From the AP:
Pathetic, if totally predictable – it is always the establishment, big-money candidate who seeks to avoid debates, and the outsider, grassroots candidate who wants as many debates as possible. But really, what is Reilly afraid of? It’s not like he’s inarticulate (one can understand Tom Menino being less than enthused about a face-to-face debate …), or like he hasn’t staked out some positions that differ from Patrick – there would be plenty to talk about. And the people of Massachusetts deserve to know where the candidates stand. This is an important office (Mitt Romney’s contrary views notwithstanding), and putting off debates until two weeks before the primary is irresponsible.
If there’s a media offer on the table, the candidates should all accept it. Come on, Tom. You can do better.
Reilly has said all along he wants to debate. He called Pines out for debates. Now he’s too afraid to do something before the caucus events.
<
p>
How entirely predictable.
<
p>
Reilly is seriously afraid of getting hurt in the caucuses by a poor performance.
I’m a Deval Patrick supporter but would it make more sense to have the debates when more people are paying attention? I don’t mean the summer, but rather in the spring. January still does seem a little too early.
afertig,
<
p>
The caucuses are February 4. A January 31 debate is not only not to early, but is entirely appropriate.
what better way to get people to start paying attention than to have a televised debate? People won’t just start noticing the race on their own – seeing a debate on TV will jumpstart the process.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you fully that a debate would be best and would give delegates a better sense of the choice they are about to make. I also agree that it would spur interest in the race.
<
p>
My concern is only that it would be a debate in vain, that the people of MA would not watch it, and more, that if we have too many debates for a local race, people will tire of the race before it really should be getting going. We do need a spirited debate about the issues; what we don’t need is to have a collection of debates throughout the campaign season filled with platitudes and soundbytes that will not inspire voters to take an interest.
The first debate in 2002 was on January 5. The first televised debate was January 30. Reilly doesn’t want to debate until sometime in August.
<
p>
Do you really think his greater interest is “respect for the voters”? It’s all about protecting his standing as frontrunner.
Why not have debates now and later too? If we hold a debate now it might actually remind people that there is a race for guv and that they need to pay attention. Also, if Patrick and Reilly can be civil it could be a great way to show that the Democratic Party is the party of ideas and that we are willing to show them off!
Reilly’s desire to not debate is further proof in my opinion of the fact that HE BELIEVES IN CORONATIONS rather than those pesky election things.
I agree with Andy, debates now, debates later. We have 2 candidates who can walk and talk without Mitt’s OK, they have none.
Is the only way to get a debate to shame people through the press? Couldn’t someone just once say “You’re right…I should have to make my case to people other than those who write big checks?” This is so so so frustrating. Saying debates can wait until August would be funny if it weren’t so insulting.
<
p>
Reilly hasn’t taken a stance on any major issue, has been a mediocre AG (at best), doesn’t want to debate…remind me why I should vote for him?