At the risk of making this blog a 24/7, “All Potts, All Debates, All the Time” instrument, I want to make one more point about this controversy. There’s a slippery slope forming.
The Virginian-Pilot editorial page has joined the seemingly unanimous view that Russ Potts deserves to be in the debates right now:
A four-term state senator from Winchester, Potts has an electoral base, a proven grasp of the issues, and positions on taxes and transportation not being articulated by either of the major-party candidates, Democrat Tim Kaine or Republican Jerry Kilgore.
Suddenly, it occurs to the good folks at the Pilot that maybe they should clarify something:
As a practical matter, not every independent who earns a spot on the ballot has earned the credibility to be included in every debate. For example, fringe candidates with noxious views.
I wonder if all the editorial boards would go to the ramparts if Del. Dick Black or Del. Bob Marshall were the independent, not Russ Potts. They’ve certainly got an electoral base and proven grasp of the issues. What are “noxious views?” Maybe, Potter Stewart-like, they know them when we see them.
Then there’s the private organization argument:
Minus an acid test of who’s legitimate and who’s not, the matter ought to be left up to the sponsors of individual events.
With Russ Potts apparently at under 5% in the polls, how can a private organization be criticized for having their debate between just the two guys with over 40% in the polls?
Finally, the Pilot gets around to where I think the real answer lies:
At a minimum, however, Potts deserves a shot at any televised debate. Political scientist Larry Sabato, who’s trying to arrange such an event, proposes a test similar to one set by the Presidential Debate Commission.
If Potts attains support from 10-15 percent of citizens in two legitimate state polls, then it would be a travesty not to include him.
The 10-15% suggestion seemingly contradicts their earlier assertion that Potts belongs in the debates just because they think he’s legitimate. That’s the beauty of requiring some showing in the polls–real people express their preferences, not just ivory tower editorial writers.
Jerry Kilgore should not have ruled out debating Potts, but he should have at least referenced the “Sabato standard” as the most important consideration. We are setting ourselves up for some real donnybrooks in the future if 5% or less is the standard for getting into a debate among candidates in a state-wide general election. If you want Potts in the debates now, get ready to defend a motley band of candidates who can afford $14,000 to get enough ballot signatures. Get ready to show your free speech bona fides as to what constitutes “noxious views.”