Blog Archives
Deeds Requests Change in Forum Format
You might notice some changes in tonight’s Community Forum at Virginia Union University. Both of the candidates for Governor were supposed to appear on stage together at this forum. However, due to a last minute request from Creigh Deeds’ campaign, they will now appear separately and not appear on the stage at the same time. In order to prevent the cancellation of this event, Bob McDonnell’s campaign agreed to this request.
This leads to a few questions: Why the sudden move, Creigh? Are you afraid to be on the same stage as Bob? What is the Deeds campaign running from?
Just in case, you are in the area, the debate will be taking place at:
Virginia Union University
Coburn Hall
1500 N. Lombardy Street
Event begins at 6:15 p.m. tonight
Jody Wagner Threatens to Pull Out of Debate
It appears that Jody Wagner is accusing Bill Bolling of pulling out of the Prince William Committee of 100 debate, and this could not be further from the truth. According to a statement released by Matt Wells, Bolling’s campaign manager, it appears that Wagner’s campaign will not agree to the rules set with the Committee due to a “no use” agreement. A “no use” agreement is standard in debates, as it protects both sides from having video clips and portions of the debate from being taken out of context. Why wouldn’t Wagner agree with the terms? Is it because she doesn’t want to debate the issues?
Below is the statement released by the Bolling campaign:
“”Earlier today, the campaign of Jody Wagner released a statement asserting that Lieutenant Governor Bolling had threatened to “pull out” of a debate that had been scheduled for September 24th before the Prince William Committee of 100. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Bolling campaign’s participation in this debate has always been predicated on our ability to develop mutually agreed-upon rules and debate format. However, and despite our best efforts, no final rules have been agreed to and for the Wagner campaign to claim otherwise is simply false.
During our discussions with the Prince William Committee of 100 we have made significant compromises on several issues, including the moderator of the debate, the rules of the debate, the format of the debate, etc. However, we have insisted on the inclusion of a “no use” agreement in the rules. Unfortunately, and despite our best efforts, the Wagner campaign has refused to agree to a “no use” agreement, and the debate cannot proceed without such an agreement.
No use agreements are standard for debates of this nature. They protect both sides from having clips and portions of the debate taken out of context. For example, the recent gubernatorial debate in Fairfax operated under a mutually acceptable no-use agreement.
In addition, and at the request of the debate organizers, we have taken great care to keep our discussions about debate rules private and out of the media. Unfortunately, the Wagner campaign has refused to discuss the rules of this debate in good faith, as is evidenced by their recent press release; and has now issued a factually inaccurate and misleading statement in an effort to try and score some cheap political points in advance of the debate. Given these developments, it is clear that the debate cannot move forward as scheduled on September 24th and we have advised the debate organizers of that fact.
Lieutenant Governor Bolling was looking forward to the opportunity to debate Ms. Wagner and discuss the important issues currently facing Virginia, and we remain hopeful that this will occur at some point in the future.
We greatly appreciate the hard work that the Prince William Committee of 100 has put into this event, and we are very disappointed that the debate will not proceed as scheduled. However, it is obvious to that the Wagner campaign would rather debate about debates than actually hold one.”
Stevens Miller vs. Tom Rust: Debate Numero Uno
http://www.ustream.tv/flash/video/2152895
This is the first debate between Tom Rust and Stevens Miller in the 86th District.
Is Steve Shannon Going to answer Ken Cuccinelli's Questions?
Evidently not. It appears that Steve Shannon would rather avoid debating and refuses to answer Ken Cuccinelli’s questions during a debate. The Shannon campaign has agreed only to three debates (WTOP Radio, The Prince William Committee of 100, and the Richmond Bar Association), while Cuccinelli is still waiting to hear back from Shannon whether or not he will agree to nine additional debates.
The final debate is before the Richmond Bar Association, which presented reasonable rules and a great debate format to work with, but this clearly was not good enough for Shannon’s campaign. The rule of two candidates asking each other questions was not deemed appropriate enough for Shannon.
Is there something Steve Shannon is afraid of answering in a debate? On July 27th, Cuccinelli sent an email to Shannon indicating that the first question was asking when was the first time he [Shannon] read Melendez-Diaz. Seems like a reasonable question, right? Especially considering that there was a special General Assembly session called to address this case and its ramifications in Virginia. One of the major roles of an Attorney General is to debate cases before a court of law, yet Shannon refuses to debate Cuccinelli.
Ken Cuccinelli is still waiting on 12-Debate Response from Steve Shannon
Ken Cuccinelli still has not heard from Steve Shannon whether he will accept Cuccinelli’s request for 12 Debates. Meanwhile, Shannon continues to play “dodge ball” and refuses to answer. The big question is what does he have to hide? Is it a lackluster record? Is he afraid to debate the issues facing the office of the Attorney General? Below is Cuccinelli’s letter to Shannon:
Steve:
I appreciate your “prompt” reply to my initial debate challenge that I sent on July 13th.
