The Observation Deck

I moved this from the Endorsement thread:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White papers are great for those who read them and to the extent that they provide a one dimensional perspective of an issue. They can be written by hired help, reflecting only the abilities of that person and don't reveal a committment to anything beyond completing the requisite assignment.

A properly moderated debate offers voters an opportunity to experience the discourse. Tone and body language are vital to understanding the message. The back and forth of a debate provides voters with a multifacited perspective into the candidate's position on an issue and their depth of knowledge about that issue.

I think the community would be very interested in seeing all three candidates operate in that arena.

The difference between a debate and a white paper is as Suzanne identifies. It's similar to reading a trial transcript versus watching the testimony unfold. Facial expression, nuances and body language frequently speak louder than the words used. Witness Nixon's sweaty performance in the 1960 presidential debates that many feel cost him the election.

Many would share the belief that a debate holds no upside for an incumbant. I would suspect that will be the case here.

Jeff

I echo your feelings exactly. Why not do both? The candidates could post their whitepapers on their websites for everyone to read. But whitepapers do not compensate for debates where the public gets to have their questions answered.

I agree with you both. However I'm not sure that the reality of local campaign politics lends itself to the model. I think of white papers as an academic level research exercise. I think the most we can expect of local elections with limited staffs would be concise expressions of platform positions. That can come in the form of website development or articles in the newspaper.

As for white papers - I could be happy if I knew that the candidates were reading them. That's something I think we'll know at a debate.

Suzanne,

You have hit the nail on the head - on both debates and white papers. I am disapointed in the Mayor's reluctance to participate in a debate with the other candidates. Debates are an important tradition in the American political process and not participating makes a statement in and of itself.

With regards to white papers I agree that they have limited value in the political area, and they are not always useful in the academic arena. As an academic myself, I have often found them to be "watered-down" in an effort to reach a consensus among the authors.

But, back to the main issue I think the Mayor short-changing himself and the citizens of Lakewood by not agreeing to a debate. I hope he reconsiders.

Jennifer

Jennifer/Suzanne/All

This white Paper thing has gotten completely out of hand, and changed.

The Observer, has talked with all people running. This is not a White Paper but a indepth look at what each candidate can actually do and think through.

A mayor runs a city with help from advisers. I think we can all agree that this is a big part of choosing a mayor. How well can he put things together. none of us want a Mayor to micro-manage anything.

Are thought is, to develop 10 - 20 tough questions on the future of the city. And let each candidate have two weeks to get back serious answers. They will be published in their entirety. I can also promise runs of the paper to EVERY DOOR IN LAKEWOOD.

Right now there is at least two other groups talking about debates and hosting them. As soon as that is decided we are more than willing to step in and fill in any gaps. Example LakewoodAlive wants their debate to be strictly about Economic Development. I feel that is too narrow, but that is their stated mission.

League of Woman Voters, tend to be too light, but we have once again committed to their coverage as well.

Once we get these decided, then we can go into this very deeply.

My promise is that no matter what happens no one will have more in-depth election coverage and information than the Observer.

So how do you get 50,000 people or even 20,000 to a debate? I think we can lead in the coverage.

.

Jim, In my discussions with representatives of community organizations, I have been very specific about what type of debate. Candidates nights and forums are fine but this community deserves a legitimate, moderated debate.

You had indicated that the LO was waiting to do this. It sounds like that has changed.

Suzanne

Suzanne Metelko wrote:Jim, In my discussions with representatives of community organizations, I have been very specific about what type of debate. Candidates nights and forums are fine but this community deserves a legitimate, moderated debate.

You had indicated that the LO was waiting to do this. It sounds like that has changed.

Suzanne

Suzanne

Nothing has changed, except my respect for other civic groups. We have a budget, but not the budget Ed and Ryan are talking of which is monthly debates until one emerges.

Is it wrong for me to respect LakewoodAlive? We have worked with the League of Women Voters since day one of this project. We are about empowering citizens, not crushing groups.

Is that wrong? Is that any different from what I told you a couple days ago. NO it is not.

What I do not want to be a part in is this gang mentality that is starting to swirl around this city.

