Where I Stand: Commission snub could gain Ross Perot more votes

Thursday, Sept. 19, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

ROSS PEROT shouldn't be shocked by the actions of the Commission on Presidential Debates. A joint announcement by commission Co-Chairmen Paul G. Kirk Jr. and Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. spelled out the reasons that Perot will be kept out of the 1996 presidential debates.

Fahrenkopf, a Nevadan and former GOP national chairman, and Kirk were following the advice of the Advisory Committee on Candidate Selection. The gut of this recommendation was the conclusion that Perot has no chance to win. The advisory committee chairman Richard E. Neustadt wrote: "We have reviewed the data your staff has assembled for us, supplemented by telephonic inquiries of our own to political scientists and political journalists across the country. We have concluded that, at this stage of the campaign, Mr. Perot has no realistic chance either of popular election in November or of subsequent election by the House of Representatives, in the event no candidate obtains an Electoral College majority. None of the expert observers we have consulted thinks otherwise. ..."

How was Perot's no-possible-win decision reached? According to USA Today, the following criteria are used:

* Evidence of eligibility -- being on the ballot in enough states to account for the 270 Electoral College votes it takes to be elected; being organized in a majority of congressional districts in those states; eligibility for federal campaign funds, or other demonstration of the ability to finance a national campaign; and endorsements by federal and state officeholders.

* Evidence of competitiveness -- the opinions of Washington journalists and political scientists; the opinions of campaign managers and pollsters not working in the race; the amount of coverage in newspapers and on network TV.

* Indicators of national interest by the public -- the results of independent polls and turnout at meetings and rallies.

Long before the Commission on Presidential Debates told Perot he should stay home, several red flags had been raised. The Weekly Standard, a very conservative GOP magazine, is always part of my weekly reading. The issue of Sept. 16 took after Perot with political hammers and tongs.

The Weekly Standard editorial told readers that Perot should be left out of the debates. The writer, David Tell, zeroed in on Neustadt and pointed out why Perot had no chance to win. Then Tell took it a step further, writing: "The Neustadt group must also make a judgment about whether Perot has a 'realistic' and 'more than theoretical' chance to be elected.

"He doesn't, and it would therefore be perfectly reasonable for the Neustadt panel to recommend Perot's exclusion. But electability is not the only reason to leave Perot out. A place on the debate stage shouldn't go simply to those candidates who might actually win. It should go only to those candidates who deserve to be heard. Ross Perot doesn't deserve it. Please, Professor Neustadt, do the right thing."

The same issue of The Weekly Standard also had an article by Professor John J. Pitney Jr. who wrote "Perot's Familiar Misquotations." It was a short article making light of several Perot statements where he had used phony quotes or misquoted others when trying to make a political point.

Republican strategists believe that Perot's presence in the 1992 campaign helped defeat President George Bush. Fearing a replay of this same scenario in 1996, they have pointed all their heavy political fire at the head and ears of the tiny Texan. The decision by the Commission on Presidential Debates shows that they have hit their target.

The decision to keep Perot out of the debates settles the issue. Not yet; the rebuffed Reform Party will take the matter to court in an effort to have its candidate included in the debates. The party will find sympathy among many American voters, both Republicans and Democrats, but how much this will influence judges is unknown.

Win or lose in the courts, a crafty Perot, with almost $30 million provided by taxpayers, can use the snub as one more reason for alienated voters to mark their ballots for him. Let's not forget that he is on the ballot in all 50 states.

Some Americans who believe a third-party challenge improves the health of our political system may view this as a death blow to any more third-party efforts. They may not care for Perot as a candidate, but they are fond of a free-swinging political system that doesn't exclude the little guys.

It's possible that, in the long run, the snubbing of Perot by an independent commission may be a political plus for the Texas billionaire.

UNLV's Barrick Lecture Series continues to provide local people with outstanding national and international leaders from several fields. The political debate between Ambassador Geraldine Ferraro and Gov. John Sununu was its most recent interesting program. The two competitors from the CNN "Crossfire" program were everything and even more than was expected of them. During dinner prior to their public program, they were asked how we could clean up the negative campaign tactics so prevalent in our nation. Both Ferraro and Sununu have felt the bite of scurrilous campaigns against them. Sununu told the diners that it is a tactic that works, and only the voters can stop it. "Why don't politicians stand up for what is right?" people ask. Sununu answered his own question by saying the voters should vote for candidates who are willing to do what is right and, until they do, these dirty campaigns will continue to deteriorate and spell success for the candidates who use them.