|
|
| SHOULD PEROT DEBATE?
SEPTEMBER 11, 1996TRANSCRIPT |
|---|
Ross Perot has announced his running mate. Pat Choate is an economist and a long time Perot confidante. Does this addition to his ticket warrant his place in the Presidential debates? Did he deserve a place previously? The NewsHour panel of regional analysts discuss Perot's choice and his chances to debate.
JIM LEHRER: Now Ross Perot and the debate he’s causing. People disagree on whether he should be included in the official presidential debates with President Clinton and Bob Dole. Kwame Holman begins our coverage.
ROSS PEROT: Thank you very much.
KWAME HOLMAN: A month ago, Ross Perot accepted the presidential nomination of the political party he founded and primarily funds. The Reform Party endorsed Perot at its convention in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, after a nominal challenge from another candidate. The Reform Party has organized nationally and now is on the
ballot in every state except Delaware. Last night, Perot chose one of his favorite venues, the infomercial, to announce his choice for vice president.
Reform Party vice presidential candidate Dr. Pat ChoateROSS PEROT: Dr. Pat Choate is the person that I have selected to be my running mate. He is a friend and trusted adviser of many years. Dr. Choate will play a central role in the campaign of ideas, solutions, and an equally central role in implementing them when we win.
MR. HOLMAN: In announcing the choice of economist Pat Choate, Perot was making his third recent appearance in network prime time. It’s an approach Perot pioneered during his 1992 run for the White House. Perot finished third but his 19 percent of the popular vote was considered impressive for an independent candidate without a party affiliation who also spent an estimated $60 million of his own money on the campaign. But this year, Perot is eligible for and has accepted federal campaign funds, and there’s another difference. At the moment, he
registers only about 4 percent in voter preference polls, far below his 1992 showing. That places him a distance third to the two major party candidates, but Perot argues he, nonetheless, should be included in this year’s presidential debates, just as he was four years ago. Running mate Choate made that point last night.
PAT CHOATE: We’re ready to debate our ideas and solutions with the other candidates. America deserves nothing less than full airing of the choices that will shape its future.
MR. HOLMAN: The bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates will be the final arbiter on that question. The commission has published its criteria for selecting non-major party candidates. First, evidence of a national organization; second, signs of national newsworthiness and competitiveness; third, indicators of national public enthusiasm or concern. The commission has asked a panel of advisers to rule on Perot’s eligibility, saying the realistic chance of being elected need not be overwhelming, but it must be more than theoretical. A decisions is expected soon.
MR. LEHRER: Now the perspectives of four of our regional commentators, Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution, Patrick McGuigan of the Daily Oklahoman, Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, and Mike Barnicle of the Boston Globe. Joining them tonight are Ed Higgins of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and John Jacobs of the Sacramento Bee. Pat McGuigan, should Perot be in the debates?
PATRICK McGUIGAN, Daily Oklahoman: No. He shouldn’t. In Oklahoma, which was one of his strongest states last time, for example, he’s only getting that same 4 percent that he got nationally in a lot of the polls. Additionally, Dole’s getting 48 percent, and Mr. Clinton is getting 42
percent. That’s in a Sooner survey that was completed last Sunday. If Perot is included, I don’t know how you can make a principled case not to include some of the other second tier candidacies, including the Libertarians, Ralph Nader’s operation, and Howard Phillips of the Taxpayers Party. So I don’t think there’s any case to be made for Perot, other than that they did it in 1992.
JIM LEHRER: Clarence Page, do you agree?
CLARENCE PAGE, Chicago Tribune: Well, they did do it in 1992, and, uh, Perot did get a lot more votes at the polls than he got in the polling ahead of time. I think we’ve got to make some decisions in this country. Are we going to consecrate the two-party system, or are we truly going to give avenues for other parties to express themselves in a true national debate? Isn’t it kind of silly that a party that gets federal matching funds can’t qualify to be on the
debate stage? I think there are an awful lot of question marks out there that enabled Perot to make a pretty decent case. I’d be a lot more in agreement with my colleague, Patrick, if Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole had stronger support themselves, but the public has shown pretty lackadaisical support for both the major party candidates. I think it might reinvigorate our elections in this country if we did let the Libertarians and Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson and others get on that stage.
JIM LEHRER: Mike Barnicle, what do you think?
