Non-Debating Tim: Brilliant Strategy, Bad Democracy
Ok, I’ve thought about it.
Sen. Tim Johnson’s decision not to debate state Rep. Joel Dykstra is brilliant political strategy.
The Senator has difficulty speaking. He has to speak slowly. Neither of these issues contribute to debating success.
Even more brilliant, however, is campaign manager Steve Jarding’s timing in releasing this.
On a Friday, when you take out the trash to the media, and just under three months from the election.
The story will die down this weekend, particularly on TV, where TV news tations run basically skeleton crews. By Monday, the story is four days old. By the end of next week, the story will be gone—the “legs” will have fallen off.
So, my Republican friends, whine while you can. Your window is closing.
And this puts Rep. Dykstra in a terrible box. He too can complain about not having an opponent to debate—for a while. But he can’t keep yipping about this in September and October and November. What’s done is done. Johnson ain’t debating. He’ll have to talk about other, more substantive things, like what he’d do as Senator. And Dykstra doesn’t have the money to do that now and likely won’t anytime soon.
So, from a political strategy point of view, Johnson’s decision not debate and its timing are brilliant.
Brilliant, but bad for our democracy.
Next to perhaps maybe SDPTV’s Stephanie Rissler, I’ve probably produced more political debates for TV han anyone else in South Dakota. During my time at SDPTV (and before that at KTWU-TV in Topeka, KS), I took the view that political debates were one of the most important things broadcasters—particularly public broadcasting stations—do. While sometimes contrived and stuffy and limiting, debates allow citizens to see the candidates discuss a broad range of issues, face one another, and give citizens the chance to compare and contrast in a “one stop shopping” setting.
Political debates are good for our democracy.
Further, I am not aware of any candidate for major office in SD since 1986 refusing to participate in at least one debate. Rep. Tom Daschle debated Sen. Jim Abnor in 1986. Sen. Larry Pressler debated Ted Muenster and a couple of other third party candidatess in 1990. Rep. Tim Johnson debated Sen. Pressler in 1996. Rep. John Thune debated Sen. Johnson in 2002. Thune debated Sen. Tom Daschle in 2004. I also think every single gubernatorial candidate during that time debated.
South Dakotans expect their candidates—even popular incumbents—to debate. It is very much a part of our political history and fabric.
Unless there’s a miracle—and they do happen once in a while in politics—Sen. Johnson will be re-elected to a third term to the US Senate in November.
The political operative in me completely understands why Sen. Johnson doesn’t want to debate. But the citizen and idealist in me thinks its bad for our South Dakota democracy to not see the candidates for U.S. Senate on a stage at least once, so we, the people of South Dakota, can measure the mettle of the men who wish to represent us.
Technorati Tags: debates, South Dakota, US Senate, Joel Dykstra, Tim Johnson
Sen. Tim Johnson’s decision not to debate state Rep. Joel Dykstra is brilliant political strategy.
The Senator has difficulty speaking. He has to speak slowly. Neither of these issues contribute to debating success.
Even more brilliant, however, is campaign manager Steve Jarding’s timing in releasing this.
On a Friday, when you take out the trash to the media, and just under three months from the election.
The story will die down this weekend, particularly on TV, where TV news tations run basically skeleton crews. By Monday, the story is four days old. By the end of next week, the story will be gone—the “legs” will have fallen off.
So, my Republican friends, whine while you can. Your window is closing.
And this puts Rep. Dykstra in a terrible box. He too can complain about not having an opponent to debate—for a while. But he can’t keep yipping about this in September and October and November. What’s done is done. Johnson ain’t debating. He’ll have to talk about other, more substantive things, like what he’d do as Senator. And Dykstra doesn’t have the money to do that now and likely won’t anytime soon.
So, from a political strategy point of view, Johnson’s decision not debate and its timing are brilliant.Brilliant, but bad for our democracy.
Next to perhaps maybe SDPTV’s Stephanie Rissler, I’ve probably produced more political debates for TV han anyone else in South Dakota. During my time at SDPTV (and before that at KTWU-TV in Topeka, KS), I took the view that political debates were one of the most important things broadcasters—particularly public broadcasting stations—do. While sometimes contrived and stuffy and limiting, debates allow citizens to see the candidates discuss a broad range of issues, face one another, and give citizens the chance to compare and contrast in a “one stop shopping” setting.
