U.S. Senate debate is back on for Sept. 1

The planned Barbara BoxerCarly Fiorina debate on which I reported last week, later retracted as premature by the folks at KQED, is back on at the same time and date (7 p.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 1) but with a newly announced location: St. Mary’s College of California in Moraga.

As previously reported, the one-hour debate will air live on KQED Public Radio and KTVU Channel 2. KQED News is offering the debate as a special broadcast of The California Report, the station’s statewide news service; the California Report’s debate broadcast will be distributed live via satellite and available for broadcast by all California public radio stations.

KTVU’s political editor Randy Shandobil will moderate the debate, with questions posed by San Francisco Chronicle senior political writer Carla Marinucci; California Report host Scott Shafer; and La Opinion senior political reporter and blogger Pilar Marrero.

Said Fiorina:

“I am pleased that Barbara Boxer has accepted one of the many opportunities we have to debate before the people of California. I also want to thank KTVU, the San Francisco Chronicle and KQED for the time, resources and energy they are all investing to make this important debate possible.

“There is much at stake in this election, and the people of California should have multiple opportunities in all parts of the state to see the two of us together, debating our very different approaches to addressing job creation, economic growth and the role of government in our lives, along with many other important issues. That is why I have accepted more than a dozen other debate invitations. To date, Barbara Boxer has accepted only one. With more than 2.2 million unemployed Californians, a record national debt and the largest tax increase in American history slated to go into effect soon, there is much to discuss. I certainly hope she’ll agree that the people of this state deserve to see us debate many times between now and November 2.”

Said Rose Kapolczynski, Boxer’s campaign manager:

“We’re pleased that we will have the opportunity to debate and show the clear contrast between the candidates on jobs and the economy and so many other issues of concern to Californians.”

Josh Richman

Josh Richman covers state and national politics for the Bay Area News Group. A New York City native, he earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and reported for the Express-Times of Easton, Pa. for five years before coming to the Oakland Tribune and ANG Newspapers in 1997. He is a frequent guest on KQED Channel 9’s “This Week in Northern California;” a proud father; an Eagle Scout; a somewhat skilled player of low-stakes poker; a rather good cook; a firm believer in the use of semicolons; and an unabashed political junkie who will never, EVER seek elected office.

  • It is shameful that a public radio station like KQED ould join Fox news affilate KTVU in sponsoring a debate formate which discriminates agains the third party candites in the US Senate race. Listeners, viewer, the audience, and the electorate at large will be denied to hear from the standard bearers of the PEACE & FREEDOM PARTY, the Green Party, the Libertarians, and the American Independent Party.

    The passage of the ill advised Proposition 14 in the June primary takes away voters right to select candiates from the entire political spectrum in future years. Phony debates such as the on at St. Mary’s hasten the the restictive measures against politiacal dialogue outside the illusion of choice offerd by the bi-partisan charade of the Democrat and Republican parties.

  • Kevin Akin

    Neither Boxer nor Fiorina should participate in any two-candidate debates. There will be a nominee from each party on the ballot, and for the Democrat and the Republican to debate alone is to deny most points of view any hearing. There are nominees from the Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, the American Independent Party and the Libertarian Party, and all should have a chance to explain themselves and challenge the others. Even though voters have the right to vote for any of the nominees, for some to be excluded from the debates effectively denies that right, because most of the candidates are silenced just when the voters want to hear them. If there were a real debate with all the candidates, I would predict that Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party would rise from the 1% she is now given in a poll to around 10%, as she has such clear and sensible answers to questions.

  • These two candidate debates are not acceptable. I contribute to KQED and I am dismayed that they are supporting this. I know they receive corporate money but that should not influence them to only sponsor corporate candidates. Some of us are fed up with the two party system and want to see proportional representation and an
    even playing field.

    We yearn for the days when we could hear from all the candidates and there was such a thing as “equal time.”

  • Farrell Winter

    Barbara Boxer and Carly Fiorina have not very distinguishable politics, funded and directed as they are by the same corporations. America has the finest sham democracy that money can and does buy. Fair elections mean that voters may choose between each qualified candidate, not solely the official nterchangeable bozos of the ruling class. Or bozettes in this case. I’d like to see a debate with Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians crowded together on the right, American Independents falling off the right edge of the stage, Greens and P&F’ers fighting each other (non-violently) for the center, and all the other parties to their left that are currently not allowed on the ballot, taking up the rest of the room.

  • Elwood

    I agree with Irv.

    As the candidate of the Totally Crazy Party I am deeply offended that I will not be allowed to participate in the debate.

    I had my tights pressed just for this occasion!

  • C. T. Weber

    Do St. Mary’s College of California, KQED Public Radio, and KTVU Channel 2 have non-profit tax exempt status that requires them to be non-partisan? This side show is not non-partisan it is bi-partisan and as such in violation of any laws demanding a non-partisan approach. Even if it were not against the law, it smacks in the face of decency. Please, let us see a real debate among all the candidates.

  • John W

    As a voter, I don’t want to see a general election debate with 120 minutes divided equally among six candidates. That gets in the way of me getting a good look at the candidates who actually have a chance. Sometimes, there is a serious third party candidate. However, we are usually talking about “movement” candidates who know they have absolutely no chance and who haven’t even gone through any competitive nominating process.

  • Lisa Vorderbrueggen

    Did you polish your aluminum foil hat, too? (Sorry. Couldn’t resist!)

  • Patty O’Day


    I wish there was a way to tell who you are responding to. For all I know you could be responding to number 3 or 4 or 7. I don’t know. Is that something that could be set up?

  • John W

    Re: #9

    Maybe she’s referring to ALL of us!

  • Lisa Vorderbrueggen

    Oh, you’re right, Patty. I was joking with Mogenator. I should have specified.