Posted on 05/07/2002 6:27:57 AM PDT by Exit 109
TRENTON, May 6 In a debate that was more a get-acquainted session than a heated clash over the issues, the three Republican candidates for United States Senate last night engaged in a largely genial exchange on taxes, Social Security, the environment and combating terrorism.
The candidates, all of whom have name recognition in the single-digits, according to recent polls, went to great lengths in a televised debate on New Jersey Network public television to lavish praise on President Bush. They all made passing reference to the ethical questions that have dogged the incumbent they hope to unseat, Democratic Senator Robert G. Torricelli.
But rather than dwell on their differences on issues like abortion rights and the death penalty, the three candidates spent most of the night trying to define themselves as the kind of centrist who can appeal to New Jersey's moderate voters and defeat someone as tenacious and well-financed as Mr. Torricelli.
Douglas Forrester, a businessman who has not been active in politics for more than a decade, said his experience in the private sector would help him bring fresh perspective to policy debates about prescription drugs and Social Security.
State Senator John Matheussen, who has the support of the party's abortion opponents, boasted of his support for patients rights' bills and the fact that he once was a member of the Teamsters union.
State Senator Diane Allen sought to counterbalance her positions against the death penalty and in favor of abortion rights by describing herself as a fiscal conservative.
"Bob Torricelli is wrong on the issues, wrong on character and wrong for New Jersey," she said. "On the CNN cable network, they said that I am the only Republican that can defeat him."
With less than a month remaining until the June 4 primary, Republican party officials were hopeful that the event might inject some excitement into a contest that has thus far been notable for its lack of buzz.
As recently as last fall, Mr. Torricelli, who was enmeshed in a federal investigation, appeared to be a highly vulnerable target, and New Jersey Republicans spoke with glee about the possibility they might win a United States Senate seat for the first time in a generation.
But in January, prosecutors decided not to seek criminal charges against Mr. Torricelli. Within weeks, the Republicans strongest candidates announced that they would not enter the race. And last month, the Essex County executive, James W. Treffinger, the favorite candidate of party leaders, was forced to withdraw from the contest after reports that he was the subject of a corruption investigation.
The three remaining candidates, each draw support from different segments of the party.
Mr. Matheussen, the only candidate who opposes abortion rights, talked extensively about his support for a program to make prescription drug coverage more affordable for the elderly and various plans to helped distressed cities. But when Ms. Allen said that she had supported a bill that would forbid doctors from performing abortions on girls 17 or younger unless their parents had been notified, Mr. Matheussen reminded her that she had not always voted for notification. "That's all well and good, but had Senator Allen, my colleague, and I respect her, voted yes, we would have parental notification right now," he said.
Mr. Forrester has been running as the outsider. Although he once was mayor of West Windsor and worked in the State Division of Pensions, he has been president of a health care firm in recent years and offered himself as a fresh alternative to voters tired of political scandals.
The two most confrontational comments of the debate were both aimed at Mr. Forrester by Ms. Allen. Responding to a question about the federal tax cuts recently approved by Congress, she used it as an opportunity to chide Mr. Forrester's record on taxes. "As mayor of West Windsor he raised taxes by 300 percent," she said. "I've never raised taxes, I only cut them."
Mr. Forrester explained that the tax increase was necessary to pay for emergency repairs to the township's sewer system, which, he said, was a far cry from the billions of dollars in wasteful spending that Ms. Allen and other legislators had voted for in recent years.
Later, Ms. Allen likened Mr. Forrester to Senator Jon S. Corzine because both men are wealthy businessmen able to finance their own campaigns. Mr. Forrester said that political newcomers have to "put their money where their mouth is," because the electoral system is skewed to favor incumbents. "I honestly believe that it's inappropriate to make the implication that Senator Corzine purchased his seat," he said, furrowing his brow.
Considering the spending that went on under "fiscally conservative" Christie Witless, I sort of take the term "fiscally conservative" with a grain of salt. Its just a technique used by liberal Republicans to fool a sector of the base. Anyone here know how Ms. Allen was on spending when she was in Trenton?
