STOP STALLING ON DEBATES

Gov. George Pataki is not the first incumbent who's tried to remain in
office by ducking debates. It's a battle-tested strategy for keeping the
public from seeing the real you, from getting to know - and maybe like -
your opponent(s), and from having them land any damaging blows to your
campaign. But it's also bad for the democratic process.

Because they're unscripted, debates are revealing in a way that television
commercials, TV news sound bites and stump speeches aren't. That's why
they're useful to voters and vital to the election process - at least one
that aspires to elevate the best candidate.

Typically, it's to the incumbent's advantage - especially one leading in
the polls - to have as few debates as possible. That keeps the public in
the dark about lesser-known opponents and reduces the risk of any damaging
gaffes or attacks. Gov. Pataki is holding true to form this year, resisting
any debates that wouldn't include all eight candidates.

Of course, Pataki knows eight is too many for a real debate. Unless it went
on all night - and who would watch? - there's just not enough time in the
typical debate format for everyone to get more than a few minutes to talk.
Moreover, Pataki knows that including left-wing fringe candidates such as
the Green Party's Stanley Aronowitz will increase the chances for attacks
on his main opponent, Democrat H. Carl McCall.

For pretty much the same reason in reverse, it would make sense for McCall
to have billionaire businessman Thomas Golisano join him in ganging up on
Pataki, but to have no one else.

There's no need for fringe candidates such as Thomas Leighton of the
Marijuana Reform Party mucking up a debate. The Independence Party's
Golisano, on the other hand, beat Pataki in a primary and has enough
credibility to be included.

Perhaps a good compromise would be three debates: one with all candidates,
one with just Pataki and McCall, and one that also included Golisano. But
Pataki mustn't shortchange the voters by refusing to debate.