The overall reviews of the TEA Party Candidates' Forums have been generally favorable. Link HERE.
I'm inclined to agree, with one particular exception.
The structure of the forum was roughly as follows: The questions were rotated in a pre determined order, regardless of the question being asked by an audience member. While no system is perfect, this system had one fatal flaw.
If a candidate decided to launch an ad hominem ad nauseum attack against another candidate, there was no opportunity for rebuttal unless the candidate being attacked was next in rotation to speak.
Tony Larson alone decided to launch repeated and severe attacks on his opponent (Pete Kremen). After the first attack, Mr. Kremen instinctively grabbed a mic and made an attempt to rebut the attacks, but the moderator of the forum reminding Mr. Kremen of the forum rules and he was unable to rebut any of Larson's attacks.
Now if someone else who attended the event can recall if another candidate launched a similar attack on their opponents, perhaps that person could comment in the thread of this post. Be very specific.
The rotation had Pete Kremen speak then Tony Larson. Once the rotation placed the mic in Tony Larson's hands, Pete Kremen had to wait until eight other candidates were finished speaking. And by that point, rebuttal was not only moot, but would require Kremen to ignore the question asked by the audience member, which doesn't go over well at a TEA Party sponsored event.
Tony Larson made a point of criticizing Pete Kremen's decision to step down from the full time job of County Executive for what he publicly announced were reasons that included reducing his stress for the sake of his health. Larson attempted to characterize Mr. Kremen's reasons for giving up the County Executive seat and running for County Council instead as somehow trivial. And since Mr. Kremen made that announcement in Mr. Larson's presence, Mr. Larson's statements at the TEA Party forum qualify for tickets to the annual Lying By Omission Family Picnic and Prayer Breakfast.
The fact that Mr. Kremen attended the forum the same day he underwent an outpatient surgical procedure undermined Mr. Larson's criticism of Mr. Kremen's devotion to serving the public. Mr. Kremen was clearly uncomfortable, and no one would have grudged him the decision to convalesce at home (except Tony Larson, I suspect). Mr. Kremen's limited mobility caused Mr. Larson's verbal stabs to take on a particularly uncivil tone when compared to the other candidates who were, to the person, down right cordial to each other.
Other than Tony Larson's cheap shots at Pete Kremen, where he was able to dish it out but didn't have to take it, I'd say the forum went very well.
Now, join me in a little thought experiment, would you?
Imagine if the circumstances were reversed, and it was Mr. Kremen who was making personal attacks on Mr. Larson and the format didn't allow for Mr. Larson to offer rebuttal?
Would the TEA Party have afforded Mr. Larson a minute to rebut the criticism or would the TEA Party have stuck rigidly to the forum structure, as they did when it was Mr. Kremen who was under attack?
Discus.
I'm inclined to agree, with one particular exception.
The structure of the forum was roughly as follows: The questions were rotated in a pre determined order, regardless of the question being asked by an audience member. While no system is perfect, this system had one fatal flaw.
If a candidate decided to launch an ad hominem ad nauseum attack against another candidate, there was no opportunity for rebuttal unless the candidate being attacked was next in rotation to speak.
Tony Larson alone decided to launch repeated and severe attacks on his opponent (Pete Kremen). After the first attack, Mr. Kremen instinctively grabbed a mic and made an attempt to rebut the attacks, but the moderator of the forum reminding Mr. Kremen of the forum rules and he was unable to rebut any of Larson's attacks.
Now if someone else who attended the event can recall if another candidate launched a similar attack on their opponents, perhaps that person could comment in the thread of this post. Be very specific.
The rotation had Pete Kremen speak then Tony Larson. Once the rotation placed the mic in Tony Larson's hands, Pete Kremen had to wait until eight other candidates were finished speaking. And by that point, rebuttal was not only moot, but would require Kremen to ignore the question asked by the audience member, which doesn't go over well at a TEA Party sponsored event.
Tony Larson made a point of criticizing Pete Kremen's decision to step down from the full time job of County Executive for what he publicly announced were reasons that included reducing his stress for the sake of his health. Larson attempted to characterize Mr. Kremen's reasons for giving up the County Executive seat and running for County Council instead as somehow trivial. And since Mr. Kremen made that announcement in Mr. Larson's presence, Mr. Larson's statements at the TEA Party forum qualify for tickets to the annual Lying By Omission Family Picnic and Prayer Breakfast.
The fact that Mr. Kremen attended the forum the same day he underwent an outpatient surgical procedure undermined Mr. Larson's criticism of Mr. Kremen's devotion to serving the public. Mr. Kremen was clearly uncomfortable, and no one would have grudged him the decision to convalesce at home (except Tony Larson, I suspect). Mr. Kremen's limited mobility caused Mr. Larson's verbal stabs to take on a particularly uncivil tone when compared to the other candidates who were, to the person, down right cordial to each other.
Other than Tony Larson's cheap shots at Pete Kremen, where he was able to dish it out but didn't have to take it, I'd say the forum went very well.
Now, join me in a little thought experiment, would you?
Imagine if the circumstances were reversed, and it was Mr. Kremen who was making personal attacks on Mr. Larson and the format didn't allow for Mr. Larson to offer rebuttal?
Would the TEA Party have afforded Mr. Larson a minute to rebut the criticism or would the TEA Party have stuck rigidly to the forum structure, as they did when it was Mr. Kremen who was under attack?
Discus.
I think they would have stuck to the format. I don't blame the format, I blame Tony Larson for his shameless mudslinging. Pete was offering up his ideas for a better county, all Tony could do was blame blame blame. Makes my vote very clear.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post and made the same observation myself. I disagree the format was not somewhat at fault, since sponsors have the responsibility to change things up so candidates cannot leverage the format to their advantage. It's a shame 'cause it is a good political forum.
ReplyDeleteI understand why the Tea Party set things up this way in 2010, when you had numerous candidates, too many to comfortably accommodate in one setting, running for what were essentially analogous positions.
Here you had two distinct roles in county govt, legislative and executive branches, and while the sponsors grouped the candidates, they presented the questions randomly--even audience members with questions complained that they would have liked to have directed their questions to a certain branch of government.
If they're going to receive random questions indifferent to their roles, why group them according to role? If their proximity to a challenger is important, why fire random questions?
At the very least the Tea Party could change up the flow from l -> r to r -> l at the end of each complete cycle. That way Pete could have pounced on Tony just once.