The Thrasher in Jasper

One last face-off.
As mentioned earlier, the 9th District candidates debated in Jasper on Wednesday night, and your humble correspondent was there to take it all in.

The debate itself featured four candidates, though only three (Sodrel, Hill, and Schansberg) will be on the ballot. The fourth was write-in candidate Donald Mantooth, an elderly gentleman from Washington County whose performance at the IUS Women's Issues Forum was not exactly inspiring. It is my understanding that there are limitations on the applicability of federal write-in candidates in November elections in Indiana, so his presence was quite curious.

The debate itself featured introduction remarks by each candidate, seven questions, and two sets of closing remarks. The debate itself was an hour and a half long, but only one hour of it was televised. Accordingly, candidates were allowed two closing statements. The first, which was televised, was about a minute long. The second, which was not, was allowed to be longer.

As before, I took notes on the statements by Hill and Sodrel, and those of other candidates when they said something of note.

Introduction

Sodrel: "I'm 'Millionaire Mike.'" When people win a million dollars in the lottery, or on a game show, they are celebrated. When they make a million dollars from little by employing hundreds of people, creating new middle class families, and through their own hard work, they are attacked for it. Mentioned ad attacking him as against veterans, responded by citing votes for up-armoring Humvees, providing next-generation body armor, increasing veterans' benefits, and boosting combat compensation. Said that he was against Congressional pay increases, while Baron had benefited from six of them. Noted that he paid for his own Congressional vehicles, their maintenance, and their fuel at no cost to taxpayers. Said that he hoped everyone would speak the truth tonight in the event. The speak the truth theme carried over from his pre-debate rally. The self-deprecating "Millionaire Mike" intro was well-received and got laughs. The comments about veterans, pay, and vehicles were well-said.

Hill: Introduced himself and immediately pushed John Kerry under the bus by denouncing Kerry's recent statements about American soldiers. Said that he grew up in a large poor family. Parents were shoemakers. They went to church all the time. Twice on Sundays, then on Mondays and Wednesdays and with revivals in between. What the heck? Usual Democratic talking points about the national debt and problems with health care. Touted his VFW endorsement. Endorsement comment seemed tacked on; perhaps a response to Sodrel hitting hard at the front about veterans' issues. First statement out of his mouth after his name was to attack John Kerry; he wanted to get big distance on that one. Someone sitting nearby remarked on how incredibly fast he was to tear into John Kerry; I wonder what Hill thought of Kerry two years ago.

Schansberg: Said that he loved public policy. It is his passion. Attacked both Hill and Sodrel. Why should voters reward them for behaving like four-year olds?

1. How do we end the insurgency in Iraq? How to we win? Can we win?

Hill: We should look to the future, not the past. How we got there doesn't matter. How we get out does. We can't be in Iraq forever. We should threaten to withdraw our troops unless the Iraqis make progress. We should set timetables for the Iraqis, but not for our own troops. We must get out, but we must get out honorably. I think my way does that. He doesn't want to leave, but says that how we get out is what is important. Peace with honor is a theme similar to Nixon and Kissinger; probably a comparison that Hill should have avoided. I don't see how threatening to leave accomplishes much. Is it a bluff? If it is, and the Iraqis call it, then we are back where we started, unless Hill wants to follow through on the threat, and then we are leaving without honor, which he says he wants to avoid.

Schansberg: We should leave now. The original war was a success. It's great to get rid of an awful tyrant, but creating a democracy is much tougher. We shouldn't stay around trying to separate two groups that both hate our guts. We shouldn't make more people hate us by overstaying our welcome. Bold play for the anti-war left that is probably upset with Baron's nigh-on "stay the course" answer. Schansberg is very canny.

Sodrel: Usual answer from him; look forward to seeing the flag flying only over U.S. embassies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sending more troops and pulling out entirely are dangerous extremes. The middle course is best. The goal is constant, but tactics and course to reach it must change and adapt to circumstance in order to reach our objective. Politics over here matter on the battlefield over there. Iraqis are aware that we are having an election. They are looking to its outcome. Little we haven't heard before. Only explaining the linkage between our elections and the situation on the ground in Iraq was new. This was a weak move towards the very effective and straight-talk Mark Kennedy position on the war.

2. Why should we have political parties at all?

Schansberg: Launches into lecture. Parties are necessary. Stuff can't get done otherwise. He will caucus with Republicans, as Libertarian Ron Paul from Texas does. Small problem with that. Ron Paul may be a libertarian (small "L"), but he ran and won as a Republican on the ballot.

