Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Coakley dodging all but two debates, a major disappointment

By

The only televised debate was more than three weeks ago, on Oct. 26. There was one radio debate and two or three forums, but nothing head to head. A second televised debate has now been set for Dec. 1, but for just one hour.

[…]

And in a special election, there is little time for voters to get to know them. That may serve the interests of the Coakley campaign – the less unscripted exposure she has, the less chance there is for a major blunder. Coakley wants to protect her lead, not give face time to her challengers.

But it is not good for voters and it is not healthy for the electoral process. Debates are among the very few public events that cannot be entirely scripted or tightly controlled by the candidates. That is precisely what voters need to see. Just about anybody can look and sound good when reciting from a prepared text, having staff members issue press releases, issuing focus-group-tested position papers or glad-handing supporters at a fundraiser. It is only when they are being challenged by questions they haven’t seen in advance, or are challenging one another, that voters can see how they think on their feet, how they respond to pressure and how well they can defend their views.

Those qualities are important in a senator.

Editorial: Coakley should debate more, for voters’ sake

The Eagle-Tribune, November 18, 2009

(posted without comment)

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Two televised primary debates in a compressed campaign isn’t too bad, all told.  Of course those trailing want a daily debate, as it’s more opportunities for Coakley to slip up.

    <

    p>I think two televised debates in this time frame is fair; I still support Mike Capuano, but I can’t blame Coakley for taking the predictable and normal (if safe and undistinguished) route of minimally acceptable.

  2. You know how many debates I want in this race?

    <

    p>None. Zero. Nada. Nyet. Zilcho.

    <

    p>Debates are Political Theater of the Absurd and reveal nothing relevant about the candidate. The typical format (two-minute answer, one minute rebuttal) is stifling and useless. Even intelligent moderators are at their worst.

    <

    p>Bring back the League of Women Voters, or have no debates. They accomplish nothing. There are plenty of opportunities to learn about the candidates’ positions.

    <

    p>

    • Nobody learned anything about Bush in 2004?  Granted, many Americans already found him unimpressive and verbally challenged to the point of incoherence…but that first debate just confirmed it.  What about Palin in ’08?  Heck, the last debate was my first chance to see if Pagliuca can do anything other than pay for lots of ads.  Turns out…not really.

      <

      p>I’m agreed that when you have skilled politicians at the top of their game, it is theatre.  However, very often you have something less, and that is revealing.

        • However, this was the time when many casual voters learned that he was as bad as we’d been saying.  That Admiral Stockdale shouldn’t be let anywhere near real power.  That Shannon O’Brien couldn’t finesse the abortion question.  That Rick Lazio was a bully and had trouble with women in power.  That Al Franken actually knew a lot about policy and was a pretty smart guy.

          <

          p>Much of the time, debates are predictable and don’t move things.  Other times, they lead to key moments.

          • I’m tempted to argue that you already knew most of that, and that James Stockdale’s history-making performance was a mis-measure of the man. But I’ll concede your general point, there are occasional highlights.

            <

            p>I may repeat myself, but the only debates I enjoy are GOP presidential primary debates. Those are entertaining.

            <

            p>

            • I just wonder how many people don’t follow politics as devotedly as folks on BMG…but see a telltale in a debate (or news summaries of the debate).  Debates are probably more useful for those casual voters than the devoted types.

  3. Whatever my personal opposition to Coakley, it makes no political sense for her to agree to debate her opponents, or for that matter to give a damn about candidate questionnaires.

    <

    p>For good or ill:

    <

    p>

  4. Interest in the race is minimal among the general public, and it’s stupid for a frontrunner to mess up a sure thing.

    5. <

    p>

  5. Support for Coakey is solidifying, both among her core supporters; just as importantly, the bandwagon affect is increasing. (Example: a union official of my acquaintance justified his support of Coakley as follows: “She’s the only one really running for the job.”)

    6. <

    p>While the race is far from over, I have to give Coakley credit for managing expectations.

    • I think “a frontrunner strategy” is disastrous. The best thing Coakley got out of the whole Stupak-Pitts dustup with Capuano was that it showed her as being willing to fight.

      <

      p>You may be right about the bandwagon effect, but even the people on the bandwagon need to feel like their candidate has some fire.

      <

      p>If her “dodging” (to use Neil’s loaded word) becomes an issue, she should have an answer. She’s welcome to use mine, up above. :-!

      <

      p>

      • So it is a major disappointment to see Attorney General Martha Coakley, the leading Democrat in all the polls heading into the Dec. 8 primary election for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the passing of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, dodging all but two debates with her fellow Democratic candidates, Congressman Michael Capuano, Boston Celtics co-owner Steven Pagiluca and City Year co-founder Alan Khazei.

        • They had it in the text, you put it in the headline.

          <

          p>For the purposes of this diary, you own it.

          <

          p>

          • using then same word, “dodging” is quoting them.  I don’t disagree with their characterization but it is their characterization and I give it unequivocal attribution.  

            • Which of the following are you doing here?

              <

              p>a) Running from your rhetoric in this diary

              <

              p>b) Hiding from your rhetoric in this diary

              <

              p>c) Dodging your rhetoric in this diary

              <

              p>You don’t have to answer that. But it’s tedious, this tactic.

                • First you say I choose a loaded word and I say it’s not a word I chose.  

                  <

                  p>Then you say I outbid the Eagles-Tribune by putting it in the title and I argue that one would have to use a more loaded word to “outbid” them.  

                  <

                  p>Then you characterize the point of my post in one of three ways and I choose to characterize in a way not constricted to your three choices but a fourth.  

                  <

                  p>Then you imply I do not understand the meaning of “citation” and you choose to drop it becuase discussing would be pointless.  

