Tonight's Debate

Thanks to Exile from The Albany Project for live blogging, and to all the readers who commented. It was fun, and I hope we can do it again.

Tonight's 13-WHAM debate was far better than last night's WXXI debate in NY-26. Moderators allowed the candidates to answer at length, there was some direct exchange between the two candidates, and the questions were pretty good. Sean Carroll and Don Alhart did a standout job.

Readers who missed the debate can watch a stream at 13-WHAM. I'll publish a link when it's posted. The debate video has been posted at the 13-WHAM video page.


way cool. thanks so much for doing that.

y'all rock.

That was fun! Kudos to you fellows!

Did anyone notice Massa's juvenile equivalent-to-a-third-grade-shout-out for not having a "public forum"? Has he said one positive thing in his entire pathetic duration in the district? Besides, "gee I am glad I chose this place to settle down and convince everyone that I care"?

I drove by the studio in Henrietta yesterday and saw about 15 Massa drones protesting in the parking lot and generally making themselves a nuisance. Don't believe me? Call the studio. It would be funny how undignified Massa supporters are if it wasn't so sad and pathetic. And its people like that and a candidate like Massa with his Buster Keaton facial expressions during the debate that would be composed and dignified during a widly random public attended forum like last election??????? Past is prologue, and nothing is more predictable than Massa's mediocrity.

Has he said one positive thing in his entire pathetic duration in the district?

Ha! From this and other comments you've left on this blog, we can all see that you value a positive, issue-oriented discourse.

In fact, have you ever raised a single substantive issue about Massa in the dozens of comments you've left? I can't remember one. It's all distractions and haterade as far as I can remember.

That's expected on blogs, but I'm not running for Congress.

In fact, in his ENTIRE debate, he didn't mention one substantive thing. It was all negative blather about all the stuff he doesn't know. He should KNOW what his Democratic leadership stands for, he should KNOW what a loan is, he should KNOW what's going on in Washington D.C., is he not applying for the job?

And news flash Rotten, Massa himself is not substantive. You may think of it as a distraction, for you may be easily easily distracted by the shine on Massa's forhead that entire debate, but I still noticed his Fred Astair song and dance routine around ANY direct questions and did not offer one original thought. Its like that scene in Billy Madison where Adam Sandler is trying to explain Capitalism. Everyone is now dumber for having listened to Eric Massa's haze of nothing.

And yes, I do try to make light of the politics in this district, for the very fact that someone like Eric Massa has even made it this far is beyond me.

I thought Massa was at least as substantive as Kuhl in the debate, which is to say, he mainly gave short summaries of his positions while he was rebutting some of Kuhl's comments. They had less than 40 minutes of discussion on a fair number of issues. You're not going to get deep discussion with those constraints.

The notion that he doesn't have substantive positions is a joke. Go to his website and read his position papers. They're certainly more detailed and substantive than Kuhl's, and above the average for most House candidates.

You need to distinguish between not agreeing with his positions on issues, and believing he doesn't have substantive positions.

As for particulars:

1. He should know what his leadership in Washington says.

The "Pelosi Tax Plan" that Kuhl refers to is based on her vote on a non-binding budget resolution. Charlie Rangel is the chair of Ways and Means, where tax legislation originates. Rangel had a plan, not Pelosi.

And, btw, Massa has a positive tax plan, and it's very similar to Obama's, so I think he's pretty familiar with the current Democratic tax plan, which is not authored by Pelosi.

2. He should know what a loan is.

His first discussion of it said "grant", but didn't he read that Kuhl announced a loan directly from the press release? Does he not get to even mis-speak?

3. He should know what's going on in Washington, DC.

Nobody knows whats going on in Washington, DC. Most of what happens in Congress is from back-room deals and discussion. Prime example: What exactly did Paulson and Bernacke tell the group of Congressional leaders that scared them so badly? That was the impetus for the $700 bln bailout, and we don't know what they said.

When you find a politician who utters an original thought, let me know. Haven't heard many.

Funny how you at least concede Kuhl was "as substantive" as Massa; thought you incapable!

1) "Rangel had a plan". Yup, the same Charlie Rangel that gave Massa tens of thousands of dollars and hosts fundraisers for him. Your sideways suggestion must be right; Massa couldn't possibly agree with him or espouse any of his ideas (by the by, Obama made his dignity very apparent when he returned $100,000 to Rangel. Kudos to Obama's fine stature). Funny how Massa's tax plan is similar to Obama's-and this is how you are attempting to argue that Massa had an original thought? Keep trying to save it, Gretzky!

2) No he doesn't get to mispeak. He even brought in highlighted pages to cheat on the test. He can't even read his own materials. Boy are we in for it. Maybe next time he should ask Sean Carroll if he can tattoo answers on his forhead.

3) We should pay attention to what is going on in Washington and to "know what's going on" is to know the movements, the products, the results. I expect my Representatives to know and stay on top of things. Massa is using the same "Joe six-pack" appeal that Palin is using that makes me cringe. Well golly, we just don't know!
We don't want Joe Six-Pack in the White House, and we don't want Joe-Jobless in the Congress either.

Funny how you at least concede Kuhl was "as substantive" as Massa; thought you incapable!

Your attempt to cast me as a complete partisan is a gross distortion [straw man]. I'm honest about my political leanings, and clear about what's opinion and what's not on this blog. I've "conceded" (observed) many positive things about Kuhl over the years, and I don't dislike the guy, I just disagree with most of his politics.

(1). Whether or not Rangel is a bad, bad man [ad hominem/guilt by association], as you insist he is, the point is that Massa's tax plan is neither Rangel's nor Pelosi's, it's closer to Obama's. Also, I did not argue that Massa's tax plan was original work [straw man], just that he had substantive plans. Read what I wrote - I said that I'd be surprised if you can find any politician who has an original plan. They all build on the work of others.

(2). So saying the wrong thing once during a debate and correcting it later doesn't count. [inconsistent standard of judgment]

(3). I don't know which of Massa's statements about Washington set you off. But Kuhl constantly inveighs against Washington, DC and tries to portray himself as an outsider. The "Joe Six-Pack" anti-DC approach has been a common political tactic in this race, and used by both sides. I assume it outrages you as much when Kuhl does it, and that you condemn it as heartily. Shame on him, too, then. [inconsistent standard of judgment]

One note: You are a habitual user of a number of logical fallacies. I put them in brackets here but I'll just use them as shorthand in the future to save typing.