Political debates are good for our democracy.
Further, I am not aware of any candidate for major office in SD since 1986 refusing to participate in at least one debate. Rep. Tom Daschle debated Sen. Jim Abnor in 1986. Sen. Larry Pressler debated Ted Muenster and a couple of other third party candidatess in 1990. Rep. Tim Johnson debated Sen. Pressler in 1996. Rep. John Thune debated Sen. Johnson in 2002. Thune debated Sen. Tom Daschle in 2004. I also think every single gubernatorial candidate during that time debated.
South Dakotans expect their candidates—even popular incumbents—to debate. It is very much a part of our political history and fabric.
Unless there’s a miracle—and they do happen once in a while in politics—Sen. Johnson will be re-elected to a third term to the US Senate in November.
The political operative in me completely understands why Sen. Johnson doesn’t want to debate. But the citizen and idealist in me thinks its bad for our South Dakota democracy to not see the candidates for U.S. Senate on a stage at least once, so we, the people of South Dakota, can measure the mettle of the men who wish to represent us.
Technorati Tags: debates, South Dakota, US Senate, Joel Dykstra, Tim Johnson
Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2008
by
Todd Epp
in 2008 Election, 2008 U.S. Senate Race, Politics, Tim Johnson
|
9 Comments
Todd Epp
in 2008 Election, 2008 U.S. Senate Race, Politics, Tim Johnson
|
9 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (9)
The job of being a United States Senator is in itself adequate documentation for the job of being a United States Senator.
Senator Johnson continues to be an effective Senator. As long as that is true, I'll continue to support him, whether or not he chooses to engage in public debates with those who must of necessity prove that they can be effective Senators.
I guess I am not as much a party guy as Bob, based on his first line, an incumbent is always fit for the job.
Johnson has had a series health issue in his last term, hiding from the public is not going to help me say because he was, he still is.
If I were Dykstra's handler I would have an empty chair on stage every where the candidate spoke, and would invite the Senator to join him.
Based on Bob's theory, he would have support Bush for not debating Kerry...... The job of being a United States President is in itself adequate documentation for the job of being a United States President.
Come on Bob say that you agree with that.
I think political debates are a bunch of "hooey". What do they prove, anymore than when a candidate says somehting in a speech. They get elected, and do the complete opposite. If these "debates" werer real debates it would be another matter, but they are way too dignified to be called debates, compared to the ones I saw in high school and college.
"If I were Dykstra's handler I would have an empty chair on stage every where the candidate spoke, and would invite the Senator to join him."
Gosh, I think I read something about that in the Argus Leader this morning. Nice try at originality, alter.
Quite a risk for Dykstra, The empty chair might beat Dykstra. I guess I haven't heard anything from him that suggests a single new idea or anything out of line with the standard same old same old Bush party line. And that doesn't suggest either much reason for a debate or a vote for him.
The newspapers getting all self-righteous about this are just plain silly. They don't give challengers any significant space for their "news".
Let the papers give the candidates a pencil and piece of paper in separate rooms and have them respond to questions and then print both "sides". Might be more interesting than a slanted "news" story on a public debate. Let the papers put "there money" on the printed word and stop fretting about debates as news events.
Alter Ego - Perhaps I should say that the RESULTS of being a United States Senator is sufficient documentation for Senator Johnson.
Where did I indicate partisanship?
If Senator Johnson had broken his leg, you'd not question that he could still do his job. All available evidence is that he is in full possession of his cognitive abilities, save his speech.
I think that is sufficient.
I understand the Senator will engage in significant campaign activities, just not debates.
I will debate the Dykstra if he is to be like Thune. He won't have a record on veterans or labor, say one thing here and another in D.C.
If Senator Johnson had broken his leg, you'd not question that he could still do his job.
I would if he job was running a marathon.
All available evidence is that he is in full possession of his cognitive abilities, save his speech.
Yes, all the evidence put out by his Chief of Staff says he's fine. Surprise!
I actually think he probably is fine, but this is absolutely the most comically silly reasoning I've ever heard.
First, I don't read the Argus Leader.. it is good to hear that they got one right.
Cliff summed the rest up rather well.
Later Libs