There was a debate last night between gubernatorial candidates Scott Walker (R) and Tom Barrett (D), and there will soon be another debate between U.S. Senate candidates Ron Johnson (R) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D).
I’ve written here at Blogging Blue about my disappointment that candidates for elected office here in Wisconsin have shown a general unwillingness to debate each other, with Rebecca Kleefisch’s unwillingness to debate Tom Nelson in the Lt. Governor’s race as a perfect example, but I’d like to hear what you all think.
Are debates between candidates for elected office necessary, in your opinion(s), and why or why not?
The only people who don’t think debates are necessary are the low information voters aka most of the tea partiers. They refuse to have their world view threatened.
BTW, I wish Walker would quit telling people that he’d eliminate the state vacancies to save money…anyone who is in business knows that the reason the people haven’t been hired is because THERE IS NO MONEY in the budget to do so. And even though Barrett pointed it out as voodoo, I still don’t think people get it.
I agree. I think Barrett should have done a better job explaining this point. I don’t like the format of these debates. I want the candidates to debate back and forth when they feel like the other isn’t telling the truth. I understand why they are taking turns (politely) but I like the more aggressive style of debating.
Also…I wish they weren’t sitting…the way the table was set up and the way they seated the candidates…Walker was at an advantage in regards to the way it looked on the TV. It would be better to have them standing at a podium. IMO… 🙂
I think that anyone who is on the ballot, technically has a chance to win, and that there should be ONE mandatory debate between all of the candidates on the ballot. if you do not agree you should not be on the ballot. I think rob taylor should be in the feingold/johnson debates. I think nader should of been in the gore/bush debates. I know the two major parties get together to freeze the minor parties out of the debates, but if they went to the trouble of getting on the ballot they should be allowed in one debate. I also think the major race debates should be put on primetime on all major networks.
LOL…I was just remembering the Gore/Bush debate where Bush walked up to Gore like he was going to smack him or something. OMG…cracked me up!!
Or was it Gore walking up to Bush…? Either way it was funny!
If you are at the top of the ballot, it should be a requirement to be in multiple debates/ forums at multiple sites in the voting constituency. If you duck it, it speaks volumes about your lack of acuity, and you can’t be in office.
And you certainly should have to face the masses with unscripted public appearances open to the public. When you see Johnson and Kleefisch ducking any possibility of telling people what they REALLY think, it tells you they are not ready for serious office, and should be eliminated from serious consideration by anyone who cares. Unfortunately, a lot of baggers really don’t care, they just want to wave pom-poms for their team.
I think…Barrett missed a lot of opportunities to expose Walker and Kleefisch last night. I was just about to yell at my TV. One of the last questions…about social issues…was a perfect time for Barrett to bring up the tragic and unacceptable way Walker treated the vulnerable citizens with mental health issues. Argh!! Why hasn’t Barrett talked about the MHC?? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
I am a fan of debates. Tom Barrett wouldn’t debate me in the primary for obvious reasons. I love the idea of open-air debates where the candidates would stand on tree stumps, without artificial voice amplifiers, answering questions from audience members. Of course, we’d have to find a way to keep candidates from being accosted by fanatics.
I am a fan of debates honestly, I think all the people should be required to debates, have it on air, radio, or whatever and be given to the public. Republican, Independent, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, or whatever. Honestly, I wish there was less campaign money, less commercials, maybe the signs and a time to to hear the issues. I don’t mean a debate like – no rebuttals, but one along the lines of what we saw in Oshkosh – that style is exciting of debates is exciting to me.
As for my thoughts? Everyone who watched Feingold vs. Johnson, unless they are extremely in denial I think will agree that Feingold won that. Barrett vs. Walker, I’m not particularly sure. Walker was slick and smooth, he was good at avoiding the topics, fancy wording, sounding nice but he did slip up one point.
Stem Cell Research. I remember the commentary of the old man from the Green Bay Station that stated something along the lines of “Maybe if Politicians were not busy dragging their feet, my wife would still be alive from blood leukemia.” in a rather gravely voice. The way Scott Walker couldn’t properly reply for once, was actually interesting.
I think, only because of this? Barrett in my opinion won. But Barrett could have easily got Scott in other ways, by saying Tommy Thompson did put us into debt and irresponsibly dropped that money onto Scott McCallum – $3.2 billion deficit. Scott Walker had a lot of holes in his logic, but as I said before he is a smooth operator, so I will give him that.
WAUSAU
Not Oshkosh. What am I thinking.
Wait. I know what I’m thinking. I wishing there was a debate in Oshkosh. 🙁 Northeastern Wisconsin Represent.
I was wishing.
Yeah. Preview button would be awesome.
tim John- I agree that Barrett should have debated with you. Sure, Tom was going to win the priamry, but it gets the names and issues out there, and you had a few views that deserved to be heard and possibly adopted by the Dems. Politics as an exclusive club is something that causes a lot of others to turn off, or be suckered in by cynical talk radio that fills the void that isn’t being mentioned.