GOP Senate hopefuls face off
Tuesday, May 07, 2002By MARK PERKISS
TRENTON - The three Republicans seeking their party's nomination to run for U.S. Senate met for their first televised debate last night, but Democratic U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli, who wasn't there, stole the show.
The GOP challengers, state Sens. Diane Allen and John Matheussen and former West Windsor Mayor Douglas Forrester, didn't take long to begin their attacks on Torricelli, saying his record on ethics makes him unfit for office.
"I'm running for Senate because you deserve a senator New Jersey can be proud of," Allen, R-Edgewater Park, said in her opening statement. "I'm angry that Bob Torricelli has been an embarrassment."
Forrester, who runs his own pharmaceuticals benefits management company, also immediately brought up the Democratic incumbent.
"My name is Doug Forrester and I'm running against Bob Torricelli for Senate," the millionaire businessman began.
Torricelli is running for re-election and is unopposed in the Democratic primary.
Last night's debate, held at New Jersey Network's Trenton studios and broadcast live, was the first chance the three little-known candidates had to plead their cases before anything other than small Republican groups.
Allen used the debate to announce that she would release her income tax returns and challenged her two opponents in the June 4 GOP primary to do the same.
Forrester, who so far has loaned his campaign $3 million of his own money, said he would not release his tax returns. Instead, he said, he would follow U.S. Senate rules and file a financial disclosure form with the Senate.
Matheussen, R-Mantua, did not respond to the challenge.
The debate, which featured questions from a panel of reporters, covered a wide variety of issues, from homeland security and the war on terrorism to air pollution and the federal judiciary.
But much of the candidates' focus was on Torricelli.
"Bob Torricelli is wrong on the issues," Allen said. "He's wrong on character and he's wrong for New Jersey. I believe I'm the strongest Republican to defeat him."
-- -- --
The sharpest exchange of the debate came between Allen and Matheussen on the issue of whether minors seeking abortions need to have parental consent.
Allen, who is pro-choice, defended her vote against a constitutional amendment requiring notification even though she had voted for a bill supporting the practice. She said the amendment was overly broad and questionable legally.
"That's all well and good," responded Matheussen, who is anti-abortion. "But if Sen. Allen, my colleague, had voted yes we would have parental notification today."
Allen defended her position. "I voted for parental notification and my vote in no way led to us not having it," she said.
The three Republican candidates said they support President Bush's war against terrorism and would support an invasion of Iraq if needed.
"The world is a predatory place," Forrester said. "We need to be vigilant - more so than ever. We need to be strong. I'm appreciative of what President Bush is doing and I want to go to Washington to help him."
Matheussen said he would support an invasion of Iraq provided he has enough information to make a decision. "Before we commit American troops to an invasion we have to be careful," he said.
Allen also supported the idea of an invasion of Iraq. "We must stand with the president," she said.
-- -- --
The three candidates also differed on measures to improve air quality in New Jersey.
Allen and Matheussen said they would favor reducing emissions from Midwestern power plants whose emissions have been shown to pollute air in New Jersey. Forrester said he would rely on former Gov. Christie Whitman, who now is administrator of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, to take steps to protect the state's interests.
The candidates agreed on the how those nominated to federal judgeships should be assessed, with Allen, Forrester and Matheussen saying what is most important is the ability to closely interpret the Constitution.
"The litmus should be able to follow the Constitution, and interpret our laws," Matheussen said.
Forrester and Allen agreed.
"We need to get judges who can affirm the clear intent of law," Forrester said.
"We need people who are honest," Allen said. "Do they have integrity and can they follow the Constitution?"
Democrats responded to last night's debate by saying they have little to fear from the Republican field.
"The three showed that they are second-rate candidates with third-rate ideas," said Richard McGrath, a spokesman for the Democratic State Committee.
-- -- --
Last night's debate was a study in contrasts.
Allen, who represents part of Burlington County, was attempting to build on her name-recognition as a Philadelphia television newscaster and her moderate voting record in the Legislature.
