Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

For the love of Pete, just debate the guy!

By

There’s been an unusually large amount of back-and-forth ’round here on the Kerry/O’Reilly debate question.  I won’t go into the details, which have been amply set forth by beachmom (from the Kerry perspective) and Cambridge_Paul (for the O’Reilly side), among others.  

Suffice it to say that neither side has covered itself in glory.  O’Reilly looked ridiculous when he got all huffy that Kerry’s campaign manager, rather than the candidate himself, responded to one of O’Reilly’s many missives about scheduling debates (as well as pushing the number of debates he wants to the absurd level of 23).  And Kerry’s comments in yesterday’s paper about discussing the “modalities” of a debate takes dodging the issue to a new level.  Does anyone know what a “modality” of a debate is?

Kerry’s bottom line, though, appears to be this (also from the Herald story linked above):

Kerry said that even with those discussions [regarding “modalities”], “I just may not necessarily be able to” debate.

That’s unacceptable.  Ed O’Reilly got his signatures and his delegates, so he is a legitimate candidate in the Sept. 16 primary.  Ergo, Kerry should debate him — it really is that simple.  Of course 23 debates is silly.  But even Ted Kennedy did one debate with the hapless Ken Chase in 2006.

Come on, Senator.  Just tell your campaign staff to work it out.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. The ceremonial forms, protocols, or conditions that surround formal agreements or negotiations – at least that is what the dictionary says.

    <

    p>Guess it just means how the debate will work – like the format and arrangements for it – town hall vs. moderated, duration etc…Not exactly a word in general use though.

    <

    p>Kerry isn’t a bad debater so why not just do it and be done with it.  Its kind of a basic part of being a democratically-elected office holder.  U.S. Senators only do this once every six years for God’s sake and Kerry is not exactly known as the most in-touch legislator around anyway.  It really wouldn’t kill him.    

  4. David, you hit the nail on the head, “That’s unacceptable.”  Kerry does not get a pass on this.

  5. I think that debate is a critical piece of the democratic process, and I think that John Kerry should debate Ed O’Reilly.

    <

    p>However, the question remains, what “penalty” does Kerry face from the voters if he simply refuses?

    <

    p>Would I vote for O’Reilly over Kerry? I don’t really know. O’Reilly hasn’t done a very good job at showing me the differences between him and Kerry. So why change horses midstream for the same horse?  

    <

    p>But what if Kerry refused to debate a Republican? Would I vote for a Republican over Kerry over this issue? I don’t think I would. But it would make me more inclined to vote for a Democratic challenger over Kerry, because refusing to debate is simply arrogant.

    <

    p>John Kerry is burning up some serious goodwill in this state by doing this. I see a lot of O’Reilly signs on lawns — probably far more than should be there, because from what I can tell, there aren’t too many substantive positional differences between Kerry and O’Reilly.  

    • and an extremely poor rationale to vote for a candidate.  Research the candidates positions and their history on the issues, if you have the opportunity attend a meeting where the candidate is speaking (which both have done this summer) that provides some good information as well.  Then make your best judgment on who’s the best candidate and will be the best to deliver in office.  Everything else is a sideshow.  I’d be shocked if there is not a debate, but my guess that there will only be one.

    • O’Reilly hasn’t done a very good job at showing me the differences between him and Kerry.

      <

      p>One big difference is that Ed actually works like a horse — witness the campaign itself! — witness also what is widely acknowledged, even by the incumbent’s supporters, that the incumbent has lousy constituent service… a fancy way of saying he doesn’t work for the ordinary people of Massachusetts.

      <

      p>Oh, and one other thing: Ed stands for (and will work like a horse for) the basic principles of Massachusetts Democrats — on Iraq, health care, marriage equality, and fair taxes — unlike the incumbent, who has for years opposed these principles in his actual work (such as it is) in the senate. (links)

  6. Given that O’Reilly has echoed the RW lies on the SBVT, long after they were definitively debunked should be enough a reason for any Democrat to decide he is beyond the pale.

