When is a Debate a Debate?

One commenter challenges the comparison of Stone's debate scheduled for tonight and Dolar's debate held at the Boone School. I won't argue that the analogy is exact, but I do think there is an important comparison.

If I understand correctly, and I know my readers will correct me if I'm wrong, the Boone School debate was sponsored by a group in which Naisy Dolar was a member, and whose referendum she was not only an active participant but devoted campaign resources to in November. I am told that its members are heavily involved in the Dolar campaign. If true, the sponsor could in no way be seen as a neutral party.

Nor can they be seen as the only non-political stakeholder in the community. Stone's collection of sponsors can lay equal claim to that, and certainly have been in the neighborhood longer.

I won't pretend that the Stone debate is any more neutral, merely that neither debate can be viewed as sponsored by an impartial or independent third party. I might even question whether any neutral or impartial parties exist in the 50th Ward. So why should one debate be preferred over the other? The only reason that I can see is that if you support Naisy Dolar, you prefer the Boone School debate. If you support Ald. Stone, you prefer tonight's debate. In trying to be fair, I see no reason to favor one over the other. Neither met the impartial criteria I would have thought necessary.

I don't think the Chicago Tonight appearance can be given equal weight to these two debates held in the neighborhood. It was only six minutes long, and probably had the same viewership as our CANTV-wannabe.

Fairness requires that we set aside the claims of partiality or impartiality here. Both sides have acted in their own interests. Both sides set up their own debates under favorable circumstances. Both sides have sought to skewer the other for not showing up.

But only one side could afford to pass on these debates. Ald. Stone has been the alderman, is well-known to the community, and voters feel they have a good idea what he will (and will not) do. The next four years under Ald. Stone will look basically like the last four years. One side of the ward can expect exceptional city services while the other side of the ward will complain about the lack of the same. Stone's office will remain dysfunctional. He will continue to embarrass us and endure health problems. But many of my neighbors feel he's "our Berny." Warm fuzzies all around, I suppose.

The question then, at least for most voters, is what will Dolar do? And one conclusion that you can draw today is that she won't show up when she's asked. Unless she wants to. Dolar supporters think that sounds harsh. Maybe, but I thought I was to expect more.

Naisy Dolar and her campaign is the one that set up this expectation. They've condemned Ald. Stone's leadership as inadequate, something I agree with. They've offered Dolar as an alternative, even saying that she has demonstrated effective leadership in the past (such as in the 24 hour parking meter "removal").

Ask yourself this question: Did Naisy Dolar demonstrate leadership with her decision about tonight's debate? Dolar claims leadership when the solution was easy for her. But governing the 50th Ward can't be easy, with all the competing interests involved. So the question really is, Is Naisy Dolar up for this job?

Tonight was an opportunity to find out. Was it a trap? Of course it was. But a strong candidate, one who was an effective leader, could have walked into the Lions Den and won over the voters. Dolar denied herself the opportunity to prove that she was an effective leader. She denied the voters the only opportunity to take their own measure of the two candidates side-by-side.

Many voters, but especially those who weren't inclined towards either of these two candidates, look at Character as a decisive factor. I know I do. I look at Berny Stone's character and find it wanting. But I can't really get a handle on Naisy Dolar's character. She's been very erratic, flits from one thing to another. She seems easily persuaded by outside forces. She has no focus. This was an opportunity to show her mettle. It's an opportunity that she declined.

My heart tells me that no one could be worse than Berny Stone as alderman. My head is not so sure. Naisy Dolar hasn't made it easier to vote for her.

He Said What?

So the Mayor and a number of incumbents in the run-off meet. And the Mayor says, "I don't know why people think I have a PAC. What's this PAC everyone says I got?" I'm paraphrasing. Obviously the Mayor is doing a little sidestep here. If you've watched the Mayor at all, you can even visualize his gestures, because they are very familiar.

Then Ald. Stone chimes in: "You know. Terry just gave me a check for $10,000."

Everyone in the room groaned.

That's our Berny. Embarrassing the Mayor, embarrassing the city. Good Old Berny. You can add to that an overconfident Berny. 52% he predicts. The machine will deliver on Tuesday. It's been a tougher race than he had hoped for, but he'll get 52%. His campaign is coming together now. Naisy Dolar, a confident notes, needs at least 1,000 new voters to even have a chance. That is somehow related to the number of absentees Berny is supposed to have come in. You and I, though, have heard that tune before.

I don't pretend to know how this race will turn out. It's hard to bet against Stone because he got 5,000 votes. I'd expect that if he turned out 5,000 votes again, he wins. But I also don't think Jan Schakowsky would back a loser. She must know something I don't in this race.

It is interesting to see commenters try to spin the No Debate decision. We all have our sides. But no matter what you think about this race, Naisy Dolar refused to participate in the only candidate's forum that Ald. Stone was going to do. Trying to compare an appearance on Chicago Tonight to a debate in the neighborhood is silly. Choosing not to participate is a gamble.

