Republican senatorial candidate Ron Johnson has taken a lot of criticism from his Democratic opponent, Russ Feingold, for only agreeing to three of six proposed political debates this election. While Feingold may come across as well intentioned when requesting six debates against his G.O.P. opponent, considering Johnson has everything to lose it is admirable that Johnson agreed to a full three meetings.
The fact that Feingold requested such an outrageous number of debates is a thin political ploy on its own. His campaign's continual criticisms against Johnson contain little merit. It's obvious that Feingold proposed such a large quantity of debates with sly intentions to publically attack Johnson when he inevitably rejected invitations to all six. Well-played Feingold, but according to a recent Public Policy Polling for the Daily Kos, Johnson holds a significant 11-point lead and has no definite reason to meet head-to-head.
Yet unjustifiable attacks against Johnson trek on, as Feingold's senior advisor, John Krause states, ""We remain committed to the six debates that we have accepted, and Ron Johnson has failed to meet the challenge to have an honest debate of the issues."" In actuality, Johnson's acceptance of three debates risks hurting his campaign rather than enhancing it. And beside the fact that Johnson neglected to attend all six is the notion that three public debates is a perfectly acceptable amount of meet-ups between the two.
Rather than shoot remarks against Johnson's commitment to policy and public knowledge, attention should be spent on the debates themselves. Two of the three are scheduled to take place on Feingold friendly territory in Milwaukee, while one other will be held in Wausau. Johnson specifically declined Feingold's request to meet in Madison and we are left to wonder, ""why?""
Badgers and Madisonians alike are eager to see how Johnson compares to his anti-liberalist Tea Party speeches and his Democratic opponent as well. We have years of background knowledge on Feingold's priorities and issue areas, but concrete outlines and policy proposals from Johnson remain slim. He has yet to seriously address grey areas surrounding gun licensing and how he plans to manage job creation without the use of federal grants. While Johnson maintains bragging rights toward job creation in the private sector, we hope these debates will give us insight in how he plans to transfer these economic plights into federal policy.
But Johnson isn't the only one taking hits from the opposition. Feingold would do well to address criticisms among Republicans that he is merely a ""career politician"". It is important that he explain how healthcare can be fiscally conservative, as one of Johnson's top initiatives is to repeal and defund health insurance reform. And with Obama visiting Madison next week, we are interested in Feingold's reasoning behind continual separation from his Democratic partisanship and the Obama administration on a whole. Feingold needs to highlight his ""maverick"" status in Washington D.C. and these debates act as a venue for him to clarify and defend his current position.
It is imperative that all of this information and more is presented in each debate between Johnson and Feingold. And while we have much to hear from each candidate, three debates involving the two is enough to adequately and efficiently inform the public. As Johnson pulls ahead in the race, Feingold would be wise to make use of his talented debate skills and focus on squaring off with Johnson face-to-face.
