Even though the outlet is still fairly new, CN2 has been posting some of the best interviews with newsmakers. Ryan Alessi (formerly of the Herald-Leader) caught up with Democratic Senate candidate and Attorney General Jack Conway after last weekend’s Kentucky Democratic Party meeting, and asked Conway about several national issues.

On “Cap and Trade” environment legislation:

Conway clearly sees the issue as a potential political liability after Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo portrayed Conway during the Democratic primary as a supporter of the concept. Doing so, Mongiardo and others have argued, would hurt Kentucky’s coal industry.

“Cap and trade” is shorthand for a market-based concept that would essentially set pollution thresholds for industries but allow them to buy or sell “credits” if a factory or power plant exceeded the emissions limit, for instance. The approach seemed to hit a political wall in Washington by the spring, but could be part of renewed discussions over broader energy and environmental legislation in the wake of the BP oil disaster.

“I am opposed to cap and trade. I am opposed to cap and trade,”

On the oil spill:

Conway said President Barack Obama’s administration “seemed slow to react” to the British Petroleum oil blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

And on Arizona’s immigration law:

Conway also sidestepped a question about whether he agreed with the U.S. Justice Department filing a lawsuit to challenge Arizona’s immigration law that has stirred controversy for allowing law enforcement officers to check the legal status of individuals if they have probable cause. Conway, Kentucky’s attorney general, said he would have to see the lawsuit before commenting on it but said immigration laws need to be reformed on the federal level. Here’s what he had to say about immigration and what he calls “problematic” parts of the Arizona law.

Even though these are national issues, Conway has not received the same media attention as Republican rival Rand Paul, for reasons that are clear.

But here’s a question of media and its effects on political messages: Paul may have spent a long time on MSNBC discussing the caveats of his support (or lack thereof) of the Civil Rights Act, and he may be eager to discuss political philosophy, but he’s also capable of answering questions he’s comfortable with in a relatively straightforward and/or simple manner. In a cable news appearance, Paul can say he wants less government and that encapsulates his ideology. How does that compare to Conway’s message (or any party’s platform on most issues), which may be more nuanced? Conway repeats that he’s opposed to Cap and Trade, and that point is clear, but how long in the CN2 video does it take him to explain his four criteria for evaluating energy bills?

There’s certainly nothing wrong with nuanced policy views, and likewise, brevity isn’t a measure of an ideology’s quality, but if Rand Paul is waging his campaign on the national cable news stage, do you think he has an advantage?

Do you think the debate over key issues is substantial enough?