DeMaio's rules for dodging accountability

After months of Carl DeMaio evading any setting where he might face an uncomfortable question, CityBeat got its hands on his rules for managing the spectre of personal accountability today. It runs the risk of being swallowed up by the holiday season, so let's break them down -- especially since they reveal that DeMaio doesn't have an interest in any actual "debate" at all:

1. Moderator must be neutral party who has not endorsed or opposed any candidacy.

Presumably this is a clever way to sidestep any organization (like, say, A Better San Diego) that isn't going to be particularly receptive to DeMaio's abrasive form of conservatism. But the added benefit for DeMaio is that it pressures any organization who might want a representative as a moderator to hold off on endorsing as long as possible. This is particularly useful for him because, well... while all of his opponents have been announcing endorsements at a steady clip for several months, DeMaio hasn't really gotten many endorsements. It gives him an escape hatch for being so unpopular, which he could certainly use since he's disliked by virtually everyone he's ever dealt with.

2. All questions must be policy-oriented

DeMaio is notoriously prickly about anyone wanting to know about his past -- particularly what prompted him to up and move to San Diego in the midst of a promising career with the Beltway GOP set. Carl "Don't people know I'm a man of means now?...I drive a BMW!" DeMaio also doesn't much care for questions about how many millions of dollars he may be worth, even has he continues to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars from his own pocket into his many campaigns. This probably also means no questions about the campaign money that's ended up going to his partner Johnathan Hale. It does raise the question of whether DeMaio considers professional ethics to be "policy-oriented."

3. All questions must be asked of all candidates.

Another artful dodge to ansure that DeMaio never have to answer any questions about his own record or conduct. None of the myriad ethics questions that have dogged his political career. None of the disasterously bad data that he's peddled ever since arriving in San Diego -- and that's repeatedly cost him allies. And since he's the only one who's served on the city council the last few years, it means that no questions about his tenure in office would be permitted in a debate about whether he should be elected to office. No accountability for any aspect of his career, just the same cowardly dodges that we've always gotten.

4. No candidate to candidate questions.

Simply enough, this means that DeMaio refuses to participate in an actual debate. By definition, participants talk to each other in a debate. DeMaio, however, will allow other people to attend his press conferences. Presumably candidate to candidate questions might also put him in the position of having to answer for anything he's ever done -- none of that for the Taxpayer Watchdog.

5. Must be sponsored or co-sponsored by a major media outlet (list available upon request).

DeMaio's blacklisting is well-known around San Diego. Whether it's people who aren't allowed at his events, the constant purging of people from Facebook and his mailing list, or cutting off media outlets that don't provide the appropriate coverage, DeMaio doesn't tolerate people who talk back. This is a good way to keep the media outlets who have fallen into disfavor in the doghouse -- and to make sure they know they're being punished. In the process, DeMaio makes clear that he's not actually doing these debates for any of the other organizations who might be co-sponsoring, or anyone who's in the audience. He's doing it for the media coverage, and isn't going to waste his time otherwise.

It's nothing too surprising. DeMaio will take his ball and go home if anyone questions him. He refuses to be held accountable for anything in his past or present -- personal or professional. And anyone who isn't for him is against him. Not usually the stuff of leadership.