At long last, and after being repeatedly prodded by Elizabeth Warren’s campaign, Scott Brown has magnanimously agreed to participate in a televised debate sponsored by the Globe and several Boston TV stations. Why this took so long is entirely beyond me, but whatever – there will now be at least three televised debates, and that’s a good thing.
Here’s a possible next step in this increasingly tiresome debate-gate: Warren should reject the Dan Rea radio debate, since Rea is someone “who espouses conservative views and openly describes himself as Brown’s friend.” It was too much for Brown to show up at Vicki Kennedy’s institute, even though Kennedy herself would have had no role in the debate; obviously, then, it is too much for the moderator to be an open supporter of one of the candidates.
A fourth TV debate would be nice; another option would be for Warren to agree to the Margery Eagan/Jim Braude radio debate. Of course, nobody listens to radio debates, but at least Eagan and Braude as a team don’t obviously favor either candidate.
Discuss
25 Comments . Leave a comment below.plus, he’s even going to moderate, correct?
Do we really need an hour long debate about Warren’s heritage? He should be removed from the WBZ based on Scott Brown’s concerns and we could have a debate that voters could benefit from.
Keller is still trying to make it a story.
Seriously WTF?
Half the article in the link dealt with the ties that Barnes has to conservatives, and raising the issue of Brown campaign complicity.
Keller has been pretty good about this issue in my opinion, and would make a credible and capable moderator.
but still making sure to keep it part of the conversation on his platform on television.
is pointing out that this is a conservative-backed Swift-boat move, or asking whether it’s connected to the Brown campaign.
when they considered it a non-issue.
But some, like Keller, try to bring it back into the conversation.
Keller has done a good job of moderating debates in the past, whatever his personal views may be.
how is Keller different?
Most importantly, Keller has a solid track record of doing a good job moderating debates; Rea does not, AFAIK.
Also, Keller doesn’t openly state his views, advocate for candidates, or declare that one candidate or another is his “friend.”
Finally, Keller is on TV, and Rea is on the radio. That matters.
If I recall correctly, you expressed some issues with Keller when the book came out. IMHO there is not much difference between the two.
no doubt about that. But I do think there’s a difference. Reasonable people can disagree, I suppose.
It came out just BEFORE the financial melt-down, so a lot of its conclusions (especially about people thinking Republicans were more fiscally responsible, which was true then) are now incredibly dated.
He thinks the Democrats have been a baleful influence on Massachusetts, and the more strident the Republican counter-attack, the better. He is very explicit in his book The Bluest State.
Let’s hope he’s not moderating. Anything. (I don’t know how the airwaves stomach him.)
I would venture to say that anyone who proudly takes an award from Barbara Anderson’s “Citizens for Limited Taxation” cannot possibly be considered down the middle enough to moderate a Warren/Brown debate:
http://www.cltg.org/graphics.dinner99/keller.htm
Just askin’
and any other debates that are proposed. It’s a no-lose situation as far as I can tell. It seems to me that VERY few of Rea’s listeners are Warren supporters.
Warren has to come across as the candidate for ALL the people, talk radio listeners included. Getting kicked around a bit will make her a better candidate, and also will make her seem like the bigger person.
no-lose
Martha Coakley attended WBZ radio debate, I thought it was down the middle.
well, that speaks for itself….
or even reward her for the courage to appear in hostile territory.
Unfortunately, you assume a rationality on their parts that does not exist.
Deval Patrick sis a debate on RKO, so did Barney Frank. Many Dems have been on Dan Rea’s program. From what I recall, they don’t allow callers to ask questions. Warren should show no fear.
I know Deval did interviews on RKO, but I don’t recall a debate (I could be wrong). I have no problem with doing interviews in hostile territory – actually, I think it’s a good idea, since the arguments of conservative talk radio hosts are uniformly weak and inevitably crumble when pressed. But the constraints of the debate format (1-minute answer, 30-second reply, etc.) make it much harder to question false premises, etc., so I’m much more leery of agreeing to a debate that is likely to be rigged.
Both Deval and Barney Frank debated their opponents on Wrko morning show. Deval even went on the Howie Carr show for an hour, and survived. I guess if one is comfortable in their beliefs, they will go anywhere.
Constraints on talk radio? No way, all the constraints are on TV. Radio debates are more of a discussion and I find much better. Coakley blew the Curt Schilling NY Yankee player, during a 1on1 radio interview, and it was totally self-inflicted. In fact, Dan Rae gave her a chance to get out of it, but didn’t.
In a presidential year? Ack!
Looking like it might be all Netflix and podcasts from August through November this year.
Impressive!
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sat 18 May 10:31 PM