    <

    p>This was not just the casual comment in the Boston Globe, where O’Reilly did not have the grace shown by the then potential Republican opponents, who conceded Senator Kerry’s service. Even George Bush was unwilling to publicly argue on the SBVT side. McCain denounced it.

    <

    p>This was not just a case of speaking without thinking when the Boston Globe asked. He could have said his Boston Globe comment was wrong when he was taken to task for it on Daily Kos and said that he shouldn’t have said it. Instead he wrote:

    <

    p>”All John Kerry needs to do is release his original discharge papers showing whether or not he was honorably discharged or was given a general discharge. It is really that simple.  Once he produces the honorable discharge at the time of his discharge, together with the “exit interview”, all of this will be past us.  

    <

    p>Since John Kerry now has the portfolio and all of the t’s are crossed and the i’s dotted, I assume John Kerry now has that documentation.  He should just show it and end this issue and move on.  We don’t need more division.

    <

    p>As I said, credibility is at issue and I want John Kerry to take the high road and show his crediblity and show the Honorable Discharge Papers he must now have.”

    <

    p>http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

    <

    p>He has since agreed with every RW smear there is of Kerry on the various RW talk shows he has appeared on. (Yes, I know Kerry has gone on them to, but he has NEVER agreed with the RW smears of anyone.

    <

    p>Given this, plus the antics in calling for 23 debates and refusing to discuss the debates with Kerry’s campaign manager coupled with the fact that Kerry is by far the front runner, I can see why Kerry is not all that interested in debating him.

    <

    p>The fact is Kerry’s positions are known and he is known. He can better use the time doing solo town halls or other type of meet and greets. Kerry has no obligation to give O’Reilly the bigger audience that he can’t get himself.

    <

    p>There is precedent on this. The most comparable recent case of a top Democrat facing an extremely long shot challenger was Hillary Clinton. She did not debate Tasini, who like O’Reilly qualified to be on the ticket. Unlike O’Reilly, there were no reports of him supporting RW lies against the Democrat he faced. (O’Reilly’s comments would have been equivalent to Tasini asking if HRC really did kill Vince Foster and demanding her diary from that time period.) Kerry has more justification to ignore O’Reilly than HRC had to ignore Tasini.

    • So can I.  He’s the incumbent; he’s got way more money; he’s almost certainly going to win, so why not starve the other guy of desperately-needed oxygen?

      <

      p>Because it’s not the right thing to do, that’s why.  Anyone who refuses to debate is disrespecting the voters and the democratic process.  Like I said, it really is that simple.

      • It is not “why not starve the other guy of desperately-needed oxygen” but why give him a platform to spew the kind of garbage he has.

        <

        p>That might be why the guidelines have to be set.

        <

        p>I would prefer Kerry debate, just so it is not an issue. But, I can see why Kerry has the right to insist on negotiating the terms.

        <

        p>Kerry is an exceptional debater and has a depth of knowledge on issues that rivals anyone – where O’Reilly has not seemed to generate all that much support spending an entire year just campaigning. I seriously doubt he would have gotten on the ballot had Kerry stayed neutral in the Presidential race.

        • even Ted Kennedy did one debate with the hapless Ken Chase in 2006.

          <

          p>Absolutely the Democratic nominee should debate Beatty!  It will be a welcome bit of comic relief from the ongoing presidential campaign slog.

            • he is absolutely outclassed on what he considers his greatest strength – his security background. I think being instrumental in the closing of OBL’s bank, who wrote the international money laundering prevention tools, and whose views of how to deal with non state terrorism are now mainstream conventional wisdom – considering Gates’ report. Contrast that to leading the glorious invasion of Grenada. Somehow, I don’t think Grenada wins.

              <

              p>Not to mention, he did extremely poorly running for Congress a few years ago.

