Sunday, September 26, 2010

Why Is WISGOP Hiding Their Candidates?

Almost everyone, regardless of political views, agree that debates, real debates, between the candidates for any given office is important. The more debates, the better.

However, leading into this year's elections, the amount of debates are leaving a lot to be desired. This is not the fault of the Democrats. They have been asking for and challenging their Republican counterparts, but are being left without satisfaction.

In the U.S. Senate race, Feingold offered to debate six times, but Ron Johnson agreed to only three of them. Then again, the GOP has been very selective to what access they allow to their great hyped hope after he met with the TEA Party in Chippewa County and failed miserably. They are probably trying to avoid any further questions regarding RoJo about his defense of BP or his animosity towards sunspots.

In the race for Attorney General, Democrat Scott Hassett has been challenging J.B. Van Hollen to debates, but Van Hollen has refused all but one so far. Perhaps the GOP and Van Hollen aren't prepared to discuss why Van Hollen failed in collecting and keeping the DNA samples from Wisconsin's felons or why he thought it no big deal that Calumet County DA Kenneth Kratz was acting the sexual predator of women coming to him for help.

In the gubernatorial race, Tom Barrett challenged Scott Walker to seven debates. Walker accepted less than half of that. It's not like Walker hasn't debated before. He did a couple of dozen of them with Senator Lena Taylor when he was running for re-election in 2008 (even though he promised he wasn't going to). Then again, Walker, of all the candidates, has been the most active in avoiding answering questions or having to defend his record, either as county executive or state legislator. He could also be trying to avoid more devastation to his campaign like this clip from last Friday's debate.

Most noticeable by her absence is the GOP's nomination for Lt. Governor. I cannot find anything indicating that she has agreed to debate Tom Nelson in the few weeks remaining before the general election. Not only is she not debating, but she has a much diminished presence on Twitter, including a full two week gap between tweets. I know that she has been getting some flak for her controversial comments that her governor needs to be a "Christian man," apparently feeling that Jews or people of other religions or women are not qualified to be governor or for her extreme anti-homosexual posturing.

No one would buy a car without giving it at least a test drive. Most people even take any possible car to their mechanic for a good vetting and look up the cars history (if it's an used car) to make sure they aren't going to get stuck with a lemon. You also wouldn't agree to buy a car without seeing how it matches up to other cars. A person would compare prices, reliability and other concerns before making that decision.

Why does the GOP think that we would be less careful deciding who is going to represent us in Madison or Washington, D.C.? They are asking us to buy their candidates without seeing how they compare with other models or what their histories are. By the fact that they won't bring their candidates out to be compared and contrasted with their Democratic opponents, or when they do, it is very limited and controlled. Instead, the Republicans give us shiny pamphlets talking about all the nifty features they have, without letting you verify if any of it is true.

If a car salesman tried to pull that stunt with me, I would be walking off the lot without a car, in search of someone who treated me with more respect. I don't believe in buying cars, or voting for candidates, on an act of faith that they might be as good as the pamphlet says.

Reince Priebus needs to make his candidates available for debates, and lots of them, or we should steer clear of them.


  1. Debates are old fashioned. You don't need 4,5,6 or 7 debates to get your point across. With the Internet, commercials, media and other ways to get your point across, why do you need so many debates.
    On the other hand, if you get fights breaking out with audience members, like here in Nevada, then it may be interesting.

  2. The controlled settings of a commercial or a website do not allow for a good comparison. Only a debate, with the side by side comparison and contrast, can show who really is the better candidate.

    But who was hosting that debate in Nevada, Jerry Springer or Geraldo Rivera?

  3. I'm sure you must be equally beside yourself with Julie Lassa, since she's doing everything she can to avoid debates with Sean Duffy in anything but the most controlled environments. Three debates is the norm for U.S. Senate.

  4. I wouldn't want to meet Duffy either, with his history of violence.

  5. A debate with side by side comparison.. interesting.