Welcome To CT

My Left Nutmeg

A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

helphaiti

Donate to CT Dems
Enable ActBlue
for CT Races		 $
John Larson
(1st CD)		 $
Joe Courtney
(2nd CD)		 $
Rosa DeLauro
(3rd CD)		 $
Jim Himes
(4th CD)		 $
Chris Murphy
(5th CD)		 $
Ads on My Left Nutmeg
 
 

 
Contact Info
To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

My Left Nutmeg

Ned Lamont Takes a Pass on New London Debate

by: Matt Zagaja

Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 22:35:24 PM EDT


(To say that I'm disappointed in Lamont's move would be an understatement. - promoted by ctblogger)

When I wrote my post about substance marking the gubernatorial campaign I guess I forgot to knock on wood. One of the things I most enjoy about these campaigns are the debates. Getting to see two candidates go face to face matching wits and intelligence. Though some argue that debates are too often press conferences and talking points, they also give us a chance to see how candidates might react to the unexpected. It is also an opportunity for candidates to really lay out and contrast their plans and policy to average voters that are not always paying as much attention to the issues as the process.

So I was rather disappointed to find out Ned Lamont is skipping the traditional New London debate thus leaving us without one this cycle. Now this is not just some avoidance of Dan's debate challenge by Lamont. I remember going to New London for the debate in 2006 (back when it was Malloy v. DeStefano) and getting to see not just the debate but the huge number of supporters that turned out before the debate to support their candidates. I thought it was a great rallying tool for both campaigns, so I don't see why Ned Lamont doesn't want to debate.

However I can come-up with one idea. After the last debate Bob Englehart published this cartoon to describe the outcome:

So maybe Ned Lamont is afraid he won't do so well against Dan Malloy again? Is he concerned that his momentum is waining? If Ned won't debate Dan anymore, will he still have the courage to debate Foley in the fall, or will we just be watching TV commercials constantly?

That being said, I think it's too bad they cancelled it. I think they should "hold" it anyways and if Lamont doesn't show-up they could just have Dan take questions from the audience and YouTube town hall style.  
Matt Zagaja :: Ned Lamont Takes a Pass on New London Debate
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Ned Lamont Takes a Pass on New London Debate | 61 comments
Are you for real? (3.00 / 1)
What do you think you're going to learn at debate #20 that you didn't learn at debates 1-19?

There's nothing that has less to do with substantive policy than the debates.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

There has only been one debate (4.00 / 1)
Between just Dan and Ned, where they actually can debate each other and not just read rehearsed talking points.

Also, there are still a ton of undecideds. The most  important debates are when that happen closer to the election.  

[ Parent ]
Whoops, sorry (4.00 / 1)
About the typo's.

Between just Dan and Ned, where they actually can debate each other and not just read rehearsed talking points.
Also, there are still a ton of undecideds. The most  important debates are the ones that happen closer to the election when more people (and press) are likely to be paying attention.

This would also be the second one airing on prime time network TV.  

[ Parent ]
but wait (0.00 / 0)
Did they not just read rehearsed talking points?  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
I strongly disagree (4.00 / 3)
In the first debate they managed to touch on many substantive policy issues ranging from cutting government spending, creating jobs, the death penalty, and the CEP. I will be frank, I love debates and while maybe junkies like me might not learn a lot of new stuff, I think they're important to highlight the issues especially when the primary hasn't been on the minds of many voters yet. I think that as the election draws closer more people are paying attention and this gives a chance for those who are finally tuning in to see the candidates talk about the issues.  

Blog | Twitter
[ Parent ]
whatever (2.50 / 4)
There's no information presented in a debate that isn't released on the websites, in the mail pieces, or in the TV ads.

