The standoff between Supervisor Linda Parks and Assemblywoman Audra Strickland continues, as multiple opportunities to debate have fallen by the wayside.
The most recent chance to debate would have been May 28th, the date set by Strickland in response to Parks' debate challenge:
The two-term incumbent asked Strickland to name a date she would be available, saying her only conditions are that the event be in the district, free to the public and taped for broadcast.
On Friday, Strickland's team released this:
Meeting all of Parks' challenge parameters, the debate will be held at Thousand Oaks City Hall and will be hosted by the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Association (TOBA). Rick Lemmo, President of TOBA, will moderate the debate. The debate will be taped and made available on Time Warner Cable Video On Demand Channel 1 prior to the June 8th primary.
That meets all the requirements for Parks' public challenge. I wrote this Friday:
I'd expect Parks to agree to the time and location of the debate--it would expose her to criticism if she issued a challenge and then backed down from it.
I attempted to reach the supervisor a few days ago asking what she intended to do about the debate but she hasn't responded as of this writing. However, Strickland's campaign reports that Parks is declining the opportunity, and the Assemblywoman released this statement [continue reading]
Eric Ingemunson's commentary has been featured on Hannity, CNN, NBC, Inside Edition, and KFI's The John and Ken Show.
Eric was born and raised in Ventura County and currently resides in Moorpark. He earned a master's degree in Public Policy and Administration from California Lutheran University. As a conservative, Eric supports smaller government, less taxation, more individual freedom, the rule of law, and a strict adherence to the Constitution.
Eric,
I am confident you are voting for Audra Strickland. But are you really not going to mention that the person that Audra Strickland asked to moderate the debate is a fundraiser of hers? Am I missing something here?
Or that the moderator, Lemmo, is an executive for Caruso Development?
Eric, you are not going to attract people, myself included, if you are just another shill for the Stricklands. This thread is not worthy of you in the least.
Brian and Katie, I did mention it. I identified the moderator as a Strickland supporter in my last post on the topic:
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/vcs/ingemusings/archives/2010/05/parks-debate-ch.html
Eric,
Do you think Audra Strickland was trying to sabotage the debate by asking that a fundraiser of hers moderate it? Do you think asking a fundraiser to moderate a debate is a reasonable idea?
I have no reason to believe that Strickland would sabotage the debate. I like to have all the information before I throw around accusations AHEM COUGH COUGH Brian COUGH Katie--it would be nice if you both followed that link I sent you, disown your comments, and acknowledge that I've treated this fairly.
Parks left an opening, Strickland's campaign exploited it. It's probably smart from a political perspective, although choosing a big supporter to moderate opens her campaign up to criticism from her opponents as well, as you and Katie ably demonstrate.
Eric, I will absolutely not disown my comments. This recent debacle is going to be a set back for you.
Eric,
You did mention on a previous entry that Audra Strickland wanted a campaign fundraiser to moderate the debate, but not on this entry. Do you think Audra Strickland wanted the debate to happen and really thinks a fundraiser moderating the debate would be fair or do you think she was playing a game?
This stunt is not smart from any perspective.
Katie, you said that I didn't give a piece of information, you were demonstrably wrong, I called you on it, and now you're telling me it's a setback for me?
I realize that we're three weeks before an election, but c'mon, at least pretend that the truth still means something.
I'm going to lose some respect for you if you can't disown your comment and the erroneous conclusion you drew from it.
Even the Star sees the gravity of Lemmo being inserted as the moderator but you don't. You're not even speaking to it because you obviously support Strickland, which is ok by the way. But face it, you're biased in your reporting. Your post and your comments prove it. Why not formally endorse Strickland? What are you trying to avoid Eric? You last post vaguely referenced the developer Lemmo acting as a moderator.
I don't support either. I am just a bystander viewing this in a much more objective lens than you are. I guess this is just how politics is.
Thank you for acknowledging the previous post, Brian. Katie should follow your example.
I'm not going to say the man that she chose wouldn't be fair, but his status at least gives the appearance that he wouldn't. Appearances aren't everything, sometimes that appearance will drive the person to be harder on his favored candidate. Lemmo may be a man of integrity, I don't know, I've never met him.
Maybe it would be politically more astute to pick someone that's not a public supporter. But there are other reasons why Lemmo was chosen. He leads a group of T.O. property owners whose businesses have a big impact on the community.
Parks could have avoided this by adding the moderator to her list of conditions attached to her promise to debate Audra. She didn't, and now Strickland has maneuvered her into breaking her promise to debate. I think that has just as more political legs than slightly winning or drawing in a debate.
Jake, that's ridiculous. I was the FIRST to report that Lemmo was the moderator, that he was a VP at Caruso (even though Katie still denies I wrote this apparently, but it's public for anyone to see), and that he support Strickland. The first. And you have the temerity to say I didn't mention it?
Then for this post, I didn't know exactly why Parks turned down the debate. It could be the date, the moderator, the location. She didn't respond to my email, so how could I know? Had she responded to me that she objected to the moderator, I surely would have written about that, as I have addressed it in the comments section.
Seriously, you political hacks out there need to at least get a fact or two right before you start going after somebody.
Eric, there is a reason why your blog isn't being advertised by the Star in their paper and that is because you apparently think it is OK to omit relevant facts from your threads and call people names (political hacks) and demand apologies when posters disagree with you. Not good at all.
