The first D.A. race debate of the cycle took place last night, focused on domestic violence. According to Heraldo’s report, the moderation wasn’t entirely balanced in terms of enforcement of debate rules, although it should probably be regarded as a minor slip rather than any indication of bias. I didn’t find any coverage in the Times Standard.
A CLMP-sponsored debate will take place at 6:00 p.m. tomorrow night at the Vets Hall, and will be aired on KMUD. Questions will be fielded from the audience for the second half. They will hold a Hospital District candidates debate from 7:00 to 8:00
….
Unfortunately, on the same night, the Fortuna City Council candidates will hold their debate at the River Lodge from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Jannelle Egger will be registering voters at various locations on these dates. She is asking for letters to the Beacon editor in support of her campaign.
….
Brown and Whitman will be debating tonight, and the media is already acting weird about it. I’m not sure if other debates are scheduled. Republicans around the country are dodging debates because they perceive the climate as in their favor and they won’t want the boat rocked, and Whitman, who is deathly afraid of the media, may like being called to the mat by an opponent even less. Then again, she is falling behind in polls and may need more debates to mix things up.
I’m not sure what time or which stations on which it will be aired.
….
Boxer and Fiorina have already debated once (video clips through this link). While some of Fiornia’s Republican supporters liked what they saw in the debate, she is falling behind.
I actually don’t think the anticipated “Second Republican Revolution” will reach California this year, but everything is in flux all over the country.

31 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 28, 2010 at 8:47 am
brian
Because we all know that Heraldo would not “spin” if P.G. lost the debate…….
September 28, 2010 at 8:53 am
Eric Kirk
Did he lose the debate brian?
September 28, 2010 at 9:05 am
brian
If he had “won” would H. be talking about how ” the moderation wasn’t entirely balanced”? Besides he opened his mouth, which means he lost.
September 28, 2010 at 9:06 am
the reasonable anonymous
“…everything is in flux all over the country.”
Yep, I think it’s safe to say that the country is pretty fluxed up.
September 28, 2010 at 9:24 am
Anonymous
What’s weird is that lawyers are usually decent orators. Gallegos has trouble stringing words together whenever I hear him interviewed. I’d not seen the debate, but I must assume he was crushed on communication skills alone. You’ve got to be able to think on your feet.
September 28, 2010 at 9:26 am
Eric Kirk
If he had “won” would H. be talking about how ” the moderation wasn’t entirely balanced”?
H simply pointed out that when Paul brought up a particular case he had worked on, he was interrupted by the moderators because their rule was that no particular case was to be discussed. However, when Alison brought up a particular case which she believe Paul had mishandled, she was not interrupted.
September 28, 2010 at 9:28 am
brian
Besides, I voted for Paul Hagen, we had are chance to get a super-smart guy as D.A. but his eccentricty put people off.
September 28, 2010 at 9:30 am
Tom Sebourn
I thought Paul held his own. He did better than I expected.
September 28, 2010 at 9:40 am
brian
P.G. “mentioned a defendant he had prosecuted”.
A.J. “didn’t not mention the defendant’s name”. See the difference ?
September 28, 2010 at 9:42 am
the reasonable anonymous
Jackson’s approach seems to be that suspects/defendants are automatically guilty of anything that’s in the police report. If there is any allegation in the police report for which they are not eventually convicted, that counts as Gallegos letting them off the hook.
While this is an asinine approach to judging the performance of a DA, it IS a somewhat effective propaganda technique, because it puts Gallegos in a defensive position where he must either ignore her claims (and risk people interpreting that as admitting the accuracy of her claims), or else wasting his time explaining why he couldn’t convict these suspects for various charges, which ends up sounding like he’s making excuses for them.
Add to this the public’s general ignorance of how the justice system works (or is supposed to work), and the fact that Jackson feels free to spew her claims without restraint, whereas Gallegos must be careful and responsible when he discusses specific cases, and it’s not hard to see why she and her handlers think their disingenous approach may work.
So, it’s a clever approach for Jackson to take, as well as a sleazy one.
September 28, 2010 at 9:46 am
the reasonable anonymous
But despite her sleazy tactics (or maybe in part *because* of them) I expect Jackson to lose.
September 28, 2010 at 10:00 am
Eric Kirk
P.G. “mentioned a defendant he had prosecuted”.
A.J. “didn’t not mention the defendant’s name”. See the difference ?
If it was indeed the rule that you could mention cases but not the names, then yes, I see the difference. If the rule was that individual cases should not be discussed, I don’t see the difference.
September 28, 2010 at 10:06 am
brian
Agreed.