              <

              p>As one who has met Kerry and has seen him speaking to many individuals, he is not pompous, but extremely sincere. As to entitled, if he really felt entitled, he like Bush, Cheney, Clinton etc, he would have pulled strings to avoid service in the 1960s. As someone whose roommate was the nephew of the 2 Mcbundys and who had dated Jackie Kennedy’s step sister – I think he had many that would have been very easy to pull. As to jerk, I completely disagree.  

    • There is precedent on this. The most comparable recent case of a top Democrat facing an extremely long shot challenger was Hillary Clinton. She did not debate Tasini, who like O’Reilly qualified to be on the ticket.

      <

      p>President Bush has a set a number of precedents, and I’m sure you’ll agree that President Obama should not follow a lot of them.

    • or uses swiftboat tactics, he’ll look like a fool and Kerry could call him out on it. It would be the death of EOR’s campaign, so I don’t see what Kerry’s so worried about.  

      • I seriously doubt he is. The fact is that in any debate I know of someone has to define the format, the length, the place and the moderator. That is what Kerry’s campaign manager wanted to meet with O’Reilly on. The fact is the longer they avoid meeting with Lau, the harder it will be to schedule even one debate.

        <

        p>The fact is had Kerry’s campaign manager said something like there be n debates, at these locations, that will have this format and be this long – O’Reilly would likely have come back with a charge that they were arrogant to unilaterally define it.

        <

        p>By the way there is no “if” in the fact that EOR already used swiftboat accusations – and the Boston Globe itself reported the comment. The Dkos comments were more specific. As to it would be the death of EOR’s campaign – he is still here.  

        • EOR got called on it.

          <

          p>What I believe I said is if he used them in a debate, it would be terrible for his campaign and would turn off many of his supporters. I don’t think he’d do that, but I wouldn’t be worried about it for the aforementioned reasons. It would be political suicide for EOR to ever call Kerry’s war record into question during a debate; he’d be universally rebuked and Kerry would pounce on it.

          • KNOWING HE DID THIS, why would they suddenly change if he did it in a debate? What does it say of his character that he did it in the first place? Why do they not care that he is agreeing with every RW lie that has ever said? Do people really think that he is a good person and trust him?  

      • Kerry can just turn the junk around on the mudslinger in the debate.  Why not come up and rock him.

    • Unquestioning and unthinking support of John Kerry is the message of bloggers who repeatedly flog Ed O’Reilly for telling The Boston Globe that Kerry ought to go ahead and clear up questions about his military credentials after Kerry himself announced he was prepared to do that very thing.

      <

      p>Here’s the story timeline: Kerry’s military record is attacked by the so-called Swift Boaters for Truth, a Republican shill group in the 2004 election. Kerry fails to respond clearly and forcefully. Questions remain. Kerry is interviewed by the Plymouth, MA, newspaper in November 2007, and says he is contemplating another run for the presidency in 2012 and has compiled a dossier to refute the Swift Boat attacks. Boone Pickens, financier of the Republican attackers, picks up the challenge, calls Kerry’s bluff, and offers a $1million prize. Kerry is on the hook. The Boston Globe calls Ed O’Reilly and asks his opinion. O’Reilly says Kerry ought to clear up the remaining  questions and put this festering controversy behind him. Immediately O’Reilly is criticized in DailyKos and Blue Mass Group as being a “Republican sympathizer,”  adopting “Republican talking points.”

      <

      p>Very strange: When O’Reilly says that Kerry ought to go ahead and clear up the questions, O’Reilly is attacked for acknowledging that there are questions, despite the fact that Kerry himself says he has answers to the questions that the bloggers say don’t exist. The Berkshire Eagle presented the contradiction in its most obvious form, saying that John Kerry should “clear up the questions” about his military service while criticizing Ed O’Reilly for saying exactly the same thing. What kind of illogic is that? Kerry should “clear up the questions,” but O’Reilly should not say so?

