ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, September 18, 1996 TAG: 9609180079
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: PHILADELPHIA
SOURCE: From Knight-Ridder/Tribune and Cox News Service
The folks who will run the 1996 presidential debates sent a blunt message Tuesday to Ross Perot:
Scram.
In an advisory ruling that roiled the political waters, the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates said Tuesday that the Texas billionaire has no chance of winning this race and should not be on the same stage this autumn with President Clinton and Bob Dole.
``Our decision,'' said co-chairmen Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf, ``was made on the basis that only President Clinton and Senator Dole have a realistic chance to be elected the next president of the United States.''
That yardstick mattered more than Perot's 19 percent showing in 1992, his nationwide ballot presence, and his taxpayer-financed war chest.
Russell Verney, Perot's national campaign coordinator, said a federal lawsuit over the commission ruling would be filed in Washington by week's end. Verney called the commission ``corrupt'' and said it was motivated only to protect the Republican and Democratic nominees from independent political movements.
Perot was expected to address the issue himself in a California campaign appearance today.
Dole's advisers, who had sought to exclude Perot from three scheduled debates, welcomed the decision. Dole, campaigning in Arizona, said, ``I think the debates ought to begin. I think we (Republicans) are the Reform Party.''
Clinton's advisers called it regrettable. Clinton said, ``I enjoyed having him in there in 1992. I'm not afraid of any debate.''
The ruling is not binding; if Dole and Clinton both agreed to invite Perot, the door would still be open.
Tuesday, the Clinton camp insisted the Perot issue is ``still on the table'' as debate negotiations over dates, locations and formats continue this week.
Political observers said it's a big setback for Perot. Steven Rosenstone, a Michigan political analyst who has written a book on third parties, said, ``This hurts Perot substantially. In 1992, the debates gave him status. This time, it appears, he won't be standing shoulder to shoulder with the president of the United States. And that means he just won't be a major candidate.''
In the commission's guidelines, to have a ``realistic chance'' of winning, a candidate must provide ``evidence of a national organization.'' Perot probably passed that test, most observers agree. The candidate must also exhibit ``signs of national newsworthiness and competitiveness.''
But the group was also looking for ``indicators of national enthusiasm'' - in other words, favorable poll numbers. Perot has rarely escaped the single digits all year; in a new Gallup survey, 74 percent said there was ``no chance whatsoever'' they would back Perot. In a recent ABC-Washington Post survey, only 16 percent said he had the right temperament for the job.
However, the public wants Perot in the debates anyway; in a new Harris poll, 76 percent say so. Many apparently believe that, despite his low standing and his image problems, Perot can still add spice to the dialogue - and play the role of gadfly, particularly in the presence of two career politicians.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the communications dean at the University of Pennsylvania, and an expert on political debates, contended Tuesday that Clinton and Dole will get off easy without Perot around.
``Our trade imbalance won't be an issue,'' she said. ``Clinton and Dole both supported NAFTA (the free trade agreement), and only Perot would talk about the downside of NAFTA. Also, without Perot, there's no candidate to ask both Clinton and Dole, `How would you pay for your programs?' Remember that, in 1992, Perot's contribution was to put the budget deficit on the agenda.''
But Jamieson supports the ruling to bar Perot: ``You have to ask, `Are they [independents] politically viable?' It's the right test. Otherwise, you'd have to let in any candidate who might have something to say.''
Perot is not the first independent candidate to become an issue in the debate over debates. In 1968, Richard Nixon refused to debate Hubert Humphrey if George Wallace was included. (In the end, there was no debate.) In 1980, Jimmy Carter refused to debate Ronald Reagan if John Anderson was included. (They debated once, without Anderson.)
Rosenstone predicted Perot will seek to exploit his setback by arguing that the establishment is against him: ``He can buy TV time, at the same hour as the debates, and ask why nobody wants to debate him.'' Perotistas already complain that the debate group is stacked with Washington insiders - beginning with Kirk and Fahrenkopf, both former major-party chairmen.
CNN said would it offer Perot and five other hopefuls, including Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, a free hour of questions and answers on special editions of ``Larry King Live'' to be broadcast immediately after each of the presidential debates.
Perot spokeswoman Sharon Holman said the Texan would consider the invitation. Nader, Libertarian candidate Harry Browne, Natural Law Party nominee John Hagelin and Howard Phillips of the U.S. Taxpayers Party had already accepted, CNN said.
LENGTH: Medium: 98 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: AP. 1. Reporters pursue Russell Verney, Ross Perot'sby CNBnational campaign coordinator, for comment on the recommendation by
the Commission on Presidential Debates. 2. (Headshot) Ross Perot\No
"realistic chance". color. KEYWORDS: POLITICS PRESIDENT