This morning Kosciusko Silent No More, a Tea Party organization, conducted a two hour debate between the five Republican candidates running for the seat being vacated by Evan Bayh. Given that the debate was so remarkably close by, I decided at the last minute to attend. Unfortunately my usual lack of planning bit me in the butt once again. As the Pavilion was already filled to capacity, I was outside the building watching the debate on a hastily set up live video.
It was clear from the beginning that Dan Coats was dealing with a hostile crowd. While the other candidates got loud cheers, he only received polite applause. And in their introductions, the others were directing barbs at him. Richard Behney made a point to "welcome" the former Senator "back to the great state of Indiana". Indiana state Senator Marlin Stutzman was critical early of Coats' confirmations of Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. However, Coats treated the skepticism with grace and good humor. At one point he quipped that he felt like he should be pointing to someone to the right (he was placed on the right end of the stage) but there was no one there. He then joked that he was apparently the "far right" candidate in this debate. At that point he got some of the biggest laughs of the morning, and the crowd seemed to be more receptive to what he had to say. He remained very positive and upbeat throughout the debate. He mistepped on the question on term limits, seeming to support the idea while trying to explain why he's decided to get back into the Senate. But for the most part he did quite well, winning over the crowd's respect if not their vote. Granted he's got an uphill climb, being the closest thing to an incumbent in a year where anti-incumbent sentiment is quite high.
Former Congressman John Hostettler was impressively knowledgeable and often gave a mini-lecture on the particulars of the Constitution in his answers. He also struck me as the one who most looked the part of "Senator", i.e. he'd win if they were competing for the part of a Senator in a Hollywood movie. The self-professed admirer of Ron Paul was the most aggressive of the candidates. He said a lot that I agreed with (as did all the candidates), but his barbs toward the other candidates seemed to turn people off. He got the biggest groan of the morning when he got into a discussion with Don Bates, Jr, over his support of the Contract with America and the term limits provision contained within, especially as he continued to run for office afterward. His answer was technically correct, that the Contract merely promised that the issue would be debated on the floor, not that the provision would be passed. But it was the sort of parsing, legalistic answer that voters have become tired of getting from Washington. When he then turned as said that this was why not everyone up on the stage could be trusted, a veiled attack on Bates' honesty and intelligence, it didn't go over well. If Coats was seen as the closest thing to "the bad guy" at the beginning of the debate, it seemed that Hostettler had assumed that role at the end.
Speaking of Don Bates, I was surprised by his performance. Up until his candidacy here, he's had zero political experience. However, he was impressively knowledgeable. He gave specific, straight answers to the questions and was generally positive in his demeanor. I thought he was able to connect with the audience quite well in spite of being a virtual unknown going in.
Richard Behney, like Bates, has never held public office. Unlike Bates, he gave very general answers (What entitlement programs would he cut? "Cut 'em all!") and proclaimed several times that he was "just ticked off". This is not to say that the guy is stupid. On the contrary, he had the look and demeanor of an "alpha geek" and seemed very intelligent. This former plumber was nothing like "Joe the Plumber". But it seemed to me while Bates was able to hold his own against the more experienced politicians, Behney was a little over his head. I think I'd really like him if I met him in real life. I also think that with a little experience in politics he could be great. Or he could become the next Glenn Beck. He had plenty of quirky charisma, but he was the most lacking as a candidate.
Which brings us to Marlin Stutzman. I had heard good things about the farmer and citizen legislator. He played off his past experience as a farmer well, illustrating principles and connecting with his largely rural audience. He was very knowledgeable about the issues and solidly conservative, but he was very welcoming and positive. He got the biggest applause of the morning when he expressed a desire that people in Congress spend part of the year living back in their districts, "living under the laws they created" and being more answerable to their constituents. If I had to pick a winner of the debate, I'd probably pick Stutzman.
At one point a very dangerous question was asked: "Who should be the next president of the United States." The reactions of the candidates indicated that they were all kinda blindsided by it and they recognized just how dangerous it was. It may have been the most revealing point of the debate:
Behney answered first, and this was actually the high point of the morning with him. He quite eloquently answered that we don't know who that is, and that we probably "haven't heard the name yet".
