A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, Part III

Last post on last Tuesday's Candidates' Forum, I promise. Previously, I've posted about the forum in general, the rallies beforehand and the format, and the section for local candidates. This, the final installment, will cover the section for federal candidates.

There were five candidates present on the stage for the second half of the forum. These were Libertarian Senate candidate Steve Osborn and 9th District Congressional candidates Mike Sodrel (Republican, incumbent), Baron Hill (Democrat), Eric Schansberg (Libertarian), and Donald Mantooth (write-in). None of the lesser candidates impressed; they mostly served as filler to occupy time between answers by Sodrel and Hill.

There were eight questions. Most of them were quite verbose and were the sorts of questions you would expect to hear from some politician grandstanding in a Congressional hearing. "Here, let me have you respond to a question that is almost as long as the ninety seconds you will be given to answer." They all boiled down to brief themes, though. I took notes on the answers by Hill and Sodrel, and answers by the other candidates when they said something of note.

1. No Child Left Behind Act and Education

Hill: Was opposed to the legislation, even though he voted for it. Made the usual mention of his wife being a teacher. Said that he only voted for the legislation because it contained a Small Schools Initiative which he had sponsored that would never come up for a vote otherwise. I find this hard to believe. Baron apparently voted for such a larger bill because of a tiny thing that, some quick research indicates, has never managed to benefit anyone in the 9th District. Discussion of small schools takes place in four instances, on two pages, of the 605-page bill. He was against it before he was for it?

Sodrel: No Child Left Behind isn't perfect. Doesn't like the idea of Congress being a 535-person school board. However, if Congress is going to give money to schools, it should accompany that money with oversight and some sort of metric for measuring what has been accomplished with it. Businesses do not spend money without having some idea of what it is doing for them. Congress should do the same. We must see that the public's money is well spent.

2. Roe v. Wade and Abortion

Sodrel: Many liberals in favor of abortion will even admit that it was based on defective reasoning. Reagan response. Roe v. Wade was badly decided. He opposes abortion and will vote against it. Short and simple.

Hill: "I do not support overturning Roe v. Wade." Favors limiting abortions but not making them illegal. Warns of backalley abortions. Smile. Very liberal response from Hill. Given the fire he is taking on values issues, I couldn't believe he would respond in this fashion. He had to be playing to the crowd, and may have forgotten that there could be someone videotaping his answer.

3. Ethics Scandals
Sodrel: Crimes by elected officials and others in the public eye "steal the idealism of our youth." It makes them "cynical at an early age" and causes them to assume that everyone behaves in such a fashion when most do not. Such violations are intolerable and should be punished. Very local-focused and family-centric answer. No mention of specific scandals or individuals.

Hill: Big gesturing; he was waiting for this one. Announced a proposal to abolish the existing bipartisan ethics committee. It would be replaced by former members of Congress (he cited Lee Hamilton) from both parties that are not lobbyists, because they know how the system works and would thus know how to police it. Doesn't make much sense. Former inmates should become guards at the prison? I would think that it would be better that Congress be policed by people that are not members of the good-old-boys network and the establishment system. Mention of former congressmen that are not lobbyists must have been a Freudian slip.

Mantooth: Voting for the same people won't fix things. "I know how I'll vote. I don't know about the rest of you." Audience laughter.

4. Do You Think Washington Is Broken? How Would You Fix It? Is Iraq Policy Broken?

Sodrel: Seized on brief mention of Iraq in the rambling question. Mentioned his visits to Iraq and Afghanistan. Usual line about looking forward to the day when the American flag flies only over our embassies in those countries. Didn't really answer the rest. I think he was waiting for an Iraq/terrorism question, and there wasn't one.

Hill: It's not what he thinks. It's what people think. Cites statistic about public trust in Congress. Brief mention of Iraq. Repeated ethics committee proposal. I'm not sure that Hill or Sodrel has done anything to increase public trust in Congress. Evasive on Iraq. Must be proud of his ethics idea, since he repeated it, even though it seems crazy to have former Congressmen police their buddies still in office. I wonder if, after this race, whether he or Sodrel would be willing to serve in such a body.

5. Poverty in America

Sodrel: Education and training are the solution. Government must give a hand-up, not a hand-out. Mentioned an employee that he once hired who was living in their car and now owns a house, a boat, and an ATV. Good personal example. Government must not assume that benefits should end on a single day. Instead, they should be phased out over time as those in poverty gradually improve their situation, to better enable them to recover. Ending them on one day too often causes them to backslide back into poverty. Good answer. Story about employee was a nice touch.

Hill: Cited the Bible, but did not quote chapter or verse. Blamed Bush administration for poverty in America and for cutting back on government programs. It is the responsibility of government to help such people.

Schansberg: Quoted the bible, chapter and verse. Noted that, "Responsibility to help our fellow man lies not with government. The Bible gives such responsibility to believers." Sharp rebuke to Hill, who seemed embarrassed. Wish I had taken down the Biblical citation given so that I could quote it here.