The community deserves and open discussions and debates, it does not need blood in the streets.

FWIW


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Are thought is, to develop 10 - 20 tough questions on the future of the city. And let each candidate have two weeks to get back serious answers. They will be published in their entirety. I can also promise runs of the paper to EVERY DOOR IN LAKEWOOD.

That's a fantastic idea. Do you have commitments from all the candidates to participate in this?

Jim,

Thanks for the clarification - I like the idea very much. I won't refer to the written response to questions as white papers anymore!

I'm not really sure about the rest of your post, it sounded like a continuation of a conversation you have already had with Suzanne. It would not be helpful to join a conversation mid-stream.

I think it's great that so many organizations want to host debates. I find it helpful to hear candidate speak extemporaneously. It gives me a sense of how they formulate thoughts and handle pressure. Then again maybe I've been working in psychiatry too long!

As for the LO coverage of the elections, I have no doubt that it will be as thorough and complete as always.

Jennifer

Bryan, one ot the things that the League of Woman Voters does that I really appreciate is put a word limit on each answer. This means that the candidate has to decide what they want to emphasize in their answer. They can't do a core dump of everything they know on the topic - they really have to analyze and determine what is critical. This also allows it to fit in a newspaper format more easily. I have typed these up for the LWV before.

This is an excellent idea, but doesn't take the place of a debate. The LWV has always done both.

Jim, you state

The community deserves and open discussions and debates, it does not need blood in the streets.

I completely agree with the first portion of your comment. Democracy is always strengthened by an free exchange of ideas. That is where the Observer is amazing - it pulls in people from every aspect of Lakewood and allows for this exchange.

What I don't get is "Blood in the streets?" Are you concerned that one of the candidates can't answer questions under fire? Well, then maybe they aren't suited for office, because if you are in charge, you are bound to get tough questions and you should be able to answer them. Now is the time to weed out candidates that can't handle the public's questions in my humble opinion.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Suzanne Metelko wrote:Jim, In my discussions with representatives of community organizations, I have been very specific about what type of debate. Candidates nights and forums are fine but this community deserves a legitimate, moderated debate.

You had indicated that the LO was waiting to do this. It sounds like that has changed.

Suzanne

Suzanne

Nothing has changed, except my respect for other civic groups. We have a budget, but not the budget Ed and Ryan are talking of which is monthly debates until one emerges.

Is it wrong for me to respect LakewoodAlive? We have worked with the League of Women Voters since day one of this project. We are about empowering citizens, not crushing groups.

Is that wrong? Is that any different from what I told you a couple days ago. NO it is not.

What I do not want to be a part in is this gang mentality that is starting to swirl around this city.

The community deserves and open discussions and debates, it does not need blood in the streets.

FWIW


.

Jim, I don't know where to start - which might have been your goal.

Gang mentality? Blood in the streets? Are you JOKING?

We're talking about a monthly debate on one issue. How does that shortchange anyone or inflict undue pain on any candidate? Better a public exchange than a take home test from the LO.

Suzanne

Suzanne:

Glad to see you got the quotes straightened out......

Anyway, as you said

Better a public exchange than a take home test from the LO.

The problem with take home tests is that people sometimes use their notes. And of course, that's cheating.

I'd love to see a public forum where each candidate was required to speak of their vision, their ideas for Lakewood. They would talk about their qualifications and why that makes them a good choice. THey would talk about the way they would handle problems that they recoginise, or problems percieved by the public.

Any attacks on any other candidate, and the mcrophone goes dead.....

Jeff

Jeff,

Thank you.

Suzanne

Suzanne Metelko wrote:Jim, I don't know where to start - which might have been your goal.

Gang mentality? Blood in the streets? Are you JOKING?

We're talking about a monthly debate on one issue. How does that shortchange anyone or inflict undue pain on any candidate? Better a public exchange than a take home test from the LO.

Suzanne

Suzanne

Then you should schedule, them. RIGHT NOW

The Observer will cover it, give it space, whatever you need.

Why the attack on the LO for a questionaire you have no idea
what is asks?

All the candidates seem willing.




.