A Rooster Fight Is Not a Good Test for Governor

Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren and Lt. Gov. Gray Davis are fine men of good character, both knowledgeable and experienced in government. But they are not Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

And the sooner they grasp this, the sooner they presumably will stop wasting everybody’s time--theirs included--and start debating in a manner that befits two major candidates for governor.

Lungren fancies himself a debater--he was one in high school--and so during negotiations for the gubernatorial debates, he insisted on a partial Lincoln-Douglas format: one-on-one. For 15 minutes of each hourlong debate, the candidates would question each other. No interference from a pesky moderator.

Sounds great in concept. But in execution, these guys have been pathetic, if not obnoxious. The memorable Lincoln-Douglas debates were substantive and eloquent. The Lungren-Davis version, too often, has been shallow and sophomoric.

*

Here’s some dialogue from the second campaign debate Tuesday night at Cal State Fresno:

Davis: “I’m asking you a question.”

Lungren: “No, no, no. It’s my question. . . .”

And:

Lungren: “Will you stop. Will you stop interrupting for just a second?”

Davis: “You were wrong to suggest my vote was an anti-death penalty vote. Bill Leonard, who is the minority leader. . . .”

Also:

Davis: “Are we talking about the Condit bill, is that what you’re talking about?”

Lungren: “Yes we are. Read Bill Leonard’s letter.”

There’s no need to try to explain any of this because most of it was nonsensical. Neither the audience nor the news media could follow the candidates. They rudely talked over each other, spat out unfamiliar names and jargon and acted like bickering bar drunks.

It may have been entertaining if you like rooster fights. But even so, you don’t elect roosters governor.

A couple of individual lowlights:

Lungren to Davis: “I’m glad you finally turned to me because I thought you were playing to the cameras.”

Davis to the moderator: “He got his sound bite, now I’m getting mine.”

Afterward in separate Q-and-A sessions, a young Fresno TV reporter, Kevin Walsh of KJEO, asked each candidate a question I’d never heard before at any post-debate news conference: “Are you at all disappointed in your behavior?” Lungren looked momentarily shocked, then replied: “No, not at all.” Davis reminded the reporter that, after all, the debating style had been Lincoln-Douglas.

Well, not exactly.

Wednesday morning’s front page banner in the Fresno Bee, a debate co-sponsor, read: “Debate Loses Valley Focus.” Reporter Phoebe Wall Howard, one of the questioners, wrote: “At times, the debate was downright embarrassing.”

The Bee editorialized that “the candidates didn’t bring much else to the table except an appetite to get elected . . . the voters of California again were the big losers. . . . The only thing [Lungren and Davis] showed was that neither is ready to lead this state.”

*

But don’t take just the media’s word. As the audience broke up, I talked to Ron Johnson, who recently retired as chairman of the university’s Theater Arts Department, where the debate was staged. “I didn’t know what’n hell they were talking about,” Johnson said of the candidates’ direct questioning.

“My eyes glazed over. I just started thinking about other things. It was kind of like watching fire in a fireplace--like watching dancing flames. I thought it was a total waste, juvenile.

“Who cares what somebody did 10 years ago? What we care about is, ‘What are you going to do to improve conditions in our valley?’ ”

Ah, but the political experts dismiss such pleas. They believe a candidate has to dig deep into his opponent’s past for spit-wad material, fodder for cheap shots. Before a candidate can build himself up, he has to tear his opponent down. Lungren’s goal is to cast Davis as a liar; Davis’ is to paint Lungren as an extremist. But in taking their cheap shots--and both are--these candidates are wounding themselves.

Actually, the debate did have some positive moments when each candidate--especially Lungren--sketched his ideas about the valley’s stagnant economy, water needs and agriculture. But this came when the debate was controlled by reporter-questioners, who brought out the candidates’ best. For everybody’s sake, these debates should be taken out of the candidates’ self-destructive hands.

The debaters not only aren’t ready for prime time, they’re not ready for Fresno. They got hooted out of town.