Talking Point: More Debates

It was easy to distinguish which local political races were runaways and which were closely contested this year: the candidates with big leads ran TV ads featuring sunny, soaring and even elegiac images and music, while the others ran ads that were darker and heavily negative.

The negative spots often were over the top and sometimes perplexing: we still aren't sure what the incumbent Democratic State Comptroller was talking about with his ad accusing a Republican opponent who prides himself on penny-pinching of a secret plan to raise taxes by $7 billion, or why the Democratic challenger to a Republican Congressman on Staten Island could be considered an appeaser of terrorists because he opposes President Bush's domestic wiretapping plan that never got the approval of Congress.

There was one thing, however, that both the high-road candidates and those scrapping to retain their offices shared in common: an aversion to debating.

Eliot Spitzer, who as we hit the stands Nov. 7 seemed virtually assured of being elected Governor, engaged in three debates during the campaign - one with Democratic primary opponent Tom Suozzi, the other two with Republican gubernatorial nominee John Faso. Any temptation we feel to say that isn't enough is tempered by the fact that this was three times as many debates as two incumbents, Sen. Hillary Clinton and State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, engaged in.

Senator Clinton had her debate with Republican opponent John Spencer after successfully ducking her primary challenger, Jonathan Tasini. Mr. Hevesi seemed ready to ignore the debating process altogether until a rapidly shrinking lead caused by the uproar over his use of a staffer to chauffeur his wife at state expense forced him into the ring with Republican Chris Callaghan.

Incumbents and those with large leads in the polls seem to believe there is a disincentive for them to hold frequent debates. They generally enjoy significant advantages in fund-raising, which permits them to carefully craft their own images - or tarnish that of their opponents - in 30-second spots that don't allow for immediate rebuttal.

Debating gives equal time to their challengers and puts them on something of an equal plane in the eyes of those watching. It also subjects them to questioning about issues and past positions they have taken that might not thrill a segment of the voting public, either because of the specific matter or because they appear shifty or unconvincing in trying to explain their stands.

But there is an obligation that candidates have to the voters at election time: to make themselves accountable and offer a real idea as to what we're likely to be getting if we choose them. That has gotten lost as the cost of getting elected grows so dramatically, and with it candidates' desire to control their messages and resist any forums where they might be confronted with the unexpected and be required to think on their feet.

Sure, debating skills are no guarantee that a candidate will be a good office-holder. But performance in debates can help flesh out the candidate beyond his or her background and resume, offering the public a less-sanitized picture than they are going to get from a campaign's ads (and a more honest snapshot than they're likely to get from an opponent's negative ads).

Candidates for President go through multiple debates during the party primary season, and the nominees in the general election debate three times. It should be mandatory that candidates for city or statewide offices have at least one pre-primary debate and two before the general election.