Let me get this straight, though. You are saying that there's some large number of people who are a) primary voters, b) totally uncommitted to any candidate, c) desperately seeking factual information on issues, d) not motivated enough to pursue the factual information on the web or via the materials delivered to their mailboxes, but at the same time e) are motivated enough to sit through sixty minutes of the worst television available anywhere on the entire broadcast spectrum to hear scripted, stripped-of-details answers from a couple of practically identical politicians, AND f) tragically missed the two (or more) earlier televised Democratic primary debates.

I think that's crazy. People who want information are able to get in many forms that are more convenient, detailed, and efficient than a long-form question and answer session (which, as hosted by Mark Davis, is more or less guaranteed to cover the most thoroughly-trodden ground imaginable.)

Meanwhile, we're treated to not one but two posts about the tragedy of the Gubernatorial candidates not doing a specific debate in New London, while the Lieutenant Governor candidates haven't debated (and will not debate, televised or not, based on the absolute refusal of one of them to appear on a stage with the other even when they're at the same location at the same time) and, since Candidate X is on the ticket these stalwart defenders of the right to debate happen to support, we hear nothing at all. Excuse me, but:



–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
Last Q poll said: (4.00 / 1)
That there is a staggering 46% undecided.  
[ Parent ]
see (a) (0.00 / 0)


–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
So if that's the case... (4.00 / 1)
Why doesn't Ned just stop campaigning? Clearly there is no one left to convince. Guess he can just save his money and time for the general.  
[ Parent ]
Campaigns are not debate marathons (0.00 / 0)
There are other ways, some more efficient, than standing on a stage in a debate.  And Ned has been touring the state since the beginning of this year attending many forums both in and out of DTC's.  He hasn't been a turtle living in a shell.
[ Parent ]
A Green Party view of "debate" (0.00 / 0)
If only we can get on a stage with our opponents, we'll win!

In reality, debate takes many forms. Dueling position papers. We're witnessing a debate about NIMBY siting issues vs efficiency in clean energy investment, with the campaigns offering their ideas and the media moderating and shaping the discussion in a meaningful way. There are letters to the editor and blog posts. And all of those offer benefits to the public's understanding that the dog and pony show doesn't.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
??? (0.00 / 0)
Man, I should do a frontpage series on logic.

There are many undermotivated voters who can be reached directly, and many decided voters who can be mobilized. What's ridiculous is to assume that there's a great number of people who didn't care about the race enough to glean any factual information about it from any other source, but will consciously tune in to a debate to get a subset of that information in the most inefficient manner possible.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
Inefficient? (4.00 / 4)
Is there any way at all Ned will be able to reach as many people that night as he would with the debate?

And what about people who are reading about the debate, but actually want to see the candidates discuss the issues?  

Heck, IGNORE the ratings, lets just talk about the fact that there would have been 1500 people in the audience that night. What are the chances that Ned is going be able to have any event that will get 1500 people at an event to speak to directly about the issues.

I think calling the debates inefficient, as compared to websites written by campaign managers and thirty second ads on television is pretty ridiculous.  

[ Parent ]
read a transcript sometime (4.00 / 1)
Not only will you be astounded at how little you learned, but when you think that it would have taken an hour or more to get that information in its original form you will be truly alarmed. There's a reason Western Union shut down their telegram service.

I interviewed Ned about the IAC a while ago (people were much less interested in that than this kind of trivia, which brings out all this crying), and was thinking about posting the audio. But then, I realized that it would take about 1/5 the time to read than to listen to, and that audio would not be searchable or excerpt-able or forward-able in the same way. Even though it would have taken much less time for me to upload it than to transcribe it, it would have (imo) disrespected the audience to make them get it in that form.

What you lose in dramatic pauses and background noise you gain in wider dissemination and more thorough comprehension. And, for those people that read it, eight minutes of time that you can use to live your life or whatever that you would have lost with no corresponding benefit if I had only posted the audio.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
Good Lord, (0.00 / 0)
You think there would be undecided voters in the audience at that debate? It would be nothing but partisan political supporters for a candidate. Political theater, nothing more.

