A personal message from Libertarian Party
presidential candidate Harry Browne . . .
Dear friends,
This may be the most important message I ever
write to you. Last Sunday, September 24th, Tim
Russert of "Meet the Press" voted me out of the
2000 presidential campaign.
During that broadcast, after a superficial
discussion of who should be included in the
presidential debates, Mr. Russert announced that
he will be hosting his own debate between Ralph
Nader and Pat Buchanan next Sunday.
"Meet the Press" is one of a handful of news
sources that sets the agenda for most of the rest
of the media. Mr. Russert is also the head of the
political journalism division at NBC. What he says
and does carries a lot of weight with voters and
other political reporters.
We wish it were otherwise, but Tim Russert's
decision that I am un-worthy to appear in a debate
with Nader and Buchanan is likely to preclude us
from any further consideration by the media.
If this makes your blood boil, then you might want
to pour yourself a drink, because it gets worse.
Upon hearing of Mr. Russert's decision to exclude
me from his debate our Press Secretary, Jim Babka,
called and left a message for Nancy Button Nathan,
the Executive Producer of "Meet the Press." He
explained to her that she could be making an
embarrassing mistake by excluding a candidate who
just might beat Pat Buchanan on Election Day. Jim
followed this up with a press release the next
morning which made the following points . . .
* Harry Browne leads the third party pack in
Georgia with 4%. Buchanan trails at 1%, and Nader
isn't even on the ballot.
* Harry Browne is tied with Ralph Nader in
Illinois at 3%, and leads Buchanan by two points.
* In Colorado, Nader leads, but Browne is close
behind with 3%, while Buchanan polls only 1%.
* In Kansas, Nader and Browne are tied, and Browne
leads Buchanan 2 to 1.
* According to the Zogby, Rasmussen and Hotline
national polls, Harry Browne is tied with Buchanan
nationwide.
* And yet, a Lexis-Nexus search reveals that
national media coverage of these three candidates
is way out of balance. Buchanan is getting 60
times as much attention as Browne, and Nader is
receiving even more coverage.
* And if you look at name identification polls the
comparison is even more stark. Nearly every
American knows who Buchanan and Nader are, but few
know who Harry Browne is. This means that a huge
percentage of those who have heard Harry Browne's
message are voting for him.
The upshot of all this is that I am a newsworthy
candidate, more so if Buchanan is considered
newsworthy. I should be included in any debate
with Nader and Buchanan, and if someone is going
to be excluded for some strange reason, it should
be Buchanan rather than me.
This morning Ms. Nancy Button Nathan returned Jim
Babka's call. She acknowledged that she had
received his message and understood his argument.
But, she said, there is very little time between
now and the election and "Meet the Press" must
make its own programming decisions. She claimed
that the Nader-Buchanan appearance was not going
to be a debate, even though Mr. Russert used
exactly that term twice, on the air. Jim then very
politely asked her what we had to do to be worthy
of appearing on the program. She responded that
she was not normally asked that question, and that
she resented being asked. She told Jim that it
just wasn't "in the cards" to have me in the
debate or on the program before Election Day. And
that was the end of the conversation.
We Libertarians do not believe we are worthy of
coverage simply because we exist. We have always
maintained that we have to earn coverage as a
result of demonstrable political success. We have
even accepted that polls are a legitimate way to
determine newsworthiness, asking only that we be
included as an option in the polls. And we are not
the ones who established that Pat Buchanan is
newsworthy, despite his low poll standing. The
media made that decision. We are simply asserting
that if Buchanan and Nader are newsworthy, then so
are we.
We are tied with Buchanan and competitive with
Nader in several states. We have done more with
less. A higher percentage of the voters who know
about me are voting for me, than is the case for
Nader and Buchanan. Nader and Buchanan are very
unlikely to receive many more votes from having
debated on "Meet the Press." People already know
who they are and where they stand. But our poll
numbers would undoubtedly climb significantly if
we were permitted to debate either of these men on
national television.
