My experience at the Oct. 2 gubernatorial debate, held on the campus of California State University, Fresno, was a mixture of excitement and disappointment. Since watching debates is my favorite part of the election season, going to one in person was too good an opportunity to pass up.
That morning could not have gotten off to a worse start, as my poor sense of direction helped turn the day into a nightmare. Luckily, by the time I had found the media tent, the debate had not even started. My earlier fiasco also seemed to foreshadow what lay ahead.
I spent most of the time prior to the debate listening to what others’ expectations were. After about a half hour, the debate began. Democratic candidate Jerry Brown and Republican candidate Meg Whitman took center stage.
Two things bothered me during the debate. The first was an apparent bias from the media, evident by the snickers made after certain statements by both candidates. After Brown mentioned Whitman talking out of both sides of her mouth on immigration, multiple reporters to the left of me started laughing.
The second was when I was handed certain papers explaining Whitman’s “lies” after she finished discussing an issue. When the candidates were asked about their education proposals, I was given a paper that defended Brown’s record as mayor of Oakland, something Whitman constantly attacked. I could tell that they were invited to the debate by Brown based off of their ID tags.
The controversy surrounding Whitman’s former housekeeeper soon came to dominate the debate. Her reaction to these accusations seemed unprofessional, and her attack on Jerry Brown was unimpressive and unfactual. It became clear to me that this debate would be far more vehement than the one at UC Davis.
After about 20 minutes, the debate staff began to have technical difficulties and remained on standby for the next half hour. I was rather amused by these problems. It seemed that nothing could go right at the specific debate I had attended.
The rest of the debate was uneventful for me. Most of the questions were similar to those asked at the previous debate, although there was a particularly larger emphasis on illegal immigration.
In addition, the candidates were far more belligerent, spending most of the time defaming each other instead of explaining what they would do as governor.
What I found disappointing was the lack of professionalism from the candidates and the smear tactics that continued in the media tent.
That being said, I do not regret going to the debate and appreciate having been given the opportunity. I sincerely hope that whichever candidate becomes governor can bring prosperity back to California.
For more information on the debate, read the Oct. 11 column, A novice among professionals: Debate experience.
