I didn't get to watch the debate, since it was only on YNN which Dish Network doesn't get. But I listened to some of it online, and read several summaries, all of which pretty much reinforce my first impression: that it consisted of Andrew Cuomo standing on a stage for an hour with six total lunatics.
I know that Paladino's strategy for this debate was to avoid letting himself talk, which seems to be his worst enemy, while hopefully getting the left wing of the party and anyone stuck on identity politics to attach to another candidate. Unfortunately for him, he blended right into the crowd. A crowd made of kooks.
People who've followed my postings are likely aware that I'm not a fan of Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton for many reasons. I've voted against her endorsement by the Tompkins County Democratic Committee, criticized her on a variety of issues, and been, well, less than polite at a few public forums. The last thing I really want to do on a normal day is republish Lifton press releases.
Every now and then, though, something so infuriating comes up that the only right response is to republish a Lifton press release:
Lifton Campaign Challenges Opponent to Engage in Fair Debate, Reveal Actual Party and Anti-government Group Affiliations Publicly
The campaign of Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton has been approached by Ms. Kelly Kheel, who initially represented herself, on Sept. 8, as follows:
I am hosting a Meet the Candidate night in Tompkins County, NY.
This is a non partisan forum. We plan to send invitation (sic) and
moderate the event. The date is Sept. 25 at 7 pm. Mr. Reynolds has
agreed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cordially,
Kelly Kheel
The Lifton campaign made repeated efforts to work with Ms. Kheel to agree to a time, format and location that would allow Assemblywoman Lifton's participation in a forum. Repeated requests for information about Ms. Kheel's "group" were responded to with minimal or misleading information. Eventually, the Lifton Campaign was able to discover, through on-line research, that Ms. Kheel's group is 912 TEA CTCNY. Reading the information on their website, at http://www.meetup.com/912Tea-Party-Patriots-Tompkins-County-NY/ , reveals that many of their 66 members reside outside of the Cortland/Tompkins area that they purportedly represent. Their current headline reads "We Surround Ithaca." The web page also reveals that Assemblywoman Lifton's opponent has been an active member of this group since April 14, 2010, although this information is not included on his campaign website, nor did Ms. Kheel mention that Mr. Reynolds was a member of her group in her correspondence with the Lifton campaign until we brought this fact up with her.
The Lifton Campaign challenges Mr. Reynolds to be open and above-board with the public about his true party affiliations. On the Tea Party group's website, his member page identifies him, in his own words, as a "Reagan republican Cheif Financial Officer," and he has also represented himself to the media as a Republican. Yet, while he is the Republican nominee for Assembly, his Board of Elections records identify him as a registered member of the Conservative Party. He has made public challenges to our campaign to engage in large numbers of debates, and then apparently encouraged the organizers of a group he is a member of to misrepresent itself as an impartial entity and set up a rigged "forum" in which the group leader acted as moderator.
Fair play and honest public discourse are the cornerstones of our democracy. The Lifton campaign challenges her opponent to engage in honest dicussion, in truly impartial forums, of the actual issues facing NYS government. We also challenge Mr. Reynolds to explain how he would uphold the Constitution of the State of NY if he accepts the 4th principle of Ms. Kheel's group: "The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government." Would he be willing to uphold NYS laws? Is his goal to become a NYS Assembly Member, or to spread the anti-government message of the TEA Party?
That's not an invitation to a debate - it's an invitation to an ambush. Dryden's had some contentious debates in the past, probably peaking in 2007 at Varna. I'll admit that I felt ambushed by some of the extremely right-wing questions, not to mention false claims - but at least the moderators of those events actually were neutral.
The first of the 2007 debates was moderated by the League of Women Voters, and the next two were moderated by WHCU host Geoff Dunn. Dunn makes a point of registering as a blank and of taking political signs only when he can signs from all sides - I don't know what his personal politics are, but he does an excellent job of keeping them out of the way when running a debate.
I worry that few undecided voters actually show up at debates, and there seems to be a regular battle to stack the audience with supporters. That said, stacking the moderator as well as the audience goes way way way outside of anything I'd recognize as decent politics.
