, I hear the same thing from Greens, LPers and CPers, and the CP especially makes me wonder, because Tobin praises them. And yet nobody gives me specifics. I’m not saying anybody is obligated to – that is just all the info I have.
I think it’s interesting that 55555 chose to remain anonymous and just offered some vague details. Like you said, Paulie, Tobin has been the only one to offer a story with any substance.
I keep hearing the same thing from multiple sources in different parties, yet no one has sent IPR any specifics – even anonymously – challenging her account’s specifics. I’d be eager to hear other sides of the story.
I wouldn’t take any of this article seriously. The author is clearly only out to advance herself and her “organization.” I particularly take issue with the fact that Ms. Tobin states “After serving as the National Ballot Access coordinator for the Ralph Nader campaign, I took a leave of absence from the campaign.” During this “leave of absence,” she worked exclusively out of the Nader campaign office, and drew heavily on the resources of the campaign to organize and put on the “independent” debates. I am completely confident she will take any stance at any point in time for political expedience, and will only offer contributions to third party campaigns when she can be the sole recipient of credit.
kaliplay is Baldwin/CP staff – she was at the debates and has knowledge of what she is talking about here, although I respect her decision if she does not want to provide details or hold off on it.
Given that Tobin was very positive about Baldwin above, it gives extra weight to what kaliplay says.
I’ve heard the same thing from an LP staff person. I can’t say who, and they have not provided details either. If/when we get a different side to the story, we’ll air it, even if the source has to remain anonymous.
McKinney’s behavior would be less douchebaggy, at least on one front, if it turned out she had the wrong e-mail (or no e-mail) from Free and Equal for whatever reason, and was blocking anything that wasn’t from a set list of e-mail addresses.
It’s possible she was trying to find a loophole for Bob “seen on the same stage” Barr to debate her by going with the debate without a stage. Of course I’m just stretching there.
I’m not going to defend anything Barr did.
Kaliplay,
Fair enough. It is up to you to decide whether to share your thoughts/recollections. If you do so, no hurry.
I was referring to the article posted, not any comments. I do have specific objections, but 1) am not sure if they ought to be laid out here and 2) am too busy to get to them in the next few days. Ms. Tobin’s thoughts are obviously her perception of the issues, and yes, they were first-hand. But conflicts are rarely ever merely one-sided, and there are those who could write about their dealings and issues with her. However, I appreciate the summary of sorts that this gives: recaps are always good.
This is a very one-sided presentation of “factsâ€, or rather one person’s opinion.
Just to make sure – you meant the editorial by Tobin, not my comment right above yours, right?
If kaliplay or anyone else with ‘inside knowledge’ wants to dispute any of Ms. Tobin’s allegations, please go ahead and do so.
@4 kalipay: Sounds as though Ms. Tobin was privy to what she says firsthand. Do you have any specific objections or contentions, or are you simply making a broad reactionary dispute? Otherwise, don’t naysay for the sake of naysaying. I’m not remotely surprised by the farcically pathetic efforts (or counter-efforts) by Barr & McKinney.
@6 …McKinney is a douchebag in addition to being a kook. It’s a natural progression as more facts about the sheer ineptitude of her campaign come to light.
@1: No, but it is to some degree news that McKinney is also a douchebag, at least on this site.
Yes. I was hoping that would be obvious from the disclaimer “an editorial by Christina Tobin” and the title “Christina Tobin: ‘Third Party debates: what happened’”
🙂
This is a very one-sided presentation of “facts”, or rather one person’s opinion.
I think the Barr campaign handled West Virginia, DC and Oklahoma, and the Barr campaign (not HQ) messed up Louisiana.
However, Connecticut and Maine, several near-misses, and some poor management and spending decisions were all HQ (Haugh and Kohlhaas).
“The Barr campaign failed to gain ballot access in any state it attempted, while the states that were handled by the Libertarian Party itself were mostly successful.”
This statement is misleading. The only state which the Barr campaign ran ballot access in directly was West Virginia. Most of the blame for failure in that state is the fault of Shane Cory, but decisions that were made by LP National (ie-Sean Haugh) adversely effected the ballot access effort in West Virginia.
LP National (mostly Sean Haugh) is directly responsible for screwing up ballot access in Connecticut, Maine, and Washington DC, and LP National along with the Barr campaign and the Louisiana LP screwed up Louisiana.
It’s suppose to be news that Bob Barr is a douchebag?