No Perot In Debates, Says Panel Billionaire Candidate Vows To Sue Over Decision

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 Sen. 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.

Perot quickly announced that he intends to file a lawsuit in federal court this week. His aides had warned Monday that Perot’s exclusion from the debates would be “a travesty of justice and a fraud on the voters of the United States.” But because the ruling is only advisory, it was not clear Tuesday who would be sued or on what grounds.

The commission decision is exactly what the Dole people had hoped to hear; for weeks, they had been arguing that three is a crowd. By contrast, the Clintonites voiced their “regret”; they figure that a highly visible Perot can pull some of the anti-Clinton voters away from Dole.

The ruling is not binding; if Dole and Clinton both agreed to invite Perot, the door would still be open. That isn’t likely to happen.

Dole wants to test wits with Clinton one on one; most strategists believe that he needs a clear shot at Clinton if he is to stage an upset in November. And analysts said Tuesday that the panel’s decision has lent bipartisan respectability to Dole’s partisan desire to keep Perot off the stage.

Tuesday, the Clinton camp insisted that the Perot issue is “still on the table” as debate negotiations - over dates, locations and formats - continue this week. As for Clinton, he shrugged off the news while campaigning in Michigan, declaring: “I’m not afraid of any debate.”

It’s a small setback for Clinton, but experts say it’s a big one for Perot. Steven Rosenstone, a Michigan political analyst who authored a book on third parties, said Tuesday: “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 recent days, the commission’s guidelines have been hotly debated in political circles. 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.” Perot is widely considered newsworthy.

But the group was also looking for “indicators of national enthusiasm” - in other words, favorable poll numbers. And Perot has rarely escaped the single digits all year; in a new Gallup survey, 74 percent said there was “no chance whatsoever” that they would back Perot. In a recent ABC-Washington Post survey, only 16 percent said that 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.”

Some critics have argued that Perot’s claim of legitimacy is a joke, considering the way he won the Reform Party nomination last month. Faced with a rival, former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, Perot refused to provide membership lists that would have enabled Lamm to compete on an equal footing. And Russell Verney, his campaign coordinator, was also in charge of the nomination process.

“Perot represents the absolute negation of serious representative government,” said David Tell, a key Republican campaign aide in 1992, writing this week in a conservative magazine. “Who will rid American public discourse of this meddlesome twerp?”