The Debate On The Debate - The Continuing Adventures of Craig "Cry Baby" Williams
Craig Williams seems be unsure of what, exactly, would be acceptable terms for a debate with Sestak.
One thing that caught my eye in the Daily Times article from September 23rd (see the 9/25 post on this blog) was the quote from Craig Williams' press release, saying that he was "greatly disappointed that Sestak’s rhetoric about campaigning on the issues in a free exchange of ideas will only last for two hours."
In the next day's Bulletin, however, he's quoted as complaining that, "the two-hour length could dissuade radio and television outlets from running the debate."
He doesn't like the timing, he thinks he's being given too much time to give his answers, he doesn't like the long time for opening and closing statements, and he was apparently in favor of a long debate time before he was against it? Unless, of course, he's not in control of his press communications and wasn't yet briefed on what his position was supposed to be. Considering that the rest of his campaign is based on boiler-plate Republican talking points, I wouldn't be surprised by that at all.
Personally, I think that he needs to spend his time complaining about the terms of the debate because he knows he won't be able to stand on the issues. I think he's afraid of the long answer times because the only thing he's capable of doing in depth is drilling for oil.
One thing that caught my eye in the Daily Times article from September 23rd (see the 9/25 post on this blog) was the quote from Craig Williams' press release, saying that he was "greatly disappointed that Sestak’s rhetoric about campaigning on the issues in a free exchange of ideas will only last for two hours."
In the next day's Bulletin, however, he's quoted as complaining that, "the two-hour length could dissuade radio and television outlets from running the debate."
He doesn't like the timing, he thinks he's being given too much time to give his answers, he doesn't like the long time for opening and closing statements, and he was apparently in favor of a long debate time before he was against it? Unless, of course, he's not in control of his press communications and wasn't yet briefed on what his position was supposed to be. Considering that the rest of his campaign is based on boiler-plate Republican talking points, I wouldn't be surprised by that at all.
Personally, I think that he needs to spend his time complaining about the terms of the debate because he knows he won't be able to stand on the issues. I think he's afraid of the long answer times because the only thing he's capable of doing in depth is drilling for oil.
posted by KickingDonkey at 12:04 PM
10 Comments:
Yes, Williams seems to be at odds with himself on many issues. Can you imagine when he has to figure out what socks to wear? My guess is that he often wears 2 different colors when he can't make up his mind.
While Williams is clearly offers nothing but a name so the GOP ballot isn't blank, there should be a better debate forum.
When Weldon was ahead and resisting debates that Sestak wanted, the Sestak camp complained.
Now, with Sestak enjoying the kind of name recognition (and even more money) that Weldon had, and Williams still unknown, Sestak is playing the same debate-game he railed against.
As it was, when Sestak and Weldon had debated, I heavily criticized the cowardly format that had the two debaters far apart (so they couldn't be seen in the same shot) and not interacting. I (and a few others) resisted the spin and called the debate the tepid, victor-less snoozefest that it was.
I think that the parties themselves should agree to a standard debate schedule that is mandatory upon the candidates, prior to the primaries.
I am confused in that I see no mention of Sestak's voting against his constituency at Monday's vote (would he have sent a 6 page email to everyone on his mailing list if there was overwhelming support for the bailout?). This is an issue that Craig Williams could use to his advantage.
Clearly, when he again votes in favor of this $700,000,000,000 bailout (now more with the tax cuts and earmarks), he is going to alienate the people of our district.
The only way he can salvage my vote is to vote against the bailout and save the US from repeating Japan's mistakes in the 90s. Otherwise, this Williams character gets my vote by default.
I think that there are sometime legitimate issues to be raised regarding the fairness of a debate format.
In this case, it seems to me that this is typical campaign spin. The fact that Williams complained about the debate being both too long and too short is telling. When you know you're gonna stink it up in a particular forum, the best campaign strategy is to question the validity of the forum, regardless of the merits of your accusations.
One thing about this is that the Delco GOP power brokers who shielded Weldon from debates for so long get a good taste of their own medicine.
Seventh Watch-
The debate is going to be held at Swarthmore College, as opposed to the GOP territory that gets picked by the GOP party/incumbents when they can run roughshod over the Dems. It's kind of funny watching them squawk for a change.
Of course, the debate (like the Weldon debate of 2 years ago) is being held in the late morning when many interested voters would be at work. Comcast will be airing debate. However, the format is supposed to be several minutes (possibly 4) for each person to answer. While it will allow for more depth, it will also probably be a giant snoozefest.
My suggestion: tape it and sell it to insomniacs.
I think Diano would even agree,Joe was terrible at the debate.
Speaking of Weldon, has he ever been brought down yet, with the accusations brought against him nearly 2 years ago?
what? no answer? its been two or so weeks and i still haven't heard an answer from you all if Weldon has been brought down yet on the accusations charged against him nearly 2 years ago.
No he hasn't been brought down, and he never will you know why? Because there is nothing to bring him down for. You can thank the string pulling, behind the scenes actions of Sestak's biggest fan, the Clintons for his loss in the 2006 election. The pathetic thing is that all of you people still write about it as if he is such a criminal and was so corrupt. He was, and still is a good man who had the areas best interests in mind. I haven't been on here in about two years and it is still frequented by the same liberal, hermit-like bloggers that were around back then. Get a life.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home