Tedisco's debate performance improves, but where's Sundwall?

This was the third debate between congressional candidates Jim Tedisco and Scott Murphy, and Tedisco has been improving since his disastrous performance in the first one. Both candidates had good moments on offense tonight. When Murphy blamed the AIG bonuses on the first Bush bailout, and moderator Jim Kambrich said Tedisco didn't have time to respond, the feisty Republican got right back into it in the next question and hung the bonuses on the stimulus bill passed under Obama that Murphy supports. When Murphy said the bonuses were wrong but the stimulus "did not give away the bonuses," Tedisco came back with "He wants to use semantics," and that the bill did allow the bonuses to be paid.

For most of the night (and throughout the campaign) Murphy was only too happy to talk about the stimulus bill, and he got the better of Tedisco in one exchange on it, when he asked where's the $300 billion of pork in it that Tedisco keeps talking about. Tedisco cited his familiar few examples, but they didn't add up to anywhere near one billion, which is a long way from 300.

In one bizarre exchange, Murphy claimed to be more pro-gun than Tedisco, saying he was the only candidate to be rated A by the NRA. Tedisco won the point by noting that Murphy's A was based on filling out a form, whereas his own A- was based on a legislative record. Murphy's position is the same as Gillibrand's, an exception to his otherwise conventional liberalism, and is transparently cynical.

Answering a question, Tedisco acknowledged that negative ads have turned people off to some extent, and said Murphy had distorted his record. Murphy avoided addressing the question, but said voters want to "move beyond people yelling and screaming in the political world. They want problem solvers."

Tedisco mentioned yet again his opposition to the Spitzer plan to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, but also said he was not supportive of "wholesale deportation," proposing instead to strengthen borders and Americanize immigrants. Murphy said he is in favor of comprehensive immigration reform but not amnesty.

Murphy said he supports embryonic stem cell research, and that Tedisco opposes it. Tedisco said he favors other forms of stem cell research.

Tedisco said he opposes Gov. Paterson's plan announced today to lay off almost 9,000 state workers. Tedisco said he would probably be the poorest member of Congress if elected. At the end of the debate, he stood up to reach over the table and shake Murphy's hand.

Libertarian candidate Eric Sundwall was not there. I think he is scheduled to attend the last debate on Thursday -- although maybe that will change if he has been knocked off the ballot by then. The three individuals objecting to Sundwall's petitions are represented by the able and expert election lawyer John Ciampoli, who has long worked for the Senate Republicans and in 2006 knocked a potential opponent to Joe Bruno off the ballot. Here is a video of him addressing a state Conservative Party conference last year. Tedisco is the Republican and Conservative parties candidate. I couldn't get hold of Ciampoli today, but Tedisco spokesman Adam Kramer denied he is working on the campaign's behalf. Maybe not, but this is at least a public relations problem for Tedisco, who cannot afford to alienate Sundwall supporters or any other voting bloc.

Comments

[Morris N. Guller]

Tedisco would never get this Sundwall supporter because he's running in a District he doesn't live in.

[Giovani]

Let's see if the times union does it's job and asks Murphy about this.

Scott Murphy for Congress truth about bonuses

Scott Murphy for Congress tax problem

Scott Murphy for Congress against death penalty

[Brian]

"Tedisco, who cannot afford to alienate Sundwall supporters or any other voting bloc."

Too late for that. I was never going to vote for Tedisco. But I know other Sundwall supporters who might have but are infuriated by what's been done by people with ties to Tedisco.

[Brian]

Bob: The above comment is a good example of what I'm talking about how two campaigns are going around spamming the blogsophere.

The EXACT same comment (even down to the uncapitalized, unhypenated Times-Union) was left on my own blog... except by someone calling himself Christopher Vic... very curious.

I've seen Mr. Guller's comments on my blog and elsewhere but at least he puts things in his own words and doesn't spam so I have no problem with that sort of thing.

[Brian]

Actually Bob, I presume the reason Sundwall wasn't there is because he wasn't invited. Ironic since the snub occurred on the same day that one of the debate co-sponsors (the Post-Star) ran a transparent editorial on the importance of 'third party' voices, which they've steadfastly refused to cover prior. It's amusing that they actually think they're fooling people.

Though it's also possible Sundwall wasn't at the event site because he was pre-occupied with yesterday's hearing about legal (sic) challenges to his ballot status by Tedisco supporters.

[ind_voter]

Hey morris,
Are you going to reiterate your threat to Tedisco people on this blog site too? Should we all be shot Morris? Sorry, but after that kind of commentary there is NOTHING YOU CAN SAY to make me listen to any points you make.

Physical threats are never the answer. AND, for someone who claims to be motivated by the spirit of democracy, and then engages in physical intimidation as a weapon of debate...well, one can see the the irony.

For the record, Jim Tedisco had nothing to do with Sundwall not making in the ballot. The Conservative Party is no puppet and most certainly does not take orders from people outside their group. They have the freedom and right to act autonomously and within bounds of the law. That is what they did. If you don't like it, CHANGE THE LAW.

Many good people have lost their rights to go on the ballot. Sundwall isn't the first and won't be the last. The NYS BOE is corrupt and runs itself with a cloak of secrecy. The petition sheets themselves are set up for failure. Address those concerns, don't jump to conclusions and falsely accuse people, not to mention threaten them.

[Brian]

"If you don't like it, CHANGE THE LAW."

In order to CHANGE THE LAW, you have to get elected to the legislature. In order to get elected to the legislature, you have to get on the ballot.

Given that, could you give myself and others who'd like to CHANGE THE LAW some idea of how any of us can get on the ballot?

As someone who is not a Democrat or Republican like me, it's clear that fair and democratic (lowercase 'd') rules don't apply. So if you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them.

[Brian]

The BOE may be part of the problem but the law itself is the real problem.

Jim Tedisco may not have had anything to do with what his allies did. I don't know and you don't either.

But as far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, neither he nor Murphy has spoken out against this travesty of justice.

Tedisco publicly spoke out against the negative ads the RNCC was running. He's shown he is capable of calling out his allies if he wants to. He's just chosen not to in this case. His (and Murphy's) silence speaks loud enough.

[ind_voter]

both candidates spoke out against this

[Brian]

source?

[Brian]

As it is, most Sundwall supporters will probably write in his name but there will be a few who will vote for Murphy just to spite Tedisco, despite the transparent excuses offered in his defense (if Murphy is guilty by association with Pelosi and AIG...).

But Murphy should've come out two weeks ago saying the challenge against Sundwall's petitions should be stopped. The Conservative enemies of democracy were never going to listen to him anyway but it would've made Murphy appear to take the high road and probably would've encouraged more Sundwall supporters to pull the lever for him. Maybe not a ton but in a close race, every one matters.

Taking the high road with little risk of it actually working is usually a no brainer for pols. I think Murphy missed an opportunity here.

[Brian]

Tedisco's website denounces the disenfranchisement of nearly 2000 military personnel but as far as I could find, no mentioned of the disenfranchisement of 7000 ordinary citizens.

[ind_voter]

they were both on camera this week saying how it was unfortunate. I don't remember what channel - not my job to!

[Brian]

ah they waited until it was too late.

thanks for the clarification.

[Brian]

http://www.sundwall4congress.org/

Interesting development. Sundwall has endorsed Murphy. Not sure I agree with it but I understand it. Maybe Murphy will benefit from Tedisco's friends after all.