New Haven Mayor John DeStefano is trying to get Rell out of the Rose Garden and get her in front of the voters in a one-on-one debate. So far, that has not worked.
DeStefano is so frustrated that he is even citing disgraced former Gov. John G. Rowland as a positive campaign role model for Rell, because Rowland went one-on-one with Democrat Barbara Kennelly in 1998 and did not include the minor-party candidates.
...
As part of the spirit of the state's landmark campaign finance reforms, the minor party candidates should be given a greater voice, Rell said.
"Why shouldn't they be a part of the debate?" Rell asked reporters this week. (Keating)
Both Rell and DeStefano have a point. Cliff Thornton (Green) and Joseph A. Zdonczyk (Concerned Citizens) qualified for the ballot, and should be part of at least one debate. DeStefano makes himself look even worse by trying to shut them out. The precedent mentioned in the article is Sen. Chris Dodd's four-way debates in 2004:
Rell cites the precedent of U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, who participated in two four-way debates in 2004 that included equal time for the Concerned Citizens and Libertarian Party nominees along with the chief Republican challenger, Jack Orchulli. Political insiders said Dodd's strategy worked because the debates became so diluted that Dodd skated to victory in a cakewalk against three virtual unknowns. (Keating)
Right, it was the debate that cost Orchulli the election. Got it.
But DeStefano is right that Rell is avoiding him. And why not? She can afford to. She has a ton of money and a huge lead. If he's lucky, she may actually speak his name sometime in October.
There are a lot of issues that need to be debated. Something like three debates in October would be great. DeStefano, however, should accept the minor candidates. He should welcome them, in fact. If his ideas are as powerful, innovative and necessary as he says, then that should come through no matter how many others are on stage with him.
Source
Keating, Christopher. "Debating Protocol For Debates." Hartford Courant 20 September, 2006.
24 comments:
Come on, Genghis...you know those debates cost Orchulli some momentum. Shoot, if not for Timm Knibbs and Len Rasch, we might be talking about Senator Orchulli.
Between this story and Alan Gold, Orchulli looks like a political titan.
Cue the "Orchulli!" guy/gal.
So, why didn't Gallo run Orchulli instead of Gold? They certainly would of had a better chance.
Is DeStefano going to attack Sen. Dodd? Where is that windbag of a state party chairman Nancy Dinardo? Is she going to say that Dodd was wrong? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, my friends, so it is either all or nothing JDS. Rell should stick by her guns and let JDS continue to flounder. This is great watching a losing campaign continue to sink.
Yeah, it's great to have a Do Nothing, Know Nothing governor.
Thornton is a crackpot who hates Democrats more than Republicans. Rell knows it and is simply using Cliff. Ijust hope some free therapy is included in the deal.
"bluecoat, that's a new low from you." Well said DR.
bluecoat, for those of us who read this blog regularly, we know that you have no love for Rell and have actively supported JDS in your posts last last several months. No problem.
What is surprising, however, is that you have stopped engaging in real debate. Much like truebluect and other partisans, you come on, make a comment and leave. The other day I asked you questions reagrding your post and you failed to answer them. What gives?
I'll try again.
Please explain how Dodd's status - elected by the people to be their Senator - versus Rell's status - elected by the people to be Lt. Gov. and then sworn in as Gov. under the provisions of our state constitution (by the way we are the constitution state)- provides a rational basis for concluding that in Dodd's re-election bid all candidates should be allowed to participate in the debates, but in Rell's they should not.
I would actually argue that in Rell's case - where there is no sitting elected Governor - there is a stronger argument for all to be invovled. But that's me.
The other candidates in this race for Governor stand the same chance of winning as Dodd's challengers. Similarly, JDS stands the same chance as Orchulli - basically none. So competitiveness can't be a rational basis for your argument. Other than your dislike for Rell, I would love to see your argument.
Dumb move by JDS. Sure, as a political question, he wants a one-on-one debate with Rell. But that's an inside fight. Taking it public makes him look like a jerk and gives Rell yet another opportunity to play snow white.
As for Rell, this line from the article made me laugh. "As part of the spirit of the state's landmark campaign finance reforms, the minor party candidates should be given a greater voice, Rell said." Sure. That would be the "spirit" of the law that set a tremendously high bar for third pary candidates to qualify for public financing? Take the analogy all the way and those guys should get to "participate" via phone, and be limited to only making opening and closing statements.
Leaving the cynicism aside, I agree with Rell on the substance. A candidate who qualifies for the ballot should be included in the debates. Period.
CTR said: "But it's also glaringly obvious that she can't match DeStefano one on one in ideas and leadership."
LMAO!
I guess the 60% of us who are voting for Rell are blinded and only the 32% of you who support JDS are able to see clearly.
I am sorry we can not all be as intelligent as you.
Echoing Grumpy, the spirit of the campaign finance laws was to make it almost financially impossible for small parties to compete. But apparently, they can be in the debate. If she is up 30.
Doesn't anyone else enjoy the fact that, when DeStefano had a lead in the primary polls, he went out of his way to dodge debates with Malloy, finally consenting to only one, and now that, in the general, he is trailing so overwhelmingly in the polls, he is crying foul that Rell is using the same tactic he used?
bluecoat, your first post on this topiuc at 9:12am was and I quote: "Dodd had been duly elected to his incumbent position. Jodi was put in place by her corrupt friend, John Rowland."
Putting aside your feelings of her as a Governor or your opinion of JDS (or anyone else for that matter) I am trying to understand why this distinction entitled Dodd to require that all candidates on the ballot participate in debates, yet it does not allow Rell to do the same.
