The moderators did not do their job in controlling the debate. The frequent interruptions from Earle-Sears were rude, distracting, and made it very difficult for the audience to hear Spanberger's responses. It appeared that even the moderators were unable to hear her responses in order to ask follow-up questions. They lost control from the start. Earle-Sears should have been warned about the interrupting and if she refused to comply her microphone should have been muted so that Spanberger's responses could be heard.
I give props to Spanberger for maintaining her composure. Being pushed about Jones from the beginning was an attempt to box her in to a response to a question over which she has no control. She didn't take that bait. Though it was hard to hear, Spanberger did state that those texts have been in possession of the Republicans for years but were released a week before the debate. Also hard to hear, she did respond that she did not have knowledge of the texts until the day they were released. She has strongly denounced Jones' texts. She is not an elected official. She's a candidate who's running for governor. She, under Virginia law, has no authority to force a candidate for another office to withdraw. Early voting has started and many Virginians have already cast their votes. There's no way to know who would change their votes given the opportunity. There is no way to remove Jones' name from the ballot at this point. Spanberger's response was appropriate. It is up to voters to make their choice.
Was Spanberger overly vague in her answers? From what I could hear she responded to the questions, gave examples, and stayed with the message she has been delivering since she began her campaign. To the criticism that she didn't show her warm and engaging side? That's a big ask given that she was being called a liar, barked questions from an opponent who, instead of responding to her own questions, took that time to badger and harass her opponent.
I believe all who were watching would have liked to hear more about the economy from both candidates. Perhaps that would have been possible had the debate not been impacted by the time-wasting behavior of Earle-Sears.
Governors of all states have an enormous job, one that takes knowledge and the ability to work across the aisle. Spanberger has a proven track record in that regard. Governors need a level head to make decisions that impact every citizen in their state. What I saw last night was a very clear choice. Do we want a governor who has a background that allows her to understand the challenges Virginians face and to work in a disciplined manner toward solutions and progress or do we want someone who lacks self-control and who appears unable to articulate her plan for Virginia? To me the choice is clear and that was underscored in last night's debate performance. My vote goes to Abigail Spanberger.
"In less-divisive times, the performance would have been considered an embarrassment and unworthy of a person running for the top office in the state."
Even in these polarized times, Sears' behavior was absurdly rude and embarrassing. And treating being 'overly polished' as if it is a similar level of mistep is poor framing.
Well, I was coming on here to make some points in my typical long-winded manner, but it appears the two who got here before me did it better and more concisely. Thank you to both and well done.
Still, can't help but notice how hard to please Mr Davis is, in that his complaint against Candidate Spanberger is that she was too well prepared and didn't recklessly react to deliberate provocation.
I'm amazed that Mr Davis isn't about 11' 12" tall, given his continual efforts at stretching to find equivalency in all things involving Democrats and Republicans, no matter the circumstance.
I also read reviews from Cardinal and VA Mercury regarding the same debate. I used to accuse Mr Yancey of Cardinal of the same predisposition toward seeing everything with a total incapacity for making a moral judgement of a politician's actions - which is fine for a reporter - for them, there is a responsibility to merely report the facts and leave the editorializing for the reader.
But if you're going to be an editor, and basically - in every editorial it's a repetition that they're all the same and they're all okay, no matter what their actions or words - honestly - it gets a little thin.
Though Mr Yancey seems to lean toward that standard, after a couple of years reading Mr Davis's themes, I'm not so sure I don't owe the former an apology. At the least, I'll say that he comes by it honest. Must be something taught at the Lee Enterprise School of Editorializing when you don't want to do anything to offend the delicate sensibilities of the ageing rigid readers you're writing for, who depend upon you to always give their candidate an excuse.
Oh well. Life goes on.
More interesting to me was a comment reported by Mr Yancey that when Ms Spanberger noted that Ms Earls-Sears was on the record being against gay marriage, and that she was also on record as saying she was okay for someone to be fired from the job for being gay - Ms Earl-Sears stated that action is "not discrimination".
With the questionable possible exception of a religious school or church, I'd love to hear more about that. Because it sure looks like homophobia to me. Especially in light of her actions and non-actions regarding her fellow candidate John Reid.
Should he be fired, or should he not have been allowed to run for LT Governor due to his sexuality? Is he not permitted to marry someone he loves? Are his rights fungible, based upon her religious beliefs?
I'd say the choice is clear. On many levels.
Being prepared, effective, knowledgeable, in control of yourself, pragmatic, and respectful while still maintaining your principles should not be disqualifying for leading this state. Especially when the other choice shows so few of the characteristics.
I'd say Virginia's voters got enough information last night to make an informed choice. Too bad Mr. Davis didn't. Not sure that was on anyone else.
Thank you for reiterating the stand, pointed out by Spanberger, regarding Earle-Sears' prior comments about gay rights, to include giving a nod to discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation. I do not believe Earle-Sears' stated beliefs represent the values of most Virginians. She had the chance to answer to that last night and she did not.
Those points were made near the end of what laughingly could be called a debate. Thank you for reminding us where Earl-Sears stands on individual rights that may not align with her personal choices.