6. School Shootings and Crime in Schools

Hill: This can be solved by putting more police on the streets. Not much mention of what specifically to do in and with schools. Mentioned copycat phenomenon. Said he can't fathom it. Seemed quite proud of his call for more police. One of his "big ideas" of the night.

Osborn: If legislation gets passed for more police, he will buy stock in a company that makes radar guns. Too often, hiring more police means that police go to do things like giving speeding tickets, not to guarding schools. More police are only the solution if Congress is going to mandate that they go into schools, but implied that Washington should not be telling local police where to go. Another sharp Libertarian rebuke to Hill. Attempted joke about the radar gun company bombed. Either that or it soared over the heads of everyone present.

Sodrel: School shootings are an issue within states, so it is hard for Washington to get involved. To the extent that it can help, it should provide additional resources and facilitate the collection of "best practices" that can then be emulated by schools and police elsewhere.

7. War on Drugs and Meth Problems

Libertarians: War on drugs a failure. Most stopped short of their usual call for legalizing everything.

Sodrel: The government must make more effort at the curbing of demand for drugs. Significant efforts and resources are already being devoted towards supply. Missed opportunity here. I attended a Sodrel "town hall" (official, not political) function in Corydon during the spring in which he responded to a question about meth by referencing legislation passed by Congress to help with the cleanup of toxic chemicals left over in and around meth labs. Very informative, topical, and local, but not mentioned at all.

Hill: More cops solve everything. Theories are not solutions. More policemen are. Baron can't pronounce methamphetamine. He likes calling for more cops. He must be gunning for an endorsement from the Fraternal Order of Police.

8. Affordable Health Care

Sodrel: Government should expand Health Savings Accounts. Health care benefits should be tax-deductible. Government should encourage association health plans, in which small businesses band together to buy health care for their employees at bulk rates. Also advocates tort reform, so that doctors do not have to be afraid of lawsuits that drive up the cost of health care. Wouldn't be a Republican response without a swipe at trial lawyers.

Hill: Cites "45 million Americans without health care" usual Democrat doomsday line from 2004. Big gesturing; he was waiting for this one too. Bashes drug, health insurance, and medical companies for driving up prices. System is broken because of "special interests." Everything is the fault of HMOs. Is health care a right, or a privilege? Hill believes it is a right. His supporters cheer loudly. Answer sounded rehearsed, and his sweeping gestures were almost caricatured. Probably a question submitted by one of his supporters that made it past the screeners and into the pool of questions used by the panel. Not sure that attacking medical and drug companies will go over so well in an area that benefits from being near the home of companies like Eli Lilly, Humana, and the Cook Group.

The evening was surprisingly civil. The three lesser candidates tended to provide a measure of levity. Mantooth got the only laugh of the evening, even though he invariably managed to mention that he had "read just the other day" about something or other when responding to questions. Osborne had a sort of wry humor.

Hill, as in the prior debate, said he had traveled far and wide who found people that though this or that about an issue, and he thought the same thing that they did (big surprise). As I said before, this sort of citing only works if you are Bill Clinton and can remember names, places, and so forth. This gives the response a human touch that cannot be understated. Hill can manage none of that, it seems. Sodrel came closest with his story about his employee, but he missed other chances (like the meth question) for similar touching anecdotes.

I expected Schansberg to break out the supply and demand graphs at any moment. He scored a few good points, particularly in quoting back the Bible to Baron Hill. Many professors filed into the auditorium for the second half of the forum. I am not sure whether they were present to demonstrate their support for Schansberg, to mock him later, or out of genuine interest in the broader Congressional race. Maybe two of the above.

I was surprised at the outcome of the federal portion of the forum. Sodrel did very well. This was unexpected given that the forum's questions were on almost exclusively domestic (and Democratic) strengths, and Republican strengths like the war on terror, taxes, and most conservative values issues (with the exception of abortion) received utterly no mention at all.

If Baron Hill's comment on abortion is available on tape, it could come back to haunt him. As it was made during the campaign, it could pop the entire conservative values position he has tried to erect for himself. Hill harped a lot on his themes of the night of more cops, abolishing the ethics committee, and health care being a right. The ethics committee idea sounds crazy. More cops was almost certainly playing to the FOP; I expect them to endorse him soon. The health care argument probably won't resonate beyond people that are already voting for him. The campaign will not be decided on health care being a right.

Sodrel emerged unscathed, which is more than I expected for a Republican going into an event so heavily structured against him. That alone is a victory for his campaign. The same sort of low expectations game that you see sometimes in presidential debates. His lone flub was in his Iraq-focused response to the "Is Washington broken?" question, and the unusual panel format prevented anyone from capitalizing on it.

It is a great pity that the event was not televised, or has not been rebroadcast since. The voters of the 9th District would benefit greatly from seeing the candidates debate each other this second time, particularly since it appears that there will be only one further debate.

I would estimate that the debate was a draw, leaning to a slight Sodrel win (if only because my expectations for him were so low). I must revise my earlier estimations of the race. The advantage no longer lies with Hill.