Isn't this particular debate with the Democrat candidates AND the Republican candidates (According to the story at CT News Junkie, it is: http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ct...  )? So there would be five candidates on stage, severely limiting any one candidate's time to get their positions out. But why put the Republicans and the Democrats on stage for a PRIMARY debate, anyway, when we don't have open primaries? I couldn't care less what the three Republican candidates have to say, and couldn't vote for one of them in August even if I wanted to, so why would I watch? Seems like it would be a waste of time to me--for candidates and viewers alike.  

[ Parent ]
Whoops (0.00 / 0)
Just noticed that the Republican debate is the next night. My bad.  
[ Parent ]
different take (0.00 / 0)
What do you think I mean by "efficiency"?

If I got a 5-page jobs plan in the mail from each of the campaigns, there are a number of things about that which would be different than a live debate. Debates feature 1-2 minute responses, while of course written text can be much more thorough. Debates require people to plan in advance to see them, while mail is delivered to your house and can be read at your leisure. Debates highlight, well, Mark Davis' agenda, while direct mail demonstrates the candidate's agenda. Both feature candidates offering scripted talking points, though a debate illustrates on-your-feet thinking from the individual seeking the office while printed text offers a look at their management of their campaign team.

I think the latter is more meaningful in each of those examples, but efficiency is a different matter. Apart from commercials, fluff, and time consumed by a preening moderator, it still takes 4-5 times as long to deliver information by spoken word as it does by text.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
I'm not saying that we need to have mailings or debate (4.00 / 1)
Why can't we have both? They're two different types of information.  
[ Parent ]
You'll also notice (4.00 / 1)
That WTNH didn't even think highly enough of their own debate to pre-empt JEOPARDY and air it on their flagship station. Instead, they planned to air it on MyTV9.

Personally, I'm glad we'll be spared Mark Davis making the debate all about Mark Davis. (During the 2006 campaign Mark Davis was often rather contemptuous of Lamont, so that may have played into his campaign's decision-making process, too.)

[ Parent ]
Why give Malloy a free ad? (2.00 / 2)
Malloy wanted to turn this campaign into a debate marathon because he wouldn't have to spend his own funds to compete against Lamont.  But the NBC30 debate proves that most people could care less about debates.  This is not the 19th century any more.
this is so unlike Lamont- where does he get his advice from? (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Reflects badly on Ned (2.75 / 4)
I think it reflects terribly on Ned to back out of the New London debate. He skipped a couple of debates with Malloy in the past and I will willing to give him the benefit of the doubt--but the fact that he is skipping this debate really makes him look like he is afraid to face his opponent and present and defend his views in an open forum.

In 2006, Ned was begging Lieberman for debates and now he's avoiding them. Shame, shame, shame. It's a big loss for voters and I think primary voters will notice this and that this may cost Ned some votes. Reading a candidate's positions on their website isn't the same as watching a candidate present and defend his or her views on television and voters deserve to see debates.

As I said, my husband views himself as an independent voter and he thought Lamont was outmatched by Malloy in the last debate and I think the Lamont campaign realizes this as well, which is why they don't want to debate.

DeStefano debated Malloy and it's disappointing that Ned won't follow DeStefano's lead and step up to the debate.

Ned is a good candidate, but it seemed clear from the last debate, that Malloy is an even better candidate.  

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

I assume that you'll be splitting tickets then? (3.00 / 1)
Since Wyman will not accept even a single public debate?

I wish that the Malloy people would not be so disingenuous. Why pretend to care about debates when you've made up your mind? "Willing to give him the benefit of the doubt?" Baloney.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.00 / 1)
Wyman and Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton said they would be delighted to debate Glassman. Wyman went as far as to ask for 17 debates, just as Malloy did last month. Glassman said that's about two debates a week until the Aug. 10 primary.


[ Parent ]
Source (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
yes (4.00 / 1)
When Glassman said bring it on, Wyman backed down.

