Kilgore will, in fact, agree to debate Potts. He has no choice. If he doesn’t, his campaign is done, finished, and the tent is folded. He’s got some awfully bright folks advising him and I’d say they’re looking for the language that will allow the reconsideration of his earlier position–even as you read this. And then there are the investors, the campaign money bags. They will not sit on their hands while this campaign–and their money–goes down the drain on this debate issue. Get your popcorn ready, this debate will be on.
A Prediction
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
-
You got it right.
-
I agree, but the damage is done. He’s just saving face at this point. In addition, Kaine and Potts are likely to debate several times without him present (at least at this point) – can you imagine how diffacult it would be for him to recover from a scenario like this?
-
You guys must be drinking the Potts Kool-Aid. debate or no debate, it’s completely fantasy for anyone to say Kilgore’s campaign is over.
-
I hope your prediction is true, for a number of reasons. It certainly would stop the bleeding and shift some of the debate pressure to Potts.
What makes the current Kilgore position so inexplicable to me is that adding Potts to a debate actually makes Kilgore’s job easier. Potts and Kaine have to attack Kilgore without being perceived as mean-spirited or appearing to “pile on.” That’s hard to pull off. Kilgore just has to keep his cool under attack, stay positive, and stay on message.
The “winner” of a debate, as we have seen so often, isn’t always the winner on points–it’s the one who best exceeds expectations and appears the most likeable. Expectations for Kilgore couldn’t be any lower at this point (and maybe that’s the whole point of this seemingly ill-conceived strategy), but I’d say Kilgore projects a sincere and likeable persona. He can “win” with that, even if he isn’t as glib as Kaine or as country quotable as Potts.
-
Don’t know if your prediction is true, but as I understand it, Barnie’s a true-blue Democrat, a committed Kaine voter. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but if I’m not, why would Republicans take his advice? Why would any Republican believe that it is rendered (in a campaign context) with the intention of aiding the campaign?
Republicans who listen to Dems for campaign advice are merely indulging their insecurities at best. Damn fools, at worst.
-
Jesus, God! I’m exposed! You’re right. Republilcans should ignor my advice and stick with that ‘duck and hide’ strategy. Yessir, that’s what they should do. James, how in the world did I ever think I could pull the wool over your eyes?
-
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but if I’m not, why would Republicans take his advice? Why would any Republican believe that it is rendered (in a campaign context) with the intention of aiding the campaign?
OK, whatever you do, don’t let Kilgore debate anybody, ever.
Also, make entirely certain not to give all of your money to me.
-
Boy, aren’t Barnie and Waldo defensive?
Barnie, I never said you were trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. But please, give me one good reason why he should take your advice.
And if you say, “it’s because I have the best interests of the Commonwealth at heart,” well, then I suppose that, once again, we’ll just have to remember that you define those interests as having more Democrats elected, and we’re back to my point.
As for Waldo, what ARE you talking about?!?! Kilgore should debate Kaine. But he shouldn’t debate two Kaines, since it’s becoming abundantly clear that Potts is little more than Kaine Lite.
-
JY,
You’ve got to realize that the public doesn’t view Russ Potts the way you do. In their mind Russ is the Chair of the Senate Education Committee who is now running for Governor. For Kilgore to refuse to debate him just looks cowardly. Combine it with Tim Kaine’s attacks on Kilgore’s credibility and you’ve got a slam dunk. You can only sheild a candidate from so much.I would hate to be a Kilgore staffer, and have to wake up each day with absolutly no confidence in my own candidate.
-
Mr. Young attempts to dismiss the point that Kilgore should debate both Kaine and Potts by saying Barnie Day is a Democrat. By doing so, he ignores the fact that Mr. Vehrs agrees in his 9:33 AM comment by hoping Barnie Day’s prediction is true. I dare him to call Mr. Vehrs a Democrat and, until he does, I’m curious to know whether he believes the Kilgore campaign should listen to Barnie Day’s advice if that advice is joined by Mr. Vehrs.
Perhaps, after all, it’s better to listen to sound advice, regardless of the party affiliation of the proponent since sound advice can come from either–or both–sides.
-
Barnie: Have you seen Phil? We’ve got some questions we’re just dying to ask him, but we can’t seem to bring him out. Not that we don’t appreciate your insight.
-
RNS, I’m not sure that any of us can say how “the public” views Potts. I certainly don’t equate “the public” with those who care about who debates whom, and I’m not even sure that Kilgore’s refusal to debate “just looks cowardly” to those who know or care about the question.
JJD, I don’t “dismiss the point,” I merely point out that it should be taken with a grain of salt, considering the source. “Advice” given with ulterior — or even open and notorious — motives should be understood as such. Consideration of the source is always legitimate, in my view, which is why I post under my own name, and have a whole helluva lot more respect for those who do than those who don’t. Are you suggesting that Republicans and Kilgore should listen to Barnie because, gee, he really wants Kilgore to do what’s best for him?
Neither am I suggesting that those who agree with Barnie’s conclusion are Democrats, as you intimate with your comment about Will. Indeed, I’m much more likely to take Will’s conclusion seriously because (again as I undertand it) he’s a Republican and a committed Kilgore voter who DOES have Kilgore’s best interests at heart.That “sound advice can come from either–or both–sides” is doubtless true when you’re talking about policy. I concede the point.
But when you’re talking about campaigns, does it seem likely that advice is rendered by a partisan which would aid the OPPONENT of the candidate to which he is committed? One would have to be a fool to believe so.
Leave it to partisans to tell their own candidates what is best for them. Any candidate who believes that their opponent’s partisans are rendering advice with any objective but to gain advantage for their own candidate is too foolish to be elected.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.