Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: joesbucks
Interesting analysis, most of which I agree with.

Just curious as to why you think agreement to debates would mean trouble for Blackwell.

86 posted on 05/03/2006 5:12:15 PM PDT by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraqi LIBERATION Vet! THANKS, son!!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: ohioWfan
Just curious as to why you think agreement to debates would mean trouble for Blackwell.

Blackwell avoided any Petro debate except one......one put on by the Christian Coalition of Ohio.........one that was small and little known.........one that would have been freindly to him instead of neutral and let all the candidates stake their positions to the genral public side by side.........one that wouldn't be televised and only broadcast on three little known radio stations, one a low watt station in Cleveland, one a daytime only station in Columubus that left the air before the debate was over and one in Lancaster that has about a 20 mile radius. Blackwell was the only major candidate in attendance. The rest were the second tier candidates. Petro had a conflict and so did Blackwell until he was sure Petro wasn't going to be there.

A major part of Blackwell's strategy was to stay out of the debate spotlight in generally neutral forums because it could only hurt him instead of helped him. And he had a comfortable lead in the polls both internal and external. He wasn't going to risk that. Blackwell's a cagey man.

If he gets behind Strickland, look for him to be much more amenable to debating in secular/neutral debates that will be televised.

90 posted on 05/03/2006 6:58:21 PM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson