Mitch agrees to debate Grimes, and to do it on public television

Knock me over with a feather. Are Mitch's internal polls showing more vulnerability than external ones?  Or at four points up is he now confident that a debate will be the finishing blow?

Jack Brammer at the Herald:

Kentucky voters will get at least one chance to see U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, debate the issues on statewide television.

Shae Hopkins, executive director of the Kentucky Educational Television network, announced Monday that McConnell's re-election campaign had accepted its invitation to debate Grimes at 8 p.m. Oct. 13 on Kentucky Tonight. Grimes accepted the invitation in June.

Where Debates Go to Die

Once upon a time, the League of Women Voters operated all political debates, and if you were running for office you showed up and followed the rules whether you like them or not.

Now it's just a waste of time.

Jack Brammer at the Herald:

Kentucky's U.S. Senate candidates each have accepted an invitation to debate each other — just not the same one.

Senate Minority Leader McConnell accepted an offer last month from Louisville's WDRB-TV, a Fox affiliate, to attend a June 21 debate, but Democratic nominee Alison Lundergan Grimes did not mention WDRB in a letter she sent McConnell on Thursday outlining her criteria for debating.

In the letter, Grimes said she had accepted an invitation for an Oct. 13 debate from KET, and she hoped McConnell would join her. 

 Grimes said Kentuckians should "have a full opportunity to hear our viewpoints and understand the real differences in our visions for the future of the state." But, she said, "there are a few criteria for these debates where we disagree."

KET is the Kentucky public television station, and in reality world its political credibility stands light years ahead of the Fox affiliate. Not so many years ago, no commercial television station would even have attempted to organize a debate in competition with KET.

But in reality world, the Democratic nominee would be an actual Democratic candidate.

Is Mitch Overconfident or Scared? Challenges Grimes to Three Debates

Conventional wisdom in Kentucky was that Mitch would refuse to debate Alison Lundergan Grimes to debates. The man's drone puts insomniacs to sleep, and Grimes is pretty quick on her feet.

But maybe the old tortoise is laying a trap for our jumpy repug-lite hare.

From the Herald:

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, fresh off his primary win against Tea Party candidate Matt Bevin, is challenging Democratic nominee Alison Lundergan Grimes to three debates.

In a letter signed by McConnell, which the Herald-Leader obtained Wednesday morning and the McConnell campaign confirmed would be sent to Grimes, Kentucky's senior senator congratulated his Democratic opponent on winning her party's nomination and challenged her to a series of debates — with several conditions.

"In order to present our views fairly and without interpretation by traditional media filters, I believe we should participate in three traditional Lincoln-Douglas style debates moderated only by a single timekeeper/moderator," McConnell wrote. "By conducting these debates without an audience, without props and without notes, it will allow for an unvarnished exchange of views for Kentuckians to evaluate."

At a campaign stop Wednesday, Grimes said she would welcome the debates with McConnell. 

 "My team will get with his campaign to work out the details of that, but that's something that I have always been open to," she said. "I look forward to holding him accountable."

Alison, honey: how are you going to "hold him accountable" for positions and votes which you claim to share?

All you have to do to win these debates is identify three issues on which you would vote differently from Mitch.

Too bad you can't name even one.

So maybe that's Mitch's game plan: expose her to Democratic voters as a repug-lite they shouldn't waste their time voting for.

Deficit Hysterics Still in Charge

Since President Obama failed to call out RMoney's lies about the deficit during last night's debate (no, it doesn't matter and no, repugs don't care about it anyway), we can safely assume that the Grand Bargain by Democrats to gut Social Security and Medicare in return for sofa change from the rich is still planned for the end of the year.

David Atkins at Hullabaloo:

FINEMAN: "And if we're going to be cutting Medicare at some point, which I think most voters understand, I thin kright now looking at these alternatives they'd rather have a Democrat they know than a Republican who never supported the program to begin with."

Do most voters really "understand" that we're going to be cutting Medicare? Or has the Village decided that we're going to cut Medicare, and that it's going to happen no matter what the American people actually want?

