Thanks for Commenting
I would suggest that Tom Udall is not necessarily as afraid of an "energy", as he his afraid of "any" debate.
My vote tends towards the boldest candidate, most willing to lay his cards on the table for voters to decide, and
away from the guy who games the system, avoiding debates and town hall meetings, just to win.
It seems very cynical to me.
Remember when Bill Richardson hid for a entire campaign, just because he could?
The Udall campaign isn't "afraid," it's smart. Considering that Udall is up by between 20-33 points in recent polling, why would he give Pearce free airtime at this time? Most Americans aren't even paying attention yet.
Let Pearce get some money from Bush and his pals and put up some ads explaining his backwards looking non-plan to address climate change and the coming of a new technological world in terms of energy production. We don't need another Senator, like Domenici, who fought tooth and nail against energy conservation and CAFE standards, just for starters.
By the way, Dubai's growth has mostly been driven by increases in demand from China, India and other nations, not us. We don't get most of our oil from the Middle East anymore.
why would he give Steve Pearce free air time?
In an effort to educate voters and keep them fully informed; to allow voters to see HIM in action; out of principle.
If he is the better candidate any debate any time should work to his advantage - is it not free air time for Udall as well?
It isn't only about winning - it is about doing the right thing.
in at least some circles.
Yes, the fact that Pearce comes from the oil industry is a big plus.
The last two politicians from the oil industry have done remakable things: GW Bush and R Cheney. We certainly need more like them. Peace and stability in the middle east, lots of cheap oil - yes, Pearce has certainly signed on with a winning team and a winning strategy.
Hey Mario, how many debates did White and Carraro have on TV? Hell, you didn't even hear much of White on safe kkob.
From the New Mexican:
"At issue is Pearce's votes against upping Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Most recently, Pearce voted in December 2007 against the energy bill that requires new CAFE standards of 35 mpg for cars and light trucks by 2020. The bill, which overwhelmingly passed Congress, was signed into law by President Bush. "
As a very rudimentary numbers crunch shows, upping CAFE standards even slightly obviates ANWR completely. Why does Pearce oppose this obvious fix to our imported oil problem? Is he more concerned with transferring public wealth into private hands than he is the price of gas?
I wouldn't mind hearing his answer to that and other questions concerning energy, but Udall is under no obligation to give this reactionary yahoo free airtime. Pearce has all the freedom in the world to take his message directly to the people.
BTW, if we open up say Otero Mesa to unlimited drilling, do you think Albuquerque will turn into a wealthy, futuristic megalopolis? Hell, count me in!
It is grossly unfair to mention the names of Joe Carraro and Darren White in the same sentence about debate dodging.
Carraro would have debated White as many times as he was able - because he would have cleaned Darren White's clock.
White is just another of the sleazy kind of politician who senses the likelihood of a win without facing voters; and jumps on it.
I'm just loving the pictures of Dubai. It's perfectly clear: if we had drilled for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, then Dubai would be importing oil from the US.
I'm sure there's some alternate universe in which Mario's argument makes sense, but it sure doesn't make sense in this universe.
I'm sure that (a) it was Jimmy Carter's fault; and (b) Bill Clinton did it first; and (c) if we all bought bigger cars and trucks that got worse gas mileage, we would have cheaper gasoline. That's the miracle of the free market - the price of gas would probably be lower if we weren't giving the oil companies subsidies and tax breaks.
Udall's ahead in the polls so why debate right? No sense in taking any chances.
That's just bs. I know it's the "smart" thing for a campaign to do but voters deserve better. I like debates. I like hearing candidates argue and fight for their position. What the hell do you think they're going to have to do once they're in the Senate?
I like Udall but I want to see him go toe to toe with Pearce before I make up my mind. Otherwise I might just vote for the other guy out of spite.
Commenting by HaloScan