If this is the kind of change the Tea Party folks want to bring to politics, we have some major problems before we even get to actual issues.
WMHT has put out a new promo reflecting the fact that, of the three candidates invited to tomorrow night's debate, only two will actually show up. Democrat Scott Murphy will debate with Libertarian Eric Sundwall. Jimmy Disco will will twitter himself silly in "3-D".
First, WMHT's sad promo for what was supposed to be the second debate between Scott Murphy and Jim Tedisco. Note that Susan Arbetter informs the viewer that WMHT and the Times Union invited both candidates in the race "to discuss the issues."
Too bad one of those candidates has decided to deprive the folks of the 20th of an actual debate. Why? because he's staging some event he's calling "Jim Tedisco in 3-D". No, really. You can't make this stuff up.
Republican and Conservative congressional candidate turned down an invitation to participate in the WMHT/Times Union debate on Thursday because he already had his own multi-media event planned, said Adam Kramer, a spokesman.
Tedisco will conduct a "Jim Tedisco in 3-D" campaign forum at 7 p.m. Thursday at his campaign headquarters in Halfmoon, Kramer said.
People will be able to participate in three different ways: in person, via telephone conference call or via the Internet, he said.
Democratic, Independence and Working Families candidate Scott Murphy and Libertarian candidate Eric Sundwall, the same evening, will participate the WMHT/Times Union debate to be televised live on WMHT, WSKG and Mountain Lakes PBS public television stations.
Kramer said the Tedisco and Murphy campaign had previously agreed to participate in four debates, that did not include the WMHT/Times Union event.
Tedisco had already planned his own event on Thursday when he was invited to the fifth debate, Kramer said.
That's right. Jim Tedisco is going to skip the only debate televised on three PBS stations covering the entire district so that he can peddle himself in person, on the phone and online, ya know, in "3-D". Maybe he'll twitter himself into a 4th dimension.
Or something.
What he won't be doing is debating the issues that concern the people of the 20th CD with anyone other than his own three dimensional ego.
He'll spend Thursday night not debating Scott Murphy or taking questions from the Times Union or making the case for his candidacy, but taking "questions" from supporters in his very own safe little echo chamber.
This is good stuff. Here's the ABC 10 report about today's debate between Scott Murphy and Jim Tedisco. Note that the reporter, who promises more in the 6:00 newscast, talks about how Tedisco perhaps "has trouble hearing the questions" because he seemed to ignore them altogether. He also notes how the crowd how this made the crowd "uneasy."
Now coming up at 6:00, Tedisco either had a problem hearing the questions, or more likely, he was doing what a lot of politicians do - is that he seemed to ignore many of the questions and simply talked about what he wanted to talk about. So much so that the crowd seemed to grow a little bit uneasy.
A full transcript of the report is in the extended entry.
(You can read the live blog of the debate below the fold.)
UPDATE: Kos has a nice analysis of the debate tonight. He also critiqued Tom Brokaw's performance. At the end, Brokaw gave up. He wasn't as intent on sticking to the plan as he was during the first 45 minutes. The format is stupid. Jim Lehrer made for a great moderator because he came in there with a "who cares?" attitude. Brokaw shouldn't have played by the rules. He needed to be a lot looser than he was.
Barack Obama could afford a tie tonight. John McCain could not. The good news for Obama was that it wasn't a tie tonight. The bad news for McCain is that, well, it wasn't a tie tonight.
Obama won this debate tonight. Whenever the economy is front and center, Obama wins. McCain was asked the same questions Obama was and you could tell that he tried to turn them on things that made him more comfortable. One question led McCain to respond with "energy independence" as a way to address the economy. I guess you can say that energy independence is one way (a small way) to address the economy, but it's not THE way to address it. McCain was weak on these questions while Obama was very strong.
McCain was on the attack tonight. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC just said. Obama wasn't looking for a fight. McCain was. McCain needs to fight or he doesn't stand a chance. That is the reason we have seen these attacks lately. If they don't fight and go negative, they don't stand a chance. That's what we know about Republicans.