Let's be clear on two things: first, from a policy stand there is no need for any cuts to Medicare. What is needed is universal insurance so that the wasteful profit motive is removed from the healthcare system. But granted the political impossibility of accomplishing that, if Medicare does become insolvent then the gradual cuts will take place automatically--no need to frontload them in advance with austerity measures. If one does want to be proactive as one should, then the program can be made solvent by slightly raising the maximum cap on which Medicare taxes are assessed. If all else fails, an alternate funding stream could be developed. There are numerous possibilities that do not involve cutting Medicare. To continue funding corporate welfare, wasteful wars and tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy while telling voters that Grandma should eat cat food is insane and immoral.

But second, Fineman is disastrously wrong on the politics. For a Democrat to cut Medicare would be politically disastrous.

If the Congress and the President take up Simpson-Bowles during the lame duck session or the new year and enact minor tip money tax increases for the wealthy in exchange for cuts to the most vulnerable, a majority of Republicans will oppose the deal. Democrats will be left holding the bag, insisting on being the "bipartisan adults in the room."

Voters will hate the deal. Republicans will run successfully against Democrats for the next twenty years, accusing us of cutting Medicare and raising taxes. And when Republicans easily win that argument and gain Executive and Legislative power, President Christie and Speaker Ryan will voucherize Medicare, restore the funding for current seniors, and act as the cavalry riding to America's and Medicare's rescue.

The Village Consensus is awful, immoral policy. It's also suicidal politics. And Howard Fineman and friends appear to be walking into it with open eyes and open arms.

Thomas Massie Is A Coward

To be honest, if I were the repug nominee in deep-red Nobama Northern Kentucky with the backing of a teenaged Texan billionaire, I wouldn't risk my likely landslide in a debate, either.

That doesn't mean Thomas Massie isn't a sniveling, weak-ass, limp-dicked coward.

From the campaign of Democratic nominee Bill Adkins:

Massie afraid to debate, hides from local voters

Arrogant and dismissive of Kentucky voters,
Massie visits Washington while refusing 15 traditional
Kentucky debates and public forums

Tom Massie has turned down invitations from twelve organizations that have traditionally held candidate forums and debates for Congressional races, refusing 15 invitations in total, including one from his own Tea Party.

“Tom Massie is doing a great disservice to the voters of Kentucky by refusing to have an open discussion on important issues like jobs and Medicare,” says Adkins. “If he can’t face the people of our district and answer the tough questions, he isn’t fit to serve in Congress.”

Multiple independent civic organizations and insitutions, including Northern Kentucky University, have invited both Bill Adkins and Thomas Massie to participate in candidate forums and debates. Bill Adkins has accepted every invitation and Thomas Massie has turned down every event:

NKY Chamber of Commerce	REFUSED
Oldham County Bipartisan Debate	REFUSED
Kentucky Education Assoc. Candidate Night	REFUSED
Nat’l. Federation of Retired Employees	REFUSED
Northern Kentucky University Forum	REFUSED
Lewis County Chamber of Commerce	REFUSED
CN|2 Politics Televised Debate	WILL CHECK SCHEDULE
Alexandria Town Hall	CANCELLED
Campbell County Congressional Forum	REFUSED
Shelby County Farm Bureau	REFUSED
Kentucky Retired Teachers Association	REFUSED
Harrison County Tea Party Debate	REFUSED
Kentucky Corn Growers Association	NO RESPONSE
NAACP Candidate Forum – Shelby County	NO RESPONSE
Grant County Chamber of Commerce Forum	NO RESPONSE

Leaders of both Democratic and Republican parties have attempted to schedule bipartisan debates, but have been told no by the Massie campaign.

“Mr. Massie is acting like he already has the job,” said Oldham County Democratic Party Chair, John Sutton. “In an open seat, the people living in the district don’t really know much about either candidate. Mr. Massie received less than 50% of the vote within his own party where there was less than 12% turnout in the entire state. We expect at least 300,000 people to vote in this race and the public deserves a chance to get to know these two men, and more importantly, where they stand on the issues,” added Sutton.

“When there is an open seat, there has never been a precedent for refusing to participate in live debates in the largest economic region of the district, Northern Kentucky. Both the Chamber of Commerce and Northern Kentucky University have traditionally held live debates and Mr. Massie has refused to participate in either of these traditions,” says Campbell County Democratic Party Chairman Paul Whalen.