Allen, 54, is pro-choice and voted against a ban on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion and also opposes the death penalty.
Forrester, 49, a former assistant state treasurer and pension director under Gov. Thomas Kean, has cast himself as a "Bush Republican" who supports a woman's right to abortion with regulations that would, for instance, ban partial-birth abortion. But he is vague about how far his regulations would go.
Matheussen is the lone candidate in the race who opposes abortion, a position that generally is well-received by conservative Republican primary voters.
Matheussen, 49, has raised about $30,000, which political experts say will make him have little effect in the June 4 GOP primary.
While the debate focused on Torricelli's conduct and a federal criminal investigation that ended last year with no charges filed, the Republican primary has had its share of scandal.
Last month, Essex County Executive James Treffinger, who had been the GOP front-runner for more than a year, dropped out of the race four days after his Newark offices were raided by FBI and Internal Revenue Service agents as part of a corruption investigation.
Treffinger's departure reduced the once-crowded GOP field to three candidates. Earlier in April, Assemblyman Guy Gregg, R-Washington Township, Morris County, and former Independent Counsel Robert Ray dropped out of the race.
-- -- --
Republicans have not won a U.S. Senate seat in New Jersey since Clifford Case in 1972.
This year, however, Republicans are hoping that a federal investigation of Torricelli's 1996 Senate campaign financing has left him badly bruised and able to be defeated.
Despite the investigation, Torricelli was buoyed late last year when the U.S. Attorney in New York said there was not enough evidence to file charges against the senator.
Some national Republican leaders still are hoping a candidate will emerge from the June 4 primary who can go after the incumbent Democrat by attacking his record on ethics, regardless of whether any laws were violated.
Senate TV debate airs differences
Allen, Forrester and Matheussen sparred over abortion rights and the death penalty.
By Tom Turcol
Inquirer Staff Writer
New Jersey's three Republican U.S. Senate candidates, largely unknown and hoping to draw attention to their low-visibility campaigns, used their first televised debate last night to carve out differences on a few key issues.
While the candidates agreed on most matters, differences emerged on the politically charged issues of abortion and the death penalty.
With only a month left before the June 4 primary, State Sens. Diane Allen and John Matheussen and millionaire businessman Douglas Forrester tried to position themselves as the strongest opponent to Democratic Sen. Robert G. Torricelli in the fall.
Allen, who represents Burlington County, used the New Jersey Network debate to seize the offensive against Forrester, who has gained increased official party support in the last two weeks.
Allen sought to make Forrester's wealth an issue, challenging the businessman, who is financing his own campaign, to release his income-tax returns so that voters could see the financial sources of his campaign.
The voters, she said, "need to know where our [campaign] money is coming from."
Forrester declined, saying the financial disclosure statements candidates were required to file under federal law were sufficient.
Asserting that incumbents held a huge financial advantage in federal races, Forrester said there was nothing wrong with nominating a candidate, such as himself, with the resources "to get our message out."
"I have to put my money where my mouth is," he said, adding that the accusation that he was trying to "buy the seat" was inappropriate.
Allen also went after Forrester on taxes. She said that while professing his support for tax cuts, Forrester had presided over a large tax increase as mayor of West Windsor in the 1980s.
Forrester suggested that using the tax issue was an unfair campaign trick. He said that increasing revenues had been the only responsible course because the Mercer County town had needed to resolve a serious public-health problem.
With little separating the candidates on most of a broad range of federal issues, abortion and the death penalty have emerged as defining issues in the campaign.
Allen has appealed to Republican women and moderates who favor abortion rights. Matheussen, of Gloucester County, has raised little money for his campaign and, in the view of most analysts, must appeal to the party's most hard-core social conservatives to become a credible contender.
He is the only candidate who opposes abortion rights, and has been endorsed by the state's largest antiabortion organization, New Jersey Right to Life.
But last night, Matheussen rejected an opportunity to reinforce his position, saying in response to a question that he would not decide on U.S. Supreme Court nominees on the basis of their position on abortion.
He went even further, pointedly saying he would look for judges who would uphold the laws on the books. Federal law permits abortions.
