The major parties do their best to keep the others out of the political process. Whether it is through rigging the election laws for ballot access and debate access, or outright criminal activity, like stealing ballot access petitions or violationg and ignoring federal non-partisan debate laws, it appears nothing will prevent the Democrats and Republicans from keeping the competition out of their monopoly on the US political process.
It was therefore a welcome change to see some third party presidential debates this year. The first of these was in New York City at the same time as the GOP convention, but was rather wooden and staid with a traditional format of pre-screened questions asked by the moderator. The second one, though, in a town meeting format at Cornell University, and hosted by poli-sci prof Ted Lowi, was a rather refreshing program to watch last night before dinner (10/10/04 6:30PM EST, C/SPAN).
Present were Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party, David Cobb of the Green Party, Walter Brown of the Socialist Party, USA, and Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party. Notably absent was Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who has made a public statement of "being opposed to caste systems in politics" as being his excuse for not showing. (time to retire, Ralph)
The Moderator, Prof. Ted Lowi, managed very well and even interjected a few times with excellent commentary. When one student deplored the fact that all the candidates were white males (to which Cobb mentioned his female VP candidate and Brown talked about Susan B Anthony), Lowi stated that candidacy is a self selective process. If there are no black or female candidates it is because they did not nominate themselves to get involved, so they need to take responsibility and step forward. WOW, no politically correct mouse is he.
Each candidate started off with a three minute speech, and then the floor was open for students to spontaneously ask over a dozen questions of each of the candidates. Seeing each candidate answer the same question helped illustrate the differences and similarities between these four gentlemen. Peroutka stuck to his mantra of "God, Family, and Republic", which was dismantled from the beginning by an otherwise disheveled Walt Brown, who retorted that the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist baptist minister from a large family. Walt was not the most presentable candidate, and seemed to be of the impression that he was in the 1924 presidential campaign, not the 2004 one. Both Peroutka and Brown received polite applause, but did not really reach the crowd. I'd say they both fought for last place: one with out-of-touch theological arguments, and the other with an out-of-touch generation gap, scattershot presentation, and impending senility.
David Cobb made a pretty good presentation of the Green Party stance on issues, talking about environmental protection and renewal, more social welfare statism, and ending the control of 'corporate fat cats' over the US political system. My sister commented "He looks and sounds like a gay Stacey Keach", but he did command a pretty good response from the crowd at certain points.
Michael Badnarik, though, was in his element. He has been getting ever more well polished, and his years of public speaking experience made him seem calm, collected, and unfazed by any question a student could ask. He got enthusiastic applause at many points, and even a few standing ovations. When the candidates were asked to comment on the Patriot Act, Badnarik described the barbed wire 'free speech zones' set up in Boston during the Democratic Convention, and responded by firmly stating, "Anywhere I happen to be standing, is a Free Speech Zone... [standing O] ... Anywhere YOU happen to be standing, is a Free Speech Zone.. {standing O]." Because of this fantastic performance by Badnarik, I'd score the debate as follows:
Peroutka & Brown: 4th place
Cobb: 3rd Place
Moderator Ted Lowi: 2nd Place
Badnarik: First Place, and uncontested winner.
