U.S. House Debate: Political observers’ post-debate verdict

“John Carney hadn’t thought about what committees he would want in Washington. After 8 years as Lt. Governor & 2 years of running for Congress, he doesn’t know what he wants to do in Washington, that is a pretty condemning statement. His answer about homeland security, “we need to be strong and smart”, is just a tag line. Again, how do you define “smart”? He never provided any details — does this mean more money to counter-terrorism, domestically? or internationally? He didn’t like Glen Urquhart’s support of missile protection, but saying “no” isn’t a plan. What does he mean by “strong & smart”? On healthcare, he said that the current law “needed improvement”, but never said what he wants to improve. Does “improvement” mean a “government option”? Or does it mean expanded Health Savings Accounts? We don’t know. While he focused on “we need to work together”, he never really said where he stood. On the budget, he said that we needed two different tracks – short term & long term. But other than extend the Bush tax cuts for “2-3 years” he didn’t say what addressing the long term needed to be. ”

—Charlie Copeland, former state senator and 2008 GOP candidate for Lt. Governor

“The professional format of the debate. Nancy Karibjanian’s control of the event made for a debate that was enlightening and enjoyable to watch on CSPAN; and the muted reaction of the crowd raised the level of the debate from a pep rally to a serious discussion of the issues.”

—John Flaherty, Delaware Coalition for Open Government president

“Delaware voters were well served by a format that was nicely-paced, allowed time for complete responses and offered some degree of actual back-and-forth “debating” between the candidates – something too rarely afforded in most candidate “forums.”  Throughout the debate, Glen Urquhart rightly made the critical point that our next member of Congress must be focused on restoring confidence and trust among both the electorate and American businesses, and the pressing need to incentivize investment and the creation of new jobs.  Drawing on his experience in business and as a federal appointee, he also effectively articulated a systemic deficiency in federal policymaking (“I don’t support regulations that nobody has read”): the creation of ever-complex and far-reaching new laws and regulations that invariably result in growing the pool of lobbyists in our nation’s capital while diverting the investment in long-term growth we so desperately need.  It was also good to see John Carney embrace the importance of tax cuts in stimulating the economy and agreeing that raising them now would be a mistake. ”

—Michael Fleming, New Castle County Republican Party chair

“Mr. Urquhart repeatedly emphasized his intention to be an independent voice for Delaware if elected, and reminded viewers that he bucked his party to earn the Republican nomination for the U.S. House of Representatives, at-large member. Additionally, while he welcomed Tea Party support, he did not identifiy himself as a card-carrying member of the movement.  This strategy is seemingly aimed at political Independents, who may hold the key to Urquhart’s hopes for an upset.

There were a plethora of issues where the candidates took clearly different positions, including on the health care reform law, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, whether the retirement age should be raised as a solution to funding Social Security, the wisdom of an anti-ballistic missile system, and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The most unexpected positions espoused by the candidates: Mr. Carney advocated retaining the Bush tax cuts for at least a few more years; Mr. Urquhart lamented the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.Both candidates promoted slogans to advance positions: Mr. Carney advised to be “strong and smart” in making decisions about the use of the military; Mr. Urquhart labels the financial reform law he opposes as “Dodd-Frankenstein.”

Mr. Urquhart attacked the fiscal record of governors who Mr. Carney served for, but Mr. Carney did not link Mr. Urquhart’s previous government service to some of the fiscal problems emanating fromthe Reagan era.

The circular nature of the candidates’ opening and closing statements: The content of each candidate’s statements was very similar at the outset and conclusion of the debate. This fact seemed to benefit Mr. Carney at the beginning–especially Mr. Carney’s UD affiliation-but Urquhart’s ending points resonated better.”

—Sam Hoff, Delaware State University political science professor

“Both are smart, capable candidates who avoided caricature, and well represented the State of Delaware.

The candidates actually seem to agree generally on many matters, including against big government and national debt, and for national security, job creation, change and leadership in Congress, and the general precept that some degree of regulation is necessary to make markets run more efficiently, whether by “safety” regulation, or “necessary” regulation.

Candidate Urquhart seemed to hold — even in debate — to dogmatism more so than candidate Carney. Urquhart is continuously concerned about big government (“the problem, not the solution”), taxation, and fear of terrorism at our borders and around the world. He believes the federal government is keeping the next generation of market leaders from taking risks.

