Given the lack of much else to discuss in the 7th district race, the candidates are fussing over debates.
Democrat Jack Trammell and Libertarian Names Carr want as many debates as possible with Republican nominee David Brat. Brat’s campaign, through the voice of my old colleague Brian Gottstein, brushes all this aside:
“It’s sad that our opponents have resorted to such desperate tactics – attacking when they’ve got nothing else substantive to say. I hope they come up with some better material that actually addresses the issues of the 7th District that they can bring to these events.”
Ah, Brian. He’s one of my favorite people. But we all know the calculus here…
The likely winner doesn’t want to debate (the former incumbent, Eric Cantor, was a past master at such evasions). There is little political upside in doing so and the potential downside is that your guy will stray into gaffe-land (which is another reason Brian has been brought on board as the Brat campaign’s explainer).
The answer, now as it has ever been: debate only when necessary or unavoidable and, for God’s sake, keep any third-party candidates outside the venue.
Mark Warner is following the script this year. Mostly…he has uttered a few, mildly supportive words about including Robert Sarvis in future debates, but nothing more. The upside for Warner to engage Ed Gillespie or Sarvis, for that matter, more often just isn’t there.
I do not blame Mr. Brat, then, for following a time-honored script. Or for so quickly adopting the trappings of an incumbent.
But I do have a bone to pick with Randolph-Macon, site of the only debate on the calendar and employer to both of the major party candidates. This self-described liberal arts college has decided that the Libertarian candidate, Mr. Carr, does not meet its criteria for inclusion:
.@RandolphMacon standards include 1-eligible to serve 2- on both gen and special elex ballots 3- $50k in campaign contributions. #va07
— Ryan Nobles (@ryanobles) September 12, 2014
As a private institution, Randolph-Macon is allowed to set whatever bar it wants for campus speakers. But one might have thought, however naively, that a college devoted to free inquiry would have made an attempt to be more than just another prop in the two-party circus. What they have now is not so much a congressional debate as a faculty lounge discussion. We assume cookies will be served…
