In a somewhat unremarkable post yesterday on BlueOregon (I didn't even bother to repost it here!), I argued that the three minor-party candidates for governor should be included in the three planned debates. (Probably I should have argued that they be included in at least one of the debates, but hindsight ....) Today the Oregonian featured an editorial arguing, not only in points but rough structure, the same thing. I don't blame the O--they suffer for lacking the immediacy of blogs, and my post was not deep insight. But then there's the curious endings to the two pro-debate commentaries. First, mine:
I think it's a great disservice to democracy, and probably one of the reasons politics have gotten so divisive in the first place. So, at the risk of damaging the campaign of the guy I intend to vote for (Ted), I say: let 'em debate.Now, the O:
I believe I'm that "prominent Blue Oregon blogger," and I am in full agreement with the O. So why have they used my post to imply I'm against open debates? Come on, ed board, I don't mind you outlining a position remarkably similar to mine (I assume you would have written the editorial whether I had written mine or not), but at least refrain from making me the straw man.
At least one prominent Blue Oregon blogger speculates that opening up the debates would hurt the candidate he supports, Kulongoski. At least one prominent Oregon conservative complains that opening up the debates would hurt his candidate, Saxton.
Voters shouldn't care much about that. They should care that they get a real chance to consider the views of all five candidates and make their decisions accordingly.
(And yes, I'm aware not a reader out there will care a whit about this, but I blame the interns. They were all fired up this morning, so what could I do?)