You are welcome to come to the Silver Star DFA in Norwalk this evening at 7, where Mary Glassman will be sitting through a 60 minute presentation and q&a with Wyman before doing her own, 60 minute presentation and q&a. The event is being conducted in this way at the insistence of Nancy Wyman, who refused to appear on stage simultaneously with Glassman.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
This is the first I've heard of this (0.00 / 0)
Matt, I hadn't heard this before - do you have any links or source?
[ Parent ]
Not on the web (0.00 / 0)
But in the last two DFA-grams (this one is from 7/4):

Democracy for America - Fairfield County presents:

State Comptroller Nancy Wyman (at 7:00 PM)
and
Simsbury First Selectman Mary Glassman (at 8:00 PM)

Democratic candidates for Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut*

7:00 PM on Wednesday, July 7th
Silver Star Diner in Norwalk
(exit 14 off of I-95)

It isn't often that Connecticut voters are presented with two excellent Democratic choices for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Both Nancy Wyman who is running with Dan Malloy and Mary Glassman who is running with Ned Lamont, have been outstanding legislators and each would bring a special talent and enthusiasm to the office of Lieutenant Governor. A difficult choice indeed!

I provided Hartwell with the same link that MBethel shared here (on 6/23), and he took it up with Martin Heft, but there was no movement on the issue.

Sadly, I got delayed at a different meeting and now can't make it to Norwalk on time. Oh well.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
Wyman will be debating Glassman on NPR (0.00 / 0)
via Where We Blog

On Monday, July 26th, from 9-10 a.m. we'll host a live debate between Lieutenant Governor candidates Mary Glassman and Nancy Wyman.  We won't have listener call-in, because we'll be sticking to more of a "debate" format, but if you have questions for the candidates, post them here - or email wherewelive@wnpr.org, tweet us @wherewelive, or leave them on our Facebook page. The program will also be taped by CT-N for future broadcast.  Kevin Rennie expects there to be a bit of heat in the exchange, and folks like The Bristol Press have begun to let people know it's happening.

Show listeners might recall that Glassman has some experience with this format - she took on Michael Fedele on Where We Live during the general election in 2006, when she was running with John DeStefano.  It was the only debate between Lt. Governor candidates that year.




Blog | Twitter
[ Parent ]
From the comments on that post (0.00 / 0)
They only agreed after the press releases went out on Thursday.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
Splitting hairs, maybe, (4.00 / 1)
but Ned never committed to the New London debate, so he didn't "back out" of it.

And need I point out that debates are performance, nothing more. One's ability to debate has no automatic correlation to one's ability to govern. I don't want the better candidate, I want the better man. And I won't make that distinction by watching a debate.

[ Parent ]
It's not like Ned doesn't like debates... (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
Lieberman only did 1 debate in the 2006 primary (0.00 / 0)
Ned has done more than that when you combine his candidate forums with the NBC30 debate.
[ Parent ]
actually, he did commit to the New London debate (3.25 / 4)
I confirmed this with the Malloy campaign--they said both campaigns were already negotiating the terms of the debate before Lamont canceled them. If you like, you can confirm this with the campaigns as well. In fact, the tickets to the debate were already printed. Also, previously, Lamont skipped not one but TWO debates he was scheduled to attend, one of them was at the law school and was canceled last minute.

So if Lamont maybe skipped one debate, I think this would be a non-issue--but skipping three debates reflects really badly on Ned.

You write:

One's ability to debate has no automatic correlation to one's ability to govern.

These debates don't always seem like "true debates" in the sense that the candidates rarely address each other directly. Rather, they respond to moderators off-the-cuff to questions that they did not pre-select. I do think debates are a good opportunity for voters to evaluate the knowledge and competence of the candidate. In the last debate, Malloy demonstrated an obviously superior knowledge of the state and how state and local government work. In some cases, Lamont didn't even directly answer the question. It looked bad--and it seems that is the real reason he's avoiding these debates. They expose that Malloy is more qualified for the job than Lamont. Again, this is NOT to say Lamont is unqualified--only that Malloy is better qualified.

