One typically expects that a longtime incumbent will easily manage a newcomer-challenger. Those conventional expectations were upset last week. Lori Compas matched Scott Fitzgerald in last Wednesday’s candidate debate between the incumbent majority leader and his recall challenger for the 13th Senate District. A libertarian on the ballot, Dr. Terry Virgil, was sadly not invited to participate. (I’m unaffiliated any of these campaigns.)
A description of the scene, and assessment of the debaters’ presentations, appears below.
The crowd was feisty, in a packed house, and those who went saw a good debate. It was great fun. (The hour was recorded, and is embedded below, for those who didn’t have a chance to attend. My remarks are from my notes of the 5.23.12 debate.)
Wisconsin Senate District 13 Candidates Recall Debate from Jefferson Community Television on Vimeo.
The Forum.
The two candidates sat a small, rectangular table, at the front of the Jefferson High School auditorium, both facing the same direction. That arrangement was meant, presumably, for the convenience of the live audience, as it’s a poor situation for television (where having the debaters face each other at an angle makes for better viewing).
It’s the habit of many communities to call debates like this a forum, rather than a debate, but it was…a debate, nonetheless.
Opening Remarks.
Fitzgerald spoke first, then Compas. Fitzgerald began with an overly formal word of thanks, and then spoke to create a contrast between himself and Compas. (Overly formal: he spoke perfunctorily, and thanked, for example, the ‘Daily Jefferson County Union,’ but no one calls it that. The contrast: “…look forward to a discussion…about what are her specific positions, and whether or not they’re in line with what I think the people of the 13th District want to hear…”)
Want to hear? Doesn’t the Senate Majority Leader mean believe? Want to hear is what incumbents who want to win think matters.
Compas spoke thereafter, smiling broadly, and while doing so, reminded the audience that it was her invitation to debate that Fitzgerald accepted. Her opening remarks centered mostly on other people – her family, people she’d met, people she hoped to meet. Those remarks included a mention of Fitzgerald, who had, she observed, no prior political office before he won a seat in the state senate, years ago.
Watching the opening remarks – and really, the whole debate — one saw an incumbent who really didn’t want to share the stage with a challenger, but by contrast a challenger who was delighted to be there, and to state her case.
The Questions.
The candidates answered a series of questions that moderator Michael Clish posed, on these topics: collective bargaining, quorum breaking, senior care and Badger Care, reductions to business regulations (including for mining), the deer czar’s plans, pollution in the district, state income tax policies, vocational schools, the state university system, tax credits, alternative energy, employment and job creation, among others.
General Demeanor.
It’s easy to see which candidate is the incumbent – the one who talks using insiders’ jargon and acronyms. People are smart and know what these terms mean, but when they hear these abbreviations they are also reminded which candidate has developed an alternative (and aloof) way of speaking.
Funny moment, about halfway through – Republican Scott Fitzgerald told the audience that he was excited about an uptick in tax receipts as evidence that Wisconsin’s economy is improving. Fitzgerald even enthused about these additional tax receipts, that he was “excited about what we saw in March and April, and I hope we see the same thing in May. It means that corporations are hiring here in Wisconsin…”
That’s both false and bad policy, and real evidence of how far the Republican Party has drifted into big-government conservatism. First, additional corporate tax receipts are not proof of hiring, but only of additional taxable income government may take – income that can come in the absence of any incremental employment. Second, consider how odd it is that Republicans feel that additional taxes to be used for future government spending are proof of a healthy economy.
Oh, brother. Republicans don’t start out this way – they wind up this way after too much time in office. Excited about more tax receipts? That’s not time in office, that’s too much time in office.
Compas’s reply: “I would encourage the Senator to just look round. I think a lot of us are hurting…”
Specific Points.
Despite the difference in political experience, Compas held her own in this debate. It’s not that Fitzgerald isn’t knowledgeable – he is. It’s that Compas, although relatively soft-spoken, is smart and knowledgeable, too. She’s familiar with these issues (and was was willing to say what she thought didn’t matter, as with comprehensive tax reform).
Fitzgerald responded awkwardly, rather than in a relaxed manner.
Second, and here was Fitzgerald’s problem – he was just not very comfortable in this setting. He relaxed about halfway in, but that was already twenty-six minutes too late. Then he drifted back to an edgy, hostile defense of reductions to public employee bargaining rights. Compas told him that he was exhibiting a divide-and-conquer strategy, and he got more frustrated still.
Television is unforgiving of anger. One can be angry in person, in an outdoor speech, or one-on-one way from cameras – but as for television, there’s calm & cool, and then there’s failure. (Reagan in an early 1980 GOP debate was one of the few exceptions.) Fitzgerald got irritated too quickly, took umbrage too quickly, put pride in the way of a cool, relaxed, effective presentation against a challenger.
A summary of the evening, in a few words: Fitzgerald foolishly said that he found what Compas was saying ‘hard to take.” (Nothing, of course, about the debate should be hard for a seasoned incumbent to take.) The moderator asked, “Are we done on this one?” and Compas replied, “No, let’s keep going.”
There’s the dynamic of the debate, captured in a single exchange.
Recall-organizer and candidate Lori Compas held her own, showed she enjoyed the evening, and so carried the debate.