The moderators did not do their job in controlling the debate. The frequent interruptions from Earle-Sears were rude, distracting, and made it very difficult for the audience to hear Spanberger's responses. It appeared that even the moderators were unable to hear her responses in order to ask follow-up questions. They lost control from the start. Earle-Sears should have been warned about the interrupting and if she refused to comply her microphone should have been muted so that Spanberger's responses could be heard.
I give props to Spanberger for maintaining her composure. Being pushed about Jones from the beginning was an attempt to box her in to a response to a question over which she has no control. She didn't take that bait. Though it was hard to hear, Spanberger did state that those texts have been in possession of the Republicans for years but were released a week before the debate. Also hard to hear, she did respond that she did not have knowledge of the texts until the day they were released. She has strongly denounced Jones' texts. She is not an elected official. She's a candidate who's running for governor. She, under Virginia law, has no authority to force a candidate for another office to withdraw. Early voting has started and many Virginians have already cast their votes. There's no way to know who would change their votes given the opportunity. There is no way to remove Jones' name from the ballot at this point. Spanberger's response was appropriate. It is up to voters to make their choice.
Was Spanberger overly vague in her answers? From what I could hear she responded to the questions, gave examples, and stayed with the message she has been delivering since she began her campaign. To the criticism that she didn't show her warm and engaging side? That's a big ask given that she was being called a liar, barked questions from an opponent who, instead of responding to her own questions, took that time to badger and harass her opponent.
I believe all who were watching would have liked to hear more about the economy from both candidates. Perhaps that would have been possible had the debate not been impacted by the time-wasting behavior of Earle-Sears.
Governors of all states have an enormous job, one that takes knowledge and the ability to work across the aisle. Spanberger has a proven track record in that regard. Governors need a level head to make decisions that impact every citizen in their state. What I saw last night was a very clear choice. Do we want a governor who has a background that allows her to understand the challenges Virginians face and to work in a disciplined manner toward solutions and progress or do we want someone who lacks self-control and who appears unable to articulate her plan for Virginia? To me the choice is clear and that was underscored in last night's debate performance. My vote goes to Abigail Spanberger.
"In less-divisive times, the performance would have been considered an embarrassment and unworthy of a person running for the top office in the state."
Even in these polarized times, Sears' behavior was absurdly rude and embarrassing. And treating being 'overly polished' as if it is a similar level of mistep is poor framing.
Well, I was coming on here to make some points in my typical long-winded manner, but it appears the two who got here before me did it better and more concisely. Thank you to both and well done.
Still, can't help but notice how hard to please Mr Davis is, in that his complaint against Candidate Spanberger is that she was too well prepared and didn't recklessly react to deliberate provocation.
I'm amazed that Mr Davis isn't about 11' 12" tall, given his continual efforts at stretching to find equivalency in all things involving Democrats and Republicans, no matter the circumstance.
I also read reviews from Cardinal and VA Mercury regarding the same debate. I used to accuse Mr Yancey of Cardinal of the same predisposition toward seeing everything with a total incapacity for making a moral judgement of a politician's actions - which is fine for a reporter - for them, there is a responsibility to merely report the facts and leave the editorializing for the reader.
But if you're going to be an editor, and basically - in every editorial it's a repetition that they're all the same and they're all okay, no matter what their actions or words - honestly - it gets a little thin.
Though Mr Yancey seems to lean toward that standard, after a couple of years reading Mr Davis's themes, I'm not so sure I don't owe the former an apology. At the least, I'll say that he comes by it honest. Must be something taught at the Lee Enterprise School of Editorializing when you don't want to do anything to offend the delicate sensibilities of the ageing rigid readers you're writing for, who depend upon you to always give their candidate an excuse.
Oh well. Life goes on.
More interesting to me was a comment reported by Mr Yancey that when Ms Spanberger noted that Ms Earls-Sears was on the record being against gay marriage, and that she was also on record as saying she was okay for someone to be fired from the job for being gay - Ms Earl-Sears stated that action is "not discrimination".
With the questionable possible exception of a religious school or church, I'd love to hear more about that. Because it sure looks like homophobia to me. Especially in light of her actions and non-actions regarding her fellow candidate John Reid.
Should he be fired, or should he not have been allowed to run for LT Governor due to his sexuality? Is he not permitted to marry someone he loves? Are his rights fungible, based upon her religious beliefs?
I'd say the choice is clear. On many levels.
Being prepared, effective, knowledgeable, in control of yourself, pragmatic, and respectful while still maintaining your principles should not be disqualifying for leading this state. Especially when the other choice shows so few of the characteristics.
I'd say Virginia's voters got enough information last night to make an informed choice. Too bad Mr. Davis didn't. Not sure that was on anyone else.
Thank you for reiterating the stand, pointed out by Spanberger, regarding Earle-Sears' prior comments about gay rights, to include giving a nod to discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation. I do not believe Earle-Sears' stated beliefs represent the values of most Virginians. She had the chance to answer to that last night and she did not.
Those points were made near the end of what laughingly could be called a debate. Thank you for reminding us where Earl-Sears stands on individual rights that may not align with her personal choices.