MIKE BARNICLE, Boston Globe: Jim, I think most people, if you ask them, would say that Ross Perot were a better candidate for institutionalization than he was for the presidency. And I think they’d also say that they don’t hear enough head-to-head from Dole and Clinton together, and why screw it up and put someone else on, and clutter the situation? Let’s hear Dole and Clinton together in the debates, and not inflict Ross Perot on the country again.
JIM LEHRER: So you don’t think he has a realistic chance of winning under any circumstances?
MR. BARNICLE: No. I think Jay Leno has a better shot at the presidency than Ross Perot. I mean, the guy--there’s something wrong with the guy. I think, you know, you look at his eyes on TV, you hear him on the radio or on television, you hear what he has to say, you look at the pattern that he’s established. He’s a nut job. He’s not going to be President.
JIM LEHRER: Ed Higgins, how do you feel?
ED HIGGINS, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Well, the Post-Dispatch thinks that Ross Perot ought to participate in the debate, so I readily concede that it’s not an open and shut case. The primary argument for allowing him to participate is the 19 percent that he polled in 1992. And he’s on the ballot this time in almost every state, and in addition to that, he’s eligible for
federal funds and third or fourth, I guess that would be, he’s--he’s able to influence the debate. He showed that in 1992, and I think he would do so again in ‘96, and I think that’s good for democracy if we have a candidate who forces the other candidates to talk about issues they’d rather not address.
JIM LEHRER: Cynthia, good for democracy to have Perot in these debates?
CYNTHIA TUCKER, Atlanta Constitution: I don’t see how Ross Perot is good for democracy. Ross Perot is not a democrat, small "d." Ross Perot is a Dictator, large "D." It seems to me that it is interesting that one of the reasons for putting Ross Perot in the debate, one of the reasons offered is because he polled 19 percent in 1992. Well, he got that large a percentage of
the vote in part because he got so much television exposure. So it becomes a self-perpetuating kind of thing. If, in fact, Ralph Nader were a billionaire and were able to get more television exposure than his Green Party, might be able to pull a much larger percentage of the vote. I think there is certainly a need for opportunities to give the second tier candidates and their parties more exposure. But I don’t think giving--letting Ross Perot enter these debates is the way to do that. Ross Perot gets as much attention as he does because he’s a billionaire who’s able to go into his deep pockets to afford a lot of his own air time, even though it is true this year he will get federal matching funds. But I don’t see how letting Ross Perot participate in these debates helps democracy at all.
JIM LEHRER: John Jacobs, democracy, Ross Perot?
JOHN JACOBS, Sacramento Bee: Well, I think he ought to get a chance to debate at least in the first debate, and then the presidential commission can take an assessment and see how well he does. I really do believe that he
doesn’t--not have a realistic chance of being elected President, but I think he does earn the right by virtue of his 19 percent, by virtue of being on all the ballots, all 50 ballots, by virtue of representing a voice. As to the point that he got 19 percent because he got so much air time, well, he didn’t get that--all those votes simply because he was on TV. He had to do something to earn the support of people who would then vote for him. So I think that if he did--if you included him in the first debate and if say in-between that debate and the second debate there was significant movement in the polls, say beyond the margin of error, then you could include him in the second, and if there isn’t, then you have the two-man debate between Clinton and Dole.
JIM LEHRER: Pat McGuigan, what do you think about that? Take it one debate at a time.
MR. McGUIGAN: I don’t agree at all. I think that if Perot is included in the first debate, people will be justified in concluding that the commission acted in a way designed to benefit the President’s reelection. Now if we want to talk about--
JIM LEHRER: Explain that. Because he would take--
MR. McGUIGAN: If you want to talk about opening the process up and including more people, that’s fine, but these other second tier candidates deserve just as much of a showing, if you will, as Perot does. And Perot actually led the polls for a while in 1992, and then collapsed, relatively speaking, to 19 percent. That is not--what happened in ‘92 is not an argument for what the commission should do this time.
JIM LEHRER: Clarence, what about the argument that Pat--I think Pat was just making that’s been made by others that the presence of Perot as a third person in the debate between President Clinton and Sen. Dole would help President Clinton because he would take more away from Dole than he would from President Clinton, do you agree?
