Not really, but hear me out, because I think this needs some discussion among all of us, to flesh out the rule for debates this upcoming election. You all know that what WE decide, will most likely be done….Apparently we are being accepted as the thinking elite of this state, so I think that makes it imperative that we decide this now, before debates begin in earnest.

What I am comparing in my title above, are the numerous long articles detailing the plight of Libertarian candidates across this country, to the controversy reported ably in Down with Absolutes back in 2006, where candidate Spivack objected to allowing the Green’s third party candidate to participate in a debate. Spivack did not want his message watered down; Castle obviously benefited from having the Spivack message watered down, and a Green Party walkout ensued, which looked just petty. Spivack lost points in that exchange. Two years later, I think we can safely say: it was petty. Castle won that round…

But today Libertarians are facing challenges all across this country. Many of them are sharp candidates, better mentally prepared, than the party regulars with which they are competing…..

I think we can learn from this year’s unlimited number of Presidential Debates. The debates were better when there were more candidates debating. In fact, I remember someone feeling strongly that ABC should be boycotted for Jerry-Springertizing one of the later debates. Early in a campaign, ideas should be the star. Later its the candidates turn…. The best example of a third party influencing the entire election, would be the 20% Ross Perot garnered in 1992. He controlled the topics which were discussed, and neither candidate got a chance to derail the topic from what America needed to hear. To this day, I firmly believe it was Ross Perot who gave us our balance budget in 1999, by making it a campaign issue that had to be accepted by a major party, therefore get acted upon. I do not remember Bill Clinton having any intention of balancing the budget until he started getting outflanked by Perot….

The benefit of having a third party candidate, is that no gentleman’s or gentle-woman’s agreement “not to discuss” certain controversial topics, can continue. The issues seeking redress, get asked by the 3rd party candidate who has nothing to lose…… I have become convinced that limiting a third party candidate like Michael Munger in North Carolina, from speaking in debates, limits the quality of the entire campaign as a whole. There is no accountability with either of the two primary party candidates……

Ok, so what if the third party candidate is a Pizza Guy? I see no reason why an early debate’s performance could or could not be used to determine a candidate’s eligibility. Americans do not need to waste their time with fools, We already wasted 7 1/2 years… But if after the first debates, a candidate does not register adequately, then focusing on the main two would be ok.

However, the opposite, which is occurring in North Carolina, is that preliminary poll data, in which no one has yet heard of the third party candidate, is used to disqualify him from getting his message out. It’s like Catch 22.

Here is the solution I am proposing. Allow all candidates to participate in the 1st debate. Those that fire up the constituency, can go on. Those that languish, just say: “Sorry, you didn’t make the cut.”

This topic needs discussion among ourselves stretching from Hube on one side, to Donviti on the other.