Political debates fraught with peril

Published 9:00 pm Saturday, September 25, 2004

Given the testosterone level of the presidential campaign, Vince McMahon may need to referee Thursday night’s clash between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry.

These guys are juiced to confront one another. It will be a nasty brawl about the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism and homeland security. Don’t be surprised if references to swift boats, the National Guard and Dan Rather slip into their conversational clinches.

Then come hours of postgame analysis: Who scored with the best punch and counterpunch? Was it a night of themes or theatrics? Did they wear the right tie and jacket combo for the occasion?

Whatever transpires will surely pale in comparison to the famed debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858. Those two gents dueled seven times, three hours each time, constructing a standard for oratorical conflict that’s been mimicked but never matched.

Here in Washington, in the race for U.S. Senate, the two candidates won’t even come close, offering voters a heavily discounted version.

Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and Republican foe Rep. George Nethercutt are scheduled to face off Oct. 15 at Gonzaga University in Spokane and Oct. 20 on KING-5 TV in Seattle.

For months, process servers sought to deliver additional debate invites to Murray, but she laced up her running shoes and sprinted away.

Nethercutt smartly teased her by suggesting nine debates, one in each of the state’s congressional districts. That trial balloon exploded on release.

We at The Herald teamed with KIRO-7 TV and the News Tribune of Tacoma with a pretty good proposal. I would have been one of those quizzing the Mom in Tennis Shoes and the Vagabond Congressman.

But Murray said no, and we took a seat on the crowded hill of spurned suitors.

I’m not surprised. She’s not the first incumbent or front-runner to avoid sharing a stage too often with an opponent. Nethercutt refused to debate his Republican primary opponent, Reed Davis.

The logic is simple: Winning is the objective and debates are risky ventures.

An accident could happen. You could mangle your message, or worse, your opponent’s name. That might work for president, but not in a lesser race.

Strategically, debates give an opponent what they most desire – free time on TV and a crack at the incumbent. They could end up looking good, sounding credible and engineering a screw-up on the part of the leader.

While her reluctance is explainable, does it make it right? Even the president found time for three debates. Maybe she’s more afraid than I thought?

“No,” said campaign spokeswoman Alex Glass, chuckling at the suggestion.

Congress is in session and she’s working, she said.

“She’s traded in her tennis shoes for combat boots as she fights for Washington state in the U.S. Senate,” Glass said.

Nice line, and one you won’t be hearing in a debate anytime soon.

Reporter Jerry Cornfield’s column on politics runs every Sunday. He can be heard at 7 a.m. Monday on the “Morning Show” on KSER (90.7 FM). He can be reached at 360-352-8623 or jcornfield@heraldnet.com.