I’m sure that Buffalo Pundit, Buffalo Rising and BuffaloGeek, along with several other bloggers, will have covered Wednesday night’s Bass Pros and Cons debate at Canisius College. Since they’ll probably get into the guts of the debate I’m not going to bother writing about that. Rather, just a few short observations:
- I think the panelists were all at different debates. Was this about Bass Pro? Or the Inner Harbor? Or Central Wharf? Or Erie Canal? Or bad government? Or high taxes? Or 47 years of bureaucratic Authorities? The debate needed a focus and didn’t find one.
- Far too many long-winded answers to far too few questions.
- Moderator Stefan Mychajliw struggled to control the animals in the zoo.
Here’s my take on the panelists.
- Scott Fisher – Lots of emotion, not good with the historical details and very loose with the facts. Spoke in generalities. Fisher’s “historical” argument is so weak that I think the only reason he’s still pushing it is because he’s been barreling on his train for so long, he can no longer get off without hurting himself.
- Jim Ostrowski – Free markets, not government subsidies. Thoughtful, not emotional. Seems to like China way to much. He’s maybe one of them closet free-market communists.
- Larry Quinn – Most knowledgeable and thoughtful or at least came across that way. Like Ostrowski, he kept his emotions out of it. Of course, knowledge and thoughtfulness still don’t count for much in Buffalo.
- Carl Paladino. Anecdotal and emotional. Lots of complaints about mistakes of the past and the people who made them. Winner of the “Most Obtuse Debater” award. Never did get to the point – any point.
If these guys were on Celebrity Deathmatch, Quinn would have won unless Fisher were able to tie an anchor around his neck and drown him in the Erie Canal.