I was perturbed when I recently read that Republican gubernatorial nominee Victor Marx said that he with me serving as the moderator.
I was displeased for two reasons. First, and most importantly, I thought it was important and valuable for the two major party candidates to debate the critical issues facing our state. My impression was that both candidates wanted to do that, and I knew the vast majority of Colorado voters wanted to see this happen.
Second, I was unhappy because contrary to statements that Marx was making publicly in recent days, my understanding was he had agreed to the terms of the debate and had separately agreed to my serving as a real moderator and not a potted plant, which appears to be his current definition of what he wants a moderator to be.
Recently, Marx posted : 鈥淎aron attempted to insert himself as a moderator and change the format of the challenge I had already made to Phil. I did not agree to that change, nor did I agree to another debate format. So, respectfully, any suggestion that I agreed to something different is simply incorrect.鈥�
I have moderated almost 100 debates and forums and have done almost 250 political programs, including 75 in one single election year. My team and I are prudent enough to know that when we are involved with the arrangement of a debate among political candidates, it is critically important to get confirmation of the terms of any debate in writing.
That had been done with both the Marx and Weiser campaigns. In fact, what the excerpted email exchange below indicates is what the very specific and detailed terms were that each campaign agreed to abide by, and, in particular, the confirmation of those terms by the Marx campaign.
I emailed Rachael Flick on Monday, Sept. 7, a long outline of the agreed-to terms of the event, saying: “If this all looks good to you, I would like to immediately reach out to the Weiser campaign and see if I can get them to agree. If I am unsuccessful, we will go ahead with the one-on-one interview. Just give me the 鈥淭humbs Up鈥� as soon as possible today.”
The response a day later was: “This is our thumbs up.”
I have never had a candidate, after his or her campaign has confirmed the terms of a debate, suddenly say his campaign staff went rogue and agreed without his knowledge. In this instance, I find this hard to believe for two reasons. First, the Marx campaign staff is very small. It consists only of several people (and I was impressed with all of them as individuals). I find it difficult to believe that Marx did not know what his staff said he had agreed to do.
Secondly, if, while managing such a small number of people, Marx was unaware of what they were doing or that they agreed without his permission to what likely could become the campaign鈥檚 single greatest media event, that is not a positive indication of his communication and management skills. From someone seeking to manage almost 150,000 state employees and an annual budget of over $40 billion, this is not a good omen.
I was excited for Colorado voters because the leadership at Denver7 鈥� News Director Russell Haythorn and General Manager Brian Joyce 鈥� had proposed a plan that provided millions of Colorado citizens with maximum access to the debate. It included live streaming, prime-time broadcasting, advance promotional efforts, and multiple analysis segments which would serve the people of Colorado in a comprehensive and extraordinary way.
Not only did the Marx campaign confirm the terms of the debate, but they provided me with a quote about the event (and, I’ll note, the Marx quote was much more flattering to me than the quote from Weiser — LOL).
These messages clearly indicate Marx agreed to the debate and to having me serve as the moderator, as well as recognizing how my service always has been impartial and fair. In fact, when we met in person a couple of weeks ago, I told him how much I appreciated these kind words.
In my exchange of emails with him, he has not denied the accuracy of the quote. With all of this in mind, it seems difficult for an objective person to conclude that Marx had never agreed to the debate or my service as its moderator.
I am disappointed. It would have been OK if he told people that he changed his mind. But it’s not OK to tell people I somehow fabricated the story that there was a debate and that he had agreed to it. In fact, both campaigns had agreed the debate would be held on Oct. 5, that it would be recorded at (my new television home), that they would join me for at least an hour, that I could ask whatever questions I wanted, and that there would be an audience.
The approval I received was not from an intern tweeting at midnight. Rather, it was from the spokesperson for the campaign, empowered by Marx to represent him.
Initially, when Marx began denying there had been an agreement to debate, I did not respond because I still had hopes that we could make the debate happen, so I avoided engaging with him about who was telling the truth.
However, as Marx’s responses began to evolve and were becoming more expansive and inaccurate about my role, he forced me to respond. That is what this column is doing. It’s my hope that Marx, from this point on, will be honest with the people of Colorado about what happened or, at the minimum, elect not to say anything at all.
From a political perspective, it is rather fascinating to see the behavior of these two candidates. They both are acting in a manner that is opposite of what political experts traditionally would expect.
In Weiser’s case, if one of the nation鈥檚 top Democratic strategists such as Steve Welchert had been advising him — knowing Weiser is significantly ahead of Marx in the polls and is highly likely to win the General Election 鈥� the advice would be to avoid debates. The traditional political strategy is, 鈥淲hy should a leading candidate do anything that publicizes his or her opponent?”
Surprisingly, Weiser is dispensing with traditional political advice, and is appearing everywhere he can and meeting as many people as he can across the state. He has said he is willing to debate Marx anywhere and anytime in Colorado. His philosophy is to “show up.”
Marx, on the other hand, if he were being advised by a nationally recognized Republican strategist, such as former GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams 鈥� while likely trailing Weiser significantly聽 鈥� would be told to appear and debate with Weiser at every possible opportunity.
Instead, Marx has insisted that the two candidates engage on their own, in a free-for-all, with either no moderator or a moderator whose only function is to serve as a timekeeper. Weiser has repeatedly rejected Marx’s proposal and has described it as “unserious.”
Yet Marx, despite knowing he likely lags behind Weiser significantly, continues to obstinately insist on his mano a mano format, knowing that what it means is that he will not debate Weiser. It means he also knows he will miss the opportunity to present his views on the key issues of the day facing Colorado to hundreds of thousands of voters who still, right at this moment, want to know what Victor Marx stands for.
So, in addition to the issues raised regarding whether or not he agreed to debate and whether or not he agreed to have me serve as the debate鈥檚 moderator, perhaps the most disconcerting element of this situation is the fact that Victor Marx is unwilling to present himself to the voters of Colorado unless it is under conditions he unilaterally dictates.
Based on the challenges he has faced during his lifetime and his extraordinary achievements, as detailed in his autobiography, Marx, of all people, should not be afraid to debate Phil Weiser. I am uncertain why he fears participating in a debate that does not give him absolute control of the format and the topics. His behavior is discordant and disconcerting.
Despite my displeasure, I take none of this personally. I still would be honored to moderate the debate between Marx and Weiser. I am confident, at the end of the debate, both of them would feel that I had been fair and that they each had ample and equal time to express their views. For three decades on the air, my focus has been serving viewers in Colorado as a fair, balanced and nonpartisan moderator.
I admire and have tremendous respect for anyone who runs for public office these days. It has become a far greater sacrifice for candidates and, even worse, for their families than it has ever been in the past several decades. It can even be life-threatening.
So, my great respect for Victor Marx and Phil Weiser remains unchanged. If Marx would like to join me on Oct. 5, there will be a comfortable chair waiting for him. I would still warmly welcome his participation. Confirmation from his campaign by email would be sufficient.
Aaron Harber, past winner of the Colorado Broadcasters Association鈥檚 top honor as 鈥淏roadcaster of the Year,鈥� is the host and moderator of “ on Rocky Mountain PBS. 聽Email: Producer@HarberTV.com.听
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