Katie, you're bleeding credibility. And now you've made three more unfair accusations against me and three more times I'll easily show you are wrong. And three more times you'll refuse to acknowledge it, even though what you say is demonstrably false.
1. "Call people names": The only "names" you can point to that I've ever called people is calling a vitriolic anonymous commenter a "political hack" once. Go ahead, look it up. Is that really all you have? Did I say you're bleeding credibility? You're hemorrhaging it.
2. "Omit relevant facts": I assume you are still insisting that I didn't mention Lemmo was affiliated with Caruso? Or that he was hosting Strickland's meet and greet? Or that he was the moderator? It's all in my post from Friday. It's really quite remarkable you still won't admit I wrote this even though it's posted for everyone to see (would you call this an omission of a relevant fact on your part?), and yet you insist on falsely claiming I never said it. Are you feeling woozy from all your lost credibility yet?
3. "demand apologies when posters disagree with you": People disagree with me a lot, and I don't demand apologies from them. I demanded one from you because you falsely accused me of something and I proved you wrong, just like I'm doing now. Perhaps I'm wrong--maybe you can point to another occasion where I've done this unfairly? I'll be waiting.
Katie, I've always been happy that you've contributed to my blog, but you've taken this way too far. I urge you to give it a rest or you're going to stain yourself with dishonesty.
I can see you're trying to be objective about these political races but you just can't do it. It's best you be upfront aobut your positions or else you become what you claim the maninstream media is to our President. A biased reporter under the guise of objective journalism. I guess political beings can't help it.
I don't mind being called a political hack, we all are, you included Eric.
Jake, your last comment is much more reasonable, so thanks for coming around. You bring up a legitimate point about objectivity.
Being objective in journalism means being opinionless; not favoring any side of any issue, and just reporting facts. Objectivity is something hard news mainstream journalists need to be (but you are correct, rarely are).
I am a commentator. My job is to be subjective, not objective. My job is to analyze the facts, to opine. But I do it in a fair and sober way, unlike most commentators.
Republicans should be very familiar with this concept, and liberals rarely understand this point. They always point to Fox News as not being objective, then they cite Hannity and O'Reilly's programs. But hello...those are commentators. That's not their job.
Jake, now that we've determined I'm a commentator, we next have to examine if there's any merit to your "hack" claim, or Katie's "shill" claim about this post. Your criticism presumes I've been unfair to Parks.
First, I've had more contact with Parks then I've had with Strickland. I bet many of you are surprised to read that. And both Parks and Strickland thought I was fair enough to moderate one of their debates. Since then, I've barely addressed their race except two of my recent posts.
In those, I was the first to publish that Lemmo was a Strickland supporter and a Caruso VP. That's hardly shilling for Strickland. I said I probably wouldn't have used him as moderator if I were them. I also said if I was Parks I wouldn't have risked an open ended debate challenge.
Jake and Katie, the more you analyze what I've really written, the fairer I've been to both sides, right? Even look at the headline I wrote:
"Strickland: Parks backs away from debate challenge"
A shill could have phrased it in an ugly way, like "Parks runs and hides" or something like that. I didn't do that. I qualified it by citing Strickland's assertion.
LOL eric. Lemmo is a known Strickland flunkie!!
"I have no reason to believe that Strickland would sabotage the debate."
ROTFLMAO!!!
Hey, stop beating Eric up on his own blog.
After reading Katie's latest posts here, I'm now thoroughly convinced she's perched on the precipice of sanity. She will obviously do anything and everything in her power to go ape on anything Strickland.
Katie, your wild-eyed over-zealousness here speaks volumes. Take Eric's advice and give it a rest.
Eric, you're a hack. As a 'commentator' the fact that your okay with a debate where the moderator is a well known contributor and supporter of one of the candidates devalues the integrity of the debate. You should know better. I assume you're content with a Whitman v. Brown gubernatorial debate that's narrated by Gavin Newsom. Obviously, you're a political hack, which is ok, there's nothing wrong with partisanship. I don't support either of these people but I do enjoy good political theater.
Your quote..."Republicans should be very familiar with this concept, and liberals rarely understand this point. They always point to Fox News as not being objective, then they cite Hannity and O'Reilly's programs. But hello...those are commentators. That's not their job." shows your partisan ignorance. I hope someday when you mature as a political human being you realize how ignorant that statement is.
If Hannity, Beck, O'Reilley, etc... are all commentators...where's the news at Fox News? 3am to 5 am?
Eric:
Both Linda Parks and Audra Strickland should be ashamed of themselves.
Their unwillingness to confront their respective paid political handlers and insist on a fair, free-flowing and open debate without preconditions says volumes about their lack of political judgment, leadership and respect for the intelligence and independence of the voters in the 2nd Supervisorial District.
There is no need for a moderator, only a single-purpose time-keeper. And the sole function of that time-keeper would be to recognize questioners from the floor, clearly and crisply state the time limits and order of the responses by the candidate, and firmly enforce adherence to those rules of engagement, regardless of their personal views about either or both candidates.
As I said back on May 10, 2010, "If Lincoln and Douglas could debate each other without a moderator in 1858, why can't Parks and Strickland do so in 2010???"
Voters of the 2nd District - You've got a little more than two weeks of time left to insist that these two politicians go head-to-head, without their handlers and groupies, sanitizing the debate.
Are you willing to put the pressure on them both to make this happen???
If not, then you will deserve what you get on the morning of June 9th..
Eustace Chapuys