Also, I do think how a candidate does in a debate with a primary opponent is predictor of how he or she might do in a debate with the opponent in the general election. Will Lamont back out of debates with Foley? Will he do badly in any debates scheduled with Foley?

I'm completely confident that Dan Malloy could kick Foley's ass in a debate--I don't have that same kind of confidence about Ned.

Bottom line is that debates are good for the candidate (they give candidate important practice in presenting and defending his or her views) and they are good for voters--and the kind of voters that matter most in primaries are exactly the kind of voters that watch debates.  

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

[ Parent ]
"committed" or "negotiating the terms"? (2.00 / 2)
Sort of like "created jobs" or "lost jobs". Who has the time to sort out the specifics?

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
I did ask the Lamont campaign about this debate a couple weeks ago (0.00 / 0)
and they told me that they had not committed to it.
[ Parent ]
semantics (0.00 / 0)
Well, they were negotiating the terms, tickets had been printed, and the Lamont team had given indication that they were serious about participating in the debate. Perhaps, they didn't see themselves as officially "committing" but many people were disappointed when Lamont decided not to participate. This particular debate is a high profile debate just before the election and both Democratic candidates traditionally participate. If DeStefano participated 4 years ago, why couldn't Lamont participate as well?

Yes, it's true that Ned and Dan have debated before but in many of the earlier debate, there were multiple candidates and each candidate only spoke for a very short time. Like the previous 2-candidate debate, this one would have given both Ned and Dan more time to speak and I think it's reasonable and appropriate to have a few more 2-candidate debates before the August primary. It's good practice for Ned for the general election and it would benefit voters. It's not enough for Ned to just address DTCs and other friendly audiences--he should demonstrate that he can present and defend his views in a public forum when he is challenged.  

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

[ Parent ]
Little to say (0.00 / 0)
on any of the posts here about either candidate's actual plans.  

Jobs?  
Transportation?  
Environment?

No opinion on whose plans are better, and why?

[ Parent ]
Are we really defending Ned's nonparticipation? (3.75 / 4)
While I haven't heard anything about Wyman refusing to debate Glassman - but if it is true - I would say shame on Nancy as well. I think it is beyond ridiculous to defend Lamont's decision not to have a debate.

I could have written everything on Ned's website for all anyone knows - so don't say that combined with all of these tepid commercials provide us with all the information we need.

The fact is that most people will not be watching the debate or participating in the primary - or perhaps not even voting in November - does that mean we blow off all of this stuff?

Ned is one of just two Democratic candidates vying for the chance to take on the most difficult challenges a CT governor has ever faced. I would like to hear Ned and Dan clearly articulate their views and solutions spontaneously by providing at least semi-unrehearsed answers to unknown questions. This pales in comparison to the real challenges one of them will face when taking office in January.

People may not be at the Garde Theater or watch the debate on television - but the press will cover it and at least people will get a new set of soundbites to consider - and some new information would be better than none at all.  

I'd agree with you except that Ned has attended many debates and candidate forums (0.00 / 0)
since he began running for governor.  
[ Parent ]
What kind of world is this? (0.00 / 0)
Ned is one of just two Democratic candidates vying for the chance to take on the most difficult challenges a CT governor has ever faced. I would like to hear Ned and Dan clearly articulate their views and solutions spontaneously by providing at least semi-unrehearsed answers to unknown questions. This pales in comparison to the real challenges one of them will face when taking office in January.

Semi-unrehearsed? I'm guessing you haven't seen any of the debates, then.