I was a bit surprised however to read your list of “agreed” upon dates in your letter. For starters, the date for the Prince William Committee of 100 (PWC 100) debate was entirely false. We were still working with the PWC 100 as recently as this morning to settle on a date.
PWC 100 debate organizers told my staff this afternoon that your campaign said you released an inaccurate date because you just wanted to say you had agreed to certain debates instead of listing “TBA” for the date.
And WTOP was pretty surprised to hear of your assertion that they had scheduled a debate. Mark Plotkin, the presumed moderator, confirmed this over the phone with my staff this afternoon and apologized (though HE had nothing to apologize for).
Steve, what’s going on here? I’ve never known you to just abandon common courtesy like this – and I don’t mean courtesy to me or my campaign, I’m talking about all of these third parties that you’re yanking around. This is still Virginia and I think Virginians reasonably expect more professionalism than what we’re seeing in your latest stunt (this is an actual “political stunt,” unlike my request to call a special session to deal with a real problem in our criminal justice system which you called a “political stunt”). Could this be because you’re feeling the heat from voters for not debating me? And suddenly you’re trying to give the impression of activity?
If you were so desperate to release a debate schedule with nonexistent dates, you should have just invited me to debate you in person while you were filming your debate with your dog.
I’m curious, how many takes did you have to go through until you got your dog to bark at just the right moment? Don’t you think the time you spent debating your dog would have been better spent speaking to voters about substantive issues they care about?
I ask you Steve, if you have enough time to be filming web ads with dogs, why don’t you have enough time to debate me before October?
You’ve provided a list of 3 debates. These three take place in either Northern VA or Richmond. We’ve only debated once so far, and that was in Virginia Beach in an unpublicized appearance that you only FINALLY agreed to two days before it happened (you remember, if I didn’t agree to your restrictions, you weren’t going to debate). What about debating in Southside, Roanoke, the Shenandoah Valley, Eastern Virginia and Southwest? I’ve been taking my campaign to every corner of the Commonwealth for over a year now, why won’t you join me there?
The point of my original 12-debate challenge was to take us around the Commonwealth so that we would have the opportunity to address voters in every corner of Virginia and talk about the issues they care about. Those issues differ from one part of Virginia to another.
So I am going to ask you again. Why won’t you accept our 12-debate challenge? What are you so afraid of?
Sincerely,
Ken Cuccinelli
Time to man up, Steve, and DEBATE!
Time to Man Up, Steve Shannon, and DEBATE (face-to-face, that is)!
Don’t you think it would be better for Steve Shannon to meet face-to-face with Ken Cuccinelli, instead of hosting a tele-conference to ask four questions of his rival over the phone? I do, and Cuccinelli has challenged Shannon to a series of debates throughout the Commonwealth. The most interesting thing is that Shannon has not responded, yet it appears that he would rather debate Cuccinelli by fax instead of allowing the voters to hear both candidates’ positions. This sounds eerily similar to Creigh Deeds not responding to Bob McDonnell’s requests for debates throughout the Commonwealth.
After hearing of Steve Shannon’s silly, time wasting tele-conference, Senator Ken Cuccinelli pledges NOT to do the same. However, Ken Cuccinelli did issue the following challenge:
“Steve, last week I sent you a letter asking if you would follow up on your pledge to debate me across the Commonwealth. As of today, I have yet to receive a response. I will not debate you via fax, nor by “tele-phone conference”. Pick a day, any day this weekend, or this week, and you can ask me your four questions, and I will ask mine. The people of Virginia deserve real substantive debates on issues they are concerned about. You’ve ducked two debate invitations already….will you duck this one?
Below is a link to the letter Senator Cuccinelli sent last week challenging Steve Shannon to debates around the Commonwealth. Instead of debating in person, it appears that Shannon’s “new” campaign team wants him to debate via fax.
Why won't Kaye Kory Debate Danny Smith?
Things are beginning to heat up in the 38th House District race between Kaye Kory and Danny Smith. In fact, there seems to be a little campaign dodge ball game going on, as Kory is dodging a debate with Smith. Smith’s campaign sent a letter to Kory requesting a debate after she trounced Bob Hull in the Democratic primary election last month. This debate would focus on discussing the issues that face many in the 38th District.
Why won’t Kaye Kory debate and discuss the issues with Danny Smith? Is it because she feels overconfident that this race is in the bag? Well, if last month’s election results did show one thing, it is that the top candidate was too confident and lost big time. One wonders if the same will play out for Kory in November.