I truly believe, based on what I've seen from the
small amount of attention we've already received,
that if I had as much media coverage as Buchanan,
I would beat Nader. And if I got as much media
attention as Nader, it is very possible we could
poll close to 5%.
The media is distorting the process. They have
gone beyond merely reporting the political news,
they are actually shaping it. They are determining
the outcome. They are also writing the future
political history of the United States in advance.
Let me tell you why that is true.
It is very unlikely that either Nader or Buchanan
will receive 5% of the vote in this election.
That means that neither the Reform Party nor the
Green Party will qualify for federal campaign
funding in 2004. In addition, it seems improbable
that Nader will run a third time, or that the
Green Party will be able to find another candidate
who is equally popular with the media. All of this
is good news, to some extent, but it also means
the third party movement could be declared dead by
the media after this election, and that it will be
much harder for Libertarians to receive attention
in 2004. The media will have already written off
third parties, and once they've decided what the
truth is it is almost impossible to change their
minds.
This problem can be avoided if we are able to grow
to several times our current size, but this
campaign may be the best opportunity we have for
growth between now and 2004. And our campaign's
ability to achieve its potential is being retarded
by the media's biased coverage and obsession with
celebrity.
The truth is that TV news alone determines which
candidates most voters will consider. TV coverage
sends an overt message to the public -- this
candidate matters. But the lack of TV coverage
sends an equally potent, if subliminal message --
this candidate does not matter. And the media has
determined that no non-celebrity candidates need
apply, no matter how much grassroots support they
have.
We are not saying that we deserve as much coverage
as Bush or Gore, or even Nader at this point. We
agree that we deserve less coverage, but less
coverage is not the same as no coverage. The media
has set the criteria for newsworthiness, and we
have met that criteria. Now they should just do
their job! They should give me coverage equal to
Buchanan, and I should be included in any
televised third party debate. Then, if my poll
numbers fall, they can give me less coverage, but
if they rise, then so should their coverage of my
campaign.
It's that simple. It's that obvious.
I believe we have reached a turning point in the
history of the Libertarian Party. It is time for
the media to hear our voice. "Meet the Press" is
the right place to start, and now is the right
time.
If you want to express your opinions to the
decision makers at "Meet the Press" here are the
phone numbers and email addresses for the
offending parties. There are 12,000 of us on this
email list and we represent more than 200,000
registered Libertarians across the country. We
are all consumers of TV news. Our opinions should
be heard.
Meet the Press
(202) 885-4598 main #
mtp@nbc.com
Tim Russert
(202) 885-4548
tim.russert@nbc.com
Nancy Button Nathan
(202) 885-4656
nancy.nathan@nbc.com
If you want "Meet the Press" to know how you feel,
phone calls will get the most attention. Emails
will also be powerful. You may want to use both.
If you care to express your opinion, I advise you
to be polite but firm. And remember, the future of
this campaign and our party is at issue.
Please do not copy us on any email messages you
send to "Meet the Press." But if you would like
to forward your email to us AFTER you send it, or
tell us about any phone calls you made, please use
the following email address for that purpose --
mailto:MeetThePress@HarryBrowne2000.org
Below, if your blood pressure can stand it, are
excerpts from the transcript of last Sunday's
broadcast of "Meet the Press."
Thank you for your support and dedication.
Harry Browne
___________________________________________
Relevant sections of the
"Meet the Press" transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. The presidential
debates are scheduled - first one - a week from
Tuesday, October 3rd. Al Gore will be there.
George W. Bush will be there. Phil Donahue... Ralph
Nader, Pat Buchanan not invited. You're a Nader
supporter. What say you?
MR. RUSSERT: You write in the Los Angeles Times
today that the other issues that Nader could
address are drug decriminalization, more civil
rights for gays, including unions of gay couples.
MR. DONAHUE: Ralph Nader thinks the drug problem
is a health problem, not a criminal problem, and
millions of Americans agree with him. And that
position will not be heard on the debates, because
of Ralph Nader and others have been excluded by
the major parties.
MR. RUSSERT: There are 246 people running for
president. If you include Nader and Buchanan, how
do you exclude the 244 other minor-party
candidates?