This may be controversial to say, but I would suggest that the challenges the next governor will face will in no way resemble the experience of performing in a 60-minute debate, and that if job performance is your concern, watching a debate will provide you with little to no useful information to make a decision. On the rare occasion a Governor is called on to speak in front of an audience, their remarks are highly scripted and completely on a subject of their own choosing. And, while a refined speaking cadence is useful in delivering, say, the state of the state address, I think that it actually has very little to do with the overall success or failure of the Governor's agenda.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
hey al (1.00 / 2)
So is this whining or a righteously valid matter of substance? I am having trouble keeping up.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
I guess I really don't get it (3.83 / 6)
Obviously Ned thought debates were important when he challenged Lieberman to do so in 2006. I agree that debates are not the end all to be all in terms of measuring an individual's ability to be governor - but we do not really have many ways to get unfiltered, detailed, spontaneous answers from political candidates. So candidates should take EVERY opportunity to participate in such public forums as often as possible. I would be fine if Dan and Ned did something like the Norwalk event with Nancy and Mary - where they individually made presentations and took an hour of Q and A - it is disingenuous to say that Ned already participated in a bunch of debates so now he doesn't need to - many of these feature six other candidates and each person perhaps had 10 minutes of time for their answers. I understand many people support Ned and I like many of his ideas and believe he really wants to help our state - but even if I was an unabashed supporter of his - I would be disappointed by this decision - even if it is good campaign strategy.  
[ Parent ]
enough is enough... (4.00 / 1)
I understand many people support Ned and I like many of his ideas and believe he really wants to help our state - but even if I was an unabashed supporter of his - I would be disappointed by this decision - even if it is good campaign strategy.

I'm sorry, but what do you want? A competent governor elected come November, or good political theater to make yourself feel better about the process? This is not a game - this election will decide the fate of this state for years to come. We need MORE good campaign strategy - NOT LESS. Aren't you tired of Republican governors?

I think most people here would agree Foley or any of the other opposition candidates would be a disaster for Connecticut. That being the case we need to STOP tearing down Ned and Dan - one of them will be our candidate and it's vital that they win this election.

[ Parent ]
Wow! (2.60 / 5)
An actual reply instead of a hit and run "1" rating.  
[ Parent ]
Political Theatre (4.00 / 1)
Good political theatre is an appeal to bias, for or against.

It's a High School popularity contest. My team, right or wrong.

Policy is this year's prêté porte, ready to wear.

All of it might seem disingenuous and callow however it is all about appealing for votes. And then getting the votes.

When Democrats come out to vote, Democrats win. If you get the feeling that some Democrats are only going to vote for their guy and if their guy doesn't get the nod then they're going to sit on their hands then yeah, we could be looking at another four years of a Rowland/Rell/Lieberman/Simmons/Johnson/Shays varient.

I'm voting Democratic in November. Straight ticket, top to bottom.  

[ Parent ]
Another debate about debates. This is what we live for. (4.00 / 4)
As of this writing, the two diaries about Ned's decision not to participate in the New London debate have a total of 43 comments.

Here's the amount of participation (by number of comments) on these CT-Gov-related diaries and posts on MLN since last Wednesday:

LIVE VIDEO STREAM: Dan Malloy environmental plan press conference - 8
Stamford Jobs In Context: Graphs n Stuff - 3
CEP Grants: What's Up? - 4
Lamont Talks Transportation - 5
Transparency & CT Government - 5
Substance Marks Gubernatorial Campaign - 1

That's 26 comments by MLN community members on six diaries that pertain to (or merely mention) issues the state is facing.

If pressed to calculate a "gubernatorial fluff index," (where every comment on a non-issues-related diary like this is worth -2 points, and every comment on a CT-Gov issues diary is worth 1 point) the MLN community would get a -60 as of this writing (which becomes -62 when I post this comment!).  That's OFF THE MOTHER-FLUFFIN' CHARTS!

Joking aside, I fail to see how this is productive.  If we really thought that issues were more important than candidates, we'd be talking about the issues.  There's practically no daylight between Ned's and Dan's stated positions on the issues, so we could decide what issues were most important to us and pressure the winner toward accepting our positions.  