      <

      p>———————
      Note: The Berkshire Eagle has taken down the link to it’s editorial on this. The link — http://www.berkshireeagle.com/editorials/ci_7546587 — now goes to a page titled “Sink Swift Boat Issue,” with the statement “the article … is no longer available.”

      <

      p>———————–
      One more thing, in case you have any doubt: The elevation of military experience (or pretend military experience, as in the case of George Bush) as a political qualification deserves to be questioned in its own right. Politicians who claim military experience are twice-burdened: once to explain why war is a sign of leadership in a democratic society, and twice to explain their own experience. In this context, Bush’s ‘military record’ is far more outrageously questionable than Kerry’s. But the fact that Bush is a fraud does not relieve Kerry of these burdens.

      • 1) Kerry saying that he was gathering more proof on charges that had no proof behind them and challenged the official record is NOT anywhere near the same thing as EOR repeating the lies. You forget that the BG quote was NOT the only EOR response – there were his disgusting Daily Kos posts.

        <

        p>2) Kerry did fight back. If you’ve noticed, other Democrats, including Kerry have been out there defending Obama when he is attacked.

        <

        p>In 2004, other Democrats should have tried to help Kerry get the truth out – especially if they thought he was not doing enough. What he had done was already provided more than enough ammunition to use for people to defend him – and it was in Democrats vested interest to do so. The Navy awarded those medals – he didn’t steal them or make them up.

        <

        p>The MSM did not do his its job. In reality the media condoned character assassination of Senator Kerry. Then there was a second swiftboating after the narrow election loss by people with vested interests, either because they did not live up to their journalistic standards or they supported someone else in 2008. The problem was that Kerry could not get his response out through the mass media – his message was heavily filtered.

        <

        p>The campaign’s immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book’s emergence in August. – this is the SAME timing that Obama had in getting his response out. One advantage Obama has is that Kerry already discreited Corsi – it was his team that gave the media Corsi’s Free Republic postings, that made even the right wing distance themselves from him in 2004.

        <

        p>That 36 page document should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing – not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book – as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush – in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it.

        <

        p>That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth – the Washington Post’s editor even saying they wouldn’t. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright? We need to be prepared to help Obama, if the media turn back to 2004 mode now that we are in the general election.

        <

        p>It wasn’t that we had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof – far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

        <

        p>It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry’s accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY’s official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

        <

        p>he had 120 pages of naval records – spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports – all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

        <

        p>He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

        <

        p>He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O’Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

        <

        p>He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance – clearly his “employers” of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That’s just standard. That alone should have been enough.

        <

        p>The then secretary of the Navy (Republican John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

        <

        p>In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn’t work, Kerry did speak to the issue – and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here – all political junkies didn’t here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn’t think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was – I think less than 5 minutes long – so there is no excuse.
        http://www.kerryvision.net/200…
        click on little photo of the Senator.)

        <

        p>In 2004, there were no You tubes – if there were, getting this out could have been done. I hope the media will play fairer – but if they don’t, we need to help Obama.

        <

        p>3) The Pickens offer – You neglect to mention that Kerry did respond, but Perkins weaseled out and demanded more from Kerry – even though it had nothing to do with the original offer. Then a group of Kerry’s guys took up the offer, and offered to bring everything asked for – and Pickens weaseled again. Both Kerry and his guys said the money would go to a veterans’ organization.

        <

        p>4) In reality there are NO real open questions on Kerry’s service. He served, had glowing fitness reports, and the Navy gave him medals. But, I CAN see what you and EOR have something in common – and I’m disgusted.
         

      • Someone who thinks that Nixon hack John O’Neill has “questions” that deserve answers.

        <

        p>You have revealed yourself, Derrico, for the soulless hatchet blogger that you are, shilling for the Swift Boaters whose lies have been proven over and over again, just to score a few cheap points on a state political blog.

        <

        p>If this is the kind of BS Ed O’Reilly intends to pull in a debate, he will be vilified across the entire state of Massachusetts.

