The Great Debate

Okay, so it wasn't all that great. The debate was not held in front of an audience and was kept to a short 20 minutes. Only three subjects were tackled by the candidates: immigration, Iraq, and stem cell research. Honestly, I was expecting an exciting, lively debate. What I saw was Harry Mitchell and J.D. Hayworth basically quoting and trading past press release barbs.

And that's not really that big of a deal. The debate was held in front of no audience and aired on PBS so most voters of District 5 didn't see it and the news coverage will echo previous articles. There was no precedent for this debate and it was J.D.'s first in almost a decade.

I would say, however, that the framing of the debate and its questions favored Hayworth. Hayworth, being a former news commentator, was comfortable and relatively at ease without a live audience and spoke directly to the camera most of the time. The questions were not hard-hitting and the ethics question never came up (which I was sad to see, Harry definitely should have mentioned J.D.'s ties to Abramoff). Others have already mentioned that Harry's experience in politics put him amongst people and persuading live bodies. Harry might have been a bit nervous going up against a 12-year Congressional incumbent, but he held his own quite well.

Harry slammed J.D. for getting nothing done in Congress for 12 years and for allowing illegal immigration to get worse. He reminded voters that Hayworth's positions are out of the mainstream, even in his own party. J.D. kept to his usual rhetoric, which sounds good and appealing to the average voter. He stumped Mitchell by asking what country had a working guest-worker program (to which Harry didn't have an answer, only "it can work").

On Iraq, Mitchell denied support for a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, he advocated for a withdrawal plan based on accomplishments. He repeatedly said we need to work with the President and the military, but also that he would help keep the Administration accountable. I think Harry might be of the idea that President Bush is still popular in the district (something I doubt very, very much). Still, he position was better than Hayworth's. J.D.'s response basically boiled down to: we can't get out or the terrorists will swoop in and take over. He is obviously disconnected from reality and the facts in Iraq. Most of the violence there now is sectarian, not the result of the Sunni-insurgent attacks (although American lives continued to be lost fighting this insurgency).

The last section of the debate focused on stem cell research. No contest, Mitchell whooped on J.D. The Congressman falsely insinuated that adult stem cells were as good as embryonic. Talk to a biologist, J.D. He also touted "snowflake babies." Mitchell put the hammer down: "without stem cell research, most of those embryos or 'snowflake babies' would be destroyed anyway." That's the truth of it. When Bush vetoed stem cell research, he and those Republicans that agreed (like J.D.) basically said that destroying embryos for life-saving research was bad, but destroying them as medical waste was not.

I'll post more, but I have to get back to work. Later.