I found a bit off-putting Candidate Urquhart’s sometimes dismissive tone and quasi-personal attacks of Candidate Carney, accusing him of not understanding business, not reading legislation, and owning the fiscal crisis in Delaware. He often seemed angry, and baleful about, well, what he views to be the four horsemen of the apocalypse — government, taxes, democrats, and even Al Gore. I was left wondering whether he would be a polarizing figure in Congress, despite his self-description as a “coalition builder.”

I was most surprised to hear so little, both in question and in response, directed at energy, environment and climate change. This is, after all, a debate involving candidates for national office. That it took a student’s question to even raise energy issues — albeit in Delaware — was surprising.”

—Jim May, Widener Law professor

“John Carney is clearly running in the mold of current Representative Mike Castle. Mr. Carney made multiple references throughout the debate to his centrist beliefs and desire to be a coalition builder in the House of Representatives. As such, he spent much of the debate answering questions in a way that highlighted his thoughtfulness and patience as well as his willingness to consider the ideas of the opposition and incorporate them with his own ideas. While he did take firm positions on some issues, like declaring that he would vote to overturn “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” he expressed his desire to learn more about issues and take his time in deciding future positions before being locked in, like when discussing Social Security reform. Mr. Carney’s strategic choice to run as a moderate coalition builder has led him to a moderate tone that does not lead itself to passionate answers or barbs aimed at the opposition. His debate performance was very safe, non-controversial, and probably designed to help consolidate his current lead in the polls.

Like John Carney, Glen Urquhart’s debate style match his campaign’s strategic choices. Mr. Urquhart is running on a platform of traditional conservative values with tax cuts and fiscal responsibility as the largest plank. Throughout the debate Mr. Urquhart turned many questions back to his primary issue: tax cuts. During the debate he argued that tax cuts would help solve numerous problems from job creation to the national debt, national defense, and healthcare. This too is a safe, non-controversial approach to the debate that was likely designed to not lose rather than to win.

Both candidates gave a professional performance and each was very much respectful of the other. While they disagreed on the issues, and occasionally on the facts, they did not spend time on personal attacks choosing instead to keep the debate quite civil.”

—Jason Mycoff, University of Delaware associate professor of political science

“I don’t think either candidate really addressed education. The Federal government provides about 7% of the money, but a much larger percent of the regulations for education. I think that we can surmise where their positions might be – John Carney for increasing the Federal role and Glen Urquhart in leaving education up to the local districts. However, neither clearly articulated their philosophy around the Federal government and education. I, personally, think that this is a big issue for the future of American global competitiveness.”

—Charlie Copeland, former state senator and 2008 GOP candidate for Lt. Governor

“How is Urquhart going to cut the federal budget when he calls for a increase in the defense budget, adding a missile defense system, and all the while increasing the deficit by borrowing money for tax cuts?  While Urquhart addressed the issue of what committee assignments he would seek out if elected, Carney for some reason dodged this question.”

—John Flaherty, Delaware Coalition for Open Government president

“By any objective measure, the $800 billion stimulus bill has not delivered on the economic boost its supporters had promised.  Many reports have raised serious questions about how the money has been spent and pointed to a troubling lack of accountability and oversight of these funds.  In light of these results, supporters of the stimulus including candidates like John Carney must explain why voters should believe they will bring fiscal discipline to a Congress that has created an unprecedented national debt.”

—Michael Fleming, New Castle County Republican Party chair

“Neither candidate directly answered the question posed by the moderator about wiretapping and its national security v. civil liberties ramifications. Both could have discussed the history and effectiveness of FISA laws or critiqued court rulings in the area. Mr. Carney did not directly answer the question about what committees he would like to serve on in the House of Representatives if elected.Mr. Urquhart did not give a straight yes/no answer to the question as to whether the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy should be repealed. That was contrasted with Mr. Carney’s unequivocal support for repeal.”

“Neither candidate seemed to express much of a world view. The most glaring omission would be to answer a question about what international-national-state response/domestic regime/legislation the candidate might support to lead to reduction in carbon emissions, and promote energy independence, and concomitantly, national security. Only Candidate Carney even mentioned global climate change, yet relegated the matter to a mere mention in his closing. It’s a huge issue, and should have been a central issue, I believe.

Yet both candidates seemed to agree that promoting alternative energy is a good idea, even if Candidate Urquhart used the issue as another opportunity to be snarky.”

—Jim May, Widener Law professor

“Neither candidate seemed dedicated to providing clear outlines of how they would use the Delaware seat in the House of Representatives to solve the problems facing Delawareans. While both candidates expressed concern over jobs, education and healthcare in the state, they did not offer many specific solutions they would pursue.”

—Jason Mycoff, University of Delaware associate professor of political science