If you asked me, and since it's my blog, I'm assuming you did, I don't think that Stone or his campaign could have pulled off a two-party debate. I would have wanted him to focus all his campaign's energies on trying to do so, with only five days left before election day. I would have invited every bit of media out there, and videotaped the whole thing to put up on youtube. Dolar didn't have to do anything, and she could have forced the Stone campaign to spin its wheels in the last week before the election. Meanwhile, her campaign could continue to go after their pluses, with the field virtually to themselves. (No, I don't think Berny Stone can chew gum and walk at the same time.)

But she didn't wanna. Now there's some fast thinking. In the end, it's the neighborhood that loses, because we will never get to see the two of them side-by-side. If Dolar was right to skip this debate, then no one can fault Stone for skipping the Boone School debate. The WRPCO doesn't even register in my half of the ward.

If Dolar loses, as Stone thinks she will, you can point to this decision as an indicator of her forth-coming loss. If she wins, then she should be grateful for the advise she got. They will have been right.

Only the neighborhood will have suffered.

Why Won't Dolar Debate?

I don't have any particular insight into the reasons why Naisy Dolar will not show up to Ald. Stone's admittedly rigged debate. The suggestion that Stone had two chances (the Boone School and Chicago Tonight appearance) is lame and easily dismissed. It's not a real excuse, it must be something they thought of to hide their real reasons for ducking Stone's debate.

The Stone debate was the only opportunity we were going to have to take the measure of the two candidates side-by-side. Dolar slammed that door in our face. While we can criticize Stone's cowardice all we want (and some of us have), now the same must be said of Dolar. She's no different than Stone in this regard. The problem is that this opens the eyes to other things where Dolar may be no different than Stone.

Although I have no idea why she would pass on an opportunity to go toe-to-toe with Berny Stone, it does seem they feel like they are the front runner. Dolar won't show, my thinking goes, because she thinks she doesn't have to. She must think that she's ahead in the race.

Maybe she is. She has a SEIU poll that shows her with a 7 point lead and she has Jan Schakowsky's endorsement (the most important political figure in the ward according to everyone I've talked to; only the Stone sycophants on this site disagree with that conclusion). Maybe she is comfortably ahead enough to choose not to participate.

So who loses? We do. Democracy does. Dolar's word does. There are lots of casualties here.

Naisy Dolar had previously said that she was eager to debate Ald. Stone, and seemed to promise that she would do so under any circumstances. She must have meant eager to debate him only twice. We can't act surprised that Stone or his people would want to control the circumstances of the debate. Nor should we have been surprised by the way this has unfolded. How is it any different from 2003 or prior election years where Stone's been challenged? I suspect incumbents always want to control these things.

What is worrisome to me, though, is that Naisy Dolar is now acting like Berny Stone. She doesn't need to show up so she doesn't. Who does that remind you of? What can we expect from Dolar if she demonstrates she is only going to do what she has to, but not any more? This isn't a good sign if you want to see change in the ward.

Simply changing the face of the alderman is not enough. We need to see a change in attitude and a change in activity to make the neighborhood better. Dolar and her supporters should remember that voters are taking a risk by electing her. The 50th Ward would lose staffing under a Dolar administration, it would lose seniority, and it would lose the Mayor's ear. Dolar has to offer voters reasons to take that risk, and I don't think the bar is set especially high.

Acting like Stone, only doing the minimal necessary, may give pause to those considering taking that risk. If Dolar is no better than Stone, why should we risk it? Maybe Naisy Dolar is ahead enough in this race that it doesn't matter now. I suspect she thinks she is, since she's made the decision to pass on this opportunity. But some voters, especially in this part of the ward, needed her to stand up to Stone and demonstrate that she had what it takes before they could connect the lines for Dolar.

Naisy abandoned those voters yesterday.

Consider this an open thread on why Naisy Dolar decided to pass on Ald. Stone's debate and what that means for both Stone and Dolar. You are encouraged to give your predictions with percentages on who will win on Tuesday.

Will Dolar Show?

All the talk has been around Ald. Stone's debate and whether Naisy Dolar would show up. Let's be perfectly honest here, the April 12 debate is a forum created entirely by Berny Stone and his cronies, and no hint of impartiality exists. But it is also the only side-by-side debate the 50th will get.

Dolar's camp responded to Stone's invitation with a number of conditions that are unlikely to be met. Stone's debate invitation seems to be a take-it-or-leave-it invitation, and they probably have a mailing ready to go saying that Dolar is scared to debate the alderman. This is obviously absurd, but this debate is not up on Dolar's calendar.

Who needs it more? Actually, the people of the 50th Ward do. Another community organization made this little debacle possible by being so heavy-handed in their candidate's forum. If Dolar's crowd is allowed to do this, one would expect Stone's crowd to be able to, as well. It's the neighborhood that is ill-served. No one expects Stone to serve the neighborhood better, but Naisy Dolar has staked her campaign on "expecting more."

