Posted on 06/18/2003 10:47:43 PM PDT by LdSentinal
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Democrats are starting to wrestle with a thorny problem: how to brush aside three fringe candidates for president who have no realistic chance of winning their party's nomination next year.
Several state Democratic Party chairmen think the national party should find a way to limit debates to the top six candidates and exclude the three widely considered to make up the bottom tier: Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York.
In interviews before this week's annual meeting of the Association of State Democratic Chairs, several suggested setting a threshold for candidates' admission to debates based on support as measured in public-opinion polls, fund raising or campaign organization in early primary states. They favored doing this even before the first votes are cast next January.
Other state chairmen disagreed, saying they preferred to keep the debates and the race wide open until Democratic voters start winnowing the field themselves with caucus and primary votes early next year. Any effort to bar candidates would be undemocratic, they said, and would risk alienating rank-and-file party members. Notably, two of the bottom three candidates are African-Americans, one of the party's most loyal constituencies. All three are liberals.
The desire to thin the field months before voting begins stems from a widely shared perception that none of the nine candidates has emerged as a front-runner. With an unusually large field competing for money and attention, particularly in debates where answers can be limited to 30 seconds, many state chairmen fear that no one's message can break through.
The six candidates whom Democratic chairmen described as bunched together in the top tier are former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, John Edwards of North Carolina, Bob Graham of Florida and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.
"Hopefully, the field will thin," said Mike Erlandson, the state party chairman in Minnesota and host of this week's national meeting. "I'd like to drop our field to three or four. If we had it down to three or four by this fall, we'd be well served. Some of these candidates have to look at their candidacies seriously. … Either you're engaging the electorate or you're not. That's measured with donors and the grass roots."
Florida Chairman Scott Maddox said he thought the bottom three candidates livened debates and energized Democrats. But he hopes there will be a way to exclude poorly performing candidates by early December, when candidates will troop to Orlando for the Florida state party convention. By then, he said, Democrats need to focus on possible winners and can't give precious debate time to those who can't win.
"When you have nine people in a debate, it's very hard to get anything substantive across," Maddox said. "As we get closer, it should wind down to those who have a real shot at being president."
Arkansas party Chairman Ron Oliver sees no reason to exclude candidates yet, but he said it could become necessary before primary voting started.
"At this early stage, they ought to be included," Oliver said. "Later on, they will be winnowed out. They won't be able to raise any money, they won't show as well in surveys or polls. There are number of ways. … I wouldn't mind if it were sooner rather than later. Very soon, we're going to have to make that distinction."
Other state party officials disagreed.
"Democracy is not necessarily neat," said Melvin "Butch" Hollowell, chairman of the party in Michigan. "Having the input from a broad spectrum is a good thing. We want more people participating, not less. We don't want to send a signal that the Democratic Party is closed or not welcoming to all comers."
"I don't like it. I understand it, but I don't like it," said South Carolina Chairman Joe Erwin. "I don't think it's the right thing for the Democratic Party to do. The Democratic Party stands for everyone having a voice."
The Democratic National Committee, which is preparing a plan for six monthly national debates through the rest of this year, won't exclude any of the candidates, spokeswoman Debra DeShong said.
"The goal is give our voters maximum exposure to our candidates," she said. "We're not trying to limit exposure."
None of the candidates urged any limit on debate participation. But an aide to one top-tier candidate welcomed the idea.
"It makes a lot of sense," said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating supporters of bottom-tier candidates. "You could begin to have a more focused debate. You could get more opportunity to get your message out."
Predictably, candidates who would be excluded oppose the idea.
"If they attempted to exclude Kucinich, there would be an insurrection," said Jeff Cohen, a spokesman for Kucinich's campaign. Cohen argued that Kucinich is drawing enthusiastic crowds and such a limit in the past would have excluded former California Gov. Jerry Brown in 1992 and Jesse Jackson in 1988, both of whom finished second to the eventual nominees.
Braun voiced defiance: "They can go right ahead if they want to lose. They can do that if they want to hold an election and no one shows up."
Frank Watkins, a spokesman for Sharpton, said, "If they put him in the bottom tier, they're not reading the polls." A Gallup poll earlier this month showed Sharpton running fourth, ahead of Dean, Graham and Edwards.
"The only poll that really counts is the actual voting. Everyone has a right to run until they can't justify their campaign," Watkins contended. "Any attempt to short-circuit that process is a disservice to all the candidates who put themselves on the line, and a bit of a slap in the face to the American people."
It's RACISM, I tell you!
How about the Dems practice a little of the affirmative action they cram down everyone else's throat? Keep Braun and Sharpton in there, give 'em a 10% spot of delegates for the convention as a good-faith effort at reparations. Everyone knows the reason Braun and Sharpton aren't more popular is because of past discrimination and the man keeping a brother (and sista) down.
They want both black candidates out?!
I hope Sharpton tells them where to get off.
Heh, heh, heh!
These butt whipes embody the very best about the Democratic party and will uphold the best traditions of the Clinton legacy.
"Pubbies dump blacks and females in favor of five lily-white, fat-cat, good-ol-boy network, European-Americans. "
If it were the Pubbies, this alone would PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are the party of the racist, rich, angry white male.
The DEMS do it, it is "winnowing the field of the weak candidates so the ones with a chance to win survive." The REPUBLICANS do it and it would be "Smoke Filled Room insiders shut out only woman and blacks, 'no minorities allowed', 'minorities need not apply,' 'no running while black', 'the glass ceiling', misogynist Republicans, keeping the Stepford wives at home..." yadayada
Getting rid of the two Black Candidates (one a woman the other a Christian Minister) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Mars) the RATS are showing their usual sensitivity.
Moseley-Braun has zero support.
Kucinich is in it to get some national publicity for his ideas, which he now has.
Reverend Al will not be sloughed off so easily. He may not expect to win the nomination, but he's definitely out to get enough delegates to wield some power at the convention.
This could get very interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.