                  <

                  p>I purposefully posted excerpts from this editorial and a link to it without comment in order to encourage a discussion of it on the merit.  You want to talk about my loaded words.  

                • The Eagle-Tribune used the word “dodging” in the running text. You elevated the term, without quotes, to the headline of your diary.

                  <

                  p>All of which is fine, but please, don’t get all righteous about your “without comment” mantra. You ARE commenting by shaping the material. That’s why I’m pushing you on this. And I don’t beleve for one second that you’re not aware of what you’re doing, so that’s why I called it tedious that you pretend otherwise.

                • not an accurate citation also not my word, their word.  the substance of the diary was posted without comment for the purpose I stated – to discuss it on the merit – and here we are arguing about one word.

      • You may be right about the bandwagon effect, but even the people on the bandwagon need to feel like their candidate has some fire.

        <

        p>It’s more a case of smoking embers versus unlit charcoal; supporting the presumed winner is not the same as emotional engagement.

        <

        p>What I see at present among the players is more dispassionate analysis than anything else.

  6. It’s not the case they are irrelevant to the job of a US Senator.  As far as I can tell, they tend to be pretty damn important, especially in times of crisis and in the face of obstructionism.  Did you see Kennedy argue for a increase in the minimum wage after months of procedural obstruction?  

    <

    p>If Martha’s got the goods, she should be willing to showcase them. She should be willing to defend her positions on the  issues under fire from her opponents.

    <

    p>Here are Martha’s credentials as a debater:

    “She excelled on the debate team, spending part of a summer at a debating institute at Georgetown University.  

    “She was one of those students who talked in paragraphs,” said Pecor {Drury High honors history class teacher}. “Oftentimes, students can give very short answers, but she was one who could explicate what she was talking about.” {When do we get to see this skill in action?}

    Class speaker at Boston University Law School graduation.

    {And argued Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts in the supreme court.}

    link

    <

    p>You have to ask, what is she afraid of? Her failure to debate is a failure to engage.  

    <

    p>I’m not willing to accept common wisdom that her campaign’s needs and priorities are more important that the voter’s interests.  

  7. I’m not happy about it. I think the outcome is bad for Massachusetts, bad for women, and bad for America. So what — it’s nearly Thanksgiving, the primary is less than three weeks away, and I see little room for movement in the polls.

    <

    p>I don’t think additional debates will change anything.

    <

    p>I’ve made up my mind, I think most primary voters are the same (whether they admit it publicly or not), and I think it’s time to move on.

    <

    p>Next issue?

    • …and in the background rises the spectre of Pagliuca. The following is from a campaign email:

      <

      p>

      Over the last few days, our campaign has talked with over 40,000 people who are likely to vote in the Democratic Primary on December 8th, and the results show a wide open race that will be decided by you in these last few weeks. Nearly one-half (46%) of the people we spoke with say they have not made up their mind about who they will support. Of the people who say they are supporting a candidate, over one-third (37%) say they are open to changing their mind before the primary on December 8th.

      <

      p>I have no access to tracking polling, so take this as informed speculation: This is more than campaign spin. It corresponds to what I’ve been hearing out there. In the absence of a systematic Capuano ground game, Pags has successfully presented himself as an alternative to both Coakley and Capuano:

      <

      p>

      Steve is the only candidate who has not wavered in support of health care reform. Both Martha Coakley and Mike Capuano have stated they would vote against the health care bill that passed the House recently, potentially killing our best chance at health care reform in 50 years and dealing President Obama a difficult blow on one of his top initiatives. In addition, both Patrick Kennedy and Ted Kennedy, Jr. have spoken publicly against the position taken by Coakley and Capuano, and have called for passage of the health care bill.

      In this race for Senator Kennedy’s seat, Steve Pagliuca has emerged as the only reliable vote for health care reform…

      <

      p>Given a contact universe as small as the probable primary turnout, anything can happen.

  9. This from the North Adams Transcript yesterday:

    <

    p>

    PITTSFIELD — The likelihood of the four Democratic candidates vying for the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat coming to Berkshire County to debate seems like a long shot as several candidates have recently hedged about their appearance.

    <

    p>

    But last week, two Boston-area television stations, Channel 5 and New England Cable News, announced debates scheduled for Dec. 2 and Dec. 4.

    Since then, Coakley and Capuano’s campaigns have either canceled or ceased communications with the sponsors of the local debate.

    <

    p>http://www.thetranscript.com/c…

    <

    p>Note Capuano has a debate strategy as well as Coakley. If you are “disappointed” in Coakley you must be disappointed in Capuano as well then. Right?

  10. Baldwin said he plans on visiting the campaign offices of each candidate in Boston on Friday for one last effort to make the debate happen.

    <

    p>The four candidates are debating Dec 2 in Newton on NECN but let’s pressure Coakley and Capuano go again on Dec 4.  

  11. joint appearances…whatever you want to call them. The call for more debates is just a desperation strategy by trailing candidates in the hope that Martha Coakley makes a mistake. And people should vote for Senator on the basis of one missed line in a scripted debate appearance? I am not electing the next actor for a TV mini-series…I do not care how well people memorize lines. I care about how they will act in office and Martha Cocakley has always impressed me.

  12. Coakley has announced that she is taking part in two more debates, for a total of three.  If the TV stations can’t manage two more that’s not her fault. Further,  the candidates have had frequent debates that have not been televised.  There have been some before community groups, local democratic committees, unions, on radio, etc.  That those are not televised is at least in part due to the unwillingness of the TV stations to give up the commercial time.  In any case, after the first debate I’m not sure they have much value–especially if we again get a moderator like Peter Meade, who does not know how to moderate.  

Archives