“It is a shame for the voters of the 4th District that one of the candidates in this open seat doesn’t see the importance of involving the voters in this race. Tom Massie’s behavior indicates that the people of the district do not matter to him,” says Whalen.

Find out more about Bill Adkins here.

Jack Conway and Rand Paul "Debate" on Fox

No, I didn't watch it, but David Shankula at Barefoot and Progressive did. He labels it "Conway/Paul Smackdowzzzzz:"

Rand Paul and Jack Conway got their debate on this morn courtesy of the satirical current events show "FOX News Sunday."

Chris Wallace asked Conway why he's called Paul "crazy" on the campaign trail.

Conway responded that anyone who thinks blacks should be barred from sitting at a lunch counter in this day and age is obviously crazy. He then went on to hammer Paul on the Americans with Disability Act, his association with neo-Nazis and...

Wait. Oh. No, sorry. This is Jack Conway. Nevermind. Here's what he actually said:

"I just think he's out of touch with the values of mainstream Kentuckians. You know, as Democrats, we need to talk about our values a little more. I think we value inclusivity."

Ziiiiing.

Here's the video. Watch it if you dare.

Remember Grandma's Advice: Never Argue With Drunk, Crazy or Stupid People

No, it's not you; there really is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with people who deny gravity.

tristero on the failure of movement conservatism to engage any ideas that don't fit into its dark, cramped worldview:

What Sanchez gets wrong, at least as far as I'm concerned - ie, as someone who neither seeks to, nor will engage neo-fascist movement conservatives beyond mockery and the expression of contempt - is the issue of insecurity. I, for one, am quite secure about the quality of my ideas. I am, however, quite terrified at the political insecurity not merely of liberal ideas, and not only of liberal politicians, but of liberal democracy itself. I mean that in the broadest sense of the term: what is sometimes called a democratic government, or more pretentiously, "the Enlightenment project," ie, a society that privileges reason over adherence to any specific religious creed, a society that governs itself rather than one that is constructed as the personal property of a single member of an aristocratic class.

I'm quite certain about the high intellectual quality of liberalism and the notion of a democratic republic. I am extremely uncertain, to paraphrase Franklin, about whether or not we can keep it.

As long as we continue to engage modern conservatives and take their ideas seriously, we continue to provide them intellectual and political status they neither deserve nor should have. Again: you don't argue theology with a Bible thumper who tells you the world was literally created in 6 days. Not even William Jennings Bryan was so ignorant and stupid. You laugh at him. And you most certainly make sure he gets nowhere close to obtaining a seat on a local school board, let alone hold national power. And, as Howard Dean so intelligently understood, you challenge the rightwing and Republicans everywhere.

Read the whole thing.

Shame on You, KET

Don't do it, KET. Don't let the fuckers win.

Kentucky Educational Television is scrapping its traditional candidate debates this year, in part because incumbent politicians usually refuse to face their challengers on live television before a panel of questioning journalists.

Kentucky voters are losing something important with the disappearance of the debates, which were broadcast in every Kentucky county, said Stephen Voss, political scientist at the University of Kentucky.

“What you lose by not having a respected, neutral third-party like KET hosting a debate is that it removes even more pressure from the incumbents or the front-runners to prove that they deserve to win, to make them publicly state their case,” he said.

Exactly. The refusal by candidates to debate makes holding the debates far more essential, not less.

Candidates who decline to debate should be represented at the debate by empty chairs, prominently displaying the names of the cowardly weasels who fail to show.

The problem reached its zenith in October 2008 when U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Hopkinsville, refused to debate his Democratic opponent.

Hours before the event, Whitfield demanded that KET air an unedited videotaped statement that his campaign prepared. KET complied, leaving Whitfield’s challenger to stand alone and be grilled about foreign policy and the economy, followed by the congressman’s campaign tape.

KET believes the 2008 incident was “unfair,” and it prompted a discussion at the statewide television network on how to proceed in future election years, KET spokesman Tim Bischoff said Wednesday.

Wow, Tim - way to lie like a repug.

The problem was NOT Whitfield's failure to appear. The problem was KET's despicable caving to his unreasonable demands. It's a debate, idiot - show up or shut the fuck up.