"There would be no litmus test other than the intellectual ability of the judge to uphold the Constitution and uphold the laws of our country," he said.
Matheussen, however, accused Allen of opposing parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. Allen maintained that she favored parental notification, but that proposed New Jersey legislation on the issue was unconstitutional.
Forrester, who favors abortion rights, also said he supported parental notification.
Allen, who has come under criticism from some Republicans for opposing the death penalty, sought to downplay that position during the debate. She said that capital punishment had not been enforced in New Jersey for 40 years, and that the state should focus instead on measures to keep criminals off the streets.
Matheussen and Forrester said that capital punishment was an essential tool to reduce crime, and that the state Supreme Court should begin enforcing the death penalty.
On other issues, all three candidates expressed strong support for Israel. Allen was the most outspoken on the matter, suggesting that President Bush should be more aggressive in promoting Israeli interests.
"I only wish we can be as good a friend of Israel as it has been to us," Allen said.
Republican Senate debate produces few fireworks
BRIAN P. MURPHY
PoliticsNJ.com
TRENTON, May 6 - In their first opportunity to reach GOP primary voters through a televised debate, the three Republican U.S. Senate candidates tonight attempted to draw contrasts between each other and their ultimate opponent, incumbent Sen. Bob Torricelli.
And judging by their post-debate press releases,each campaign clearly thought their candidate performed best:
“Matheussen Wins First U.S. Senate Debate Clearly and Convincingly”
“It’s Forrester, Hands Down, In First Debate”
Appearing in red and yellow ties, and a patrioticscarf, businessman Douglas Forrester, State Sen. John Matheussen, and State Sen. Diane Allen, respectively, traded barbs over personal wealth, their voting records on taxes, and their potential to defeat Torricelli. They all took at least one opportunity to affirm and re-affirm their support of George W. Bush, the most popular politician in New Jersey, according to a recent poll.
“The debate went well, I think,” said Forrester. Matheussen said it was “fine” and Allen’s campaign manger said it was “pretty good.”
Allen raised the issue of financial disclosure in her opening statement by calling on her opponents to release their income tax returns. In a release, she said, “in order to defeat Torricelli, all Republican candidates must show they have nothing to hide and that they’re ethically sound.”
But Allen’s call was a non-starter at the debate; neither Forrester nor Matheussen would commit to release their returns. “The financial disclosures required by the U.S. Senate are more appropriate and revealing of the kinds of things we’re talking about here,” Forrester said. Matheussen said that he had already “filed disclosures with the state,” and that while he is a public servant, “my wife is not, and I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to show the world her personal finances.”
Former Independent Counsel Robert Ray, a Forrester supporter, called Allen’s push for the disclosure of tax returns a distraction. “Tax returns were the non-issue issue of the debate,” said Ray, “but at the end of the day, the most critical issue a Senator votes on has to do with the commitment of U.S. troops to a military cause.”
Ray also thought that running alongside Bush “only works to a point” for the candidates. “They’ll have to show how they can lead, and take opinions that differ with the White House but are in the best interest of New Jerseyans.”
“When we start talking about real issues that impact the needs and concerns of New Jersey’s families, seniors and taxpayers, we’re playing on my turf," said Matheussen. "Tonight’s discussion was about which candidate has done more and who can do more for New Jersey in the United States Senate. I believe voters saw tonight that my record is superior to the record of my opponents.”
“After sixty minutes, the people of New Jersey still have no idea what these candidates stand for or what they’ve accomplished for our state,” said Ken Snyder, Torricelli’s campaign manager. “When the voters focus in on records, we’re confident that Senator Torricelli’s record of cutting taxes and making college tuition more affordable will make him the clear choice.”
Richard McGrath, a spokesman for the Democratic State Committee, said the debate showcased “second-rate candidates with third-rate ideas.”
The candidates won’t have another debate until May 24th: in the morning with NBC’s Gabe Pressman in New York, and in the afternoon, hosted by the League of Women Voters. Both will air during Memorial Day weekend. “This was our big shot,” said one campaign staffer, who emphasized the importance of tonight’s forum. “We got out there, and by the end of the week we’ll see how it worked.”
