I also attended the debate last Monday evening (July 7) between the democratic candidates vying for the 2nd congressional district seat now held by Republican Todd Akin, which ImaPT so ably describes in her diary posting of July 9. Since this contest is an unusually important one, given Akin’s toxicity, as well as one that most of those “in the know” seem to have already conceded to the Republicans, I thought that I would offer some more details to supplement ImaPT’s excellent summary. Since my notes were, to say the least, copious, I warn you there will be lots of literal reportage and I will be posting my transcription of the events in two parts of which this is the first.
I have to admit that when I showed up at the debate Monday night between the four Democrats , Byron DeLear, Mike Garman, William C. (Bill) Haas and David L. Pentland (a fifth, John Hogan was not present), I was not sure what to expect. I am happy to report that I left agreeing with ImaPT that we may be able to give Akin a fight if things go well.
While there were few strong differences between the candidate’s approach to the issues, there were differences of emphasis. Which given, it is very likely that preferences for one of or the other of the candidates could boil down to questions of style and presentation.
So what did their style and presentation tell me? In thinking over their remarks , I found myself comparing them to characters in the Wizard of Oz, (over the top maybe, but not without precedent since the series has been utilized as political allegory before). Anyway, don’t we all really just want, metaphorically at least, to kill the Wicked Witch and get back to our nurturing Aunty Em?
Pentland would get the role of the Tin Man, a hard-headed, no-nonsense guy who values the rational, pragmatic approach–although not without heart. Garman resembles Glinda the Good Witch of the South, replete with good intentions and ready to use his considerable magic to help fix our problems. DeLear would definitely be a Dorothy-type character, charismatic in his ruby sneakers and looking somewhere over the rainbow, while Bill Haas is a natural for the sly and clever, but basically good-hearted Wizard who has been around Oz for a long time and likely wants a ticket out. And, since he was a no-show, I guess Hogan gets to be the cowardly lion.
In case you’re really slow and haven’t figured out who the Wicked Witch of the West is, ImaPT notes, “none of these guys pulled any punches when talking about Akin.” And there is good reason for the emphasis on Akin.
Although a recent St. Louis Post-Dispatch article presented Mr. Akin as a conservative but independent soul who frequently bucks the Bush administration, it only hinted that on the rare occasions when Akin defies his leader, it is because Bush & Co have failed to completely embrace the agenda of the loony-tunes tip of the Republican rightwing that Akin represents. Akin’s raison d’etre seems to lie in promoting the agenda of extreme Christian fundamentalism. (He is most notorious in this regard for introducing the Pledge Protection Act of 2004, legislation that would have stripped the courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance–and by extension other issues involving separation of state and religion.) Otherwise, on mundane issues that only involve the health and welfare of his constituents, he has, as ImaPT notes, voted with Bush a startling 97.5% of the time-with the disastrous results that we see all around us.
This race is all the more important because the conventional wisdom sees Akin’s seat as safe, a belief that can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is a reason that, at least so far, the only Missouri House seat deemed worthy of ad campaign funds by the DCCC is Mo-09, Kenny Hulshoff’s seat. According to one of the experts quoted by the Post-Dispatch:
[Akin’s] absolutely fine,” said David Wasserman, of the Cook Political Report, which ranks House and Senate races. “Democrats have a weak bench in this district, and there’s really not much they can do to put this race in play.
We’ll just have to see about that.
Opening Statements
The Candidates were asked to give a 2 minute introductory statement. I will add here that because of the strict format, I suspect that you might find much that each candidate said during the course of the evening summarized far more succinctly on their Websites–although there were some spontaneous moments.
David L. Pentland’s theme was the need to solve the region’s economic crisis. He is troubled by the loss of industry, such as the recent GM plant closings in Wentzville, and promised to work to retain industry in the district (although I don’t think he ever talked about how he proposed to do so–tax incentives or other preferential treatment would be a no-go for me for sure). He identified the Science and Technology industries as the natural growth areas for the region in the future and promised to work across party lines to promote the Sci/Tech sector. Overall, he stressed the importance of bringing jobs to the area and restoring fiscal responsibility.
Mike Garman rather elegantly illustrated his reasons for running by drawing on his personal experience with the public education system He noted that his three children had all attended public schools, attended state colleges and gone on to success in life. However, of his six grandchildren, three are in private schools which he believes is reflective not only of the deterioration of the public school system, but emblematic of the issues of neglect and decay that face the middle class residents of the 2nd district and which he hopes to address as a congressman. He presented his dedication to hard work and background in health-care as well as his experience in an elected position as Vice-Chairman and 6th District Director of Saint Charles Ambulance District as reasons that he could be successful.
Rather than describing the issues or problems that led him to run for elective office, Byron DeLear spent much of his opening statement telling the audience why he is right for the job. He described his background growing up in Town and Country and the respect for learning that he absorbed from his parents. After working in Media and in the Communication Industry for several years, he felt a need to contribute on a wider scale–which led him to work on innovative approaches to some of the big issues. Most notably he tackled headon a real biggie, the Palestinian/Israeli impasse, by involving groups of Palestinians and Israelis in conflict resolution groups. The sum of these life experiences are what leads him to believe he is ready to join the effort to bring about the general philosophical shift that he thinks is needed in Washington post Bush.
Bill Haas, whom I understand is a frequent candidate for office in the area and a familiar name to many, did not beat about the bush in telling u
s why he should be the democratic nominee. His campaign literature boldly proclaims him to be “the Democrat with the best chance to beat Todd Akin!!” His opening remarks consisted of the reasons why that is true: 1) education and background (Yale and Harvard Law School; university teaching experience); 2) eight years on the St. Louis School Board; 3) best name recognition; 4) he appears more moderate than the other candidates–which presumably would be a plus in the 2nd district, as would 4) his spirituality.
UPDATE I. A Clarification from Mike Garman re: Opening comments:
During the debate We mentioned my grandchildren. What I thought I stated was we could afford to send them to private schools, but do not they live in excellent districts and all are receiving a quality education, but many children are not so fortunate.