U.S. Senate Debate: Local political observers’ post-debate verdict

“Christine O’Donnell held her own and won or tied more questions than Chris Coons did. Mr. Coons is a smart guy so this was a tough assignment.

Mr. Coons overplayed his “condescending” tag lines lines regarding there not being enough time to respond to correct everything that Ms O’Donnell stated or not understanding what she was saying. That might be a turn off to some voters.

The witch versus the Marxist stuff I tried to ignore. The moderators kept going back to the witch statement–this was odd.

Clear difference on the role of government versus the private sector. Mr Coons was at his most animated, knowledgeable, and passionate when he talked about enacting new programs or defending new big programs such as ObamaCare. Ms. O’Donnell was at her strongest when discussing free market and local solutions. Clear choice for voters.”

—George Ball, Organizer, Delaware Rail Splitters

“O’Donnell, experienced before the camera, unversed on many issues, was a font of epigrams and interjections that were more appropriate to shout-and-smirk broadcasting than to serious debate. If called upon to speak for more than a paragraph, she veered from the topic.

Most viewers will focus on her unawareness of Supreme Court decisions of the Roberts-Rehnquist era. Her obliviousness to the Third Branch eclipsed an even more telling failure early in the debate, when she could not specify any meaningful areas where where the federal budget could be reduced.

Coons would have been enormously successful in the courtroom. He synthesized his positions deftly and parried the interruptions with coolness that translates well on camera and in person.”

—Chuck Durante, Attorney; Fmr. Parliamentarian, Delaware State Democratic Committee

“Just like last weeks debate between Carney and Urquhart, the professional format of the debate with the moderators, Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Karibjanian, doing a good job of controling the event and making the event a serious discussion of the issues.”

—John Flaherty, Delaware Coalition for Open Government president

“At a general level, I was struck by the different kinds of answers that Coons and O’Donnell gave to the questions. Coons tended to provide specific answers to specific questions and kept his answers to the question of the moment. In contrast, O’Donnell’s answers were a collection of sound bites and jargon that inevitably moved to matters outside the question, and often to charges leveled against Coons.

I had been looking for both candidates to address the government’s budget and deficit. They were asked what they would cut, other than “fraud, waste and abuse” Coons advocated cuts in some areas of defense and elsewhere and tax increases for the wealthy. However, O’Donnell refused to identify any area or program she would cut. Instead she said that she would not touch defense spending, social security, Medicare and related programs, and would not cut any specific agencies or activities. She would not allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, and, obviously, must support paying the nation’s interest on its debt. To pay for this she emphasized “fraud, waste and abuse” such as the several million dollars savings identified in a report about the education department. Saving several million dollars in a budget of several trillion dollars is the equivalent of paying 1¢ on a $10,000 credit card bill. Her answer about the nation’s budget either was disingenuous, or it was the product of a profound lack of understanding of finance, budgets, economics, and how the government works and pays its bills.

I was also struck by the weakness of her answers with respect to education and health care. On education, she refused to say whether she still believes in creationism. Instead, she would leave it to local schools to decide whether to teach creationism. However, courts have consistently ruled that teaching creationism in pubic schools is prohibited by the 1st Amendment doctrine of separation of church and state. The Dover, Pennsylvania case a few years ago is but one example. She said her decisions would be based on the constitution – unfortunately, as the creationism answer and her inability to name one Supreme Court case from the prior year demonstrate, she is incorrect in some of her understanding of the Constitution, and largely ignorant of the rest.

In answer to the question as to how she would return the poor math and science scores of U.S. students to their previous world-leading rank they earned decades ago, her only answer was to listen to teachers, and let local school boards and parents handle the problem – the same school boards and parents she would let teach creationism as biology! She was against investing money to improve science and math education in the U.S.

As to health care, O’Donnell would repeal the entire health care bill, including the first provisions to go into effect – insuring children up to age 26, prohibition on rescission of policies when a sick person seeks coverage, and others. She dislikes the health bill because it will eventually require all persons to have health insurance. She opposes that mandate, although she did not explain how she would deal with free-riders who did not take coverage, but then sought care when they become sick and whose costs would continue to be paid by those who buy insurance. Nor did she explain how health insurance could become affordable if she were to allow healthy people to opt out of coverage – she does not realize that cost-effective insurance requires broad, if not universal, participation to work.

On the other hand she complained several times that the health care bill has not yet brought down health care costs, which continues to rise. However, the first provisions to go into effect – coverage of children to age 26, ban on rescission – only went into effect very recently, and were not the cost-reduction aspects of the law. Rather, the major cost-reducing features of the health care law such as mandatory coverage, insurance pools, etc, do not fully go into effect until 2014. What was her point in complaining that the law was not yet lowering costs? Was she disingenuous or did she have no understanding of the basic features of the law?

What struck me most powerfully about the debate was how mediocre O’Donnell is, and that she appears to be satisfied with the United States becoming a mediocre nation. Over the last several years I have had the opportunity to speak at conferences around the world, where I have met a broad range of people, including government officials, business people, investors, academics, and students. These people were bright, energetic, thoughtful, hard-working, ambitious, and inquisitive, and their countries are moving forward rapidly. If we want to compete with them successfully, we need to be at the top of our game. But if want to be also-rans in the race, to run the race halfheartedly, as we appear to be doing, then we should elect a senate composed of members who do not understand or care to understand the world, economics, history, science, law and policy. If mediocrity is what we want our nation to strive for, then we should elect leaders who distain thoughtful, informed analysis, and respectful deliberative decision-making but who prefer thinking and speaking in exaggerated, almost random, sound bites, naming calling and gross labeling of people and ideas. If the public wants mediocrity to be the standard measure of its leaders in Washington, then I fear for the future vitality of the nation.”

