by Mike Smith Political debates play a very important role in a campaign. Especially when there is an open seat for governor and Vermonters are looking for ways to get to know a candidate. Voters gain meaningful insight into the positions and demeanor of a candidate through a well-structured debate. But some candidates will attempt to manipulate the debate format to their advantage. This could include limiting the number of debates, the scope of the topics to be discussed, even the time, date, and place of the debate. Some candidates may even try to place requirements on which candidates can participate, sometimes requiring that all be included in order to limit their exposure and avoid direct confrontation with one’s principal opponent.
Although candidates have the right to try and gain an advantage through the manipulation of the debate format, it is the right of sponsors of these debates, indeed, their obligation, especially media sponsors, to reject rules that give a particular candidate an advantage or limit the public’s full understanding of the capabilities of a candidate.
Both Phil Scott and Patrick Leahy are attempting to place restrictions on their participation in debates. The problem with these rules and their justifications is they don’t pass the straight-face test. This week’s column will focus on Phil Scott’s demands. And next week I’ll focus on Patrick Leahy’s conditions for his debates with opponent, Scott Milne.
Recently, Phil Scott’s team issued a memo outlining his demands for just showing up to a debate. Their primary concern is that former Red Sox pitcher, Bill “Spaceman” Lee — who is running on the Liberty Union ballot — a minor party — as a candidate for governor — will be allowed to participate in any debate between Republican Scott and Democrat Sue Minter.
Having Bill Lee on the stage with the two main candidates would be a ratings boost for any media outlet. It would be entertaining; it would garner lots of attention, maybe even national attention. What it will not do is give Vermonters a clear-eyed view of how the state’s major party candidates will lead Vermont forward. A debate with Bill Lee on stage ensures that one-third of the debate time will be diverted to a candidate that may only garner 10 percent of the vote. This means one-third less time to focus on the answers of Sue Minter and Phil Scott. Vermont is facing serious challenges and in these times Vermonters demand concrete proposals, a clear vision, and bold leadership — not entertainment.
Anyone who knows Phil Scott, whether they agree with his politics or not, comes to realize that he’s a decent and honest guy, but his campaign team is steering him in the wrong direction. They insist they are doing this because it is the democratic thing to do. We weren’t born yesterday. This is a tactical calculation by the Scott campaign, not a philosophical one. The tactic fails because it looks like he is ducking a head-to-head debate with Minter. Maybe Minter is slicker than Scott in debating skills, or maybe not; but Vermonters aren’t looking for slick — they got all the slick they ever wanted in the last 6 years — what they want is an honest discussion about how these two candidates are going to address the economic challenges of Vermonters.
What’s worse is the Phil Scott campaign didn’t follow their own rule — last week Scott participated in the NEA debate with only Minter on stage. In other words, no Bill Lee. And if democracy is as important to the Scott campaign as they claim, then why did they place a limit on the total number of debates? Aren’t more debates more democratic?
I gather it is the assumption of the Scott team that Lee is going to take the heat away from Scott, thereby limiting his debate exposure to any Minter attacks. This calculation is fraught with danger. What happens if Lee verbally attacks Scott in the debate? Now two candidates are on the offensive against Scott; and what’s worse, Lee, who has little chance of being our next governor, is in on the attack.
Putting restrictions on debates doesn’t usually work well for the candidate demanding the restrictions. Jim Jeffords tried it against Jan Backus in his reelection bid to the US Senate. He insisted that debates be open to all candidates. Backus claimed Jeffords was afraid to debate her one-on-one. And she might have won with this strategy had it not been for a policy mistake in the waning days of her campaign. I have been critical of politicians in the past — mostly with federal incumbents like Senator Leahy — that duck debates because they are “too busy” or make other ridiculous rules like insisting that multiple candidates be present or limit the number of debates to just a few.
Scott has said, and he’s correct, this campaign is an important one. Our state needs leadership that’s prepared to help grow the economy and address other tough issues like taxes, education, health care, and public safety. So why would Scott’s campaign place in front of him barriers that make it difficult to share his ideas and his vision with Vermonters?
This year’s election for governor is predicted to be tight race between Sue Minter and Phil Scott. It may very well come down to just a couple of little mistakes that will determine which candidate wins, and which will lose. Only time will tell if placing restrictions on debates is one of those little mistakes.
Mike Smith is the host of the radio program, “Open Mike with Mike Smith,” on WDEV 550 AM and 96.1, 96.5 and 101.9 FM. He is also a political analyst for WCAX-TV and WVMT radio and is a regular contributor to The Times Argus, Rutland Heraldand Vermont Business Magazine. He was the secretary of administration and secretary of human services under former Governor Jim Douglas.