Everybody knows that Stone's debate is a trap. His precinct captains have spent weeks coming up with zingers and pointed questions. So while it may appear smart that Dolar passes on Stone's debate, doing so shows that she's running on an empty message.

She set the trap for herself in that regard.

Advantage: Ald. Stone

UPDATE: The Dolar campaign confirms that they will not participate in the Stone debate.

Stone's Fake Debate Proposal

The joke around city hall is that if you want to see Ald. Stone "come alive," try to get between him and a microphone. Or, perhaps, the joke around city hall IS Ald. Stone. Who knows? It seems likely that we are not the only ones embarrassed by the alderman's antics.

The joke around the 50th is that Berny Stone offered to debate Naisy Dolar. This "proposal" (or joke) came right before the debate lined up by the WRPCO:

Michael C. Moses wrote:

On behalf of the Stone campaign I contacted the Dolar campaign and extended an invitation for a debate between Alderman Stone and Naisy Dolar on April 12, 2007 from 7:00-8:00 p.m.

If you didn't see it, there is no location for this fake debate proposal. A reasonable person might even consider it a trap. If they believed it to be real.

But I was thinking about this. Ald. Stone's proposals take up to a decade to implement. He talks about them, and talks about them some more, as if there is real movement towards his goals. He does this for years. He just doesn't have the power or influence to accomplish anything in a reasonable amount of time.

Why would this be any different?

I have no problem believing that Stone wants to debate Dolar. In a decade. Or so.

Word is that WTTW's Chicago Tonight (PBS, Channel 11) has asked the two to appear. They seem to be doing this for all the campaigns. The Dolar campaign appears to claim that the offer comes whether Ald. Stone appears or not. If Stone doesn't show up, Dolar gets all the air time that would have been devoted to the two of them.

Which brings us back to the joke from city hall. This isn't CAN-TV (where anyone can get on TV, even Berny Stone or Avy Meyers!). Stone's fears of appearing alongside an opponent may be trumped by his need to appear on televsion. Maybe.

No doubt Stone will argue that WTTW is biased. Chicago Tonight has seen many favorable comments about Dolar (eg, here and here). If Stone and his cronies aren't viewers of Chicago Tonight, it's unlikely he'll show. But that would reinforce Stone's reputation as the joke of Chicago. What a dilemma!

I think the odds are 60/40 that Stone won't show. Even if he appears, he might fall asleep! But the pressure would be immense. One weird comment, and it will be repeated over and over on YouTube and the Internet. And who thinks Stone can talk for 15 minutes without saying something bizarre?

Advantage: Dolar.

Blind Men in the Dark

I was asked yesterday who I thought would win. Who knows? What I see right now is two inept politicians tumbling towards April 17th.

The fact that the Stone camp did not meet with the Mayor last week is a sign. I just don't know what it means. Ald. Stone remains a recepient of the largese being generated by the Mayor's PAC, but does not appear to benefit from the Mayor's advice or troops.

For most other incumbents who had gotten 48% of the vote, this probably wouldn't matter. But this is Berny Stone, who seems to be stuck in the 1970s. It doesn't help that he's been distracted by family problems throughout the campaign. But the faux break-in? Anti-semitic slurs in a Phillipine tongue? That is incredible. NO ONE BELIEVES THAT! There is no clearer indication that Stone and his supporters are behind the recent rash of anti-semitic activity than this. And it is increasingly clear that if you want to calm racial tensions in the community, the defeat of Ald. Stone will guarantee it. Stone and his sycophants are evidently stoking racial tensions, and if Stone loses, they will disappear.

Re-electing Stone only guarantees that they will continue. Imagine what Ilana will do with the knowledge that race-baiting tactics work!

Naisy Dolar looks like she wants to be voted off the island. Anti-semiticism is wrong, and hate crimes should be treated as that, a crime. But Dolar has been acting more like a human rights advocate than a candidate. Not only has she been reacting to Stone's faked appeals, but by elevating them to this stature, she lends her credibility to these anti-semitic acts. Dolar let Stone play the victim, and squashed her own efforts to highlight criminal incidents that cast a poor light on the alderman.

Add to that the spectacle of last night. A group that cast off any thought of impartiality held its candidate forum even though it knew that only one candidate would show up. This legitimized the forum that Stone has put together, without any thought of impartiality. Voters in our community who were interested in a real give-and-take between the two candidates are the real losers here. Stone comes out a winner, since he still gets to dictate the terms of debate in the ward.

Over all, this week only solidified the inherent advantages that Stone brought into the run-off. Early voting begins next week, and these advantages will become more clear. When it is all over, and Dolar is wondering why she lost, she can look to this week as decisive. She started with elevated hopes, raising money and a publicized crime that played right into her themes. And then she relinquished control of the campaign. Hard to see how she can recover the momentum, especially as long as the spectre of anti-semiticism is out there.

Open Thread: Why Won't Stone Debate?

One commenter asks, "why won't Alderman Stone participate in a real debate?" This is your chance to answer the question. Why do you think Berny Stone is afraid to debate an opponent, despite his promise to do so?