June 30, 2006
US Senate Debate
Last night was the first televised debate between the three GOP candidates fighting for the right to go up against Harold Ford Jr. for Dr. Frist's seat in the Senate. I'll have a more detailed analysis tomorrow, including a transcript, but for now, I'll just give you my general impressions.
To start with, all three candidate claimed essentially the same positions on the issues. All three were against a withdrawal timetable for Iraq, were willing to explore the fair tax, claimed to be pro life, supported strengthening immigration controls, including holding employers accountable for hiring illegals. Since the candidates voiced such similar positions, I tried to look outside what they were saying to form a better opinion about each man.
Driving up, it was clear which candidate had the most money. Bob Corker had more signs up than did Van Hilleary and Ed Bryant combined. He also had more supporters at the debate, during which, he boasted of out raising both of his opponents. I was already put off a bit by Corker's omnipresent ad campaign. The ostentatious display during the debate deepened that feeling. It's almost like he's trying to buy the election.
The other thing that struck me about Corker was a fundamental insincerity. After the debate, he was giving an interview on the radio, and he was talking about how his opponents were always attacking him, while he just wanted to talk about the issues. But during the debate, starting with his answer to the first question, he referred to Hilleary and Bryant as his "Washington friends," implying that they were somehow less Tennessean since they had spent time in Washington. It's an odd strategy actually, since at the end of the debate, Corker claimed that the one thing that set him apart from Bryant and Hilleary was his experience, yet he has no Washington experience.
Bryant and Hilleary do.
Considering that Washington is a town that functions based on contacts, Corker probably shouldn't be playing up his rookie status.
Van Hilleary was the most openly combative of the three. He wasn't afraid to take on Corker, calling him out for his changing positions on abortion and immigration, and calling him soft on lobbyists and earmarks on the budget. I talked to Hilleary after the debate, and he seemed genuinely friendly, if a bit distracted because he was waiting to go on the radio.
Ed Bryant struck me as the candidate with the most integrity. He was uncompromising in his positions, strong against illegal immigration, and strong on the war in Iraq. He didn't have a lot of flair, just the simple power of his convictions.
So who is the best candidate? Well, all three pledged to support whoever wins the primary, and that's good for the GOP, because Harold Ford has got a ton of money coming in from out of the state, so it will take an all out effort by the Republicans to beat him. Corker has the biggest war chest, which gives him the advantage between the three, but Bryant presents the clearest contrast to Ford. Right now, Hilleary is somewhere in the middle, which isn't good.
One last comparison between the three:
The Corker poster is business as usual. The Hilleary poster promises a party with the candidate, and is homemade. Bryant's poster forgoes flash and style for substance.
I like substance.
Other observations:
- The long lead-in pieces to the first couple of questions really wasted a lot of time. Before the debate began, Gene Patterson cautioned us in the audience to refrain from laughing or applauding in order to save more time for more questions, but then WATE wasted several minutes with fluff pieces giving background like "We're at war in Iraq and people want to know what's next."
That's stellar reporting right there, people.
- I was sitting near the back, with a bunch of folks who were either reporters or bloggers because we all had lap tops and we were all typing away. So, if any of you were sitting near a large man in a blue shirt with a camera around his neck, that was me.
- The auditorium was close to full, and the crowd tended towards youthful, which was a nice surprise at a GOP debate. I expected a fairly sparse, older crowd. It was good to see so many people interested in a primary.
- Christine Jessel is very good-looking. I mention this only because it's true.
Posted by Rich at June 30, 2006 12:32 AM | TrackBack