        <

        p>And really, Derrico — if you think you can win an argument on BLUE Mass Group on whether Kerry has adequately “answered” questions about his military service you are sorely mistaken.  He signed his 180, and it only showed that he got high performance evaluations from his superiors, some of whom joined the SBVT group for ideological reasons.  It is accepted conventional wisdom in most mainstream circles that the SBVT did Kerry wrong — that he was smeared with lies.  Yet you think there are questions that need to be cleared up.  How revealing, not of Kerry’s character, but your own.

        <

        p>Finally, you seem to have forgotten this:

        <

        p>

        In a previous interview with the Globe, O’Reilly also contended that issues raised by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth reflected poorly on Kerry’s character, although he said yesterday that after speaking with Kerry, he agreed to drop that issue.

        <

        p>Am I now to understand that that gentleman’s agreement is now null and void?  If so, we know how good Ed O’Reilly’s word is.

        <

        p>

      • Kerry wasn’t “bluffing” anything; the lies of the smear machine were debunked in 2004; but the media gave 150 times as much air time to the smears as they did to the truth. (Read Eric Boehlert’s book Lapdogs). Truth doesn’t sell advertising, controversy does.

        <

        p>It astounds me that Ed O’Reilly claims to be a Democrat but is willing to align himself with the smear merchants of the right wing to smear John Kerry’s honorable military service. That episode fully discredited O’Reilly with me. I think it’s ridiculous to ask Kerry to share a stage with someone so dishonorable. Anyone who would stoop so low as O’Reilly as shown he will, in my mind cannot be trusted in any position of responsibility. I certainly wouldn’t even vote for him for dogcatcher.

        <

        p>Now for you to suggest that Pickens boast to a conservative gathering (offering a bet which turned out itself to be a hoax), somehow meant that there actually were any open questions, is really ridiculous. (By the way, have you stopped beating your wife yet? – now wait for the calls for you to debunk that you ever beat your wife, because you know now that I’ve claimed it’s an open question…)

        <

        p>But ridiculous is just par for the course for the O’Reilly campaign, it seems. The only amazing thing is how much money he’s loaned his vanity campaign, and the only question is whether he really believes he got on the ballot by his own merits rather than disaffection with Kerry’s presidential endorsement and the unfortunate tendency of the left to aim loaded weapons at their own feet.

        <

        p>

  7. Sometimes things are crystal clear.

    <

    p>

    Ed O’Reilly got his signatures and his delegates, so he is a legitimate candidate in the Sept. 16 primary.

    <

    p>The party has spoken; that should be the bottom line. One debate is enough, I think, but not debating is unacceptable.

    • I’ll be voting for an individual running for Senator.  Who cares what the Democratic Party thinks?  All it cares about is the Democratic Party.

      • The convention — rank and file Democrats — put O’Reilly on the ballot. Therefore, John Kerry, being a good Democrat, ought to debate his challenger.

      • if you pull a Dem primary ballot, you’re voting on who will represent the Democrats on the ballot in November.  So who cares what the Democratic Party thinks?  Well, Bill Galvin for starters, since the person who the Democratic Party thinks should represent the Democrats will be on the ballot in November.

        • In September, when I pull the ballot, I will vote for the guy that I would like to be Senator (or against the one that I do not want to be Senator, as appropriate).  I will register with whatever political party I must to the extent required to do so.

  8. It’s hard to look at John Kerry sometimes and not think “this guy just doesn’t get it.”

    <

    p>I’ve worked on his campaigns many times. But he’s always been the sort of candidate you wish would do a little better on things.

    <

    p>This reminds me of the longtime rap that he doesn’t return phone calls, doesn’t do constituent service. He was supposedly doing better….before he ran for president. But after that he seems to have regressed. If you want to call an office that seems to care, you call Kennedy’s.

    <

    p>Kerry should debate and remind everyone who cares to tune in why he’s a better choice. Instead, he refuses and reminds people why he often falls short.