MR. PAGE: Well, that’s not a given. One reason why Perot did so well in ‘92 was that the voters were largely dissatisfied with the status quo, with the incumbents. This year, Clinton is the incumbent. Perot could easily turn against Clinton. But, you know, why do we keep trying to manipulate the outcomes of elections ahead of time? That’s really what we get into here when we start trying to determine who’s popular, who’s viable, who’s crazy, who isn’t. This is a continuing question in this country. On the one hand, we give federal matching funds to Perot, but then we say, well, you’re really too out of mainstream to be on the stage. We really ought to stop trying to manipulate history before it’s happened.
JIM LEHRER: Mike, Mike Barnicle, what about that, why not just open it up?
MR. BARNICLE: Well, I don’t--I don’t know how you get it any more open than this right now. I mean, anybody can run for public office if they want to. But I think the Perot thing gets to a larger issue, Jim, and that’s the complete and the total bankruptcy of the American political system. I don’t think Ross Perot got 19 percent four years ago. I think the other two major candidates, Bush and Clinton, didn’t get the 19 percent. And I think the Perot syndrome is just part of the cynical attitude that the media and much of the public comes to view politics with these days. Ross Perot is now getting public funds. He’s a billionaire who gets on “Larry King Live” every time he wants to and gets out whatever message he wants to, but there are a lot of people who never run for high public office, like Bill Bradley, Mario Cuomo, for a variety of reasons, uh, and people end up being terribly cynical about the people who do end up running. I think Perot because he is so kooky, so crazy, just adds to this cynicism. It’s a terrible dilemma for us.
JIM LEHRER: Ed Higgins, a terrible dilemma?
MR. HIGGINS: No. I don’t see it as a terrible dilemma. I would rather our system erred on the side of inclusiveness than on the side of exclusiveness. And this business--it’s not up to the, to the debate commission to decide whether one candidate is going to hurt candidate A more than he’s going to hurt candidate B. I think that’s just up to the voters. And Perot should be included on his merits, such as they are, and the primary merit is simply that he got 19 percent and that almost everybody in the country will have an opportunity to vote for him, whereas some of these minor party, other minor party candidates won’t be on every ballot. In fact, Ralph Nader will be on only a handful.
JIM LEHRER: Yeah.
MR. HIGGINS: So I think there’s a difference between Perot’s candidacy and the other minor party candidacies. As I say, I’d rather err on the side of including him and if he does poorly, fades away, then that’s that, but it won’t be because the media or the debate commission has decreed that he should go away.
JIM LEHRER: Cynthia, what about that point, that no group of people, whether it’s a presidential commission or it’s 17 commentators or whatever, should have the power to decide who gets that kind of exposure on--in a presidential debate, and thus, that kind of attention?
MS. TUCKER: Well, in that case, again, you open it up to all the candidates. There are, in fact, according to a column William Safire wrote recently 200 people who say that they’re running for President of the United States. If there is not to be a commission that decides who is, in fact, a major candidate, who is a serious contender, let’s just have a spectacle and let them all on. We would have certainly erred in favor of inclusiveness then, but it is, in fact, true,
and it is a little bit odd that journalists are in a position, according to the presidential debate commission, to help decide who gets in this debate. One of the commission’s factors is national newsworthiness, and I think that’s a little bit interesting. We do keep writing about Ross Perot because he is such an eccentric and he is fun to write about in a campaign that’s otherwise a little bit boring. So in that manner alone--and we pay less attention to candidates--
JIM LEHRER: The other ones.
MS. TUCKER: --like the Libertarian and Ralph Nader--in that respect, uh, journalists do help determine a candidate’s newsworthiness and therefore his fitness for the debate, according to the presidential debate commission.
JIM LEHRER: John Jacobs, do you feel powerful?
MR. JACOBS: No, I don’t feel powerful.
JIM LEHRER: On this issue?
MR. JACOBS: But I do want to say I went to cover his convention in Long Beach and I heard the nominating speeches, and I think Ross Perot is a little bit loopy, and I think he, uh, he is a little bit eccentric, but I think we need to
remember, for example, that in 1992, he made a major contribution to the presidential debate. It was Ross Perot front and center who was talking about the budget deficit, crazy aunt in the attic, and he forced the other campaign staff to deal with something they didn’t want to talk about.
JIM LEHRER: All right.
MR. JACOBS: And so he is capable of making, just as he would this year, with any discussions about entitlements--
JIM LEHRER: Okay.
MR. JACOBS: Neither candidate is talking about entitlements.
JIM LEHRER: I hear you. We have to leave it there, and we’ve resolved this thing tonight, and I’m delighted that we did. Thank you all six very much.
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
