Doggone that slacker Campbell

I just looked at the clock — I’m stuck here doing the job of some slacker who’s on vacation this week — and the lieutenant governor non-debate has come and gone.

I’ve missed my chance to express outrage in advance over Mike Campbell refusing to show up and debate Andre Bauer again. I got worked up over the governor being similarly aloof, so I really ought to have done the same here, right? I mean, the two situations are exactly the same, right?

Well, no. In this case, the two guys met just a couple of weeks ago. And the stakes are pretty infinitessimal compared to a governor’s race. And Campbell is only hurting himself, since he’s given Andre a chance to be all eager and accessible to the people once again. And since he doesn’t have nearly the electoral advantage that the governor did.

What do you think? Did Campbell throw it away by not allowing the gentleman from MySpace to hover over him with crutches on live TV again? I think Andre did better on the last debate, and probably would have done so again this time. But it just looks bad not to show up in your one potential statewide forum in the runoff.

Looks bad? Since when do I care about "looks bad?" It is bad. It’s quite bad and wrong, and I’m … I’m just so danged perturbed at Mike Campbell over this that I can hardly see straight.

Of course, I’m having trouble seeing straight anyway these days. I haven’t had a chance to go pick up these new bifocals I ordered, and I’m practically blind in the middle distance (where the desktop is, which is why I’m typing on the laptop now), and I’ve got this unbelievable sinus headache on top of everything, and …

Anyway. Back to my point, which is how doggone livid I am at Mike Campbell. Partly for skipping the debate, partly for by so doing, likely throwing it away next week. I’m just double-ticked, that’s all there is to it.

8 thoughts on “Doggone that slacker Campbell

  1. mark

    The irony for me is that I believe Mike Campbell did better in the last debate. I had no idea who he was, and ended up voting for him. I believe he would have only helped himself in showing up tonight– which I intend to watch online in a few minutes. It’s likely a whole new group of viewers would have seen him.
    I think the political consultants are over thinking these things. I don’t know who advises Campbell, but I think it was a blunder. Debates and forums are just so basic and valuable in the electoral process. They tend to solidify your supporters more than anything, but they can sway undecideds. And there will be news coverage as well, focusing on the lone participant. Andre is a tenacious campaigner, and beat some very strong candidates last time around.
    I don’t understand candidates who won’t debate. What’s the point of getting into politics if you’ll shy away form a good forum? This run-off was Mike’s to lose– which he just may have done by not showing. And that’s too bad.

  2. Randy E

    I think this was a cold calculation. He can probably count on roughly the same 45% (including me). He is focused on 5% of the remaining voters, basically selling a new product. He can get that working the phones, word of mouth, and simple cross over from Jordan’s voters.
    SC2 on the other hand had as much recognition as he could have entering the race. His 37% meet the definition of a friend – people who know everything about you but like you anyway. The other 13% he needs may be cross over from Jordan, but why didn’t they vote for the incumbent the first time? So his job is to convince people to buy the new and improved product. More signs and spreading the word won’t do. He needs to “make a splash” like score a knockout at a debate to make the direct comparison. Who’s going to watch SC2 talk for 1/2 an hour?
    This is different than Sanford’s situation because Campbell and SC2 have already debated. The people have been given the chance to contrast the two head to head. Sanford did not face his constituents.
    On the other hand, I think both showed that they are cold calculating politicians regardless of how they try to portray themselves. I for one feel less inspired to vote for Campbell.

  3. Randy E

    Maybe they could have a debate on an interstate overpass since “everybody’s looking up there anyway.”

  4. Chris White

    Where was Mike Campbell?
    Mike Campbell was probably at the bar he owns, collecting the money from the very bartenders he employs that push booze on college kids all night long…and with Brad W as his biggest cheerleader…why should he debate?
    He can count on the State to declare that Andres resume’ is off bounds for discussion (you got a degree? Is that a dig at Campbell?) . We can count on the State to rehash EVERY problem that Andre has ever had…while fawning at the glory of the bar owning, college drop-out that would be sweeping floors at the bar instead of owning it…if it were not for good ole Papa Campbell giving him a name, and a livelihood.
    Can you imagine the headlines if the State discovered Andre owned a bar, and yet was portraying himself as the darling of the Christian right?

  5. David

    LOL Chris White.
    When did owning a bar become a problem?
    Fromw what my USC buddie tell me, Andre Bauer knows full well every bar in Columbia. But big deal.
    Andre is busy looking at girls in bikinis on his myspace website.
    What a good ball. I hope Andre enjoys the next week because some primary day, he’ll be on his way out. .

  6. Chris White

    Hey David,
    Check out the demographics of the Republican primary voter. They are Christians, conservatives …and not likely to own a bar, or support a man that does. But of course, Mike Campbell’s best friend Brad W has decided it is his decision…and he decided that the voters did not need that information. You see, once that fact is well known, then other questions arise…such as “have you or your bar served alcohol to minors? Or, have you or your bar ever been a party to legal action concerning underage drinking at your bar? Or, how many times have the USC or City of Cola police department been called to your bar? Or, has any underage patron ever been injured as a result of drinking at your bar? But of course, these questions would lead to questions about Campbell’s judgment…and as Brad has let us know, Mike Campbell is “mature”, and “not likely to embarrass us”…and is his choice for Lt. Governor.
    I suspect Democrat Barber will make sure that Mike Campbell’s “profit from booze” it is well known…and I assure there will be many pastors and community organizers on the right that will feel betrayed by the Hobbit.
    Check out the demographics of the Republican primary voter…Christian, conserative …and not likely to own a bar, or support a man that does. But of course, Mike Campbells best friend Brad W has decided it is his decision…and he decided that the voters did not need that information. I suspect Democrate Barber will make sure his “profit from booze” it is well know

  7. David

    The average Republican Christian Conservative also isn’t likely to have a myspace website with girls in bikinis posted all over it – and then remove those pictures when the newspapers report about it.
    Chris – I won’t get into it here but I was at USC when Andre was at USC. I have been to functions in the last 3 years where Andre was in attendance. Just rest assured, your posts about bars and drinking and such don’t come into my thoughts considering what I have seen with my own eyes concerning Lt. Gov Bauer.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *