Kilgore Skips Gubernatorial Debate At GMU
Republican Candidate Refuses To Debate Independent Candidate
September 30, 2005FAIRFAX, Va. — Two of Virginia’s three candidates for governor met for a debate at George Mason University Friday, but it was the man who wasn’t there, Republican Jerry Kilgore, who drew most of the fire.
Former Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore’s absence is part of his campaign’s strategy. He has refused to enter a debate with Republican Russ Potts — who is running as an independent — until Potts reaches 15 percent in the polls.Debate sponsors left an empty podium on the stage anyway, alongside Potts and Democratic candidate Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine. It didn’t take them long to pounce on their missing opponent, News4 reported, especially when a panelist asked whether Kilgore’s absence made him a coward.
“Without a doubt he is,” Potts said. “This is a lack of leadership, a lack of character, and I predict to you it will cost Jerry Kilgore this election in November.”
Kaine agreed.
These stories just write themselves. The funny thing is that I’m not sure what’s more damaging to Kilgore — not showing up, or showing up.
That’s just pathetic. Two grown men showing up on a stage and petulantly whining to each other that their opponent is a coward for not debating on their outlandish terms. It’s a childish gesture to show up, even if your opponent has told you repeatedly that he’s not interested. (And don’t kid yourself that Potts is either’s opponent.)
“Well, I’m going to come anyway, even if you’re not. See if I care! My TV friends will help make fun of you. You’ll see!”
Hans, this is classic political theater. Throughout the history of the United States, debates have been held featuring just one candidate debating a podium. It’s effective. Why? Because while it might be pathetic to hold a one- (or two-) man debate, it’s much more pathetic to be too much of a weenie to show up and debate. If you don’t have the balls to debate, you shouldn’t be running for office. Period.
Kilgore’s stance on this, whether it’s helping or hurting him, is completely sound. Potts completely circumvented the primary process. If he had had either confidence in the merits of his ideas, or just the basic gumption it takes to be a political leader, he would have used the primary system to put his ideas to the test. He instead took a walk and is now trying to come in the side door post primary. I have no respect for anyone of either party who would do this. If Potts, who still claims to be a Republican, thought that his program had merit, he should not have avoided the primaries. If Kilgore treats him as an equal to Kaine, Kilgore essentially dumps on people like Fitch, Baril and Connaughton, who took on the system head-to-head. You guys can go ahead and have at Jerry on a range of issues – that’s what an election is all about. But on this particular point of ignoring Potts, Kilgore is absolutely correct. If something similar had happened in the Democratic Party, you all would feel the same way.
But, NoVA Scout, Potts isn’t the only guy in that debate. :) Kilgore has refused to debate Kaine time and time again, with or without Potts. Kilgore agreed to do just three debates, and that’s all he’s doing. Potts is a convenient foil for him, but Kilgore just plain won’t debate, Potts or no Potts.
If Kaine had had his way, we’d be looking forward to our 7th televised Kaine v Kilgore v (potts) debate on October 9.
Jerry W. Kilgore has promised the earth the moon and the stars in new project to friend and potential constituents and claims over and over that he’s the only one with a plan. Will he stand up and say how he’s gonna pay for it? no… he’ll let the voters decide. wtf?
Jerry W. Kilgore has said again and again that he’d criminalize a woman’s freedom to choose. In the case of rape or incest he even has the “cruel and hateful” position that abortions in those cases would be illegal if not reported within 7 days. When asked specifically whether he’d criminalize abortion, he was ridiculed and debunked when he dodged the issue. He took no stand and he was rightly pantsed in public for it.
He claimed there was no Deficit when the Warner-Kaine administration came in. Jim Gilmore left a $6Billion dollar DEFICIT. Again, Jerry W. Kilgore lies.
He claimed there was a connection between Al-qaeda and hispanic streetgangs, a claim debunked over and again by Commonwealths attorneys and the FBI.
Now when a guy won’t face you in public, won’t answer a question when you ask it, says that he “owes you nothin”, but is fully content to lie to you again and again, do you really want a guy like that as your Governor?
How many times does Jerry W. Kilgore have to lie to your face before you stop pretending to respect him?
His weakness isn’t just weakness of spirit, it’s weakness of character.
The job of Governor is too big for Jerry W. Kilgore, but it’ll fit Tim Kaine just right.
Waldo: You’re right that I was focussing on the Potts/Kilgore component of the debate issue, not the Kaine/Kilgore side. All I can say about the latter is that each candidate and his team have to make a complicated decision about debates relatively early on. I’m sure the calculus on the Kilgore side was that Kilgore appeared to start the race with an advantage, Kaine is good on his feet, why let Kaine have repeated opportunities to go up against a front-runner. The time is better used doing other things. I don’t think there’s any harm in that. I also question whether more debates are better than fewer debates, especially given the serial press conference format that has become de rigeur. Three “debates” probably is enough for folks to get the lay of the land on these guys. My abstract preference would be for there to be a series of Lincoln-Douglas type debates around the Commonwealth, in all the regions, with each debate having a designated subject. The moderator would only watch the clock and ensure adherence to very basic rules of procedure.
Josh is exactly right. That’s what we’d have.
Seven is too many. Did the presidential campaign have seven debates? No. They had three, just like this gubernatorial race and just like the political norm. Kilgore is absolutely right in not giving in to Kaine’s attempt to change the norm in order to exploit his superior debating skill.
