Play-It-Safe Debate has Few Fireworks

Both candidates chickened out by agreeing to debate rules and a format that virtually guaranteed no suprises and made the audience superfluous.

The rules gave the candidates 3 minutes each to answer the questions from the panel. The panel also had to repeat each question again before the second candidate answered it. The candidates were not allowed to ask each other questions. Audience members were threatened with expulsion for applauding, holding signs, taking pictures (even without flash), or any other normal human activity. They might as well have put mannequins in the chairs.

With few exceptions, the debate devolved to a recitations of talking points. Sestak quoted facts and figures about jobs, the economy, health care costs and education. Weldon named dropped practically every community program or Delco notable he had interacted with in the past 20 years. Sestak repeatedly tied Weldon's voting record to Bush's policies. Weldon dug up votes or fights where he went against the administration or his own party.
It was more like watching separate sets of 3 minute commercials than a debate.

One of the major flaws with this format is the time lag in responses. For example: Sestak answers question A, Weldon answers question A then Weldon gets question B. Sestak winds up spends a minute of his 3 minutes on question B rebutting comments made by Weldon six minutes earlier on question A. This was even more confusiing to follow because the candidates would often spend a minute injecting unrelated talking points before getting around to the question actually asked.

After a tepid and caution first half, the second half of the debate had some more light and slightly more heat.

Some highlights:
On the issue of residency, Sestak made the case that he grew up here, has large family here and he's spent the last 31 years defending the residents of this district, (including Curt Weldon), and that time away should not count as a liability. Weldon displayed his encylopedic knowledge of the district and local players. Weldon made some very effective points regarding his efforts/risks fighting several famous fires in the 1970s.
The only issue here is whether Sestak was able to deflect Weldon's portrayal of Joe as an outsider and if voters are willing to grant him credit for time served at sea.
At one point, Weldon directly challenged Sestak to name the director of a local community organization. As Sestak started to respond, the moderator stepped in to enforce the rule that the candidates not question each other directly. Snooze.

On the issue of Iraq, Weldon challenged that if Sestak really opposed the war from the beginning, he should have resigned in protest. Sestak's response was that he expressed his concerns to his superiors, but thought it would be wrong to abandon the men and women under his command at the beginning of a conflict. The real issue here for voters is whether they agree with Weldon's vote and the different approaches to handle the current situation. Weldon's approach would involve putting military leaders in charge of pullout and timetables. Sestak claimed that Weldon's approach was not constitutional regarding civilian control of the military. Sestak favors a setting a "date certain" for pullout before the end of 2007.

Frankly, I think they both have it wrong. Fixing Iraq requires an official US apology to Iraq and the world to begin repairing our image. Instead of half-assed troop levels, we should either pull back to the borders for a containment policy or set troop levels proportional to the level of violence. If it increases, we increase. When it disappears, so do we. Finally, the US government should NOT shield tortures that violated the Geneva conventions, or the leaders that okayed the torture. "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse. We should not shy away from prosecuting our own war criminals.

The issue of Boeing came up. Weldon is practically considered a religious figure that brought life to Boeing. Sestak challenged this by referring to his own efforts to create a budget that included the V-22 and going to Jack Murtha on the Appropriations Committee where the real choice is made. Well, this was like telling kids that there is no Santa (Weldon) and that mom and daddy (Sestak/Murtha) had been wrapping all those gifts (contracts). To Weldon, this was heresy. He referred to his efforts prior to Sestak's and accused Sestak of taking false credit. It is unclear if Sestak can steal any of Weldon's thunder regarding Boeing, but Sestak's narative may generate some rain on Weldon's parade if enough people hear it. Sestak pointed to the decline in Boeing jobs in recent years. However, most Weldon fans would merely say the decline would be worst without Weldon's efforts.

Regarding the airport, both oppose the flying over Delco. However, considering the clout of Philly and other areas that don't want the air traffic, I think both candidates are full of false optimism that either of them can make any real difference.

On immigration, both candidates agree it is a federal issue. To stem the tide of illegal immigrants, Weldon advocates the 700 mile fence. Sestak favors un-manned drones monitoring the border with law enforcers directed to locations. Regarding current illegals immigrants, Weldon is against amnesty, but wants to defer action until the border problem is solved. Sestak is willing to make people "legal" after back-taxes or appropriate penalties.

My score:
The debate was pretty much a tie, but in this election, hardly a wash. Weldon suffers from credibility issues due to his votes with the Bush adminstration, Iraq and the overall feeling about Congress. Weldon comes off more like the Mayor of Delco than a congressman. Sestak is clearly a national candidate. The question is whether or not the 7th district voters connect the local and the national issues. Their past tendency has been to vote Dem at the top of the ticket and Rep locally.

This is where a "tie" helps Sestak. Standing even with Weldon in a debate, he raises not only his profile but likelihood that voters will see him a credible alternative to a 20-year incumbant.
In that regard, Sestak cleared the hurdle. He may also have moved the perception of where on the ticket to draw the line for what constitutes a local race.

Joe's oratory skills have improved over the course of the campaign. He has the talking points down cold, though occasionally seemed to have so many facts/figures that he had to break his cadence to pick the one he wanted. He still tends to be long-winded and dry with recitations that feel over rehearsed or drained by repetition of any spontaneity.

Weldon is more at ease on the particulars, but also more defensive and animated. Weldon's shoot-from-the-hip style gives him an illusion of sincerity, but fails to bring any intellectual depth to the debate either. Weldon talks more about past glories or local activities in place of any real plans for the future or national vision.

I hope the candidates will consider a more lively format for the next round. This time, the candidates were separated at far ends of the stage by 4 panelists and the moderator as if they were school children that had to be kept apart. Next time, the candidates should be closer to each other and facing the panelists (and audience) like in the presidential debates.
But the most important change should be in the timing for the questions. Shorter times would force the candidates to indicate their positions concisely and prevent them from wandering off onto talking points unrelated to the questions at hand. Finally, this would allow the panelists to get in more questions on a wider variety of subjects.
Also, a DEBATE should have more point-counterpoint-rebuttal built into the format to get an exchange of ideas. Candidates should be willing to accept direct question or two from each other on issues not covered by the panelists.

TO BOTH CANDIDATES: If elected, you are going to be debating the issues of the day in the House of Representatives. Next time, don't pick such cowardly, play-it-safe debating rules as you did this round. A live audience should be allowed the freedom of polite applause or occasional spontaneity. Filming the debate in private and playing it for a live audience would have been better than the current arrangement. The voters deserve better. The voters deserve a REAL debate.