Update, 11:30 am: Ted Wheeler still wants people to show up at Revolution Hall tonight, Oregonian imprimatur or no. With the paper ditching its debate plans, Wheeler’s campaign issued a press release that says he’ll still show up at 6 pm—and he thinks other candidates should, too.
“Those who were planning on attending the debate as an audience member should plan on coming and asking questions,” Wheeler says.
Will there be people on hand to operate the sound system and set up microphones? Will someone moderate or will it be a free-for-all? Will anyone show up? Interesting questions left in the chaotic vacuum of the O‘s decision.
Another update, 12:09 pm: Sounds like Revolution Hall owner Jim Brunberg, a Wheeler supporter, is taking over organization for the event, and inviting a slate of moderators to ask questions (from what we’re hearing, two of those could be interesting!). So far, candidates Sean Davis, Jessie Sponberg, and David Schor have said they’ll attend.
Original post:
The Oregonian has hurriedly canceled a mayoral debate it had planned this evening, amid outcry that the paper only deemed two out of a dozen mayoral candidates worth its time.
As first reported by the Mercury a week ago, a group of community activists posted an open letter to Facebook, threatening to disrupt the O‘s event—which was slated for 6 pm tonight at Revolution Hall—if the paper didn’t open up the stage to more candidates than perceived frontrunners Ted Wheeler and Jules Bailey.
Dozens of people have since signaled interest in such a disruption, and nearly 400 people have signed onto an online petition demanding more inclusion in the debate.
Oregonian Editorial and Commentary Editor Erik Lukens told the Mercury last week he had seen the threats, but that the “lineup for this debate is set.” But something clearly changed.
The paper sent out a notice last night to people who’d RSVPd to attend the debate.
“Over the past several days, a number of people have threatened to disrupt Monday evening’s debate between Portland mayoral candidates Jules Bailey and Ted Wheeler,” it said. “The Oregonian/OregonLive takes these threats very seriously. Out of concern for both the safety of those who’ve registered to attend and the security of the venue, Revolution Hall, we have decided to cancel the event.”
The O says it offered to livestream a debate on its website instead—no live audience required. Neither Bailey nor Wheeler were interested.
The last-minute cancellation is just the latest example this election season of demands for more inclusion as Portland gets ready to vote on a replacement for Mayor Charlie Hales in May (if no candidate gets more than half the vote, a runoff race between the top-two candidates will occur in November). As we reported a month ago, a slate of lesser-known candidates have been pushing hard for entree into forums and events around town.
Their self-advocacy has been yielding results. Candidates like Sean Davis, Sarah Iannarone, and David Schor have participated in forums around development, housing, and homelessness alongside Wheeler and Bailey lately, and you can expect to see some of them at a slate of upcoming events.
That’s making 2016’s race a more-inclusive event than 2012, which largely featured three candidates: Hales, Jefferson Smith, and Eileen Brady. This might change, of course, as the city gets a better idea what the sentiment toward the candidates is. The mayoral race hasn’t seen much opinion polling, to date.
As to the Oregonian‘s suggestion that its audience would be unsafe at tonight’s debate: It’s unclear where it comes from. The Facebook page where activists have been coordinating their efforts indicates, at most, a raucous protest with signs and noisemakers. We’ve reached out to Lukens with that question.
By the way, activists weren’t the only people urging the Oregonian to include more than Wheeler and Bailey in the now-scuttled debate. Revolution Hall owner Jim Brunberg tells the Mercury he asked the paper to reconsider.
“In their phone message to me, the organizers of the event made it clear that they had given it thoughtful consideration and that their aim was to have the highest level debate possible in the timeframe such events allow, not just soundbytes and short answers,” Brunberg wrote in an email last week. “I respect that, and it’s their event.”
Well, it was.
Given the high number of debates and forums, I think it was defensible to ask the top two candidates. Some of us have had enough of Sarah “Word Salad” Iannarone and Jesse “Give Me Attention” Sponberg. I find them about as informative as nails on a chalk board.
The real issue is, who are the top candidates today? I think it’s time to add David Schor to the debate, now that Jules Bailey’s campaign has sprung a slow un-fixable leak after the WW story on Bailey’s attendance/tithing/bible study at a Conservative Baptist (think Jerry Falwell) church. Homophobia plus female submission (and occasionally child spanking) are central tenets of this church- Imago Dei.
I would appreciate a new poll to see if Bailey has lost support to David Schor, a more worthy leftist opponent for Ted Wheeler.
I am one of the members of the ad-hoc group that insisted that the Oregonian open up their so-called “debate” to all serious candidates or expect to have their event nonviolently disrupted by Portland voters. The Oregonian did the right thing by canceling their phony “debate” as there would probably have been a few hundred angry voters turning out this evening in opposition. We posted a public response to the Oregonian’s cancellation announcement on their event fb page, which they have since taken down. Here’s what we posted (which can also be seen on our own event fb page at https://www.facebook.com/events/11701373…
I am thrilled that the Oregonian’s management did the only sensible thing it could have done if it truly respects Portland’s voters, and our right to have fair and open elections – free of any corporate interference. Thank you, Oregonian management. And thank you Jules Bailey and Ted Wheeler for refusing to participate in a 2 of 12 candidates debate withOUT a live audience. AND…. the Oregonian is now purposefully misleading the public in its new claim that they cancelled the debate fearing the “safety” of those in attendance. We have made it crystal clear that our action would be entirely nonviolent. So whatever “threat” the Oregonian feared was non-existent. We had intended nothing but a nonviolent response – no one hurt – no property damaged – no pushing or shoving – no shouting – but simply a classic nonviolent action in the same mould as that of the Civil Rights movement. What the Oregonian’s management seems to feel most threatened by is the threat of real democracy in our local elections. Hopefully, they’ve learned a lesson, and the next time they organize a public candidates debate, they will invite all serious candidates to the table.
Paul, how are you defining “serious candidates”? While I’m personally with you that just inviting Bailey and Wheeler is too limited — I’ve seen more attention dedicated to Iannarone than Bailey — I think there’s a point where you give more air time to the viable candidates than the non-viable ones.
Not a fan of Oregonian but their plan to limit candidates was proven right here. Extra candidates did not elevate the discussion.