The debates — first rounds
THE POLITICAL truism is that debates help the challenger, the underdog, the candidate who is "out" at the moment. The early rounds of Illinois' 1978 political debates did nothing to challenge the accuracy of the truism. But they did show clearly that just appearing on the same platform with the incumbent is not enough to provide victory. Gov. James R. Thompson, the incumbent Republican, and his Democratic challenger. Comptroller Michael J. Bakalis, started the debates in June, clashing over the state budget. Their meeting was televised on a statewide satellite hookup from WTTW-TV in Chicago and seen by a surprisingly large audience. It also was broadcast live on radio. Thompson, Bakalis go at it As it developed, the event was as close to a knock-down, drag-out prizefight as anything Illinois politics has seen in a longtime. Bakalis, who opened the debate, attacked sharply, charging Thompson's budget was one of "gimmickry and broken promises." He blamed Thompson for high taxes, charged him with covering up deficiencies in the budget and pulled no punches in his choice of words, his style of delivery or his attitude of attack. Everything about his presentation aid essentially, "Thompson, the bum, is taking money out of your pockets. If you want to stop him, you better vote for me." It was about what most observers familiar with Bakalis expected and it was well done. Thompson, on the other hand, was a little out of character. The governor, usually easy-going and jovial in his public appearances, was as tough as Bakalis most of the way. And he, too, had the gloves off. With a grim expression on his face, Thompson told the state Bakalis is not only a friend and ally of the "big spenders" but actually is their leader. Through most of the hour, it was a standoff. Bakalis, perhaps nervous, muffed the first question about why the members of his party were mindlessly tacking onto Thompson's budget proposal hundreds of millions of dollars of "pork barrel" projects. And Thompson, after an hour of tough concentration, seemed to lose focus in his wrapup statement, which rambled. At the end, it was about a draw. But the important thing — the thing to note — is that Thompson and Bakalis interacted during the hour. The governor, by the way he responded to the comptroller's charges and statements, made it clear he feels the race is a race. To use a horrible word, his attitude legitimized Bakalis' candidacy. The situation was different in the two early Senate debates. Sen. Charles H. Percy, the incumbent Republican, and Alex Seith, the Democratic challenger, met in Rockford on Father's Day to debate foreign policy and in Springfield July 6 to debate domestic affairs. In each case, Seith delivered slashing attacks on Percy, Percy's record and even Percy's integrity. He used visual aids in the Springfield debate, including prepared charts and books, to continue his assault on the senator's record. At times, he virtually ignored the questions asked by the panel of newsmen so he could continue with an attack he had not been able to finish during a previous time period. When Sangamon State University professor Bill Miller called him on his failure to answer a question, Seith replied sharply — though inaccurately — that he had responded. Then he resumed the argument he had been making, which still was irrelevant to the question. There were some differences between Seith's attack and Bakalis'. Bakalis is a seasoned politician and knows the dividing line between sharp, tough argument and shrillness. Seith sometimes crossed the line. Bakalis, blessed with specific, "dollars and jobs" subject matter, was more pointed in his charges and proposals. Seith, limited by the vastness of "foreign policy" and some restrictions on the "domestic affairs" subject, was more general. Percy ignores Seith But the big difference was between Thompson's reaction and Percy's. While Thompson stepped right into the ring with Bakalis and began brawling, Percy might as well have had his hearing aid turned off while Seith was speaking. Again and again, Percy either ignored Seith's charges or turned them aside with casual references to his own experience, his years in the Senate and his association with the mighty and famous. When he did respond to Seith, Percy did it either condescendingly or by telling the audience that Seith had made an error of fact. The overall impression was that, while he had deigned to share the podium with him, Percy did not really consider Sieth worthy of much attention. Percy aides confirmed that impression when they were asked if the senator would do anything differently in the second debate because of anything Seith had said. "Seith hasn't said anything yet," an aide replied. Moral: Unless the challenger can put the incumbent into a position where he has to reply and seem to take the defensive once in a while, debates and other joint appearances probably don't provide as much benefit as they are traditionally supposed to. September 1978/ Illinois Issues/33
|
|||||||||||||||
