PEORIA -- What if two candidates in a hotly contested election held a debate and ignored some of the most important issues in the race?
That's what happened in the Oct. 25 debate between two year incumbent Cong. Bobby Schilling and challenger Cheri Bustos, in an event televised on WTVP-TV, Channel 47 in Peoria, C-Span, and two NPR radio stations.
They are vying for the newly drawn 17th District seat in Congress. Schilling, a Republican, was elected in 2010, defeating a Democrat. The district was redrawn to favor a Democratic candidate, but the race is close.
I was in the audience, and I believe Democrat Bustos won. But lame questions from the three journalists -- two from NPR stations and a Bradley University journalism student -- seemed designed to keep the event non-controversial, even boring.
Outside before the show began, supporters from both candidates held lively competing rallys in a hard, cold rainstorm. The Peoria Journal Star had an interesting web story on that confrontation, but took it down and replaced it with a story on the debate itself.
Then inside, with the cameras rolling, the candidates were asked about how to develop jobs, how they would help voters in the large district, what is to be done about cutting the US budget deficit, free trade, even how they could lower gasoline prices.
In return, both candidates turned to the talking points of their respective parties.
Schilling said he is 'green' and supports clean air and clean water. Then he railed against too much regulation of business and against the EPA -- a contradiction which Bustos ignored.
She made more specific points during the debate, and in my opinion won it. But she missed many opportunities to explose the tea party-backed Schilling's support for the wacky ideas of his party.
(For an interesting story on what would likely occur under a Romney/Ryan administration, which Schilling would support, read this.)
Here's the PJS story on the debate.
There were no questions about reproductive rights for women, and this hot, hot issue was not mentioned. Schilling, a Catholic, is anti-choice, and I believe he supports allowing employers to pick and choose what medical procedures and drugs are available under Obamacare -- which means he supports denying women contraceptives if the boss decides to do that. He likely supports the notorious 'personhood' amendment, which would give rights to embryos.
For all we know, he believes God approves of rape or sends pregnancy to punish a woman who tempted a man to rape her.
He at least could have been asked whether he disagrees with anything in the notorious Republican Party platform. He wasn't asked.
And he likely will vote to ditch Obamacare, and probably already has voted that way since the House has cast many votes on that program. That wasn't mentioned.
There was no mention of global warming/climate change, after the hottest summer on record in Illinois, combined with drought. There was no mention of foreign policy, wars, drones, civil liberties, immigration, student loan debt, forclosures, and a host of other issues dominating the national scene.
There was no mention of poverty, even though many, many people in the 17th District are poor.
The two quarreled over Medicare without making it clear that Schilling supports Paul Ryan's voucher plan. The word 'voucher' was never uttered.
They argued over whether the plan Schilling supports will 'save' Medicare, and whether it will cost seniors more out of pocket.
Bustos clearly has the better plan to 'save' Medicare. She would preserve it as it is, while cutting costs by allowing conpetitive bidding for drugs and computerizing records to improve efficiency.
Schilling worries that a bureaucrat will get between the doctor and patient. But I guess that's OK if it's the boss picking what insurance coverage women receive. (No contraceptives, but ED drugs are covered?)
Have candidates turned into lawyers, who never ask a question in court that they don't already know the answer to?
That is, the candidates seem to utter only phrases that have been rehearsed, perhaps focus-tested, regardless of the questions of the journalists, and what the opponent says or doesn't say.
And the journalists let then get away with it.
Bustos seemed more spontaneous with a better grasp of facts and specific plans.
Maybe that's the way to appeal to conservative Midwesterners who hate confrontation. But it made for a colorless debate, beige instead of red or blue.
If I were a teacher, Bustos would get a 'B' and Schilling would get a 'C.'
-- Elaine Hopkins
Comments