Talk about a race that really begs for a good smaller party candidate.
The daily Post-Star newspaper had scheduled the only debate between candidates for New York's 20th district Congressional seat. But Republican incumbent Rep. John Sweeney decided to weasel out.
His fake pretext: Democratic opponent Kirsten Gillibrand has refused to publicize her personal tax returns for the last few years, something she isn't legally obligated to do.
Gillibrand has said financial disclosure forms she filed with the Federal Election Commission show more details about her finances than tax returns would, reported The Post-Star.
This is one of the more creative excuses to avoid a real debate. If Sweeney had much of a (positive) record to defend, he should welcome the chance to be on the same stage as Gillibrand. Then he could embarass the Democrat by grilling her face to face about the tax return issue in front of the voting public. By making it a pre-condition to debate instead of using it to what should be his advantage, he's clearly searching for ways to avoid a face-to-face confrontation; this says more about his character than hers.
Gillibrand has insisted Sweeney release his police records. Apparently, he was involved in shenanigans like pulling a fire alarm back in his younger days. It seems nonsensical to bring up college pranks from the late 70s, but at least she's not making it a condition for debating. Gillibrand accepted the daily's offer.
In a sense, Gillibrand is reaping what she's sowed. The whole premise of her campaign is that she holds herself to a higher ethical standard than merely respecting the letter of the law. She has some sort of personal Ethics IOU on her website that she promises to respect. Sweeney was clever to call her bluff.
This campaign has been very pathetic. But sadly, it's typical of campaigns in this country. The more competitive they are, the nastier they get.
Four years ago, Sweeney ran against a poorly funded Democrat and a single-issue (anti-war) Green. I attended one of the debates between the three. It was an excellent debate. Each candidate stuck pretty closely to the issues at hand and personal attacks were almost nil. The whole campaign itself was pretty much the same way. The reason everything was so clean is that no one considered it a competitive race. The Democrat was a sacrificial lamb and everyone knew it. The Green so shrill and single-issue that even I, someone who regularly votes for smaller party candidates, refused to pull the lever for her.
This race is different. For reasons which I'm still not entirely sure, this year's race is considered competitive. The national Democrats and outside liberal activist organizations have poured a ton of money into this race, something they almost never do in this district where Democrats are outnumbered by Republicans by something like 2-1.
But this district also contains a lot of independents and smaller party members. And the Republicans in the Adirondacks part of the district are a pretty independent-minded ornery bunch, not the straight party-line voters they might be in other areas.
Unfortunately Gillibrand hasn't exactly given them an overwhelming reason to vote for her. The whole 'Sweeney backs Bush 100 percent of the time' line can only go so far. She is a corporate Democrat backed by the Democratic establishment, hardly the ideal candidate to shake things up.
On the other hand, John Sweeney's contempt for democracy might be typical of an entrenched incumbent, but it's disturbing nonetheless. More worryingly still, it's hardly the first time.
And at least Gillibrand isn't take junkets sponsored by organizations linked to garment factory hellholes and then failing to report them.
He may not care about the voters but at least we know he has the best interests of sweatshop owners at heart.
Update: It looks like Sweeney chickened out of a candidates' forum in Wilton yesterday too.
Further update: And he apparently dodged a third offer to spar with Gillibrand.
Still further update: The latest 'issue' in the race brought up by the Sweeney campaign is whether Gillibrand voted in the 2002 elections. I propose the real issue is not Gillibrand's voting record but Sweeney's. Like his vote to reverse 800 years of freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment