So Many Crucial Questions to Ask, So Little Time

It would be unseemly for me to pick a winner and a loser in Wednesday’s gubernatorial debate, since I was part of the show. But, in truth, I really didn’t see it anyway.

I and co-moderator Janet Clayton, editor of The Times Editorial pages, were physically closer than anyone else to the candidates, asking them questions from only a few feet away. But we won’t actually see the debate--or “forum,” as the sponsoring Times calls it--until we watch it on television.

Then we’ll see what many of you saw--see which candidates came across as self-confident and knowledgeable, or maybe nervous and winging it.

From where we sat, it was like being among the trees and not seeing the forest. We had to keep our eyes on a time clock and alternating green, yellow and red lights. Also, be mindful of the next question to be asked, and of which candidate. All the while staring into bright TV lights.

That’s strange territory for a newspaper reporter.

Right now, however, I would make these observations:

* I threw a high hard one at Al Checchi when I asked him about his running negative ads after he promised not to, and about his claiming to have “marched with Martin Luther King” when all he did was attend a King speech. I asked whether people could believe him. And, frankly, Janet and I thought Checchi might lose it, might show some of the thin skin that he has occasionally displayed along the campaign trail.

But, to his credit, the political rookie kept his cool. He didn’t get rattled, even when I challenged his answers. (A complete debate text is published in today’s Times).

Ronald Reagan always said you can’t hit a home run off a soft pitch. Checchi didn’t hit a home run, but neither did he strike out, as he might have just a few months ago.

*

The three other candidates all took shots at Checchi for taking shots at them in his campaign ads. That told me they really think he is the Democrat to beat, despite polls showing Lt. Gov. Gray Davis as the front-runner. Checchi refused to be drawn into a sparring match that would have placed him on the defensive, but he probably emerged a bit bloodied.

* Rep. Jane Harman has been criticized during the campaign for refusing to lay out specific proposals. She has insisted that governing style and competence are what’s really important. Ten years ago, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis also tried that approach and it didn’t work any better for him than it is for Harman.

But Wednesday, Harman was by far the most specific candidate on what she would do with the state’s present $4-billion surplus. She outlined programs and expenditures in detail. They ranged from buying textbooks to restoring the renters tax credit. Voters tuning in to this campaign for the first time would think that Harman is plenty specific.

* Davis and Republican Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren seemed, from my perch, to be the most relaxed and actually enjoying themselves. They smiled naturally. That probably was because, unlike the other two, they have spent several years in state government and are very comfortable with any conceivable issue.

* Lungren also got a free ride from the Democrats, who didn’t want to waste their words on a Republican. First things first: Win the Democratic nomination, beat on each other. Myself, I would have blasted away at Lungren and tried to score points with hard-core Democrats.

*

A lot of people are disappointed we didn’t ask about more issues. Janet and I are disappointed too.

A TV show--they tell us--has to run like clockwork. Unfortunately, a glitch in the clock prompted us to cut off the scheduled 85-minute debate a good five minutes early. That cost us one question. Waiting next on the list: health care and HMOs.

Perhaps we spent too much time initially on education. But voters do say that’s their No. 1 concern. Moreover, it’s the No. 1 issue for Democratic candidates.

We also wanted to ask about planning for California’s growth, especially water, and didn’t get the chance. We had a stack of unasked questions on campaign reform, tobacco and smoking, immigration, offshore oil drilling and whether anybody had a Plan B if the economy went sour.

On average, a question asked of all four candidates ate up eight minutes.

Still, it was by far the most in-depth discussion of issues--indeed, the biggest event--of this political season.

It came about after a staffer suggested to Times Publisher Mark Willes that the paper run an editorial urging some TV station to sponsor a debate. Willes’ immediate reply: “Why don’t we just be the sponsor?”

I’m looking forward to seeing it.