Obama was strong on every issue and McCain wasn't. McCain went on the attack even on an issue of strength like foreign policy. It's one thing to go on the attack when you're talking about the economy. But it's another when you are talking about an issue that is considered one of your strong points and you still have to resort to attacks. That shows weakness.
One last note: I can't help but notice that at the end of the debate Barack and Michelle Obama stuck around and have greeted everyone seated at this town hall debate. They are taking pictures with people, shaking hands and talking with these people. John and Cindy McCain are gone. That shows what kind of candidates we are dealing with. The elitists hit the road. The charismatic couple that is the future President and First Lady stuck around to talk with voters.
I thought it was a great debate for Obama. He did very well. He has had a lot of practice and it shows. McCain was weak and had to resort to attacks. Obama wins his second debate, while McCain is left picking up the pieces of his crumbling campaign.
- Barack Obama was attacked all night by John McCain. On at least three occasions, Obama was presented with the first question by Jim Lehrer. When McCain was given his time to respond, he would immediately go after Obama.
- McCain apparently likes to boast about the leaders he has met or supposedly has met and the places he has traveled to. He reminds me of a bunch of high school seniors I once knew who like to brag about where they went for spring break.
- McCain kept spreading the whole "If we leave Iraq, Al-Qaeda will create a base there" misconception. We have ignored Afghanistan and where is Al-Qaeda and the Taliban building up? He also kept saying that the surge has been successful.
- McCain also played the experience card, saying that Obama didn't have the knowledge or experience in dealing with certain areas of foreign policy. "I don't need any on the job training," McCain said.
Okay, you don't need any training. How about the Pride of Wasilla that is your running-mate?
- I thought Obama's responses were strong. This was McCain's strength and McCain certainly tried to flex his muscle with all of the countries he has been to and with all the leaders he has met with. McCain hit him every chance he got but Obama stood his ground. McCain was trying to slap him around but Obama brought it right back and reinforced his stances. That was strong.
- Obama stressed these points when talking about the bailout package:
No. 1, we've got to make sure that we've got oversight over this whole process; $700 billion, potentially, is a lot of money.
No. 2, we've got to make sure that taxpayers, when they are putting their money at risk, have the possibility of getting that money back and gains, if the market -- and when the market returns.
No. 3, we've got to make sure that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes.
And, No. 4, we've got to make sure that we're helping homeowners, because the root problem here has to do with the foreclosures that are taking place all across the country.
Who won this debate? Well, this debate was supposed to be about foreign policy. But a significant portion of the debate was dedicated to the financial crisis. If there was a debate McCain could win, it was this one. But his answers were very weak when it came to the financial crisis.
That said, I thought Obama's answers on foreign policy were very strong. He was going up against the man who seems to want to brag about how many leaders he knows and how many countries he's been to instead of talking about real, sensible policy. Obama brought up Afghanistan, which is key because it has been this Republican administration that has forgotten about Afghanistan. A recent report has said that Afghanistan is 15 times deadlier than Iraq for our U.S. soldiers. That is astonishing. Obama tried to put Afghanistan front and center while McCain kept repeating that the surge was working.
I think if you break this debate up into parts, Obama had more key points and better points than McCain did. Obama talked about two key issues: The economy and foreign policy. Obama played off McCain's weakness (the economy) and showed that he can compete with McCain on issues of foreign policy.
OK, folks. Looks like Letterman's suggestion to McCain that he send in Palin as a pinch-hitter if Mr. Straighttalk hisself was too busy going to Washington to sit there with nothing to say while agreements on bipartisan action fell apart... worked. He found something that McCain was more scared of than looking like a fool answering questions about the economy while running for president.
This just in (with the campaign's spin, of course) from NY Times:
Senator John McCain will attend tonight's first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss.
Brian Rogers, the campaign spokesman, put out the following statement:
Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.
Fresh-pressed cider and lotsa snark at my place tonight.
(This is the final part of TAP's 3-part report on the Democratic primary debate for the Congressional seat in NY-26 between Jon Powers and Alice Kryzan. Jack Davis was a no-show.)