I am a long-time and strong supporter of public broadcasting, which is near the top of my list of things for which I gladly pay taxes.

But in return for my tax-dollar support, I expect KET to fulfill its responsibilities as a public broadcaster. That includes airing actual debates that force all candidates, especially incumbents, to address issues of concern to the public.

Shame on you KET. Shame, SHAME, SHAME.

Call KET management at (859) 258-7000 or (800) 432-0951 and tell them that candidates debates are the LAST program they should cancel.

Or call the Viewer Reaction Line: (800) 926-7765.

Or click here to try to figure out how to send an email directly to complain that by canceling candidates debates KET is failing to fulfill its public obligation.

Real Debate

Casual Observer makes two excellent points about President Obama's record-breaking smack-down of the GOP on Friday:

It has been so long since Americans have seen an actual political debate that they may have gotten pretty excited, understandibly, about what they saw yesterday. MSNBC sure was. When Obama visited the GOP house caucus in Baltimore, we viewed something called a debate, or as close to it as we can manage these days.

Refreshing.

It was a relatively honest back-and-forth between the president and his opponents. The GOP members asked prepared questions that were long, laden with talking-points, and loaded with pitfalls. The president showed nimble footwork and answered most issues frankly and without pretense. He looked good doing so.

SNIP

There is talk that C-SPAN would like to run more coverage of this type, and I for one would love to see it. But rather than having such events pit the two parties against each other, I’d like to see them structured as interchange between branches of government–with the president entering honest exchange not just with GOP members, but Democrats as well. Particularly with the involvement of those well to the left of the president, in his own party.

But I also think it is absolutely critical to remember that C-SPAN covers, on a daily basis, political events that could be just as worthwhile and significant as the president’s debate yesterday. There is nothing to stop Congress from having it’s own honest debates each and every day on C-SPAN. There is nothing to stop House or Senate committee hearings from being structured in a way that allows for more than prepared statements, rushed questions, and inadequate answers.

The absolutely wrong lesson to take from Obama’s performance yesterday, imo, is that we need to see more of him lined up in cage matches against House or Senate opposition, like Daniel in the Lion’s Den. While such would be great theater for MSNBC (not so much for FOX), I’d suggest the real lesson is that the American people are nearly starved to death for lack of true debate on important issues. In that respect, any event that shows our American political leadership engaged in real debate would be highly beneficial, regardless of whether that be in the Senate, House, or elsewhere, and regardless of whether the sitting president is involved or not. In fact, debate is supposed to be much more important to the first branch of American government than the second.

To be sure, Obama and the WH staff deserve high praise for his performance yesterday, and they are rightfully getting it. I personally think it’s one of the best moves they’ve made. But let’s not respond to this event with the kind of undisguised and embarrassing hero-worship that was on display last night on MSNBC. Let’s not respond by ticking off the points that one party scored, or another. Instead, let’s use that event to realize that we could be seeing such things regularly from our government, were it functioning properly. All we need to do is insist on it.

I'd just add that one of the reasons we keep electing people who are criminally uneducated to positions for which they are pathetically unprepared is that we don't subject them to honest tests of ability.

Like standing up in a roomful of opponents and defending your positions with facts, accurate history, and honest proposals.

Damn You, Dennis Kucinich

Dammit, dammit, dammit.

If I put my money where my mouth is, my money where my heart is, my money on what I actually believe, I would sell my house, my car, my furniture, and my clothes, cash out my retirement and write one big check to Dennis Kucinich.

Yeah, yeah, Ralph Nader, blah, blah, blah.

Fuck it.

Dennis Kucinich is on television right now this minute reading my goddamn mind!

• Out of Iraq This Instant
• Single Payer Healthcare
• Money for the Troops, Not Stupid Weapons Systems
• Voluntary National Service
• Human Rights
• Civil Rights
• Restore American Values
• Global Peace

Shutup, Dennis!

I can't stand it. He has no chance. No chance, NO CHANCE, NO CHANCE!

And the main reason he has no chance is that people like me, who agree with everything he says, who are sitting here tonight sobbing while he speaks our hearts, refuse to support him because he has no chance.

Damn you, Dennis Kucinich.