I actually don't think we care as much about issues as we say we do.  We've (for the most part) taken sides in this primary, and we want our guy to win.  As such, I'm going to try to stop pretending I'm somehow above that.  Who's with me?

|Spazeboy.net|Spazeboy's Guide to Political Videoblogging|

I am with Spaz Boy (0.00 / 0)
Here here - mister - but I still think Ned should debate (sorry I couldn't help myself - I love me a good debate).  
[ Parent ]
MLN: (0.00 / 0)
"Bringing Comic Books to the Critical Theory Book Club since 2005"

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
I Prefer the term "Graphic Novels" (4.00 / 1)
Berke Breathed won a Pulitzer for Bloom County.
Garry Trudeau won a Pulitzer for Doonesbury.
Alan Moore is a genius. Should I go on about Joe Sacco, Will Eisner, Art Spiegel, Ted Rall, Tom Tomorrow, Yoshiro Tatsumi or dozens more great artists?

In the same way your analogy fails, Malloy is a better candidate. Ned's refusal to debate three times speaks volumes. Ned's deer in the headlights look from the Lieberman challenge remains.

Malloy has the chutzpah to confront big issues, as he, for example, has discussed ending the drug war, something which Ned has shied away from (call me a one horse/issue man, I don't care - weed is a source of revenue, and Connecticut needs to be the first on the East Coast to do it).

Even Chris Powell sees the difference between the two:

"That is, Malloy has a clue, and if the party's primary voters find out and play to type, he'll probably lose again."

[ Parent ]
My analogy was a gentle joke (0.00 / 0)
I think Beau's point about having aspirations for substance that aren't borne out by reality is a good and valid one.

Though you seem to be earnest in focusing on the 3 debates a candidate didn't do instead of the 26 (or more) that he did do. How many more debates is enough? If they had made it to 30 before Ned said "look, I have some other things to do" would you say that was fine? Would it have to be 35? 40?

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
Guess Ken is one of those humorless progressives (0.00 / 0)
so he didn't get your joke.
[ Parent ]
Chris Powell? (0.00 / 0)
Not sure I'd want to follow Chris Powell's lead but I get your overall point.  Ned's campaign this time is being "professionally " run and thus has a much more cautious and tentative feel than it did when we "amateurs" were more in charge four years ago. Of course, the "nattering nabobs of negativism" say that's why Joe beat us in the general, that we didn't know how to win anything but the primary.  We'll see if things work out better this time.
[ Parent ]
Iraq (0.00 / 0)
It also helped that we had one great unifying issue four years ago.
[ Parent ]
Iraq (0.00 / 0)
It also helped that we had one great unifying issue four years ago.
[ Parent ]
sorry (0.00 / 0)
heavy fingers this morning
[ Parent ]
Reaction from the Media (4.00 / 1)
Some interesting reaction from the media.

Keith Burris has an editorial:

Almost all the major candidates for governor have visited the Journal Inquirer in this election cycle. All of them, in both parties, have had some kind of concrete approach to the job of governor and the problems that must be faced. Rudy Marconi, whom we did not see, wanted to raise money by bringing tolls back to the highways of the state. Lamont is against that, and he may be right, but he has not a single idea that specific. Indeed, with the exception of Lieberman, visiting after the outbreak of the Iraq war - and before he was for it - I have never heard a politician say so little while using so many words in a span of 60 minutes.

Now Lamont has become Lieberman. An independent. A man above party. Or is he Lowell P. Weicker: "Nobody's man but yours"? Or Scott Brown?

Lieberman became Weicker, his nemesis. And Lamont has now become Lieberman - a candidate without form or substance.

But why? What's it all about? Why is Ned Lamont running for governor?

And how is it possible that after one year running Lamont appears so utterly unprepared for the job he seeks?

This week Lamont opted out of the New London Day debate at the Guard Theater, an important and traditional event in Connecticut elections.