Sodrel: George Washington didn't have a party. Parties evolved under Jefferson. Brief history lecture. Congress is a team sport. Parties are not monolithic. There are groups and factions within each party. Republicans have about three. Democrats have five or six. Parties solve more problems than they create, by virtue of their organizational mechanisms and so forth.

Hill: I'm a history major from Furman University! I know about the evolution of the parties too! Tried to explain evolution of the party system in more detail than Sodrel. Discussion of Whigs, Democratic-Republicans, and so forth. Two party system is hard to change. What matters is how independent you will be when you are in Washington. I won't be a rubber stamp for the Bush administration. Surreal response. That competitive streak must have flaired up, causing Hill to try to out-history lesson Sodrel. Doesn't say if he will be a rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi and liberal Democrats.

3. Why should someone without health care vote for you?

Sodrel: Health care is not a right or a privilege, but a responsibility. And whose responsibility? Mentioned the health care cost for his own employees. Defended earlier comments that, if given a choice, younger and healthier employees would want the money that the company was going to spend on health care rather than the coverage the money could buy. Tax deductions, health savings accounts, and small business association health plans are a start. The Massachusetts legislation, which mandates that everyone have health insurance, is one possible idea. Congress should encourage states to experiment with various methods of providing health care to determine a best practice method for federal implementation. Was surprised that Sodrel mentioned the Massachusetts program. Unusual for a Midwestern conservative. Comments about some people not wanting health insurance made more sense when he explained them in the hypothetical context of his own business.

Hill: Blames Sodrel for being insensitive over not everyone wanting health care. Obviously, everyone wants health care, and everyone wants the government to give it to them. Health care should be a right. Hammers this point repeatedly. Got testy and preachy.

Schansberg: There are economic rights and individual rights. My right to freedom of speech costs you nothing, save maybe having to sit and listen to me tonight. But a right to health care is an economic right that will cost you money. Cites car insurance example from earlier Forum; if oil changes were covered, auto insurance costs would skyrocket. Agrees with Sodrel on most things. State and local solutions are best. Hill did not like Schansberg rebuking him with the discussion of the nature of rights.

4. Should the minimum wage be increased? What is a fair amount? What about Congressional pay increases?

Sodrel: I voted to increase the minimum wage, contrary to what some ads have claimed. One wage rate can't work nationwide. A fair minimum wage in Saint Croix, Indiana, won't work as a fair minimum wage in New York City. A minimum wage is necessary, but should be set at local or state levels, not federal levels. When he started his first job bagging groceries, he worked 24 hours a week at a dollar an hour. Made about $18 bucks, paid a lot in payroll taxes. Notes that he has a track record against Congressional pay increases. Hill didn't like the mention of being against Congressional pay increases. Sodrel did not, as has been reported in some places, advocate the elimination of the minimum wage (or even the federal minimum wage); at most, he said he preferred them being set locally. An important distinction, I think. Personal example about making a dollar an hour was effective, as was the mention of payroll taxes.

Hill: Sodrel didn't vote for increasing the minimum wage. He voted to abolish the estate tax, and there just happened to be a minimum wage increase provision attached to that. The Democratic Party is the party of lessening the dangers of our society. I want to lessen the dangers of our society. I am a Democrat [just in case anyone forgot]. Everybody around the district tells me that they would like to make more money, so I think that the minimum wage should be increased. Fancy economists [Schansberg smiled here, and people laughed] say that it hurts the economy, but people are struggling. $7.25 an hour would make them struggle less. Sodrel didn't like Hill contradicting him. Hill gave an unusual definition of the objectives of the Democratic Party. I've never heard it phrased that way before. Sounds like the product of a focus group or something. Who wants to increase the risks of our society?

Schansberg: I've never been called fancy before, but thanks. Much laughter from the audience on this one; Hill seemed angry and turned red. Rails against payroll taxes. Minimum wage should be a state thing. It is a silly issue that Republicans allow themselves to get attacked on by Democrats. They should index the minimum wage to inflation and be done with it. Short and sweet. Schansberg was by this point hitting Hill harder than he was hitting Sodrel. Hill was clearly agitated by this. I think it started when Schansberg advocated immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

5. How do we fix Social Security?

Hill: Hammers on Congressional pay raises for reasons unknown to those of us in the audience. Made a comment in response to Schansberg's comments on the minimum wage. Finally dragged himself back around to the question itself. Congress should stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund like it has done under the Republicans to fund their wars and big spending. A wall should be built around Social Security, and broader investment of Social Security money should be allowed in areas outside of low interest government bonds. We can then build on surpluses to solve the problem. Sounds suspiciously like investing Social Security in the stock market. I think that Sodrel's comments about Congressional pay raises really got under Baron's skin, as did Schansberg's comments about the minimum wage. Hill was of a frightful temperament by this point. He was gesturing emphatically and sounded preachy, which he does (in my observation) when he is getting angry.

