Why we need a level playing field

Well, here we are, just about a week away from what people are calling the most important presidential election of our lifetimes. Kind of hard to disagree, really. Of course, being a card-carrying Libertarian for nearly five years now, this is my second go-around with the perpetual aggravation of being involved in a third party. The lack of mainstream media coverage, the bug-eyed stares from older voters ("no, ma'am, I'm a Libertarian...it's a political party, not a religion."), and best of all, the stacked deck the Republicans and Democrats keep playing their hands out with, election cycle after election cycle.

If you can believe it, there are 260 declared candidates for the 2008 Presidential election, according to the Federal Election Commission. Bet there is a fair majority of people who will read this and not even be able to name three. If there are any who can't name either of the two major party candidates, let me be the first to congratulate you on making it this far in the article, because it must be one of those strange days where the handful of websites this is appearing on are somehow the only ones that are coming up on your computer. My first thought, upon reading that statistic, was "damn, it's like a Third World election, or worse, the California gubernatorial recall election."

So why is it, when a 2004 Zogby poll showed that 57% of Americans believe 3rd party candidates should be included in the presidential debates, only two 3rd party candidates have debated since the beginning of the televised debate era? You can thank the Commission on Presidential Debates for that. The commission was created in 1987, a dual effort by the Republican and Democratic Parties. I hear ya, it's probably the only time in history, barring declaration of war (justified or otherwise), that they got together on something without a few billion dollars tossed to the winds of pork. This turned out to be such a popular move that the League of Women Voters quit the debate racket altogether the following year. Why yes, it was a presidential election year, and no, I do not think it was a coincidence. When two political parties get together to create a "nonpartisan" committee, for the express purpose of enacting a system to all but guarantee that no one else will qualify for a podium at a debate, not only does the word nonpartisan take a beating, but I'm pretty damn certain a whole plethora of less-civil phrases or expressions come to mind. Like never-ending screwjob. I'm just saying.

The commission's first decision was to enact a 10% threshold in national polling for a candidate to be included in the debates. While that seems fair at first glance, as a third party candidate gaining just the 10% would be facing enough of an uphill battle with the two major party candidates gaining 40% or so, what the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the commission have all failed to mention, or explain, is why no national polling firms fairly include independent or third party candidates in the polling. Having worked in market research for a couple of years in previous employments, the simplest way the polling firms do this is by either not mentioning third party candidates at all (the usual M.O.) or mentioning the party, but not the candidate, or stances when relevant. This was further exacerbated after H. Ross Perot's appearance in the 1992 Presidential debates, after which the commission actually increased the threshold to 15%. Thank goodness someone was there to tell them that 15% of impossible is better than 10% of impossible, at least from the nonpartisan view of the Commission on Presidential Debates.

The legality of the 15% barrier has been repeatedly affirmed by federal courts and the Federal Election Commission. Again, no giant shock there, bordering on use of profanity. Of course the Federal Election Commission will affirm the barrier is reasonable. Who makes up the Federal Election Commission and the federal courts? Republicans and Democrats. Why isn't anyone on Capitol Hill gettin' all mavericky with this?

One popular argument for the 15% threshold is that allowing candidates into the debates based on ballot access would lead to a group of third parties fielding candidates with a main focus on ballot access, which could create an overcrowded group of candidates. Uh, yeah, about that...wouldn't you say the current crop of 260 declared presidential candidates is slightly overcrowded. Besides that, third party and independent candidates already have to concentrate a huge part of their campaign on ballot access, as they have to earn their way onto the ballots each and every election cycle in most states, another unfair obstacle the two-party system has left on the road to the White House.

The American people, contrary to what many of the powers that be want you to believe behind all the doublespeak, and "what I meant to say" rhetorical gymnastics. If we can track a dozen candidates from each major party during their primary seasons, then why shouldn't we be able to track three, four, or even five candidates chasing the vote that matters? If the 2008 Presidential debates were open based on ballot access, then reasonably we would also have seen Libertarian candidate Bob Barr (on the ballot in 45 states) and independent candidate Ralph Nader (on the ballot in 46 states).

Having these four candidates on the ballot would be a far better gauge of national trends and opinions than the tired, business-as-usual party line politics we have been subjected to election after election. Many important changes began as ideas from third parties, but seeing as how the two major parties hold a chokehold on allowing the third party and independent candidates to get that message out to the public, by way of a debate, they simply continue to take credit where credit is not due. How is that not part of the business-as-usual attitude we have seen from administrations past?

Bottom line- it's well beyond high time the Commission on Presidential Debates ended the 15% threshold for participation by a candidate in the presidential debates, or at the very least make the five national polling groups they use to compile the percentages start including viable candidates with a mathematical chance of winning based on ballot access, such as Bob Barr. God knows for all the endless, non-stop jabber about change we have heard over the last two years of this campaign, it would be nice to see change that could literally affect the system in Washington.

McCain's search for comprehension

I wonder when the epiphany is going to strike...I truly wonder when that day between now and the first Tuesday of November arrives, and the light bulb fires up over John McCain's head, and the realization finally sets in.

"I couldn't have done a better job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory if I was the 'B' fighter in a Don King pay-per-view main event."

Granted, that may not be what the Senator from Arizona has flash through his head verbatim, but it probably won't be that far from the truth. As the 2008 presidential election winds down, do you think McCain is starting to compile his mental laundry list of what went wrong? I mean, let's not kid ourselves here, we're talking about a guy who went from being a Republican candidate I would have potentially voted for in 2000 to just another poorly sewn-together Dubya knock-off...a flip-flopping, rambling, clueless man stuck firmly in the grasp of denial.

Was it hiring an all-star team of utter douchebags to run your campaign? Was it picking the original Desperate Housewife as your running mate? Was it briefly (or still, I can't keep track of my scorecard) running the dirtiest campaign of the televised political era? What will be the one thing McCain chalks up as the reason he finds himself sitting in whichever the hell house it will be on November 5, drinking Ovaltine and bottom shelf vodka and celebrating a second-place finish?

Was it letting his wife give stump speeches when she was not busy swiping recipes from every other website she could get her hands on? Was it his running mate setting back the cause of women in politics for decades to come? Was it the leading conservatives, from George Will to Bill Kristol to Kathleen Parker to even Newt friggin' Gingrich falling all over themselves to proclaim that, in fact, this shit is bananas? I guess we'll have to wait until November 5, cause if I tried to individually list all the possible causes, that's how long I'd be sitting here typing.

Maybe I'll be busy in 2012...

How interesting. While dissecting statements made during the Republican National Convention, the Associated Press helpfully points out that vice-presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin only garnered 616 votes in her 1996 election to the Mayoral post in Wasilla, Alaska, and the 909 votes in her 1999 re-election campaign. The AP also helpfully does the math for you, a total of 1,525 votes.

In my 2004 campaign for an At-Large seat on the Floyd County Council, I drew a little over 2,100 votes. Sure, I finished seventh of seven, but still, over 2,100 votes. I guess this means I am at least qualified to serve as Vice-President, under the standards currently in play.

So I got that going for me.

Glad somepeople know when they are whooped

Thanks to TalkingPointsMemo.com and a poster on Fark.com, we have great video of two GOP talking heads getting caught in a live mic misfire, while talking with MSNBC's Chuck Todd earlier today. You can hear the phrase "the race is over," and it's not an optimistic statement on their behalf. Enjoy...