Perhaps I misread the purpose of your post, but in the context of this topic and the posts before it, I can't read it any other way.
BTW, Rell was elected Lt. Gov. and most voters, I think, understand that the Lt. Gov. really is a ceremonial position called upon only in the event something happens to the Gov. But that is a digression and beyond the point here.
Democrats should unite in their call to force DeStefano to get off the dime, agree to the debates with anyone/everyone who wants to debate and GET HIS FACE OUT THERE any way he can-
Everyday that goes by without him out there in public statewide is another nail is his coffin-which is
pretty much nailed shut anyway-
How dumb can you be? Opportunity for huge FREE statewide coverage and you say NO because you don't like who stands on the stage with you....and this guy thinks he's going to be GOVERNOR??? Think again....
Actually, Gabe, Rell has also talked about the ballot access laws that have been passed into law. In CT, under the new law, anyone can run for office simply by getting the requisite number of signatures, whereas our old laws required the endorsement of delegates at a convention. The new law is a more open process. Rell feels that opening up debates is consistent with opening up the process.
I agree with you that the campaign finance law passed helps the major parties and hurts 3d party candidates. Just remember, though, that the Democrats in the legislature trumpeted this new law by saying, in part, that it would open up the process.
Looks like Lisa Moody was taken off the hot seat. This was DeStefano's only shot.
BTW, in debates with many candidates, the dynamic is such that the front runner gets attacked or criticized by everyone. Thus, Rell could be setting herself up to be attacked by 3 candidates not just 1. Also, being next to 2 out of the mainstream candidates may actually make JDS look moderate and within the mainstream.
JDS is making this such a big issue because he is so far behind in the polls and can't get any traction with any of his ideas.
As much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with what Rell saying. Every candidate on the ballot deserves an honest opportunity to debate. I hope Rell and Destefano can find a way to make this happen. We need a free exchange of ideas.
However, to have a free exchange of ideas, you need to have sufficient time for the ideas to be expressed. That is where Rell's rhetoric doesn't match her actions.
The number of debates should be a function of the number of candates, and that function really ought to be exponential, since the number of different dialogs grows exponentially as more people participate.
With four candidates, there probably ought to be sixteen debates. This gets unwieldy, so perhaps limiting it to around ten would make sense.
That is what Rell should do if she really believes that people should be given a greater voice.
Yet, if she really wants to limit it to two debates I have to seriously question whether she wants people to have a greater voice, or if she is simply afraid of Mayor DeStefano's voice and is doing everything she can to stifle it.
Anon. 11:37 - With all due respect, even with Lisa Moody on the "hot seat" JDS still loses. The Moody affair got plenty of news yet Rell's numbers did not suffer at all.
It's over folks! Move on to something else.
D_R - This isn't partisan for me. I am always in favor of minor parties being involved in debates. Any candidate that fights against it, I think is wrong. I include every candidate in that assesment.
Of course, when you are up, it is a good move to want everyone in, when you are down you want a one-on-one.
For the moment, thats not what I am talking about (and that goes for you too, Anon with the ballot access laws).
I am talking only about the campaign finance laws and what Rell said:
As part of the spirit of the state's landmark campaign finance reforms, the minor party candidates should be given a greater voice, Rell said.
The spirit of the campaign finance laws gives minor parties less of a voice by giving them hurdles that are almost impossible to overcome before allowing them to access public money. Thats why they filed suit against the law.
Gabe said: "The spirit of the campaign finance laws gives minor parties less of a voice by giving them hurdles that are almost impossible to overcome before allowing them to access public money."
On that point, Gabe, you and I are in complete agreement. I hope the lawsuit is successful too.
Nice that we can agree on something!
D_R - You will be retracting the "wouldn;t expect anyhting less than total partisan from you", right my friend?
I'm interested in hearing more from bluecoat about why he thinks Len Boyle is not competent to hold his position.
Gabe and Anon 11:36
I get the minor parties' beef with the hurdles in the campaign finance law, but I don't think they're that difficult. All it takes is roughly 1,500 signatures (depending on the district) and they can get $25,000 for a State Rep. race... more money than they see now.
The hardest hurdle for the average minor party candidate to clear is the one everyone has to clear: the qualifying total ($5K Rep to $250K, gov.) from small contributions ($100 or less).
So, even if the court strikes down the minor party hurdle, I imagine some minor party types might have problems with the basic qualifying rules. What then? Just have the state give money away?
Gabe,
You aren't really opining against campaign finance reform? Public financing of campaigns is as paramount to the left-wing as universal healhcare, and taking our guns.
Using you own issues for political gain demonstrates how truly partisan you are.
DeStefano, Rell Spar over Debate Format
Anon 12:58am -
You aren't really opining against campaign finance reform?
Clearly not. I (thought) I was pretty clear in that my comment was directed only towards the minor party hurdles in this particular legislation, not towards campaign finance in general, or even this legislation in general. More specifically, I was pointing out the absurdity of Gov. Rell's quote regarding minor parties.
Public financing of campaigns is as paramount to the left-wing as universal healhcare, and taking our guns.
I'm not interested in your guns.
Using you own issues for political gain demonstrates how truly partisan you are.
Above, I argued that minor parties should be included in the debates (exactly Gov. Rell's position) and that the campaign finance legislation unfairly raises barriers to minor party participation (the barriers help both major parties, but help the Democrats more as the Greens are more visible, known, and organized than are minor parties on the right).
How is that partisan? Unless you are accusing me of being a partisan Republican, which is laughable.
Your willful misreading of everything I wrote "demonstrates how truly partisan you are."
Post a Comment