I finally got my chance to watch Tuesday’s 1st CD debate between Bruce Braley (D) and Mike Whalen (R). My overall impression on style is that Braley was clearly smoother and more at-ease while Mike! Mike! Mike! was nervous throughout. As a trial lawyer you might expect Braley to be more relaxed in a venue like this one. On substance, it is more difficult to pick a winner. No one scored a knockout punch but both got in a few good hits.
In their opening statements, Braley emphasized that he promised “change” – a recurring theme – and in a classic “plain folks” technique talked about his Irish heritage and his Dubuque-bred wife. In his turn, Whalen repeated his campaign theme that excessive federal taxes, regulation and easy litigation hurt regular people. He then subtly mocked Braley’s bio by noting that he too had Irish ancestors and a wife from Dubuque.
The first question was on how to proceed in Iraq, and both candidates contradicted themselves. Whalen first said there are two choices – cut and run or stay and fight – and then said there’s now no choice, we have to win. I see what he meant, but it didn’t sound right. Braley, the candidate for change, said to do as the Republican Congress specified in the 2005 Defense Authorization Act, and get the Iraqis ready to take over the fighting. I’m sorry, but I thought that was what we
are doing.
The next question was a complaint about all the negative TV ads trashing one’s opponent. Braley explained that many ads are run by independent groups that the candidates, for legal reasons, cannot control. Then he ranted against one that the RNCC (I think) ran accusing him of being a communist fellow traveler. In my ROTFLOL moment he asked Whalen to drop out of the Republican Party in protest of the low blow. Whalen replied that “You protest too much”, perhaps implying that the shoe might fit.
Unfortunately, both candidates then exhibited a discouraging lack of respect for the First Amendment. Whalen said he would like to shut down the independent commercials, thereby carrying the despicable McCain-Feingold campaign “reform” act to its logical next stage. Braley in his rebuttal said what is needed is campaign finance reform that would equalize allowable expenditures by each candidate, as it is unfair that Republicans typically have more contributions.
Responding to the Health Care question, Whalen rattled off an impressive list of proposals indicating familiarity with the issue. He concluded by noting that eight of the twelve counties in the First CD have no Ob-Gyn, and Iowa ranks 49th in doctors per capita. Braley, countered with a good sound-bite line, “We have a sick-care system, not a health-care system.”
On immigration policy, Braley criticized the Bush administration for its lax enforcement of laws against hiring alien workers. Whalen’s proposed solution was to improve documentation to make it harder for undocumented workers to fool employers.
Social Security reform has been an issue on which Braley has hit Whalen hard, tying Whalen to Bush’s so-called privatization plan. Whalen proposed using the government’s 25-year experience with the Thrift Savings Plan as a model and urging reform now, using the current $150 billion annual surplus to pay transition costs. Braley replied that he would support “modest adjustment” if necessary, but that
there’s plenty of time to decide if there is a problem.
Nearing the end of the debate, Braley was allowed to ask Whalen one question, which was, “[Why do] you oppose, and would support President Bush’s veto to ban embryonic stem cell research…?” This was a question I think Whalen should have been able to knock out of the park. He did note that
Bush was actually the first president to authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research but then stumbled and mumbled about “existing lines” and not being about federal funding, blah, blah blah.
Whalen’s question for Braley was why he wrote that the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was a great decision. Braley’s answer referred to some article in the Des Moines Register and I don’t know if it had any bearing on the question or not. Whalen said it didn’t. I dunno.
The moderator asked the final question. Considering the politicians who have come into Iowa on your behalf, how do you agree or disagree with their positions on the issues? Braley quipped that he objected that his people didn’t raise as much money as Whalen’s did, (which got a nice laugh) but then he so much as admitted that he didn’t know where they stood on various issues!
Whalen’s answer was that he didn’t talk issues with them at the time, but he appreciated the opportunity to start to build a relationship which would be helpful later.
In closing remarks, Whalen emphasized how he felt privileged to be an American and wanted the opportunity to help pass that privilege on to his children. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but I feel it is this belief in the exceptionalism of America that is at the heart of the coming election. Are you proud of American values, and want to see our culture prosper, or do you want to nitpick minor flaws and rent-seek tiny advantages for favored groups?
Braley took the opportunity to bring in issues that had been overlooked during the debate. He reasserted his support for a minimum wage increase and for enacting the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
