On the subject of the televised Indiana Republican Senate Candidates debate as televised widely around Indiana on April 20th at 7 PM CST...
Amos Brown as moderator. Candidates Marlin Stutzman, Richard Behney, John Hostettler, Don Bates and Dan Coats. Questions from Indiana residents, some via video cam, some recorded on audio or read aloud by moderator Brown. Transcripts and news reports will come out tomorrow so just a few thoughts while the debate is fresh in my mind before we have access to transcripts.
This race now has national scrutiny. Evan Bayh almost certainly left office for three reasons:
1) He was in danger of losing an election.
2) Something of a moderate, he was sick of the partisan politics that arrived along with Obama.
3) He thinks he will have a shot at running for another important office (Governor?) if he got out now.
A great Republican candidate could well take this seat for the R team. If Indiana can get a candidate that reasonates with the Tea Party movement and the average Hoosier the Republicans can take down Brad Ellsworth in the fall. Three of the candidates were Tea Party members before declaring for the Senate race. A fourth was an original Contract With America guy. The fifth one is a retread lobbyist recalled from Virginia who has not lived in Indiana in the 21st Century.
If you get the idea I am an "Anybody But Coats" guy, you are exceedingly perceptive. I immediately thought of the title Dan "Turn"Coats the very minute I heard of his johnny-come-lately candidacy. Politics as usual. The RNC has not figured this thing out yet. All of the above!!!
I have attended live debates between the candidates three times already and have spent time talking to all of them personally other than Dan Coats. I have also met the candidates at meet and greets, so I have a sense of their ease in front of crowds and how well they answer questions under pressure. It is something of a shame that this debate followed such a format, because many of the softball questions were all going to be answered much the same way by all the candidates and it was only going to be a matter of whether they were going to give us onion rings or fries with that. This debate would have been much better with some difficult questions. Is any Republican candidate for Senate going to be against spending cuts, gun rights, budget balancing and Constitutionalist Supreme Court nominees? Really?
So let us introduce the cast of characters in reverse order of their standing order at the debate:
Dan Coats - The only candidate I have not spoken with and the only one I do not want to dialogue with, Coats is an old hand at politics (and a long-time lobbyist, by the way) who was considered a classic conservative back in the early 90's. He did begin drifting left during his years in office, moved over to the lobbyist side as a Virginia resident in 1999 and to me represents the old boy club. So I have not been interested in anything he has to say. Quickly obtaining an Indianapolis address so you can run for office and then go back to Washington and help your old lobbyist buddies cash in? No thanks.
Coats was a guy who moves around a lot as he talks, trying perhaps to look youthful to offset the age difference between himself and the younger candidates? But in trying to answer one question he was so lost I thought he was going to say, "uh, education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq." He also claimed to be a steadfast supporter of 2nd Amendment rights but in fact he voted for the Brady Bill so that was a...well...prevarication. Assets? Money and name recognition. Debits? Voting record got lame at the end and more than a decade of cashing in on the lobbyist gig.
Don Bates - He probably does not have the money or support to have any chance at all to win. He seemed to want to thank everyone in the world. However, he never lost his cool even when pressed and a bit uncertain and stayed on message. I am not a politician. I am a businessman. I have faith in God. I will stop them from repealing the Bush tax cuts. Vote for me because I am not a politician. I am earnest. I am honest.
I am sorry Don Bates is not running for state office because he does know business and a few good businessmen in public service would be worth twice as many political hacks. He did not make any big points but never made big mistakes. Assets? Business background. Debits? Lack of money and experience.
John Hostettler - In person and in front of live audiences Hostettler comes across as very strong, smart or at times almost arrogant but after seeing him and speaking to him personally I have come to understand that he is simply authoritarian in his manner, not cold but simply focused. Hostettler has a great grasp of the Constitution and doubtless would be a better candidate for the Supreme Court than whatever activist Obama puts forward. His record in Congress was outstanding. During the debate he was a bit toned down and at times began to lose his way a bit. I think it may have been the venue. Hostettler is comfortable with both large and small crowds but the television cameras give you no feedback. In this debate he did not win any major ground but he doubtless held the ground he came in with as one of the three men with a real chance to win the primary.
John lost a chance to build on his momentum from his support in the Southern end of the of the state by being less powerful on camera than he is in real life. He would make a very good Senator from Indiana and a terrific Constitutional Law professor (unlike the poser in the White House). Where John really made points in the debate was when he discussed his written promises to voters in 1994 and his adherence to those promises. Those points underlined his record as a man of principle and honor. Up to that point he had been uninspiring but once he hit that stride he finished well. Assets? He's been there and done that and he did it well. Debits? He lost his seat in Congress to the guy who will run on the Democrat side, Brad Ellsworth and he is not particularly good at raising money.
Richard Behney - Richard Behney is the founder of the Indianapolis Tea Party group, a man who resigned as Tea Party leader when he chose to run for office. He is a businessman and a guy you would be happy to have as a next door neighbor. You are not certain he has many specific plans of action so one Richard Behney in Congress might be a blip. Fifty of them would turn Washington on its ear! He is darned likeable.