Lamont admitted at the JI interview Thursday that he does not intend to debate Dan Malloy again before primary day Aug. 10. Ned Lamont! The man who wanted a weekly debate with Joe Lieberman and called Lieberman out for hiding from the people and the press. Why debate when you are sitting on a lead? Why talk specifics when you can deliver glittering generalities? Why engage the issues when you can broadcast blather into people's homes and hope that familiarity and gratitude will get you nominated to be governor?

Well, I am grateful too. I like and admire Ned Lamont. But there is no evidence he is ready to be governor. Least of all from him.

The Courant has this to say:

He says he's already had more than 25 joint appearances with Mr. Malloy, the Democrats' convention-endorsed candidate, and would rather spend the rest of the time before the Aug. 10 primary talking to voters directly on the campaign trail.

Mr. Lamont's decision cheats voters of potentially instructive exchanges between leading candidates for governor.

Joint appearances and other multi-candidate forums are not the same as a one-on-one debate televised live.

That's what the July 27 affair at the 1,500-seat Garde Arts Center in New London would have been. The debate sponsored by The Day of New London and Channel 8 is something of a tradition in Connecticut politics. The two campaigns reportedly had even done a run-through and other preparations before Mr. Lamont pulled the plug on his appearance Tuesday.

I think that the negative reaction is indicative of the fact that choosing to duck the debate was a very poor decision politically and it'd make more sense for Lamont to turn around on this.  

Blog | Twitter

The New London debate is only a traditional debate format for the General Election, not the primary (0.00 / 0)
Lieberman did not debate Lamont in 2006 primary in New London.  It was in a TV studio.  New London only became a debate site during the 2006 General Election.

Again our Media screws up local history.

[ Parent ]
It was definitely a primary debate (0.00 / 0)
Destefano debated Malloy in New London in 2006 during the primary. I was there, in the audience at the Garde. I'm sure I could find at least a few others that were as well because the theater was pretty full. Not to mention all the supporters that were sign waving outside beforehand.  

Blog | Twitter
[ Parent ]
Ned Lamont Takes a Pass on New London Debate | 61 comments
 
1 user(s) logged on.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Spotlight

Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.
(What is Spotlight?)


Search


   Advanced
My Left Nutmeg Feeds

Links


Connecticut's War Dead

Blogroll
Powered By
- SoapBlox

Connecticut Blogs
- Capitol Watch
- Colin McEnroe
- Connecticut2.com
- Connecticut Bob
- ConnecticutBlog
- CT Blue Blog
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CT Smart Growth
- CT Voices for Civil Justice
- CT Voters Count
- CT Weblogs
- CT Working Families Party
- CT Young Dems
- Cool Justice Report
- Democracy for CT
- Drinking Liberally (New Milford)
- East Haven Politics
- Emboldened
- Hat City Blog (Danbury)
- The Laurel
- LieberWatch
- NB Politicus (New Britain)
- New Haven Independent
- Nutmeg Grater
- Only In Bridgeport
- Political Capitol (Brian Lockhart)
- A Public Defender
- Rep. David McCluskey
- Rep. Tim O'Brien
- State Sen. Gary Lebeau
- Saramerica
- Stamford Talk
- Spazeboy
- The 40 Year Plan
- The Trough (Ted Mann: New London Day)
- Undercurrents (Hartford IMC)
- Wesleying
- Yale Democrats

CT Sites
- Clean Up CT
- CT Citizen Action Group
- CT Democratic Party
- CT For Lieberman Party
- CT General Assembly
- CT Secretary of State
- CT-N (Connecticut Network)
- Healthcare4every1.org
- Judith Blei Government Relations
- Love Makes A Family CT

CT Candidates
- Chris Murphy for Senate
- Susan Bysiewicz for Senate

- William Tong for Senate


Other State Blogs
- Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin


More blogs about connecticut+politics.
Technorati Blog Finder


 
Powered By
MLN is powered by SoapBlox
 
Powered by: SoapBlox