- Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell held a contentious debate on Tuesday at Widener Law School. Click here to view more images of their debate.
The candidates for U.S. Senate in Delaware did not pull punches in a wild and testy debate at Widener Law Tuesday morning. Repeatedly talking over each other, Democrat Chris Coons and Republican Christine O’Donnell sparred over understanding the Constitution, the role of faith based organizations, extension of the Bush tax cuts, job creation, the nation’s policy in Afghanistan and presidential use of war powers. The two also pressed each other on questions they felt were left unanswered in previous debates and over “fact checking” claims by their opponent.
One of the most memorable exchanges came early on when Coons and O’Donnell were discussing the constitutional interpretation. After Coons pressed O’Donnell for an answer on whether or not she believes in evolution, O’Donnell suggested it is up to local school boards to decide if they wish to teach it along with intelligent design. That led to a debate over separation of church and state and where it is found in the Constitution. Coons said it is in the First Amendment. O’Donnell responded, “Let me just clarify. You’re telling me the the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?” Coons replied, “Government shall make no establishment of religion.” To which O’Donnell responded, “That’s in the First Amendment?”
The O’Donnell campaign later attempted to clarify their candidate’s remarks. “In this morning’s WDEL debate, Christine O’Donnell was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts,” said campaign manager Matt Moran. “She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.”
Widener Law Professor Erin Daly said that exchange, and others on constitutional law during the debate marked a clear contrast between the two candidates. “Mr. Coons was more comfortable talking about individual rights, certainly the First Amendment. Ms. O’Donnell seemed genuinely surprised that that First Amendement stands for the separation between church and state. Mr. Coons was correct that that is where that principle derives from,” said Daly. Daly added that O’Donnell did score points with her base when talking about state’s rights. “Ms. O’Donnell and many others in this country look to the 10th Amendment as standing for a very broad principle of state rights and that’s one thing she emphasized.”
The two candidates’ frustrations boiled over midway through the debate. After Coons refuted O’Donnell’s claims that W.L. Gore, his stepfather’s company where Coons’ served as legal counsel for eight years starting in 1996, and Coons himself stand to benefit substantially if cap and trade legislation is passed in Congress, the two exchanged barbs over that claim and others made in campaign ads. Coons said the (Wilmington) News Journal fact checked the claims and found them lacking. “I actually trust the News Journal to sort out which of these things are just flat out lies, which are fabrications and which are exaggerations.” O’Donnell interjected, “And I would ask people to go to our website and check out ‘Fact checking the News Journal’s Fact Check’.” Coons then asked the moderator to help move the conversation along. O’Donnell jumped on that request as an indication Coons “calling out for help,” while Coons complained O’Donnell was “devolving into a pointless tirade of baseless personal attacks.”
The two candidates did return to more substantive conversation, hitting on topics ranging from how they would specifically create jobs and the presidential use of war powers and U.S. policy in Afghanistan before the 90 exchange ended.
But after the debate, both candidates expressed frustration with the other, claiming their opponent dodged issues. “I am doing my best to be respectful of my opponent and of the audience and of the important issues facing us,” said Coons. “But I do think there’s a real question of what is the value of debates that seem to, particularly from my opponents’s side, devolve into simple shouting matches and the repeated assertions of things that are blatantly false.”
O’Donnell countered, “I think it was very clear that my opponent won’t answer difficult questions and when things get hard for him he calls for as lifeline.”
Widener University associate professor of government and politics J. Wesley Leckrone says this debate, at times, lacked focus. “Last week’s (Delaware First Media/University of Delaware) debate I thought for the most part was fairly interesting in the fact that they answered the questions and their wasn’t a whole lot of attacking,” said Professor Leckrone. “I thought today it got a bit out of control and unfortunately didn’t serve the purpose very well other than to establish some ideas about people’s temperaments.”