Richard is born for the camera. He is even more charismatic in front of the TV lights than he is in real life. If all debates and meetups were held on the video hookups Behney might actually win. Richard did not say many things that were different from the others in most cases because so many questions were, as I said, softballs easy to hit out of the park. Therefore Richard was able to go into his folksy man-of-the-people comfort zone and I truly think he is who he is. During the questions he was confident and relevant. It was only during his closing 90 seconds when he went off the tracks, probably the only part of his appearance that had been rehearsed, and his closing remarks seemed off-kilter and not in tune with the rest of the song. Assets? He is a good guy, a guy who wants to fix what is broken and not one who would go off-track easily. Debits? Little money, less experience and a rather naive view of politics.
Marlin Stutzman - Marlin Stutzman has a brilliant record as an Indiana Legislator and came in buoyed by the endorsement of Conservative Big Dog Jim DeMint earlier in the day. He has a great message in that despite his youth he was a mover and shaker in the Indiana House and then in the Senate and he really does well with live audiences and small groups. I am also impressed by his campaign style, he brings his family with him whenever possible and his family (wife and two young sons) are extremely nice, genuine folks. Marlin is a successful farmer/small businessman and very active church member. You would definitely love him as a neighbor!
It may be that Moderator Brown's mispronunciation of Marlin's last name threw him off slightly at the start. He began well, not spectacular, but giving good concise answers. In the middle of the debate he seemed to get a bit off his game and while his answer to the 2nd Amendment question was okay, he missed his chance to hit a grand slam by reminding folks that he was responsible for Indiana's lifetime carry permit. On the other hand, he agreed with the other candidates when they made a good point and rightly pointed out to all that Coats had voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg for the Supreme Court, a vote that outed Coats as a less-than-staunch conservative. He did build momentum at the end and his final remarks began with a great quote (from George Washington? Ah, I need my transcript!) and ended on a confident note. Assets? His accomplishments as a State legislator spell CONSERVATIVE WHO GETS THINGS DONE. Debits? Marlin has endorsements and a winning personality but he is short on money.
The Hopefuls
Don Bates conducted himself as a candidate at or near the top. He needed desperately to do something to remarkably separate himself from the competition. He didn't. He didn't make any mistakes, he simply did not have anything compelling to say that stood out from the crowd. In part this is due to the rather bland assortment of questions.
Richard Behney is the guy who would win the part of "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", the remake. He really believes he can come from behind and win this thing. If anyone jumped up in the polls as a result of the televised debate it might be Richard. Too bad his closing remarks were not up to the standard of his answers to the questions.
The Has-Been
Dan Coats at times seemed like he didn't consider himself to be in a debate but rather simply presenting himself to the Hoosier constituency as the guy he used to be maybe 16 years ago. The content of his answers was kind of like diet food. There was less there than the other candidates. Unfortunately, what he says he stands for and what his late-term votes say and how he lived his life over the last ten years all scream "Washington Beltway Boy!!!"
The Front-Runners
Marlin Stutzman failed to hit the 2nd Amendment question with all of his might, when he could have trumped the other candidates with his exemplary record on this issue. On the other hand, he may have answered the Supreme Court question better than anyone, a question John Hostettler should have handled like LeBron James on a breakaway dunk. Stutzman has a fine record of accomplishment in government and the perfect storyline - Normal successful American guy moved to get into government when 9/11 convinced him that he should be an asset to his state and country, who has since authored or sponsored legislation promoting balanced budgets, ethical behavior and 2nd Amendment rights in Indiana. Indiana is one of only five states with a balanced budget and Marlin gets a lot of credit for that. He also has the idea that he can get the Washington crowd to become part-time legislators required to continue a residence in their home state and to go back home to listen to their constituency when not working on Capitol Hill. Is that possible? I have decided to put my support behind Marlin Stutzman for the content of his character and the record in public service as a man who gets the right things and the smart things done. To Stutzman, bi-partisan involves getting the other side to agree with your position.
John Hostettler is so steeped in the history and content of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers he truly would make an excellent instructor on the subject. He did stand as a man of principle while in Washington. Many came into office in 1994 with a "Contract With America" and John was one of the minority that did not break that contract. There is no doubt in my mind that John Hostettler would be a great Senator and frankly it is hard for me not to endorse him. It is not any flaw I see in John Hostettler but rather potential greatness in Marlin Stutzman that has caused me to endorse Marlin Stutzman. I have stood beside both men, questioned them, listened to them, and wound up impressed by both. I am pretty sure Marlin decided I was somebody he liked upon meeting and vice-versa, while Hostettler and I were a bit like two rutting Elk locking horns at first. I have a tremendous amount of respect for both men and I mean that sincerely. I would be overjoyed if Marlin won and would still cheer a Hostettler win. A Coats triumph would be...
The Tragic Version or the Happy Ending?
The Republican Senate Primary Race can have only two possible endings:
1) A bright shiny penny of a young and industrious man of the people will be selected and will go forth gloriously to battle the Democrat foe in November. Marlin, Richard or Don.
2) A former Washington guy from the 20th Century wins the nomination and then it will be veteran politician versus veteran politician in the fall. This one falls into two categories:
A) If John Hostettler, it will be a veteran with a record that resonates with conservatives and Tea Party folks and will get their vote. He is right on every major issue Tea Partiers love aside from not being a new face and he has not signed on for support of the Fair Tax.
B) If Dan Coats, it will be another politician stewed in Washington pots for years and years and cooked to compromising perfection. Coats would be a matter of money winning over content of message. He is almost everything Tea Partiers loathe, a DeDe Scozzafava slap in the face to the grassroots.
