Two or Three Way Debates?

( – promoted by DD4RP)

The Globe reports that Coakley wants to have three way debates with Scott Brown and Libertarian Joe Kennedy.  http://www.boston.com/news/loc…  That’s an interesting gambit on her part.

Clearly her hope is that Kennedy as a Libertarian will take votes away from Brown.

But I wonder if having the Libertarian Kennedy there would actually help Brown.

First, on most domestic issues, Scott Brown and Kennedy are in agreement in spirit if not particulars.  That means that she would face two critics of her big government, big domestic spending program.

Second, I wonder why Kennedy, who seems like a reasonable person, would want to attack underdog Brown.  Isn’t there greater psychological gratification in speaking truth to power and in this state its the Democrats that hold all the power.

Third, where Brown differs with Kennedy–on Iraq and Afghanistan–is where Coakley is on the most shaky ground.  Coakley clearly has no knowledge of military or foreign affairs.  And her positions are at odds with the Obama Administration.  Indeed, should Coakley or Kennedy attack Brown on his position on Afghanistan, Brown’s alignment with Obama on the surge would make Brown look reasonable in his stance.

What say you RMG-ers?  Would three way debates–with Kennedy–help or hurt Scott Brown?

Also, why would Martha care about the Libertarian?  Does she think that it will be close enough that he could make a difference?  Makes one wonder.  

About yankeepundit