MR. DONAHUE: Well, first of all, I think you lose
most of them with the criteria that would insist
that you be on the ballot in enough states to get
the 270 electoral votes needed to be elected.
Maybe you make 1 percent the floor.
MR. RUSSERT: In the polls?
MR. DONAHUE: Yes. And that would exclude just
about everybody, except Pat Buchanan and Ralph
Nader.
MR. RUSSERT: Bob Novak?
MR. ROBERT NOVAK: You know, if you-somebody else
who isn't going to be on that platform, Phil, is
Dr. Heyhorn of the Natural Law Party, and so we
won't hear about transcendental meditation, or...
MR. RUSSERT: Or Harry Browne of the Libertarian
Party.
MR. NOVAK: Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party,
who'd like to really dismantle the federal
government, which I don't think is that bad an
idea. And you won't hear him. So...
MR. DONAHUE: Are you likening Ralph Nader to those
people?
MR. NOVAK: Yeah. I'm saying that the criterion is
not things that you won't hear. The criterion is
whether they have a chance to be president. Harry
Browne, of course, is on all 50 state ballots. And
the question - and I think it's an arbitrary
decision. I don't think the question is to make it
an interesting debate for minority viewpoints.
It's who has a chance to be elected. And I think
if you have people who don't have a chance to be
elected president, it creates clutter and
confusion for the voter. [Editor’s Note: Harry
Browne will not appear on the ballot in Arizona]
MR. RUSSERT: Safire, you've been through a lot of
debates.
MR. WILLIAM SAFIRE: The difference between a
four-person debate and a two-person debate is the
difference between a debate and a beauty contest.
MR. DONAHUE: Which is the beauty contest?
MR. SAFIRE: There is a dynamic, a dramatic
dynamic, that happens in a two-person debate, and
each man has to be on his toes. These are
contestants as if in a ring. When you introduce a
third party, as happened in the primaries,
suddenly the two major debaters have a breather
between the combat. And things get diffused and
people filibuster, and it's not a decision-making
debate. When people watch a debate between two men
who could be president, they know that they have
two gladiators in a ring, and that's what counts.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, Jesse Ventura, the governor of
Minnesota, will say that he could not have been
governor of Minnesota-he was doing poorly in the
polls-until he got in the debate. And then when
people saw him, he was taken as a serious
candidate and he went on to win.
MR. SAFIRE: Fine. That's what Ross Perot said back
in '92 when he was able to buy his way onto the
debate forum. But the next time out, you saw his
ratings plunge because he wasn't in the debate.
MS. DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: But, you know...
MR. SAFIRE: The debate makes the difference for
the third-party candidate.
MS. GOODWIN: Well, it's interesting, though,
historically Ronald Reagan was generous in 1980
when he was combating Carter. He wanted Anderson,
the third-party candidate, to be in that debate.
Anderson had about 10 percent of the polls in the
spring. Carter didn't want Anderson in there,
'cause Carter knew Anderson would take away from
his votes, Democrat, liberal votes. So at first,
Carter refused to debate altogether. And then they
had all these cartoons of this high chair-you
know, they had Anderson and Reagan and high chair,
a petulant president not willing to debate. And
then finally, by the time the two of them debated,
Anderson had lost in the polls. He didn't do the
actual debate. But then everything was on that
showdown debate, which Carter didn't do well at.
MR. NOVAK: Just to refine that historically, there
was an Anderson-Reagan debate that Carter...
MS. GOODWIN: That's what I'm saying. And Reagan
did very well in that debate.
MR. NOVAK: OK. It hurt Carter in the end, yeah.
MS. GOODWIN: Of course, it hurt. That was where
the baby chair was. That's what I mean. And then
Perot, obviously, they both wanted Perot in
because they were afraid, Carter, at that point-I
mean, Clinton, at that point, was afraid and Bush
was afraid to not have his supporters like either
one of them, but Perot won that first debate, and
his votes went up after a while. But then the
other problems that he had, which you suggested,
came back after a while. I think generosity's not
a bad thing. It doesn't have to be in every
debate. It wouldn't be a problem, however, if we
had one debate where, if you had a certain kind of
standard of legitimacy to potentially win enough
votes, the guys are there.