—David Hodas, Widener Law professor

“From my perspective, there were six interesting areas, as follows:

The Senate candidates clearly expressed different positions on a variety of issues, including cap and trade legislation, campaign finance and the recent Supreme Court ruling on same, abortion, the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, the value of the health care reform law, the wisdom of a deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and on where stem cells should come from (embryonic v. adult) for research.

The candidates attacked one another, often in personal terms, for a good portion of the debate. Ms. O’Donnell referred to Mr. Coons at one time or another as a Marxist, pet of Harry Reid, a rubber stamp for the Democratic agenda, an elitist, a career politician, as politically correct, and as guilty of cronyism and a conflict of interest. Alternately, Mr. Coons accused Ms.

O’Donnell of falsifying his record as New Castle County Executive and inferred that she is an extremist who lacks compassion and experience.

Best discussion on issues: The answers both candidates gave to queries about China and education were outstanding.

We want more!: Of Ms. O’Donnell’s view of the use of Predator drones; what else beside his desegregation of the military that Mr. Coons admires about Harry Truman.

The candidates agreed on very little, though Ms. O’Donnell supported Mr. Coons’ comments on the Quran/mosque controversies as they relate to issues of free speech and religion.

Don’t forget the slogan: Ms. O’Donnell stated that “she fell and got up” in her personal finances and that those out of work want a “paycheck, not a welfare check;” Mr. Coons called himself a “clean-shaven capitalist” and stated that potential immigrants who commit a crime will have to “pay a fine and get to the back of the line.”

—Sam Hoff, Delaware State University political science professor

“Before the debate I was curious to see how each candidate, Chris Coons and Christine O’Donnell, would be able to handle the intense scrutiny of a live, nationally broadcast debate. After some early stumbles during Ms. O’Donnell’s opening statement both candidates rose to the challenge and acquitted themselves quite well. Both appeared to maintain their poise throughout the remainder of the debate.

The tone of the debate was much more aggressive and negative than I had anticipated. Both candidates were on the attack early and sustained the tone throughout the debate. This represents a rather stark contrast with the House debate between John Carney and Glen Urquhart a week previously in which both candidates took a more civil and respectful approach to the debate. This is an interesting approach as it stands in direct conflict with the norm of the “Delaware way” in which politics is not usually characterized by such negativity.

I thought it was clear during the debate that between the two candidates Chris Coons had a wider and deeper understanding of the issues. Throughout the debate Mr. Coons demonstrated his knowledge of the issues at hand and was able to articulate his positions and solutions to problems. Ms. O’Donnell after starting out slowly with her opening statement, began to find her feet in the debate but on numerous occasions had difficulty in answering questions posed by the moderators. The most egregious of these was Ms. O’Donnell’s inability to name a Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed.”

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

“Insufficient specifics on how to reduce spending and the deficit.”

—George Ball, Organizer, Delaware Rail Splitters

“Coons’ tenure as New Castle County Executive merits more discussion that time permitted in the debate, which was exceedingly well conducted by Nancy Karibjanian and Wolf Blitzer. Perhaps before a highly knowledgeable audience at today’s Rotary debate, Coons will have a fuller opportunity to describe in context how County government has weathered, so far at least, the crisis that is battering most local governments — by mutual sacrifice, budget cuts and modest increases in the county’s astonishingly low property tax rate — without the reductions in services that have become epidemic nationally.

I expect that O’Donnell’s embrace of “creationism” as a science that should be taught as an academic subject will draw unfavorable attention. She said it was unconstitutional to prevent a local school board from imposing this fable into the curriculum. Discussion of this topic made her so uncomfortable that she uncorked some of her wildest pitches about religion and communism.”

—Chuck Durante, Attorney; Fmr. Parliamentarian, Delaware State Democratic Committee

“O’Donnell’s failure to answer whether she believed in evolution and her stumbling over her recollection of any recent Supreme Court decisions. Coons failure to answer the question of whether teachers’ unions are too powerful.”

—John Flaherty, Delaware Coalition for Open Government president

“I would have liked to have heard the candidates’ views on water and air pollution, particularly how, as senator, each would address mercury pollution falling on Delaware from Midwest coal-fired power plants.”

—David Hodas, Widener

“Mr. Coons failed to adequately address questions about extending the Bush tax cuts and about malpractice refom as a part of health care reform.

Ms. O’Donnell was vague or confusing in addressing questions about evolution, whether a different health care reform law would be mandatory for all Americans, and about which recent Supreme Court cases she opposed. Her failure to immediately respond to the latter area may have cost her more than debate points.”

—Sam Hoff, Delaware State University political science professor

“Both candidates had rough patches during the debate in which they stumbled over direct questions about their records or positions. Mr. Coons appeared to have difficulty in clearly articulating his record with respect to raising taxes. When asked directly about his tax record while serving as New Castle County Executive he did not provide a clear explanation of his record. Likewise, Ms. O’Donnell appeared to have difficulty in articulating her position on evolution. When asked directly if she believes that evolution is correct, she instead answered that it is not up to her to decide and that her position is irrelevant.”

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