September 28, 2010 at 10:07 am
the reasonable anonymous
Even if the rule was only about naming names, this still presents a real problem, because without the name there’s really no way for the press or voters to check up on the facts of the case that the candidate (in this case Jackson) is making claims and accusations about. And how is Gallegos supposed to be able to make a rebuttal when it’s not even clear what case Jackson’s making claims and accusations about?
September 28, 2010 at 10:11 am
Gordon Inkeles
“Domestic Violence” is such a softball topic. Yes, we’re all opposed and outraged and it’s a big threat to the community etc.”
I’m hoping for more substantive debates from these two.
September 28, 2010 at 10:51 am
brian
I have found debates to be a waste of time. We all know what the candidates are going to say, right? God forbid they speak the truth…..Politics! and we wonder why people don’t vote.
September 28, 2010 at 11:52 am
Anonymous
Those who vote for Paul, support rapists.
September 28, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Gordon Inkeles
Toughen up the debate questions and you begin to get unpredictable and even revealing responses.
September 28, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Eric Kirk
For whatever reason, he decided not to prosecute.
See, that’s a pretty big “whatever.”
It reminds me of an episode of Barney Miller where a homeless man is in the precinct office and says to Barney Miller.
Man: Would you like me to tell you how I ended up this way?
Barney: Yes, please.
Man: At one time I was just like you. I had a home. I had a job. I had a normal life. Then something happened and I became a bum.
Barney: Thank you. That was very enlightening.
September 28, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Mr. Nice
Unfortunately the Republicans already fucked up this year in the primaries. I mean come now. Republicans have gotta quit putting up these sorry ass candidates. Busloads of kids are gonna show up to vote for Prop. 19 and we got nothing to fade Boxer with. Two former CEOs in the midst of a depressed market? Dumb ass California Republicans. We needed some crazy fuckers like they got in Kentucky and Massachusetts, not two CEOs.
September 28, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Anonymous
Whitman was weird on tonight’s debate which just concluded on KHSU. All she did was parrot her television ads, over and over again.
September 28, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Eric Kirk
SF Chronicle’s “token conservative” columnist Debra Saunders is calling the win for Jerry Brown.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/djsaunders/detail?entry_id=73398
My favorite moment of the night was when Whitman argued that California should be more like Texas. That was probably her only unscripted comment, and it’ll probably be her last.
September 28, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Ernie's Place
”
I want a governor who will tell voters what they don’t want to hear.”
That would definately be Jerry Brown. Sadly, I’ll probably have to vote for him again… I kicked myself the first time. This time I will remind myself what the choices were, but I still will probably kick myself.
September 28, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Anonymous
Ernie, you’ll kick yourself no matter who you vote for.
September 29, 2010 at 6:57 am
Plain Jane
“My favorite moment of the night was when Whitman argued that California should be more like Texas. That was probably her only unscripted comment, and it’ll probably be her last.”
That was a bizarre as was her comment about not voting in the past. I agree with Saunders. It was Brown’s debate all the way through. Whitman has nothing but the same old tired rhetoric of tax cut trickle down and deregulation. Maybe what makes a person a conservative is their inability to learn from history.
September 29, 2010 at 7:21 am
Carol Conners
Yesterday, Wes Chesbro endorsed Paul Gallegos for Humboldt District Attorney. Please re-elect Paul Gallegos! Thank you.
September 29, 2010 at 7:27 am
Anonynous
You go Wesley. It’s a cult of one!
September 29, 2010 at 7:40 am
Eric Kirk
Carol – did Chesbro not endorse him in June?
September 29, 2010 at 7:42 am
Eric Kirk
That was a bizarre as was her comment about not voting in the past.
Another interesting moment was what appears to have been an abandonment of her attempts to court the Hispanic vote. She had come out against the Arizona legislation, but last night she said she would oppose any program which created a path from illegal status to citizenship. I think she’s banking on the tea party now, which means the race could possibly be over.
September 29, 2010 at 8:19 am
mresquan
Eric wrote,”I think she’s banking on the tea party now, which means the race could possibly be over.”
And she isn’t all that popular amongst them anyways.The Tea Partiers would have been much more accepting of Poisner.Tea Party candidates in California got it handed to them in the primaries,perhaps with the execption of Fiorina who herself has so many holes in her logic and her actions in the past that the Tea Party won’t truly get behind her enough to defeat Boxer.
September 29, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m wondering if California Republicans are moderating. It’s always been one of the most socially conservative GOP grouping in the west, barring the rectangular states. That’s why Schwarzenegger needed the recall. The moderates couldn’t win the primaries, Huffington in 94 being the exception.
But now they have two moderates, and they’re still losing – in a bad year for Democrats. Go figure.
Of course, it isn’t November yet. Both Boxer and Brown have plenty of time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.