    • has poor service.

      <

      p>I’ve posted on it in the past.  They’ve directed me to appropriate committees and even called back to make sure I got helped.

    • If you want to call an office that seems to care, you call Kennedy’s.

      <

      p>That was my experience, the one time I asked for some Senatorial help. Kerry’s office told me why they couldn’t do anything. Kennedy’s did something. It didn’t solve my problem, but I appreciate the effort.  

  9. comment was a little jab by Kerry’s campaign, Peter Vickery left Ed O’s campaign and urged voters at the convention to vote for John Kerry.  

    <

    p>I wouldn’t get to crazy over the word “modalities”, nothing that I can see is wrong with discussing protocols and conditions for a debate.  I read it as a Herald thing, their way of saying…hey readers John Kerry uses fancy words.

    <

    p>Let’s get this debate done and hopefully Ed O doesn’t embarrass himself or the party a la Christy Mihos.  

  11. If you’d asked it done for the love of Mike, then I might have considered.  But now, I dunno…

  13. Instead of the campaign personnel back-and-forth and internet battles, the candidates should get on a stage together and debate issues. The coordination problem is quite easy to solve. O’Reilly will take what he can get.

    <

    p>Sen. Kerry is quoted as saying that ‘BMG is one of the most effective state-level blogs in the country’. Let’s see if he really meant that.  

        • if we did have a debate and the MA (and national?) blogs supplied the questions?  In person.  With media fanfare.

          <

          p>Since it’s a Dem debate, blogs like RMG need not apply, but folks like BMG, .00…08 acres, Rye, Lynne, et al certainly could.  It’s a spin on the YouTube stuff, but through blogs.

          <

          p>Of course, you don’t have much time to set it up at this point.  Perhaps you should start planning a 2010 governor debate?

  14. The intensity of concern amongst the political elites and junkies here (or at the big dailies) is not shared by the general public.  To most folks this race is a yawner.  It would be politically foolish for Kerry to do anything to raise his challenger’s profile.  

    • Simply debating your opponent at least once, even though it isn’t required, seems like a common courtesy that should be extended to both the opposing candidate and the voting public.

  15. to Ed O’Reilly ,  but owes it to us the voters to put himself out there in a debate format. Its only once every six years for Petes sake.  

  16. I view this entire EOR-Kerry debate thing the way I viewed my Army experiences back in the day.  Those things entailed getting up to be at formation at an ungodly hour, do a bunch of busy work/creative hiding, have a “lunch,” go back to busy work/creative hiding, get released.  Each night was like taking a break from a root canal and then going back for more the following morning.  

    <

    p>These diaries are like that.  Discover these gruesome diaries at an ungodly hour, witness a little busy work/creative truth-telling, have a better lunch, go back to BMG and find more busy work/creative truth-telling, log off.  Each night is like taking a break from a root canal and then going back for more the following morning.  

    <

    p>History doesn’t repeat itself, as MT said, but it does rhyme.  

  17. …. here’s a good discussion, from a book that focused on the Kerry-Weld election (Negative Campaigning: An Analysis of U.S. Senate Elections, by Richard R. Lau & Gerald M. Pomper (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). (Quotes below from p. 100) Google Books excerpt)

    <

    p>First,

    <

    p>

    … debates … inherently limit undesirable behavior. Being on stage together, candidates must take personal responsibility for their negative comments, anonymity is impossible, excesses are inhibited by the norms of face-to-face dialogue, and critical comments can be immediately refuted. Content analysis has shown that debates emphasize policy discussion rather than tactical or personal material, an aid to electoral judgment.

    <

    p>Second,

    <

    p>

    Structurally, debates also offer the great advantage of giving each candidate exactly the same amount of time, providing the electorate with equal access to in information — negative and positive — on each candidate.

    <

    p>(On this count, the confrontation between the candidates at the Nominating Convention cannot be considered a “debate” modality. One of the candidates was permitted to exceed the 15 minute per side limit by more than an hour.)

