I get why Lovely Warren, the Democratic candidate for Rochester mayor, wouldn’t want to debate her Green Party opponent, Alex White. Warren says that, instead, she intends to focus on door to door interactions with citizens — the kind of
grassroots campaigning that won her the Democratic endorsement.
Warren’s ground game has been so successful – earning her a primary victory over a heavily favored rival – it makes sense that she’d want to keep grinding her way to the November 5 goal line.
And by agreeing to debate, you’re essentially conferring status and credibility on your opponents — acknowledging them as equals. Third parties are still fighting for mainstream acceptance and it’s better, strategically, for Warren to keep White on the outer banks.
It reminds me of something I noticed in the last election cycle: candidates refusing to come in for endorsement interviews because they’d “chosen not to seek an endorsement.” (This doesn’t apply to Warren, who was generous with her time during the primary.)
That’s not the point.
The point i
s that people seeking public office have a responsibility to subject themselves to a thorough vetting by the public. And the media, in most cases, are acting as the public’s representatives. People can decide for themselves whether or not they agree with that particular outlet’s conclusions. Ideally, voters are consulting several sources and arriving at an individual, informed opinion.
Warren needs to put herself in a place where her ideas and plans are challenged. If they’re worthwhile, they’ll hold up.
This article appears in Oct 2-8, 2013.
I just figured Warren’s policies would be “more of the same.” So if you like more crime, more police brutality, failing schools, a huge chunk of the city below the poverty line, lousy public transportation, and tax breaks for out-of-town corporations, well, by all means, vote for her. I’d say correct me if I’m wrong, but she won’t come out and answer questions about what she stands for, so I can only assume …
If City Newspaper and the D&C would stop blindly endorsing Democrats every year for City Specific races candidates might actually be forced to debate and lay their cards on the table.
You can sign my petition to get the media to run debates with or without all candidates here: http://tinyurl.com/pwrmmf9 If you support the cause consider resharing on social media.
What is Lovely Warren hiding? Maybe her ideas won’t hold up against Alex White’s ideas?
Lovely Warren quickly went from being the Democratic outsider to the Democratic candidate acting like she is heir apparent and cannot be bothered with debating another candidate.
Why is Lovely Warren afraid to debate? Rochester needs a fearless Mayor to do what is necessary, not a candidate who is afraid of speaking opening and honestly with another candidate about the future of Rochester.
” it makes sense that she’d want to keep grinding her way to the November 5 goal line.
“Grinding away”? Excuse me? What’s left to grind? The November election is over. Finished. A done deal. A fait accompli. Trato hecho. Alles fertig. The public knows it. Warren knows it. Richards knows it. And White knows it. Apparently City is one of the few who missed that fact.
If Warren truly wants to get her message about her plans for the city out to ALL the people of Rochester and not just to those living in her political comfort zone, then a broadcast debate or discussion of issues with White is the way to do it. By refusing to do so and handing out flimsy and laughable excuses she merely makes many conclude that she can’t stand the heat, no matter how tepid that heat may be.
Imagine if current mayor Tom Richards had refused to debate Warren during the Dem primary? After all, her campaign seemed hopeless. Or imagine if he’d continued campaigning on a minor party label (as he might’ve done after losing the primary). What would Warren have done then? I tend to think that we ought to be as expansive as possible. And so I agree with the City Newspaper on this. Lovely Warren should debate Alex White. Warren claims to be vaguely progressive … if that is vaguely accurate, she ought to be embracing public discussion of the many matters confronting the city.
What in the heck would “Warren’s policies” have to do with “failing schools?”
You got the wrong candidate. The three (3) candidates who have a combined incumbency-record of nearly twenty (20) years; are up for reelection on November 5th, and are responsible for developing, and overseeing “policies” to address “failing schools” are:
– Mr. Jose Cruz
– Mr. Van White
– Ms. Cynthia Elliott
Prior to the September 10th Democratic Party Primary Election, community members sponsored at least six (6) school board candidates forums. Mr. Jose Cruz did NOT participate in a single forum. A City Newspaper reporter covered at least three of the above referenced forums, and did NOT write a single word about Mr. Cruz’s conspicuous absence.
So, apparently, only CERTAIN “people seeking public office have a responsibility to subject themselves to a thorough vetting by the public.
STOP BEING POLITICAL HYPOCRITES!
I am appalled! What kind of mayor is she going to be??? It appears she already thinks herself ABOVE the political process. JUST what Rochester needs in it’s next Mayor. DISLIKE.
Looks to me like she has learned how to play the game effectively. Many in this community walk away from, refuse to or blatantly ignore the rules of the game. They make their own as they go along. I’ve witnessed it numerous times. Personally, I think she should debate.
Lovely overcame one major hurdle which was to defeat Richards, whom should have never ran for re-election.
This is where the rubber meets the road…..Two’s company and three’s a crowd.
Must be why they call this the silly season! Lovely Warren didn’t start campaigning last month, she started campaigning last SPRING. And I know she has already debated Alex White in a public place before now because I was there. Anyone who doesn’t know anything about her or her plans by this time, has either been living under a rock or not paying attention. Don’t blame her, blame yourself.
Two points: Lovely Warren should debate Alex White, and equating public debate between candidates with private editorial endorsement processes is ridiculous.
That Warren is heavily favored to win is no excuse for ducking debates. She was heavily favored to lose the primary and we saw what happened. Moreover, who is favored to win has nothing to do with it. Ms. Warren has a moral obligation. Forums which took place during the primary do not excuse her from such scrutiny in the general. A debate between Alex and Lovely would be good for them both, and for the city. I hope Lovely will reconsider, and honor the desire for a more inclusive civic life here, which helped drive her own primary victory. I would qualify this by pointing out that the format, the rules, the questioners, and other such matters, are legitimate topics for negotiation and clarity between campaigns and debate sponsors. Advance attention has not always been given such matters in the past, and fair play has been diminished.
I take strong exception to Christine’s assertion that failure to seek editorial endorsement of a publication is similar to ducking public debate. This community suffers from power being too closely held by manifestly unserious people. This was vividly on display last summer, when an unconsciously humorous sense of entitlement was expressed by one of our local Press Lords. City publisher Towler attempted to smear Lovely Warren as implying she had this newspaper’s endorsement when she did not. I am not a supporter of Warren, but Warren did no such thing. Warren accurately quoted flattering things City newspaper, which endorsed Mayor Richards, had said about her. Towler’s response was to grumpily suggest she would never say anything favorable again about a candidate she didn’t endorse. This is a very revealing insight into Towler’s thinking, and ought to establish her as exactly the sort of Rochester “opinion leader” we all should pay less attention to.
To go hat in hand to Ms. Towler, Mr. Lawrence, or any other self serving and self selected arbiter of the “public interest,” to privately plead for their support, is NOT the same thing as a lengthy and uncensored public debate between candidates.
These “endorsement processes” are particularly demeaning to candidates, and their supporters, who observe a lack of open mindedness, or even simple honesty, by the stewards of such media outlets. It is lunacy to expect such candidates to legitimize such media outlets, or the temporary stewards of such outlets, particularly in this era of more partisan media, and declining standards of media conduct. A journalistic institution that conducts itself ethically will usually command the trust, respect, and cooperation extended a mediating institution in a community. Institutions that do not conduct themselves reasonably — and City and the D&C certainly do not — will find candidates, community leaders, and the public in general stepping around them, and it is long overdue here.
Tom Brennan
Rochester, NY