Sodrel & Hill on Indiana Insiders

From the left, Baron Hill. From the Right, Mike Sodrel.
WTHR's Indiana Insiders political show hosted Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel last weekend. Both candidates were present for the taping, though they were on in separate segments of the show. Thanks to the miracle of TiVo and YouTube, those of us not in Indianapolis can now see their interviews.

First, Mike Sodrel:



Sodrel surprised me in focusing on his achievements in office. We haven't heard a lot about those in this campaign; both candidates have focused on destroying each other and praising themselves with vague platitudes. The talk about money for roads and the recent job announcements is new to Sodrel's usual interview stump, and a positive addition in terms of campaigning.

Matt Tully, however, quickly corrected that focus back to the negative campaigning aspect. Sodrel returned to his "contrast ads" and "product A and product B" themes. It is a well-made point; his attacks on Hill have not been anywhere near as negative as some of the stuff that is being thrown at other candidates (Democrats and Republicans) in other races nationwide. Saying Hill is liberal, worked for a lobbying firm, and quoting his opponent's voting record is not negative per se, even though the Hill campaign likes to say that it is.

When asked about the recent wave of NRCC video game and explicit content "Baron Hill is X-Rated" ads, Sodrel wisely deflected, returning instead to voting records, and the difference between procedural votes--"Christmas trees with all kinds of ornaments hanging on it"--and "good clean votes". He carefully does not say that the violent and sexually-explicit content vote was (if my memory serves) a procedural vote (about which his campaign has not run ads themselves), but hits hard on the gay marriage and flag-burning votes (which are, and about which his campaign has run ads).

His response to the "Millionaire Mike is Making the Mess in Congress Worse" ad was pretty reasonable. The juxtaposition between Sodrel being a millionaire and him being influenced by a mere forty-five thousand dollars is a cutting and effective one. I am surprised that it has not been made sooner. The comment about receiving no corporate contributions should also have been made sooner. The return to the truck driver "consumer of oil" thing is a good one, and Sodrel's citation of specific statistics on the price of fuel is new and pretty effective. Such numbers add earnestness and believability.

The Foley discussion is nothing new. The presumption of innocence argument is all well and good, but it is better to avoid the whole thing than to have to speak about it in length. When asked about the impact of the Foley scandal, Sodrel would have done well to observe that polls show he has not been harmed by it at all, in addition to speaking about not knowing or dealing with Foley.

The discussion on immigration was nothing new. I think that the answer on being close to Bush works well enough, given the political environment. "When I disagree with him, I've got enough backbone to tell him I disagree with him, and have done that... I've been married to my wife for thirty-eight years, and we don't agree all the time either... I disagree with him when I need to."

And then Baron Hill:



Usual Democratic campaign boilerplate. Wrong direction, need for change, new course. You'd get tipsy fast if you played a drinking game based upon Hill saying any one of those phrases. But when he got off of the campaign themes, Hill got into trouble fast and made several gaffes.

Are things as bad as they were six months ago? "I don't think things are bad." Then the return to the usual weak "I've campaigned everywhere and heard [insert gripe here]." Specifics, specifics, always specifics. Names, places, details. Hill can manage none of this. He never can. At least Sodrel can usually come up with statistics and specifics in support of his statements.

And what do Democrats do about the economy? What sorts of policies that will impact people's lives directly? "In the final analysis, as it relates to the economy, it's got to be the marketplace." Hill isn't a socialist, at least. Sodrel has now lost the ability to call him that in the future. Baron fumbled for a bit. After reiterating the same achievements (Cummins, Honda, and so forth) that Sodrel had touted as his own in the earlier segment, he hit upon the deficit, though he gave no solutions to it.

On Nancy Pelosi, he wisely deflected, saying that he was "not convinced of that platform", though he stopped short of promising (as Ellsworth has) that he will not vote for Pelosi for Speaker of the House.

And then the big mistakes. Isn't it kind of a stretch to link Mike Sodrel to Mark Foley? "I think... Yeah, it is a bit of a stretch..." There's a video-perfect soundbite or videobite for a campaign ad if I have ever seen one. Hill then tried to save himself, reverting to the money and then to the "mess in Washington" theme.

In response to the NRCC blue X-Rated ad: "I'm shocked by it." Noting that everyone voted against that bill was good, though calling it censorship probably wasn't. Mothers don't want to hear that prohibiting violent or sexually-explicit content is censorship.

More broadly about negative ads in general? "I'm tired of them... Unfortunately they work." Tully then asked, if you're tired of them, then why not stop running them? Can't you say enough? "I've tried." Brief mention of the clean campaign pledge, followed by saying that calling him a lobbyist is breaking the pledge.

This was a mistake. Better to have said that Sodrel broke it, without returning to the weak excuse for saying that he did. Then another gaffe: "I took a poll, I saw that my lead was dropping like a lead balloon. I had to do something... Negative ads work."

Then a series of millionaire gaffes. Tully: What's wrong with [Mike Sodrel] being a millionaire, even a self-made millionaire? "I don't think he's a self-made millionaire... [is that assertion even true?] He is a millionaire, and... uh... I'm not distorting the facts, he is a millionaire."

Tully: But what's wrong with that though? "Not a thing wrong with that." Tully: Why do you guys use it? "Well... uh... [strange smile here; probably thinking of his campaign's then upcoming Millionaire Mike cartoon ad] We want people to know he's a millionaire."

On immigration, Hill continued his line that the entire problem is with employers. No mention at all about a fence or other mechanisms for enforcement, he absolves people for wanting to come here illegally. It is apparently all the fault of small businesses and other employers.

How have you changed since you were voted out two years ago? "It's made me more humble, more appreciative of Southern Indiana... I'm looking after their interests, not the special interests in Washington..." I'm not sure how this squares with working for a lobbying firm or staying in Washington after he lost the election. Did shouting at people at that church (as appears to have indeed been the case) make him more humble? Is that how he became more appreciative of Southern Indiana? By berating an American Legion color guard outside a church?

And then a BIG gaffe. The war? "I regret that vote but, under the circumstances, if I'd known then what I know now, I'd have voted the same way, because I was lied to." What the heck? This is a very strange misstatement of Baron's usual "I was snookered" line about his vote for the Iraq War. I wonder very much if Baron Hill was ever actually called to the Pentagon, shown such evidence, and bullied by Rumsfeld and the generals. It would be interesting to know if the Pentagon visitor lists show him ever actually going there for that purpose in the run up to his vote for the war.

I give Sodrel the edge in the interviews to Sodrel. He handled himself well, and the questions were not easy. Hill, however, stumbled several times when faced with similarly tough questions. He made a number of gaffes and misstatements as a result.