MR. NOVAK: Would you put Harry Brown in?
MS. GOODWIN: I'd have to see what that standard
was, if he met the standard, you know? But I
agree, at some point, you need the gladiators,
mano a mano, or "womano a womano."
[...]
MR. RUSSERT: Phil Donahue, many people who support
Ralph Nader are self-described liberal, liberal
Democrats. And there is concern within the Gore
campaign that if you vote for Nader, you're, in
fact, voting for Bush.
MR. DONAHUE: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: You could elect George W. Bush. Would
that bother you?
MR. DONAHUE: These people are essentially saying,
"Sit down already and don't make trouble." They
are essentially telling people not to vote their
conscience; they are suggesting that people who
support Ralph Nader should once again stand
outside the door of the two major parties' locked
power and behave themselves and allow less than 50
percent of the voters to determine who shall lead
us for the next four years. We've done that. We
don't want to do it anymore. We see what is not
being debated. We have The New York Times
consistent with what we've heard from Bill Safire
call it, clutter. The American people shouldn't
have their debates cluttered up. I mean, it's like
we're a little bit made nervous by democracy. This
is the land of the First Amendment. We're looking
for robust disagreement and debate. We're not yet
messianic enough to insist that you disagree with
us. We are saying that our point ought to be
heard. Ralph Nader is one of the most important
private American voices of the 20th century. His
body of work is wider, deeper, touches more of our
lives than most of the people who have ever served
in Congress throughout the entire history of our
nation. And he has taken no PAC money. He's taken
no soft money. His contributions are limited
according to federal law. He's been a Boy Scout
about this and he's locked out for obeying the
law. He's locked out of the debate. More than 60
percent of the American people believe he should
be part of it, and so do I.
[...]
MR. RUSSERT: Donahue.
MR. DONAHUE: Well, I certainly support the
candidates going on "Oprah" and other programs. I
was pleased when they came to mine. I wish Oprah
would be as generous with her air time to Ralph
Nader as she's been to the major party candidates.
But it certainly is true, while they're running to
"Oprah" and "Leno" and other programs, they're
avoiding real press conferences with real
questions.
MR. SAFIRE: Hear! Hear! You're absolutely right.
MR. DONAHUE: The idea of a - this presidential
campaign, because it has only two candidates, is
an effort to avoid third rails. We're not getting
the kinds of issues that I believe concern
millions and millions of Americans. And if the
issues aren't raised in the debates, the great
Broadway of our presidential season, they're not
legitimized in the minds of the voter. The voter
is not moved to think about them. With Ralph Nader
on the debates, they would be.
MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. And by the way,
Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan will both be here
next week in a debate.
MR. RUSSERT: Start your day tomorrow on "Today"
with Katie and Matt. Then the "NBC Nightly News"
with Tom Brokaw. That's all for today. We'll be
back next week with a preview of the presidential
debates, and our own debate with Pat Buchanan
and Ralph Nader. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE
PRESS.
########
|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
L i b e r t y W i r e
is the official e-mail newsletter of
Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne
and vice presidential candidate Art Olivier.
You are encouraged to forward copies to friends
and business associates, and to reproduce any
items herein as long as attribution is provided
for articles and the subscription information
is included.
TO CONTRIBUTE
to the campaign online right now, please visit
harrybrowne2000.org
TO ORDER CAMPAIGN MATERIALS
please visit harrybrownestore.com
TO SUBSCRIBE TO LIBERTYWIRE
You can use the form on the web site at
harrybrowne2000.org
If you have a question about the campaign, please
visit the web site at harrybrowne2000.org
If you don't find your answer, then go ahead and
mailto:Info@HarryBrowne2000.org and ask it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party lp.org
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
lp.org
Alternatively, you may also send a message to <announce-request@lp.org>
with just the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line. |
