Eisenberger rejects one-on-one debates

Strategically, it makes perfect sense for Eisenberger not to elevate Sgro

For the first time since amalgamation, the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce won’t be hosting a mayoral debate during the municipal election campaign.

According to president and CEO Keanin Loomis, the chamber recently tried to organize a one-on-one debate between Mayor Fred Eisenberger and his presumed main challenger, Vito Sgro, but neither candidate agreed to participate.

That’s news to Sgro, who’s itching for a one-on-one debate with Eisenberger over the $1-billion LRT project. Sgro says neither he nor any of his senior campaign team were approached by the chamber to take part in a direct debate with Eisenberger. If he had, Sgro says he would have accepted in a “heart’s beat.”

“Why wouldn’t I?” said Sgro, noting that such a debate would give people a chance to hear a sustained discussion on their opposing views. Eisenberger is a long-standing champion of LRT while Sgro is strongly opposed.

Sgro, in fact, is so eager for a faceoff with Eisenberger, he issued his own challenge last Friday. But Eisenberger has now formally announced he won’t be taking part in any debates that fail to be inclusive and give equal opportunity for all mayoral candidates to be heard.

No doubt Eisenberger’s political piety will come as a surprise to those who remember that in the 2014 election he expressed no such qualms about debating candidates Brad Clark and Brian McHattie to the exclusion of the other nine contenders on the ballot.

To give Eisenberger the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he’s had a genuine conversion. More likely, though, what suited his political purposes in 2014 doesn’t apply now that he occupies the lofty perch of incumbent. But let’s first wrap-up the chamber’s attempt to focus the mayoral race.

According to Loomis, he reached out to Eisenberger’s camp but was told they weren’t interested and instead wanted the chamber to invite all 15 mayoral candidates.

“Ostensibly they wanted us to be more inclusive and we just weren’t willing to do the clown show that we’ve seen repeated over the last few weeks,” said Loomis.

Loomis credits the other candidates for putting their names forward, but notes business people have “limited time and limited patience for sideshows.” Loomis says the chamber and its partners — the Realtors’ Association of Hamilton-Burlington, Hamilton-Halton Home Builders’ Association, and Hamilton-Halton Construction Association — wanted to focus on Eisenberger and Sgro largely because the “media narrative’” suggests they are the main contenders.

It’s not clear how the invitation to Sgro went awry, but obviously something went wrong. Regardless, it now appears Eisenberger isn’t interested in single combat with anyone before the Oct. 22 vote.

Strategically, it makes perfect sense for Eisenberger to avoid debating Sgro alone. This is Eisenberger’s election to lose. He’s light years ahead of all the other candidates as far as experience and name recognition go. And though Sgro seems to have put together a solid war chest and organization, he’s still very much an underdog.

By debating Sgro separately, Eisenberger would, in essence, be legitimizing him as a serious rival. Eisenberger is running a safe and sleepy campaign that seeks to downplay both his competition and LRT as a potential wedge issue. So why elevate Sgro?

Here’s the unctuous way Eisenberger’s team positioned that strategy in a media release: “Our candidate upholds the principles of a fair and democratic election. It is his view that in order to uphold these principles, it would be erroneous to participate in a debate where only a small faction of the candidates are invited. A fair and democratic election is characterized in part by its inclusivity and equal opportunity to have one’s voice heard.”

The release goes on to say that a debate where only select candidates are invited “does not uphold the value of representation, transparency or legitimacy in a fair and inclusive democracy.”

Unfortunately, it fails to explain why Eisenberger didn’t believe those same principles were worth upholding four years ago.