Well, I must admit, it hasn't been something I've been keeping an eye on - enthusiasm has been somewhat lacking, I suppose. But I saw an article by Chad Dotson (who is, of course, the Commonwealth Conservative) over at RedState.org - Tim Kaine is getting desperate. Apparently, Mr. Kaine is attempting to change the rules of Sunday's debate, after agreeing to these rules two months ago.
According to the Washington Post, Mr. Kaine is balking at the "no-use" rule -
For days, both camps have been wrangling over the rules for the hour-long exchange. The main point of contention: whether the Kilgore and Kaine advertising gurus should be allowed to weave unflattering images and sound bites from the debate into potentially devastating TV spots.
Kaine says yes. Kilgore says no.
Chad discusses how the "no-use" rule has been the standard for quite a while:
In August, Kaine agreed to the Sabato debate without conditions, saying that whatever rules the organizers set, he would agree to. One part of those rules is the age-old “non-use” agreement.
Going back to 2001, Mark Warner insisted on the non-use agreement in his WDBJ-TV debate with Mark Earley in October of 2001. It is interesting to note that Mo Elleithee (Tim Kaine’s Communications Director today) was Mark Warner’s Press Secretary then. During that debate, the question about the non-use agreement and the interference of lawyers was posed to then-candidate Warner by Ellen Qualls, then a reporter, but now Mark Warner’s Director of Communications.
Going back even further, Doug Wilder insisted on it in 1989. These non-use agreements have a long history in Virginia, and elsewhere.
Why have candidates insisted on this? Because your opponent, who appears to be losing, might want to use some piece of videotape in a manner in which it did not actually occur, taking comments out of context to beat you over the head with it.
The debate is supposed to be on Sunday (someone remind me to TiVo it...), but now it may not happen.