A BREAKOUT EVENT? THAT'S DEBATABLE
By David P. Rebovich
Do debates matter? Crusty political veterans respond with a wry smile that says something between "rarely" and "not really." Campaign managers and consultants, however, can't afford such cynicism. They have to believe that debates can matter and that with careful planning, a capable candidate, and a little luck, can mean a lot. Why? Because they're paid to make them matter! Especially in races where it's hard to get voters' attention or for a candidate to get much traction. Like, for example, a low visibility, uneventful primary campaign that pits three relative unknowns whose campaign messages are hard to distinguish.
Such as the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in the Garden State, which saw Diane Allen, Douglas Forrester, and John Matheussen have their first debate Monday night on New Jersey Network. Did their debate matter? Well, airing without much advance publicity - the event was not even listed in TV Guide magazine - and up against several first run network television shows, viewership probably didn't extend much beyond political reporters, activists, and junkies. This is not unusual and in itself wouldn't make a debate irrelevant.
After all, unwatched debates can result in banner headlines and lead news stories, days of follow-up analysis, and fodder for television and radio ads. That is if one or more of the following occur: one candidate is deemed the consensus winner of the debate; someone sneaks in an especially memorable line, e.g., "I knew John Kennedy, etc..."; there is lots of mudslinging; or, a candidate crashes.
None of these happened Monday night. No winner? Well, the three campaigns of course claimed victory for their candidate. In some ways, they're all correct. Allen, Forrester, and Matheussen each proved to be reasonably fluent on policy issues. And, they all survived the nearly too-fast pace of the debate, the rapid-fire interrogation by a sharp and well-prepared panel, and some shrewd questions which required candidates to explain their views about some issues on which Republican Pres. George Bush and the majority of New Jerseyans, if not the majority of the state's Republicans, seem to disagree. But overall, Allen, Forrester and Matheussen seemed like they were ready for a general election campaign.
Not that any of them said much memorable. Yes, each found occasion to repeat, per their debate coach's instructions, their campaign slogan. They did a little better job casting a few well-placed arrows. Allen called on her opponents - translated, millionaire businessman Forrester - to release their income tax records so that voters could evaluate all possible sources of financial influence on the candidates. She also challenged Forrester's self-professed fiscal conservatism, charging that he raised property taxes by 300 percent while mayor of West Windsor. Forrester responded that his legislative opponents were guilty of running up a record-setting state debt and as such couldn't claim being fiscal conservatives. For his part, Matheussen asserted that the state would have parental notification laws except for Allen's "no" vote.
None of this qualifies as mudslinging, much less as charges that would irreparably damage any of these candidates. But they may well matter to some more ideological types concerned about each candidate's Republican bona fides. And they no doubt indicate what points we'll be hearing more about as the June 4th primary approaches. But during this first debate - two more will air over the Memorial Day weekend - the three candidates did not seem especially interested in identifying differences with each other or in attacking their opponents. Rather, each seemed intent on explaining how his or her positions on issues were in relative harmony with those of the very popular Republican President.
Their motivation here was threefold. The candidates were suggesting that they would run close to Pres. Bush and try to advantage from his enormous popularity across the country and in New Jersey. They each recognized the advantages of a U.S. Senate primary which focused more on what Republicans have in common, unlike last spring's fractious gubernatorial primary which ended up hurting the entire party in the general election. These not very well-known Republicans also wanted to show how their own views comported with the party's core principles. And oh yes, they also wanted to make it clear that the real enemy was not each other or one policy position or another but Democrat Bob Torricelli.
But if there was so much support for the President and no huge differences in policy positions, did this debate accomplish much for any of the candidates? Were they able to put to rest concerns or criticisms that some Republicans may have about them? Were they able to amplify their strengths and create even a little separation from each other that might help all those undecided Republicans make a decision on June 4th? Was any candidate able to generate some momentum? Granted, none of this is easy to do when being asked tough questions during a live, televised debate. Nonetheless, going into the debate Allen, Forrester and Matheussen each had their own specific challenges and objectives to address.