Evan Dawson (moderator): Will you participate in pork barrel spending?
AK: I didn't just fall off a turnip truck. If the system is not reformed we have to make sure we get our fair share. (Kryzan then mentioned the importance of transparency in government.)
Powers seconded the need for transparency and the need to bring back funding for SUNY Geneseo. He referenced the debt movie "I.O.U. U.S.A.", a film about the nation's alarming debt trend, and he also spoke about implementing a pay-go system.
ED: What is your position on gay marriage?
AK: I do not support a federal amendment to [construct] what would define marriage as between a man and a woman. I support rights and benefits to same-sex couples who have joined in union recognized by their state.
AK: Well, I think the drinking age should be 18. The defacto age is 18, as a mother of a 25-year-old young man.
Powers mentioned soldiers who are 18 and serving or who have served in Iraq and then said "I definitely think they deserve a beer." The audience applauded at this comment.
ED: Is healthcare for all Americans a right?
JP: Yes, that's why I pushed for [it]. I move for affordable and accessible healthcare, pass S-CHIP. (Powers then noted the problem with drug companies not being allowed to do bulk negotiations, stating we are so close to Canada, we need more nurses, etc.)
AK: Yes, I believe it is a right. I have signed on to a set of principles called HealthCare-Now! Get healthcare coverage off the backs of our employers.
JP: For the record, I'm not taking any money from pharma. (This was in response to Kryzan's repeated attacks on Powers for having to raise money to compete with the other two millionaires he's facing in the Democratic primary. The audience finally began to boo at Kryzan for the attacks as the debate wore on.)
AK: I agree we (Powers) agree a lot but one thing I disagree on is you cannot go to Washington having taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from PACS and special interests. (But this means only the rich can run for office, so Kryzan didn't help herself with this attack.)
JP: I have the support of UAW and Steel Workers and I'm proud of their support. I'll represent every Western New Yorker. We've gone out and earned the support.
On the topic of Social Security both candidates expressed the importance of protecting it. They disagreed on how to go about this. Kryzan said it was a "complicated" issue and "there are no easy answers" when she alluded to how to pay for it. She said "There are going to have to be hard choices made. We have to look at the taxing system. A more progressive tax system and maybe doing away with the payroll tax altogether."
Powers disagreed and said "I agree hard choices have to be made but taxes aren't the only answer. We have $22 billion unaccounted for. Make government more efficient."
Kryzan then attacked Powers by saying he had "taken money from defense PACs" to which the audience booed her.
JP: We have over 4,000 donors and support of the National Democratic Party.
ED: What about our foreign policy with Russia?
JP: Look at the approach George Bush has had. Bush has looked into Putin's eyes and seen into his soul. Look where it's gotten us. (The audience laughed and cheered.)
AK: We need to look at trade, sanctions, Russia wants to be part of WTO, we need to bring our European allies into this situation, tough diplomacy and trade sanctions.
ED: Who is your favorite Republican?
JP: General John Batiste. I sat down with him today. (He also mentioned Chuck Hagel.) We've had a president who has put party over country. We need to put this country first.
AK: I am the only lifelong Democrat in this race, but I'd say Jack Kemp. He was our Congressman in the 26th years ago. He really had conviction.
JP: Is that why you gave Tom Reynolds money?
AK: I did that as a business [consignment].
ED: Name one of your platform positions that breaks with the common party ideology.
AK: I don't think there's a federal solution to every problem. And a lack of support for small businesses. Democrats need to do more to support small businesses. I was a small business owner.
JP: [I differ in] the concept of taxes, throwing more money at problems. It's about finding efficiencies and a government that works.
Evan Dawson, the moderator of the debate, asked both Powers and Kryzan their thoughts on taking the military draft off the table.
Powers answered first and noted that less than 1/2 of 1% [in this country] have served. "We just had this conversation this afternoon," said Powers, referring to his endorsement by Major General Paul Eaton in Rochester earlier that day. Powers mentioned his Call To Service and said "until we bring home our troops safely, securely and soon we'll continue to be in this situation."
(Image Courtesy Michael Parks. All rights reserved.)
