A television joint appearance on KOBI
Better than nothing.
Not as good as it could be.
I feel bad expressing disappointment in a candidate forum held by KOBI television. They did something no one else has done: Get two candidates for the Oregon state senate together to answer questions. I congratulate them. I thank them. If it were easy and profitable then I suppose more TV stations would do it, so, again, thanks.
 |
The format of the 22-minute forum was a moderator asking brief questions of the candidates and seeing 60-second answers. Again, a congratulation: The moderator, KOBI news anchor Craig Smullen, exercised exemplary brevity and self control. He didn't try to be the center of attention. He didn't ask two-minute questions and seek one-minute answers.
My disappointment is in the questions themselves. Here are the first five:
Why should voters in Senate District Three vote for you over your opponent?
If elected, what would your top two priorities be in your first year?
illegal marijuana grows have caused chaos for law enforcement in Southern Oregon and for water consumption. What will you do if elected to cure these problems?
Homelessness. What steps can you take in the legislature to get cities like Medford or Ashland get additional funding for mental health needs in relation to the homeless?
What is an issue facing state government that isn't on Oregonians' radar that should be, and what steps would you take to address that issue?
What's wrong with those? Those seem likely to get candidates to talk about what they want to do if elected. Isn't that what we want?
No. Not really. Everyone wants to do good, popular things. If those things were possible or easy or didn't have entrenched opposition then they would already be done. Politics is the resolution of disagreement. It isn't wish list.
All of these questions got reasonable, conflict-free answers by fluent, intelligent candidates. They both wanted good law enforcement, homelessness solved, illegal marijuana grows ended, new problems addressed. Of course. Those questions don't get at the arenas of conflict and therefore avoid opportunities to resolve disagreement. They also don't tell voters anything useful.
Useful questions are ones that are uncomfortable for the candidates. I don't suggest that because I want to punish candidates. Nor am I attempting to come up with questions that will be "better TV," although I think that harder questions would, in fact, be better TV. Better questions would be:
To Democrat Jeff Golden:
---“Did you disagree with Kate Brown’s position on management of COVID and if so, in what ways?”---"What have you done to keep the Democratic supermajority from running roughshod over downstate voters?"---“The fire danger map created controversy. We are told it was your idea. What was your role in it, and would you change any part of the map?"---"Would you support legislation to ban or limit Oregon women’s current right to abortions, and if so, what changes?"
To Republican Randy Sparacino:
---“Your TV ads complain about homelessness. We have homeless people here in the City of Medford. Have you done enough yourself? What should the state do?"---"You were a public employee, paid by taxes. Are Oregon taxes too high, and if so, which taxes and programs would you cut?"---"Do you agree with Trump that the 2020 election was stolen by Biden?"---"Would you support legislation to ban or limit Oregon women’s current right to abortions, and if so, what changes?”
What is different about these proposed questions is that they get at the points of disagreement. These are the issues brought up in advertisements and public statements by the candidates. Jeff Golden warns that Sparacino would vote to limit or ban abortion. He would have that power if elected. Would he really do it? He may feel uncomfortable answering. Republicans may want a different answer than do Democrats. All the more reason to ask it.
Sparacino says that Golden is closely allied with Democratic governor Kate Brown's policies. She is unpopular. Let's hear if and where he disagrees with her. Golden may feel uncomfortable. His answers may irritate fellow Democrats. All the more reason to ask it.
If the answers to questions don't make the candidates uncomfortable, then the questions aren't worth asking. Politics is hard. It's easy to say "cut wasteful spending." Really? What spending? In Salem the senator has to cast real votes.
I am a citizen and voter, not a TV news producer. I don't own a TV station. I realize it is easy for me to make suggestions from the outside and in ignorance. Still, I watched the whole thing, including the commercials, so I share my opinion.
Again, thanks.
Here is a link to the program: https://kobi5.com/news/politics-news/state-senate-district-3-candidate-forum-197566/
[Note: To get daily home delivery of this blog go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
8 comments:
Campaign finance would have been another good question for the candidates. All politicians say they’re going to make everything better – some may even believe it – but in the U.S., money is considered speech. As a result, a politician’s loudest constituents tend to be those with the most money, even when it’s coming from out-of-state PACs, as is the case with much of the “free speech” donated to Sparacino.
It would be ridiculous to imagine all that cash being handed over with no expectation of a quid pro quo. Jeff Golden doesn’t take PAC money, and that’s only one of the things making him the better candidate.
Each candidate should be asked to explain what the term racism means.
You offer all good questions, Peter. Unfortunately, I'm reminded of Chuck Todd's answers when asked why never follows up, or even asks anything but softball questions;
"If I ask hard questions, they won't come back on my show".
And I suspect That if Craig Smullen were to ask questions like you proposed, he would never be able to book a Candidate for any office, for any kind of truly informative debate.
PACs and special interest groups don't give money to candidates without strings-attached. There is always a quid-pro-quo. When a candidate takes money from a special interest group, then they owe that group a "favor". You are naive if you think otherwise.
If you look at the Orestar accounts of Randy Sparacino, Kim Wallan, and Rick Dyer, then you'll see that each has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from special interest groups and PACs, and very little from their neighbors. They really don't have local support.
The other thing to note is that all three are "Chamber of Commerce" candidates, and they'll always put the Chamber ahead of you. Actually, you can't name anything those three candidates have done for you, but they've brought home the "bacon" or "grease" for their sponsors. You just don't read about it. The "little" voters are irrelevant to them, except at election time.
Kim Wallan gave $2 million intended for Medford to the good old boys for their convention center. Rick Dyer gives millions of dollars under the table to his crony campaign donor friends. Sparacino double-dipped while working for Medford, and scammed the taxpayers.
Sparacino, Wallan, and Dyer are worse than any Democrat, because they are owned by the Chamber Mafia, who is out to defraud the taxpayers.
So why have a televised debate if the questions are all softballs designed to parrot what is written and in media ads for the candidates? The station could save money by having a host and not a journalist ask the questions. Furthermore, how is a debate like this a pubic service? Why not just run video clips of cats and puppies. Their ratings might go up and a participatory republic will find a quiet corner to die. Haven't we seen enough talking heads already? Hand me the remote, please.
Oregon is a one-party state and this is how it operates.
This is an important story from Hillary Borrud at the Oregonian, reprinted in the Mail Tribune.
https://www.mailtribune.com/top-stories/2022/10/19/official-looking-oregon-voter-guide-may-mislead-voters/
Paid for by your party and its backers.
A cursory review of the OregonVoter Guide reveals the Top Donors, and the Organization which printed and distributed it. None of the above are the Oregon Democratic Party. These groups apparently support Democratic Candidates and goals, but unless the Fascists have completely taken over, those things are Atilla allowed in this State and Republic.
“But ‘The Oregon Voter Guide’ is not nonpartisan or neutral: It’s funded and designed by a supergroup of Democratic allies, progressive groups and Democratic political action committees, from the House and Senate Democratic caucus PACs to the Service Employees International United union and statewide and national teachers unions.”
“Small type at the bottom of the website identifies its largest funders.”
Masquerading as the Oregon Voter’s Guide is a bridge too far for me. I’ve always had high regard for our official Voter’s Guide.
This is slimy, plain and simple.
Post a Comment