Schansberg: We must act. Voters should demand economic justice, not Democrat scare tactics. Benefits should be guaranteed for existing and upcoming retirees, and contributions should be invested more effectively for younger workers. Hill really didn't like this one either.

Sodrel: It seems like I answer the questions, and then my opponent tells you what he thinks that I said. So I'll answer, and he'll tell you what he wants you to think that I said. Much laughter from audience. Sodrel gestures for silence. Hill got angry again. I started an individual account pension system for my company. Each pay period, I made a deposit into an account that was in the employee's name. It wasn't in my name, or the company's name. The money was theirs, not mine, and their heirs could even inherit it. It's all well and good to build a wall around it, but it doesn't work. The state of Indiana got a jackhammer, and they took $300 million out of the teacher retirement fund. This may have been a disguised swipe at Hill, who served in the State Legislature and (I think) may have been in office when this happened; he could have voted for it. I will check. A wall is useless, and a lockbox isn't a lockbox unless it has your name on it. Your money should be yours, and you should decide what to do with it. Government invests on political decisions, not economic ones. You can decide better yourself, and the government should back and guarantee retiree benefits to a certain level with the full faith and credit of the Federal government. Good response. Hammered Hill straight off, then backed up his points with effective examples from the teacher retirement fund and from his own company.

At this point, the televised portion of the debate was due to end, so each candidate was allowed a brief closing statement. Schansberg went first, but was accidentally interrupted too soon by the moderator. Mantooth rambled.

First Closing Statements

Sodrel: The good news is that in six days, you're going to get your TV, your radio, and probably your phone back. Attacks McCain-Feingold for preventing campaigns from being able to coordinate with outside groups, and thus reduce negative ads. Urges voters to be educated. There are lots of sources of information, like websites, out there for them to verify claims by both sides. Thank you, and vote. Good close, though the campaign finance thing probably should have been left out.

Hill: Change Washington. Sodrel votes with Bush 97% of the time. Vote for me "and change you will receive." Usual Democratic talking points.

Of the two main candidates, I give the advantage in the televised portion to Sodrel. Schansberg, as usual, stole the show when he wasn't lecturing (must be something with university campuses).

Hill became agitated not long into the debate, and became increasingly excited (in a negative way) as it went on. He seemed quite upset with Schansberg, who seemed to have made it his mission in the debate to make Baron look like a fool. Hill seldom departed far from the Democratic talking points, and when he did it was not to his advantage, such as in his continual return to prior topics like Congressional pay increases (it seemed like he for some reason felt obligated to defend himself there, though I don't see why).

Sodrel used personal and past examples to great effect, and he really hit Hill in his last response for often saying that Sodrel had positions contrary to what the Republican had just answered. Only his closing and Iraq responses were weak. On other issues, like Social Security, health care, the minimum wage, and veterans, his responses were sharp and pretty effective.

With the televised portion over, the candidates took two further questions (taken from written submissions by the audience) and made final closing statements. This was taped, but not broadcast. I think that only the audience will ever see it. This is a pity and a great shame, as the candidates engaged each other far more directly in the last two questions and their more lengthy closing statements than they ever did in the earlier portion.

6. How do we get energy independence? What do you think of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

Sodrel: Cited several ethanol and biodiesel statistics. Went into considerable detail; must be the trucker in him coming through. Touted clean coal technology, and the ability to turn coal into natural gas or even gasoline. Noted the opening of new biodiesel plants in Indiana, and the jobs they are bringing to the community. We need more drilling. If we don't drill 45 miles off of Florida, the Communist Chinese and Cubans will, and we will do it more cleanly than they ever would. The energy bill was a good start, but more must be done. We can do it cleanly, notes lack of large oil spills during Katrina. First part of the answer was too technical. Rest was quite good. Would have done better to repeat his own company's fuel-usage statistics from the Indiana Insiders interview as inoculation against Baron's inevitable Big Oil attack.