Kryzan stated she was not in favor of a military draft. "If our national security was threatened, that would be something to consider." She stated that Powers' service plan "is a Washington-centric plan." She went on to say that Western New York has "an abundance of teachers. They almost have to leave the area in order to teach...Are we really helping the 26th district by teaching?"
(I found this remark by Kryzan to be damaging since, first of all, she was at SUNY Geneseo, which has a lot of education majors who obviously are committed to teaching and, second, her comments seemed to devalue the professional value of teachers in the 26th district market. Perhaps if she'd clarified her comments it would have been more apparent what she meant. Does she mean we should discourage students from choosing teaching as a profession if that's what they want to do?)
Powers countered by stating that "A Call To Serve came from a group called Service Nation. It's a critical part of the American fabric. It's getting people out into the community. What I learned through my service is an opportunity to get out, see the world and have real skills that can help here in Western New York."
(This was a good answer by Powers. He not only defended serving one's nation, reminiscent of John F. Kennedy's call to service, but he also rightly noted his real world experience and skills from having served as an Army Captain in Iraq, a very demanding and respectable job. He then tied it into how that real world experience can help Western New York.)
Powers then said something along the lines of "Running for Congress is believing and supporting the people of this district," which I think was meant to convey the notion that Kryzan was not being supportive of students who choose teaching or who choose to see the world and then bring that real world experience back to the Western New York area.
Dawson also asked what the candidates' standards would be in deciding and voting to authorize war.
Kryzan went first and said we should "go back to the standard we had before George Bush." Kryzan also said "a pre-emptive war for any reason should be off the table."
Powers said that "If I was in Congress and a vote like this came to the table, one of the reasons we need more vets in Congress is they ask the right questions. I would not vote if there wasn't a plan in place. I'm in a unique position because of my experience. That's the reason General Eaton and Batiste came out and supported me today. We also have to look at national security reform [to realign the power structure]."
Kryzan then seemed to question the benefits of having veterans in Congress: "I respect your service but there were vets---John McCain, I believe. We've had vets in Congress who have been right and wrong on issues. We need to look at poeple who've had experience over their lifetime." Kryzan then mentioned her experience bringing together "disparate views." She then said she had 35 years of experience and that we could all agree the war was a mistake. She said she is the "only person in this race to sign on to The Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq." She said we must end our dependence on foreign oil and "focus on our domestic economy." Here her views are in alignment with Powers' views.
Powers then countered with a powerful reply: "On The Responsible Plan To End The War, [Major General] Eaton was one of its authors and he was here endorsing me today."
(As promised, TAP's full take on last night's debate at SUNY Geneseo between Democratic candidates Jon Powers and Alice Kryzan.) (Image Courtesy Michael Parks. All rights reserved.)
Geneseo: The debate began with an introduction by Ben DeGeorge, a SUNY Geneseo student who organized the debate. Jon Powers then crossed the stage to shake Alice Kryzan's hand and she complied. Both candidates did well, both were very tough but at the end of the night it was Powers who edged past Kryzan, in my opinion. The following questions were asked by moderator Evan Dawson of WHAM 13:
1) What is your view of government's role in terms of rebuilding homes along the Gulf Coast?
(Dawson prefaced this question by admitting it was coming out of left field. Kryzan was chosen to go first. The pace of the debate was a fairly fast clip, they covered a lot of ground in about an hour and a half, and because I was not allowed to use my camcorder, I had to resort to notebook and pen. Therefore, my notes are truncated and not a complete transcript of the night's event.)
AK: We have to be very careful in terms of meeting needs of citizens with insurance costs. We have to put our best [resources] forward.
JP: What we've seen with this administration is a failure to do [what needs to be done], a failure to develop a plan. We need a government that's efficient.
2) Do big box stores threaten small businesses?
JP: Small businesses are the future of Western New York. I believe in Main Street. We need a balance. The reason big box stores are around are because of the costs.
(Powers then mentioned certain big box stores and their failure to provide benefits to employees. He advocated for helping the mom and pop stores on Main Street in Geneseo.)