Stutzman praised Behney for his answer and expressed regret that he had to follow it. He broke the ice with naming specific people and named Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, which proved to be a popular choice with the audience.
Hostettler said he voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and would gladly vote for him again.
Coats mentioned a "Jim Harmon". I have no idea who that is, but Coats seemed to know him from his time in Washington and said we needed someone who could bring two sides together and not be combative. I give him credit for an outside the box answer.
Bates expressed unabashed support for his Representative, Mike Pence. Another popular answer with the crowd.
Coming away from the debate, if I had to vote today I'd probably vote Stutzman, who seemed to strike the right balance of being experienced enough to know what he's doing, but without being tainted with the stench of being a career politician. Coats did well enough to overcome fears of being the "Republican Washington establishment's" hand-picked candidate. I came away liking him and I'd be comfortable with him as my Senator. Bates was impressive enough to keep tabs on. Both he and Coats still have a very realistic chance to win me over between now and May 4. Hostettler was impressive in his knowledge, but his demeanor was a big turnoff. Behney seems like a good guy, but just not ready for prime time.
I'd be remiss if I didn't give some praise to Dr. Michael Harstine, a local professor not connected with Kosciusko Silent No More or any Tea Party organization who was brought in to moderate the debate in the most impartial manner possible. He and I attend the same church and I know him well enough to know he's a really good guy. I've also taught his kids in Sunday School, and can say that he and his wife have done a great job as parents. And this morning he did an impressive job as moderator with organizations like Fox News, Fort Wayne's WOWO and Chicago's WGN looking in on the event.
UPDATE: I made a point in church this morning to let Mike know he did well with moderating the debate.
According to both Fox News and the South Bend Tribune, Marlin Stutzman won the straw poll at the event. The vote was broken down by both Kosciusko County residents and overall.
KOSCIUSKO COUNTY:
Marlin Stutzman 39 Richard Behney 20 Don Bates Jr 15 John Hostettler 7 Dan Coats 3
OVERALL:
Marlin Stutzman 80 Richard Behney 76 Don Bates Jr 47 John Hostettler 18 Dan Coats 16
It's interesting to note that the two candidates that the national media consider the front runners, Dan Coats and John Hostettler, finished fourth and fifth. It should be said that this was a Tea Party related event. Behney and Bates are the Tea Party candidates, and Stutzman is a favorite of Tea Party friendly Republicans like RedState's Erick Erickson. Stutzman's district also covers a small part of Kosciusko County, though it doesn't extend to the city of Warsaw, where the event was held. As a Warsaw resident I hadn't heard of the guy until he was being talked about on RedState. Still, I think that Stutzman's win had more to do with his ability to rise above the bickering that took place during the debate rather than purely geographical concerns.
And on a purely egotistical note, I've been quoted over on this blog on Northwest Indiana politics. Sure, it's not nearly the same as being quote by, say, HotAir or Ace of Spades, but hey, it's something.
Very interesting. I didn't go, but I'm glad to hear your opinions.
you're an Indiana man?
@ShamelesslyRed - Not a born and bred Hoosier--I grew up in Ohio--but I've spent most of my adult life in the general vicinity of South Bend and Fort Wayne.
I have taken a hard look at all the candidates and Marlin Stutzman is a true full spectrum conservative. He has constantly fought for Hoosiers in the statehouse. He has not given in to the good old boy club. He was the first candidate to jump into the race when Bayh was still running. He and his family have traveled over 21k miles across state listening to what the people have to say. Check him out!
Comments (4)
Very interesting. I didn't go, but I'm glad to hear your opinions.
you're an Indiana man?
@ShamelesslyRed - Not a born and bred Hoosier--I grew up in Ohio--but I've spent most of my adult life in the general vicinity of South Bend and Fort Wayne.
I have taken a hard look at all the candidates and Marlin Stutzman is a true full spectrum conservative. He has constantly fought for Hoosiers in the statehouse. He has not given in to the good old boy club. He was the first candidate to jump into the race when Bayh was still running. He and his family have traveled over 21k miles across state listening to what the people have to say. Check him out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDQfxoSIaic
http://gomarlin.com/