Furthermore, its hard enough to get people to watch three debates, much less seven!
Oh, and btw, even though I have poll support that is in the margin of error, I too want to be included in the debates. I think Kilgore and Kaine would be cowards to not include me and every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants to be included.
Gee, I don’t think people who want my vote should have a choice about who gets to ask them questions.
I’d like to see a random sampling of audience questions at every debate, and to even hire in professional debaters to make it tough. These guys want to run for governor – they should be able to state a clear vision, even under fire from a hostile audience. I’d like to see them all get hostile audiences.
We know Jerry’d wilt under the pressure… the question is are Potts or Kaine capeable of standing up to a hostile audience and even winning some of them over? I think they both can – but we don’t know yet because all the debates are somewhat lame and far too polite.
My abstract preference would be for there to be a series of Lincoln-Douglas type debates around the Commonwealth, in all the regions, with each debate having a designated subject.
Absolutely, NS — that would be fantastic.
Seven is too many. Did the presidential campaign have seven debates? No. They had three, just like this gubernatorial race and just like the political norm.
I sense a new campaign slogan. “Jerry Kilgore. Preserving the latest norm. Doing just enough to get by.”
Furthermore, its hard enough to get people to watch three debates, much less seven!
No, but we don’t want people to watch all of them. Just one. So broadcasting twice as many should do the trick nicely.
Yup. You’re right. All the TV stations can follow Wise TV’s example (which Brian Patton helpfully pointed out). In our mutually agreed context (“we don’t want people to watch all of them. Just one.”), it really doesn’t matter to the viewers whether it’s three debates broadcast seventy times apiece or seven debates broadcast thirty times apiece. Why change the status quo if it doesn’t matter to the viewers? Aren’t the debates meant to cater to the viewers?
I sense a new campaign slogan. “Jerry Kilgore. Preserving the latest norm. Doing just enough to get by.”
Wanting the status quo in one area hardly means a blanket love of the status quo. My point is this: It’s stupid to go and change the status quo when the only benefit is to boost your opponent. If Kilgore were that much of an idiot, I don’t think he’d have my support.
Furthermore, as the viewer interest is served equally well by having three debates or by having seven debates, methinks you stand on tenuous rhetorical ground to claim that you are motivated to change the status quo for non-partisan reasons. It seems to me that you seek a change in the status quo to the sole benefit of Tim Kaine.
Hans, it appears that we agree on this. :) I say there should be more debates, but the reason that there’s not is because Kilgore is a terrible debater. You agree that debates only benefit Kaine, which is why Kilgore has agreed to so few.
I believe our work here is done. :)
I don’t say there should be more debates. From what you said, that would be useless if viewers are only going to see one debate anyway.
Could you point me to a couple of examples of campaigns with more than three debates? All the campaigns I am familiar with only have had three.
Hans, what your argument with Waldo hasn’t taken in to account is that of the 3 debates only 1 is going to be widely broadcast at a time when people will be paying attention.
The first debate was in WEST VIRGINIA for crying out loud! Can you believe that? It was held at one of the swankest resorts in the world. Does this tell you anything about how much Jerry W. Kilgore wants to face his constituents?
The second debate was at the Fairfax CoC, and while broadcast, was held in the middle of a work day. Any Virginian who watched that debate and came away thinking highly of Jerry W. Kilgore could not be engaging in reality-based politics (or they were on opium).
So, there will be one debate. The two previous debates were for the benefit of us poli-junks.
Does that serve the public good? Is a Whopper Coke and Fries nutritionally balanced?
Your sentence is missing one word, which I have taken the liberty of adding. ^^
Josh, you insist on ignoring the fact that it doesn’t matter where and when the debate happens live. Take a look at your fellow liberal Virginian blogger. He noticed that the debate is being broadcast four times a day, every day ’til election day.
That isn’t true. The underlying principles (Thank God Jerry Kilgore holds some principles rather than holding the latest poll position) of a candidate are not changed by a lack of skill in the debate format.
And Waldo has said that’s all that’s necessary for a voter to see.
Hey Waldo, you don’t have a comments RSS feed, do ya? This is WordPress, so you should… (Hmm.. I guess I could go dig out the relative URL and try it here…) Could you post a link on the sidebar?
Hans,
You remember that one episode of the Apprentice where…
You remember that one time where the Redskins were down by 7 …
You remember…
No you don’t.
You know why? Because nobody in America remembers a damned thing anymore. All we care about is what’s happening today. Remember how the Press Corps was going to lynch Karl Rove a few weeks ago, but then the Whitehouse nominated John Roberts and Karl’s been off the front page. He’s no less guilty than he was before, nothings’ changed, but if it’s not a the top of the mental Archaeology, WE DON’T GIVE A DAMN!
Which brings us to why Jerry W. Kilgore is a coward. He doesn’t want anyone to actually consider his credentials, his presence, or his abilities when they vote in November. He’s just counting on the 33% of Virginians who consider themselves Conservatives to throw him a bone, since he’s been carrying water for the national GOP for the last 20 years, and he want’s to get enough “angry white men” angry enough to go to the polls becaue they don’t like anyone who doesn’t look or sound like them.
Tell me a principle that you believe Jerry W. Kilgore actually holds, and I’ll disabuse you of your sad and misguided illusion. (Please… Please… start with abortion.)
There’s no core to this candidate. Jerry W. Kilgore is a empty as a scarecrow.
WDBJ7 in Roanoke had a good time with the debate story as well.