For Allen, it was important not to be pinned as a "liberal" on issues like abortion and the death penalty. Like Matheussen who also hails from south Jersey, Allen needed to show north Jersey Republicans less familiar with her that she is indeed ready for "prime time." And then there is the very key to Allen's candidacy and her strongest argument for deserving the nomination, i.e., she is the GOP's best bet of attracting moderate voters in the general election while satisfying her party's conservative base that she's a "real" Republican.
Matheussen, despite his protestations, is also walking a political tightrope. The only clearly pro-life candidate, he needs a strong turnout from social conservatives in the party to be competitive. But in the aftermath of Bret Schundler's poor performance last fall, Matheussen knows that many Republicans are looking for a candidate who can avoid being pigeonholed in a general election campaign. He thus wants to show folks that it is a mistake to label him some kind of arch-conservative on social issues generally due to his pro-life beliefs.
Forrester finds himself in a funny position. The "front-runner" everywhere but in the polls, he leads his opponents in fundraising - he's largely bankrolled his own campaign -, ad time and targeted mailings, and endorsements in Republican-rich areas. But questions about his candidacy abound. Yes, he can buy ads and comes across pretty well in staged and structured situations. But can he handle the give-and-take of public debate? Does he know enough about issues other than Bob Torricelli's problems? And, is there a compelling "campaign story" here which gets him beyond the charge, "Like Jon Corzine, he simply wants to buy a seat in the U.S. Senate?"
In Monday's debate, the careful viewer and listener may have noticed how each of the candidates tried to deal with concerns about themselves and achieve specific objectives. The "too liberal" Allen reiterated her fiscal conservatism and commitment to strict law enforcement. The "pro-life" Matheussen spoke about his support for health care programs for women, children and seniors. Both advantaged from the ability to refer to specific legislation they sponsored or endorsed in Trenton, their understanding of the connection between federal and state policies, and the breadth of their knowledge. Each gave the impression that he or she could get the federal government to do more for New Jersey in areas like the environment, transportation, and health care assistance. But they stumbled when NJN's Michael Aron asked how these self-professed fiscal conservatives cum social moderates would pay for any new programs while supporting Pres. Bush's call for a permanent federal income tax cut.
What about Forrester? Still serious and straightforward, he tried to add a personal and humanistic touch to several responses by referring to his humble beginnings, supportive parents, and fine family. Whether this made up for a relative deficiency in knowledge of public policy compared to his more experienced opponents remains to be seen. What may be a little more disconcerting to Republican bigwigs is his rather awkward invoking of constitutional principles and the views of the founders in what seemed to be a schoolboy attempt to cover up not knowing how to answer some questions. But with no clear winner of this debate, no sharp distinctions drawn between the candidates, and no personal crashes, the candidate with the most money and a growing list of important endorsements may have benefited the most.
|
|
| David P. Rebovich, Ph.D., is Managing Director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics (www.rider.edu/institute). He teaches courses in New Jersey Politics, Political Campaigning, Urban Politics, and Public Administration and is a commentator for several New Jersey, New York and Philadelphia media outlets. He also writes a regular column,"On Politics", for NEW JERSEY LAWYER. |
RINO's love to issue bonds to pay for bills and cover debet, the do not slash programs or unnecessary jobs and positions. She is worthless.
You know, the kind of people who live in mansions in exclusive neighborhoods with private armed guards and send their kids to private school. They oppose things like letting the commoners arm themselves, or use vouchers, etc. Their only political issue is assuriong they can pass on as much of their wealth as possible to their offspring. In order to do so, they are willing to deal with the devil in the Democratic PArty and the leftist public on any and every other social issue.
Just how important is it for a candidate to look at the camera?
I would guess that it would give personal contact between speaker and viewer, which might have meaning to some. Allan's touchy-feely way is enhanced when she is 'looking' at you, but with the more serious Forrester, some personal contact is lost.
