As if L'Affair de Curtis wasn't enough of a recent stain on Spokane, some civic leaders, joined with WSU, have blessed themselves with a self-inflicted wound: willfully turning down the chance to host the sole VP debate in 2008.
Don't like being considered a second-rate city? Don't make second-rate decisions.
h/t: Orbusmax
UPDATE: 1st sentence fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 22, 2007 12:56 PM | Email ThisVP debates are inconsequential events that nobody watches. A city that accepts a proposal to host one, ipso facto, admits that its city is second-rate.
Spokane should hold out for a presidential debate.
Posted by: Luigi Giovanni on November 22, 2007 08:15 PMIt's our old Husky joke, how do you get to WSU: Go East until you smell it, then South until you step in it - just maybe they didn't think they could get rid of their stench in time.
Posted by: Doug on November 22, 2007 10:24 PMResearch found that the presidential debate opportunity was justifiable.
When they were offered the vice-presidential debate instead, they were put in a position of saying "yes or no" now, without the opportunity to determine if this made economic sense for the community (which would have to raise all the money to put this on).
The economic demographics of Eastern Washington are vastly different than those in the Seattle area; it is not a simple "given" that the money needed to hold the debate could be raised. Most Americans ignore the vp debates. Considering that only half of eligible voters even vote, this is not surprising. Indeed, the majority of Americans are fed up with politicians and political parties (Congress has an 11 percent approval rating, for example).
In 1960, 37 percent of the US population watched the debates - but this has dropped every election and is now down to about 14 percent who watched the first VP debate in the last election. Subsequent debates fell off to about 11%. A reasonable guess is this could drop to single digits watching next year. Since the focus is on the candidates and the media, the benefit to the host city is not obvious. (And yes, viewership of the national figure skating championship has also dropped significantly, but the 2007 event held in Spokane lasted a week, with many hours of TV coverage every day, and the host city's name is visible during nearly all the coverage on the ice.)
Sound Politics routinely blasts government for spending money without consideration of the facts. Is taking a measured approach to spending based on research and facts the wrong approach?
The ad hom attacks on those who want to make decisions based on facts comes across as arrogant and snotty.
Posted by: Eric on November 23, 2007 11:28 AMSo you are forced to make a spur of a moment decision that you know you will have most of a year to prepare for and you already supposedly have studied the impact of a POTUS debate.... Noooo, they couged it.
Posted by: Doug on November 23, 2007 12:17 PMThis is sort of a sensitive issue here, I think, because there was a major blowup in 2004 over what it cost the city and county when Dick Cheney came to town for a fundraiser. If Wazzu ran the numbers and found it didn't make sense, then I applaud them for their responsibility.
Posted by: Ryan on November 23, 2007 04:08 PMCivic leadership should be what the art of the possible, not the art of "let's take a pass on this because we're just not sure this really cool, rare opportunity for our town is going to work...it MIGHT even have problems."
Eric's argument is based on an entire series of presumptive, pessimistic, non sequiturs that are no defense for the decision in question; as Doug ably pointed out at #12.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 23, 2007 06:00 PMWSU got a white guilt trip a while back, and renamed it to a more liberal sounding department.
Former spouse #1 used to work there, as exec asst, and believe me, it is in name only, and only meant to confuse and act as opiate for the wetsiders.
It....is.....personnel....with.....a ....50ยข name.
The Geezer
Posted by: The Geezer on November 23, 2007 07:56 PM