    <

    p>Third,

    <

    p>

    … [debates] might also encourage more relatively qualified opposition candidates to enter even “hopeless” races in one party states, promoting greater public awareness and, quite possibly, greater electoral competition.

    <

    p>The whole idea of free democracy is to engage in civil contestation. That is “debate” modality.

  18. A debate at this point would be a gift of free air time to a candidate who has done little to help himself or generate his own name recognition.  

    <

    p>Anyway, lots of folks who qualify for a space on a ballot don’t merit an opportunity to debate.  After all, there were 42 candidates who qualified for the 2008 presidential primaries in N.H.  How many got debate invites?

    <

    p>I read a lot of comments here that feed off of the self-righteous indignation of fellow posters.  Honestly, if anyone here is “sick” of this controversy, stop reading BMG.  The hissy fits, hand wringing and self-reinforcing outrage are confined to this space. It’s become an echo chamber.

    • A debate at this point would be a gift of free air time to a candidate who has done little to help himself or generate his own name recognition.

      <

      p>Check out his campaign schedule today:

      <

      p>Wednesday, August 20
      7:15am
      FOX TV 25 Boston
      11:00am
      Sheriff’ Ashe’s Annual Picnic Springfield/Agawam
      7:00pm
      Medford Democratic City Committee

      <

      p>

      Anyway, lots of folks who qualify for a space on a ballot don’t merit an opportunity to debate.  After all, there were 42 candidates who qualified for the 2008 presidential primaries in N.H.  How many got debate invites?

      <

      p>Did any of those candidates exceed a threshold criteria at the Party convention?

      <

      p>

      Honestly, if anyone here is “sick” of this controversy, stop reading BMG.  The hissy fits, hand wringing and self-reinforcing outrage are confined to this space. It’s become an echo chamber.

      <

      p>Perhaps you should stop reading the globe as well

      • The Globe is reflexive on debates; always calls for them.  It would be news if they didn’t.  

        <

        p>Anyway, the Globe’s tone does not mirror the histrionics, pleadings (or exclamation points) here.  To me, the strenuousness of the arguments in this space is more indicative of pro-O’Reilly sentiment than of some goo-goo love of debates.

        <

        p>Apples and oranges on your ballot point, by they way.  Qualification to get on the ballot differ by party, state and office sought.  Point is, qualifying for the ballot is not the only measure of debate worthiness.

        <

        p>As for O’Reilly’s schedule, all that shows me is that anyone who wants to learn about his views has the opportunity already.  Good citizens, he’s out there. Go find him!

        • This is NOT about whether Ed O’Reilly is entitled to a debate.  It’s about the voters being entitled to a debate.  We, the voters.  We deserve to hear the candidates debate the issues.  If Senator Kerry doesn’t debate – then he doesn’t deserve our vote.

        • Don’t you think the voters are entitled to a debate?  Never mind the candidates – don’t the voters deserve to make an informed decision with a debate or should they only be served up the cold canned beans we call political advertising?  Perhaps the reason we have an uneducated voting public is because the candidates have decided that it’s better to keep them that way.  

    • I agree that making the ballot doesn’t de facto make one entitled to a debate.

      <

      p>But the threshold to qualify to be on the Democratic ballot in MA is fairly high.  You need more than 10,000 signatures [from Dems*], and you need to get 15% of the folks at the MA Dem Convention to support you.  Honestly, I think there are lots of people in Massachusetts capable of doing what E’OR did to qualify, including getting that 15%.  But, E’OR did do it, and it isn’t a trivial accomplishment.

      <

      p>I think that since EO’R has earned a spot on the Democratic primary ballot that Democratic Massachusetts voters deserve a debate.  It doesn’t matter if EO’R deserves it… the Democratic voters deserve the debate.

      <

      p>

      <

      p> * can you use indies?  I suspect not, but am not sure.

Archives