AK: I agree with Jon that small businesses are the backbone of this district...I do think we have to look at what is best for the community overall. Health care and the need to take health care costs off the backs of small businesses.
3) What kinds of jobs will keep students here?
AK: The central part of my platform is energy and the environment. I believe in [green collar] jobs.
JP: It's not the job of the government to create jobs but to provide an environment for job creation. We need to begin to synergize these efforts and start to regionalize our economy and sell Western New York as a package.
4) Do you support merit-based pay for teachers?
(This is an interesting question given the high number of SUNY Geneseo students who are education majors intent on becoming teachers.)
JP: Education is crucial. [Our campaign held] roundtables in Batavia and Lockport with teachers recently, discussing lifelong learners. Teachers are a critical resource. We should be paying them more. What we have to do is reform education and No Child Left Behind and focus on higher education. It would be something I'd look at in the future.
AK: The teachers I know are not afraid of a merit-based system. Local, state-based solutions are really more appropriate.
5) Do you support [aggressive] accountability in education?
JP: It's set up to be punitive vs. supportive. If we are going to increase accountability, we need to include the teacher. The measure is one single test. We can divide that up, essays, [etc].
AK: Teachers have one of the most difficult jobs, I think, in our community.
JP: What a Congressman can do and a leader can do is help drive the dialogue. As a Congressman I'd intend to sit down and have education summits.
(At this point Kryzan disagreed with Powers on the need to hold education summits with teachers, saying they already know what to do. I attended both of these teacher roundtables and the teachers were all enthusiastic to share what they'd learned in the classroom and to brainstorm solutions. It was interesting to hear the perspective of so many different educators and it gave me a deeper respect for the knowledge base teachers possess. Powers seems to want to utilize that knowledge resource and Kryzan thinks it's best to act now instead of allowing the dialogue with teachers to continue. I found that to be a weakness in Kryzan's answers for the night.)
Dawson asked many more questions, ranging from loan subsidies, wind energy, corn-based ethanol, drilling in ANWR, and gas prices. On these topics Kryzan and Powers didn't differ as much. One noted difference was Powers' emphasis on alternative forms of transportation, which drew applause from the audience. Kryzan criticized Powers for discussing a transportation bill, stating it would be 2 or 3 years before any good would come of it. Powers countered that Congressman Nadler has a transportation bill coming up. Powers also noted that freight trains take priority over passenger trains and that Nadler is looking into switches for trains.
At this point, Kryzan criticized Powers for mentioning trains to and from Albany, saying that it was typical of a politician. Powers countered by asserting that it's important that our leaders lead by example, which again drew audience applause. It was at this point that Kryzan continued to be negative and Powers continued to focus on the issues, garnering more audience agreement for Powers.
Tonight, Clinton called on Obama to reject the endorsement. Obama did just that tonight.
"There's a difference between denouncing and rejecting," Clinton said. "And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory - I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching."
...
"I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought," Obama said. "And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan."
Pressed if he specifically rejected the endorsement, Obama said, "I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy" and that he didn't "see a difference between 'denouncing' and 'rejecting.'"
Tell me Sen. Clinton: Does that mean there is NO difference between regretting your vote to authorize use of force in Iraq and admitting that you made a mistake? Let's turn the tables here. If you want Obama to reject this endorsement (which he has) then we want you to admit you had a lapse in judgement and made a mistake when you voted for war with Iraq.
Other than that though, the debate (held at Cleveland State University in Ohio) focused on issues important to Ohio: NAFTA and health care. Both candidates were strong on the issues and it appears it will be a tight race heading into March 4 (next Tuesday) and the "Somewhat Super Tuesday" primaries.
The folks at the Dodd Campaign are rolling out their famous "Talk Clock" again for tonight's Democratic Debate in Las Vegas.
And in a pretty cool and thoroughly geeky new twist, you can actually watch Dodd's campaign staff live from their HQ and even chat with them and others during the debate.
Yesterday's Capitol Confidential reports that the Assembly celebrated Reform Day with rules changes that inch the body closer to being the public deliberative body it's supposed to be.