I know nil/zilch about debating skills, but this one point from last night's debate had more effect on me than their answers.
Yup. And the Dems are nervous about it . . . note the concerted spin in all of these articles. “3 relative unknowns”, blah, blah, blah. Torch’s numbers in the last Quinnipiac poll stunk for an incumbent (IIRC, under 50% against each GOP candidate). And there’s plenty of time to widen that gap before November. :-)
Yes. However, we’re talking about a very different electorate in a primary than a general. More conservative, less likely to vote based upon the fact that the candidate wears a skirt. (Except for Hazel Gluck and Co.)
If registered GOP women were that strong a block in the primary, Bret wouldn’t have been the nominee last year.
It’s vitally important for the candidate to make that eye contact with the camera.
Your comments show precisely why. Go back and notice the words you used to compare Allen’s and Forrester’s presentations. Allen - “touchy-feely”, looking AT you (i.e. - making a connection with you as a viewer). Forrester - serious, personal contact lost.
Now go back in time and think about the Kennedy/Nixon debates. Anyone who heard that debate on the radio said Nixon won. Those who watched the debate on television said Kennedy won.
People forget that TV is primarily a visual medium. Playing to a camera, as opposed to a room full of people, is a completely different art. The camera has a tendency to exaggerate everything - and it’s not a normal act to speak to a camera lens.
Add to that a setting where you are debating before a studio audience, and your natural tendency is to address the audience, the moderators, the panel asking the questions. (i.e. - Anything human except the inanimate object that represents the eyes of the viewers.) It’s a concept that takes some getting used to.
Considering Allen’s unfair advantage as a broadcaster, it seems the other candidates did a good job. And a televised primary debate is a different animal than a televised debate of the candidates in the general. In the former situation, you’re dealing with an audience who is interested in issues (remember who votes in the primary - the hard core base). In the latter scenario, you’re addressing those pesky unaffiliated voters who vote on image/emotion (the same crowd that gave us 8 years of that disgrace, X42).
I think the next debate is scheduled for May 24th. That gives the candidates some time to work on their skills.
I really dislike this image building, that seems so necessary today. I didn't like the color of Matheussen's tie and shirt, but I didn't let it effect what I heard from him. (I hope I didn't.) Forrester's tie/shirt was better (to me) and I noticed that Allan didn't have an American flag pin. I also didn't like her scarf. All these things were there for me to see, but a persons sincerity, grasp of issues, and past history, should be more important than coloring the grey in their hair or other influencing images. Poor Nixon and those beads of sweat. This wonderful medium was his undoing at that time.
Actually, my question about looking into the camera was just to get it out there, as no one has touched upon it that I've read.
All my lofty comments will go out the door when there is just the one candidate against Torricelli. I just want that guy out! LOL!
"Fiscally Conservative" -- ahem -- How many times have we heard that? Why don't they just stamp an I AM A RINO tattoo on their foreheads???
Jersey sucks! Bruce Springsteen sucks! Trenton sucks! The NJ "GOP" sucks!
Are you a criminal? A public parasite? Come to Jersey -- home of soccers moms, overpaid school teachers, anti-smoking zealots, and every other busy-body asshole on the planet!
And because I have an elderly parent to care for I have to stay here!!!!
I wonder if there's a government program (i.e. your $$$$) for me?
Stop laughing...
I'd never expect them to comment on it now - they're all waiting to jump on it in October. (i.e. - the press) Don't point out a fault in the style department. The candidate may be able to correct it before he has to debate Mr. 'I never touched that Rolex' (because my assistant did) in his high priced Italian suits.
I share your frustrations about what campaigns have become. Quite frankly, I keep hoping that 911 was the wake up call we so needed in this country - that US Citizenship is a serious responsibility - NOT a popularity contest. Would it really kill these people to shut off the TV one night each month and go to a Township Committee meeting?
Our lofty thoughts aside, I still want that miserable so-and-so our of office too. November can't come fast enough for me. Besides, he dated Bianca Jagger. THAT denotes a very serious lack of judgement in my book!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.