THE presidential debates could be a critical, if not decisive, factor in what appears destined to be a tight race in November. But already the self-appointed overseer of the debates has made two mistakes. Not one of the four sites that the nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates has chosen for the campaign debates is west of the Mississippi.
Debates tend to take on the flavor of the place where they're held.
Green Party candidate Ralph Nader deserves a place at the podium. His, like other third parties in the American system, stands a remote chance of winning the presidency. But Nader expresses a loud and articulate voice of dissent from Republicans and Democrats on important issues that Texas Gov. George Bush and Vice President Al Gore are minimizing or ignoring, as they compete most feverishly for undecided moderate votes in mid-America. His stance on some of these issues is wrong, but he'd expand the political dialogue in expounding his views. And Nader's presence would guarantee that the debate would be lively, with more focus on substance than, for lack of disagreement, on style.