Hill: Tax cuts for Big Oil are bad. Drilling is bad. Agrees with Sodrel on all else. Surprisingly. Says that carbon sequestration is a good thing, and it is the process used to convert coal to natural gas and gasoline. Usual talking points answer. Carbon sequestration, by the way, is not a coal conversion process, but a process for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it. Hill got confused.

Schansberg: It's supply and demand, stupid. Baron doesn't want subsidies for oil companies, but he wants subsidies for other companies instead. I'll do one better. I don't think that there should be subsidies for any corporation. Your tax dollars should not help the bottom line of any company anywhere. Big attack on Hill, who was very much upset by it. Schansberg by this point was focused exclusively on tearing into Hill and not Sodrel.

7. What should be done about illegal immigration?

Sodrel: Cited several examples of enforcement against employers, but noted it was incomplete. Said that border enforcement must improve. Recently-approved fence is a good start. Better documentation is needed. Cited Officer Ortiz example. Enforcement of illegal immigration laws should focus on big companies, not mom and pop stores. Those businesses that encourage illegal immigration to help their bottom line (and exploit the illegals) must pay. Good use of examples. Valid point about punishing bigger businesses, since smaller ones can't check legality if the Border Patrol itself (like with Ortiz) can't.

Hill: Fences don't matter. Enforcement is most important. We can't blame people for wanting to come here. Punish all employers harshly. Use technologies. I don't understand the whole target employers and don't build fences thing. Why not both?

Final Closing Remarks.

Hill: Longer rehash of his earlier talking points closing statement. Offers to pull all ads from television and run only positive ads if Sodrel will do so. Mentions Ethics Committee reform idea. Putting the former inmates in charge of the prison. Hammers the "votes 97% of the time with Bush" statistic. Washington is a mess. Change you will receive. Nothing new. Hill seemed tired by this point, and grumpy.

Schansberg: I'm glad that Baron takes a stand for once. Candidates must lead on negative ads. Advocates cutting payroll taxes to help the working poor. I am pro-life. Such issues require social solutions, not political ones. Baron Hill offers you spare change. He isn't change. He is just a shuffle. Big laugh from audience. Hill scowled. I [Schansberg] am change. Effective close.

Mantooth: My health plan is to stay healthy. What the heck? Got some laughter, though I don't know why.

Sodrel: I hate to break it to my opponent, but the constitution doesn't allow the president to vote in Congress, so I can't be voting with him 97% of the time. I don't agree with the president all of the time, and I'm not afraid to tell him when I don't, like with immigration. But I've been married to my wife for 39 years, and we don't agree on everything either. Enforcement against employers does nothing to stop the terrorism threat aspect of illegal immigration. Very good point. What sort of change do you want? Unemployment is at record lows. Do you want higher unemployment? Taxes have been cut. Do you want them raised? The stock market is at a record high. Do you want it to go down? Change for the sake of change doesn't help the 9th District. My opponent runs as the challenger, but he was in Washington for six years, and stayed around after he was voted out. I haven't been there that long. I'm just getting started. Give me a chance to fix the mess. Implication being that Hill made the mess, which didn't go over well with the already cranky Democrat. I signed a clean campaign pledge, and facts are not negative. I have run contrast ads. Here is product A, here is product B. We think you should buy product A. It does more of what you want and does it better. Baron voted against traditional marriage, I voted for it. He voted three times against banning flag burning, I voted to ban it. He worked as a senior advisor at a lobbying firm. Repeats earlier call for voters to be educated by finding out the facts for themselves. Powerful closing statement. Baron turned to Sodrel and said something near the end of it (see the photo at the top). If this had been televised, there would be no doubt of who won the debate. Sodrel must have been holding it all back and let it all fly there at the end. He upended Hill on virtually everything. The turning around of the change theme was quite effective.

Sodrel may have had an advantage in the televised debate, but there is little doubt that he decisively won the debate overall in the last half hour. Despite the digression into details on ethanol and biodiesel, he made good points on immigration and hit hard and fast in his closing statement (to which Hill could not answer). The close was sufficiently powerful that Hill's stunt call to pull all negative ads was totally overshadowed. It didn't even get much mention in press coverage.

The crowd came to its feet to applaud at the end of the debate as the candidates shook hands on stage. Sodrel's people launched into chants of "We like Mike". The Baron Hill people, very much outnumbered, managed a few countering "Bring Back Baron" cries before being drowned out. As the curtain closed, Hill shook Sodrel's hand and then angrily stomped off of the stage.

This race is now anybody's ball game, with Sodrel holding a nominal edge.