Wahhhhhhhh! I don’t want to play with Christy! Make him go away!
From boston.com
Healey seeks 1-on-1 debate with Patrick to remove Mihos ‘noise’
By Glen Johnson, AP Political Writer | September 26, 2006
WORCESTER, Mass. –Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey said Tuesday she wants a head-to-head debate with Deval Patrick because she is concerned independent gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos is creating too much “noise” for a focused argument over issues between the most likely campaign winners.
Please share widely!
Should Deval refuse to attend any debate that does not include Christy Mihos?
First of all, there’s precedent — the infamous Romney-O’Brien gabfest moderated by Russell that excluded also-rans Anderson, Stein, and Howell. Nader never was invited to a debate, either.
<
p>
As much as I delight in Mihos running roughshod on Healey, she has a point. It’s pretty standard to have at least one debate restricted to people who might actually win (the bar can be set anywhere — nominee of a party running in X districts, getting double digits, in the polls, etc.). If a 1-on-1 is offered, Deval should take it, otherwise he looks like he’s hiding behind Christy. However, she so desperately wants one that Deval’s camp could probably insist on a favorable format.
The polls have Deval Patrick at 64, Kerry Muffy Healey at 25, and Christy Mihos at 5. Right now, Muffy is closer to Christy (+20) than Deval (-39).
<
p>
If the numbers move as follows:
Deval 62
Muffy 18
Christy 14
Ross 3
Undecided 3
<
p>
How do you justify keeping Christy off the stage?
<
p>
Deval could be the moderator for the next Muffy-Mihos debate, but wasn’t that what we saw last night?
“What if…the polls have Deval Patrick at 62, Muffy at 18, Christy at 14…”
<
p>
Stop right there. If that happens, I’ll be too busy celebrating to care about the second half of the question.
I think the consensus has finally been built up that all eligible candidates should be invited to network or public TV or radio debates, and I think Deval has confirmed his support for this concept before, though I don’t know. I personally think Kerry Healey is far less relevent than any of the other three, of the other five even, when I saw the five candidates at Fanuiel Hall, nothing was lost from Kerry Healey not being there.
<
p>
But I think it coudl be dangerous, as Kerry would constantly try to spin her fear of an open democratic debate into Deval being afraid of taking her one-on-one. She shouldn’t expect Deval to give her special treatment, so maybe he could respond by offering one-on-one debates with each of his three challengers.
<
p>
Healey’s failure in last nights debate that was basically supposed to be a gimme for her has made her increasingly irrelevent in this race. The main battle is between her and Christy fighting over who gets the bigger chunk of the right-wing third of the electorate. She should figure out how to respond to him first before complaining about jumping to face Deval alone.
When I’m “reading” debate transcripts, I generally skip over anything that reads “CHRISTY” or “MIHOS”
<
p>
Although it is a great thing to include third party candidates, blah blah blah, let’s get down to business.
a reporter asked Deval (I’m paraphrasing) if Mihos was adding value or just throwing bombs. Deval responded that the reporter should ask Christy that question, and then pointed out that all three other candidates have some good ideas.
<
p>
So, Muffy isn’t the only one who percieves Mihos as an agitator and instigator but not a contender.
If we’re talking about most likely campaign winners, perhaps it just ought to be Deval Patrick and a panel of questioners? đŸ™‚
<
p>
OK, I really don’t believe that. But based on the polls, she’s seriously not in a great position to be deciding who to be excluding.
<
p>
the debates. Just because Chris Wallace couldn’t control Mihos to Healey’s liking doesn’t mean Mihos doesn’t deserve a place at the table. Perhaps the next moderator will do a better job.
<
p>
All four candidates are on the ballot; the voters are entitled to hear from all four candidates. This crap about only having the two from the major parties is just bullshit. Greens and so-called Independents should have the opportunity to see and hear their candidates. After all, their votes count, too.
“perhaps the next moderator will do a better job.”
<
p>
Look, I love Mihos, love having him around — but someone’s gotta step in when people can’t finish a sentence. It’s like pro wrestling, for cryin’ eye.
<
p>
Off-topic: Wallace was so made-up he looked like a Hummel figurine.
which is why I think a competent moderator is important. Just because Mihos is like a bull in a china shop doesn’t disqualify him from participating; that fact simply makes selection of a moderator of paramount importance.
<
p>
Under no circumstances should Patrick capitulate to Healey’s demand that the two of them debate separately. It’s undemocratic, for one thing, and it unnecessarily clears the field for his opponent.
<
p>
There are four candidates. Period.
You know, it was Kerry Healey who challenged ALL the candidates to a series of debates. Now that she realized it hurts her chances, she wants to back out and change the rules to one-on-one. Deval would be crazy to agree. He’s been running on a platform of inclusiveness and bringing everyone to the table. It’s completely to his advantage to use Healey’s request as an opportunity to say, “See, I told you she’s all about insider politics and restricting whose voices get heard.”
Healey is so concerned that there are not enough voices on Beacon Hill to counter the Legislature. Doesn’t Mihos just offer the voters another choice? I guess one is too few and three or four is too many for Muffy.
<
p>
I am sure if there was a Ralph Nader or Jill Stein in the race, which would probably pick off some DP votes, she wouldn’t be so quick to call for one on one debates.
“I am sure if there was a Ralph Nader or Jill Stein in the race…” Wow…Grace Ross sure is making an impression, isn’t she?
His poll numbers will be up. I bet we’ll be seeing polls with him around 10% very shortly. Honestly, I think he’s a candidate who deserves to be heard: he’s different in all ways from both Deval and Healey (both in his approach as well as his politics).
<
p>
I think the 10% rule for debates deeper into the campaign season is a fine standard, but the first one or two should be completely inclusive (at least to as much of an extent possible).
I strongly disagree with the whole business of excluding candidates from televised debates on the basis of their low polling numbers. We already have a qualifying process – its called getting on the damned ballot! If three of the four candidates’ polling numbers drop below 10%, does that mean that we’d have one candidate in the studio debating him/herself? Who’s to say that Ross or Mihos might not suddenly blossom on camera as erudite and inspiring contenders (I know, I know – not bloody likely) and surge ahead in the polls precisely because they were allowed to appear in the debate?
<
p>
Giving so-called “fringe” candidates equal footing in the press is a way to make sure that innovative and/or unpopular political ideas get a full airing, and it prevents the “mainstream” candidates from falling into a rote recitation of party line talking points.
<
p>
If we believe in a free and open political process, then we have to be respectfull of anyone who manages to scrabble their way onto the stage, and that includes people whom we might personally consider to be dangerous, stupid or just plain boring.
<
p>
We have an extraordinary candidate in Deval Patrick and their is no reason to protect him from the unpredictable and wide ranging discussion that well run and all-inclusive debates provide. I’ll go further and say that any candidate who is afraid of engaging in that kind of open exchange should look for a job with a less demanding application process.
<
p>
Remember when Deval was called a “fringe” candidate?