Archive for Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Statehouse Live: Holland calls on Brownback to debate

September 28, 2010, 11:26 a.m. Updated September 28, 2010, 4:56 p.m.


— The debate over the lack of debates in the governor’s race continued on Tuesday.

Democrat Tom Holland, a state senator from Baldwin City, has been calling on Brownback, a U.S. senator, to participate in more forums before the Nov. 2 election.

On Tuesday, Brownback announced that he will participate in a live televised debate with Holland next week in Wichita.

The debate will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. Oct. 7 on KWCH Channel 12 and will be offered to networks in Topeka and Kansas City. The Libertarian and Reform Party candidates also have been invited to the forum.

Also on Tuesday, Holland announced he has declined to debate Brownback in one forum put on by a conservative radio talk show.

In declining the WIBW radio debate, Holland's campaign spokesman Seth Bundy noted that WIBW radio had already hosted the one debate Holland and Brownback have had — at the Kansas State Fair on Sept. 11.

“To us, it didn't make sense to go back on the same AM radio station that already sponsored a debate, hosted by less than neutral hosts, in the middle of the day when a majority of voters aren't able to tune in,” Bundy said.

In addition to the Wichita debate, the Holland campaign said he has accepted invitations to two more debates, one by KSNT television in Topeka and the other at Smoky Hills Public Television in Bunker Hill, Kan. But Brownback hasn’t accepted those.

Holland's campaign manager, Dana Houle, said that when Brownback ran for the Republican nomination for president he participated in nine televised debates in California, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, Maryland, Michigan and Washington, D.C.

Brownback’s campaign said he is busy fulfilling his promise to visit all 105 counties in Kansas. The campaign said the Senate’s early recess allowed Brownback to schedule the Oct. 7 debate.


Richard Heckler 7 years, 5 months ago

What were Brownback and Moran doing while our tax dollars were being funneled to the banks that brought down the economy?

What were the factors in deciding who received bailout funds? And what happened to all that money? The answer to those two simple questions is: we don’t know.

JAMES STEELE: Well, Amy, it was very difficult in the beginning, because even within Treasury, Treasury had no internal controls at the beginning of this whole process. They basically were just throwing the money out. And the whole process about deciding who got it and so forth was one of the most complex, murky processes we have ever encountered.

The beginning banks, the first nine, the big banks, they all got their money one day after a meeting with Henry Paulson, in which he told them, “You’re taking this money.” But after that, the process was much more convoluted. And some banks lobbied for the money. Others banks didn’t lobby for the money but were told they were taking it. It all—what we basically concluded early on, that there was really no plan to this at all. While Treasury said that the purpose was to get credit flowing back into the system, the fact of the matter is, the way they went about this made no sense at all.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, what about that big meeting that you talk about—I think it was October 12th—the nine big banks? Eight of those banks, as you reported, ended up getting two-thirds of all of the money, 67 percent. How did that meeting come about, and who was there?

JAMES STEELE: Paulson actually called that meeting. He called the heads of those banks the night before and said, “I want you here tomorrow in Washington.” He was very vague as to what the purpose of the meeting was. But once they got there, he told them, “You are taking money. We are going to buy stock in your banks. And we need to get this economy going again.” Some bankers objected, saying by accepting this money it would look like they were weak. Others simply said they didn’t need it.

The fact of the matter is, one of the things we concluded very early on in this whole process is that while Treasury was trying to create the image that there was widespread weakness in these banks—and then there was a credit freeze, there’s no doubt about that—the way they went about this, just throwing the money out there in hopes that that would get the economy going, is not really what this was all about. There were just a handful of institutions that were terribly weakened. AIG the insurer, Bank of America, Citigroup, those three were clearly in very weakened form. So, many of the other big banks were not. And the best example that they didn’t need this money in the beginning was that many of them, within just a very few months, paid everything back.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 5 months ago

There is no political reason Brownback should debate.

situveux1 7 years, 5 months ago

Holland turned down the Topeka debate.

WilburM 7 years, 5 months ago

Right now there is a debate on Wichita public TV for half an hour, and the proposed "debate" in Topeka on WIBW radio, also televised. But this latter event would be run by two right-wing talk show hosts, not the WIBW news personnel or other, neutral individuals. Scarcely fair or a real debate. Cal. gubernatorial candidates go at it at least twice this week. McCain and Obama did three 90-minute debates. Surely Brownback could agree to three hour-long debates with Holland. When pigs fly.

And politically, it may be the right call not to debate-- but only if Kansas media let Brownback off the hook.

Who gets shorted in the end? Kansas voters.

Centerville 7 years, 5 months ago

What a silly antic. Just compare their voting records - easier to do than sit through an hour watching Taxes 'R' Tom huff and puff.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.