The ongoing circus that is the 82nd District State House representatives race goes on, with another debate this past Tuesday.
Once again, all the Republican candidates showed up, even the elusive Todd Courser, who's made claims more than once that the debate's co-moderator, Jeff Hogan of the County Press, is part of some progressive conspiracy against him. However, this time Margaret Guererro DeLuca wasn't the only Democrat to appear; R.D. Bohm dropped in to do his best Grandpa Simpson impersonation, while I'm not entirely certain that Eric Johnson even actually exists.
Now, I didn't make it to the debate until relatively late in the evening, the audio portion of the Lapeer Tea Party's video of the event cut out pretty badly til about an hour in, and LapeerNow has yet to post the video they took that night, so this will be an unfortunately incomplete breakdown, to (hopefully!) be updated if and when the rest of the video from the evening surfaces.
We start, then, with the fourth question of the evening: Essentially, what would be the candidates' biggest priorities upon getting elected? Guererro stressed operational excellence (more on that later in this post), less regulation on small and home-based businesses. DeLuca's focus was on attracting skilled trade jobs to Lapeer County. Howell's priorities were jobs, education, and roads, emphasizing the Ed-Tech program and utilizing the gas tax specifically for fixing the roads and not MDOT overhead. Kempf touched on bringing business to Lapeer County and over-regulation, particularly on homeowners. Landosky acknowledged that Lapeer has a job problem, but a training problem as well. Peabody spoke of jobs, streamlining government, and veterans. Tuski mentioned the state budget, and a desire to serve on the Appropriations Committee, to find out how much money is being sent to Lansing and how much it's getting back. Adams expressed disappointment in the consolidation of the Department of Human Services with the Department of Community Health, and the loss of jobs and funding in the former, also proposing to solve the employment problem through more education and training in skilled trades. Bohm started by promising to hold Gov. Snyder's feet to the fire, and railed against the Catastrophic Accident Fund, lamenting that there is $57 billion in it that is unaccounted for and that could be used elsewhere, specifically using $3 billion of that for roads. (In what would be a running theme, Bohm went over time quite a bit, with the moderator attempting to cut him off twice on this question alone, to no avail.) Courser spent most of his time lecturing the audience that it's not the government's role to create jobs, and that "you can have all the government you want, but you gotta pay for it." Smith touched on agriculture and skilled trades, citing Ed-Tech in particular: "This building right here is where I decided not to go to college." As for jobs, she pointed out several places in the area that were hiring: "there's jobs out there; look for them." Davison stressed cutting taxes to create a better environment for jobs, pointed out that he has pledged to never vote for a tax increase, and called out Republicans for supporting a gas tax increase. Dewilde mentioned education and infrastructure as two major factors in creating a better climate for businesses to move to Lapeer.
Next, the candidates were asked what they would do "to promote problem solving over politics." Tuski touched on the importance of crossing the aisle to get things done. Adams emphasized the gridlock on a roads bill as a symptom of the problem in Lansing, calling out Courser specifically: "It's easy to be conservative when you say 'no' to everything, but you won't get anything done if you just keep on saying no!" Bohm stressed the lack of voting and attention paid to elections such as these in non-presidential or gubernatorial years. Courser, naturally, rephrased the question altogether as "How are you an effective legislator?" and answered with "I guess you have to define effective" and accused his Republican colleagues of "selling off liberty" while not answering the original question in the slightest. Smith made the point that it's a necessity to value all opinions, regardless of political ideology. Davison spoke of finding those moderates on the other side that would be receptive to supporting his legislation, then went on to remind everyone of his experience working for Jud Gilbert. Dewilde stressed seeking a consensus and working with other sides. Guererro echoed Courser's sentiments, also emphasizing putting the Constitution first; "no negotiating there." DeLuca stressed "common sense decisions" while expressing skepticism that any of her Republican opponents would actually be willing to oppose the more loathsome bills passed by their own party, despite the rhetoric of some that claim they'd do just that. Howell then claimed "I am the Republican who's going to Lansing to repeal the things that Republicans have passed that are not right for our state," specifically the senior pension tax. Kempf cited his experience as a county commissioner and running the Eastern Michigan Fairgrounds as proof that he can work across the board. Landosky was incredulous at the fact that the legislature saw the voters rejected Proposal 1 as an unacceptable fix for the roads, yet still could not put together a better roads bill. Peabody cited her experience in a non-partisan line of work as proof that she can work with others in a political setting, yet made clear she won't compromise her stance on guns, abortion, or fiscal issues.
Then the topic once again turned to gun control, and Sen. Mike Green's bill to allow CPL's in schools. Bohm was against, confused by the fact that "even my dog has to have a license" but most of his opponents feel that handguns shouldn't. Courser once again reiterated his desire to have zero gun restrictions at all, claiming "the Second Amendment is my right to carry." Smith made clear she too was against gun-free zones, though she touched on mental health as an issue. Dewilde said he'd support the bill, as long as those allowed to carry were well-trained, but would still support not allowing guns in bars. Guererro opposes the bill because it eliminates open-carry in schools. DeLuca called BS on the "gun-free zone" narrative, pointing out that the recent Oregon shooting wasn't in a gun-free zone. She went on to say that having talked to teachers, most of them are opposed to such a bill. Kempf again stressed the need for more liason officers in schools, but supports the bill because of the extra training offered, as did Landosky. Peabody supported the bill and Kempf's call for more officers in schools, Adams supported CPL's in schools, and Tuski avoided the question.
The last question before closing statements was also the most interesting one. Candidates were asked which of their opponents would get their vote if they weren't running. Peabody started things off by stammering her way through a non-answer. Tuski chose Smith, whom he voted for in the last primary. Adams absolutely stunned me by throwing his support behind DeLuca: "She actually impresses me!" Naturally, Bohm endorsed his fellow Democrat as well. Courser made sure to start off by pointing out that it wouldn't be DeLuca, then selecting Guererro as the only candidate he could possibly vote for. Davison chose Howell with Kempf as his second choice, adding "that doesn't mean anyone else should, but if you can't stand me, vote for Gary." DeLuca called Courser out for attacking her as "pro-big government," then chose Howell "because he does the research." Not surprisingly, Dewilde narrowed his options to Adams or DeLuca. You could tell Guererro Jr. didn't want to say it, but he finally admitted that he doesn't "believe anybody would support the Constitution like Courser." Landosky backed Howell, Smith supported Adams, and Kempf said he'd endorse Howell because "when he's done running, he would probably endorse me!" Howell surprisingly threw his theoretical support behind Smith, "but ignore my advice and vote for Howell. A few I talked to afterwards thought this somewhat disingenuous, and expected his answer would be Kempf.
Finally, I did get a chance to speak in person to most of the candidates following the debate. (Full disclosure: I'm friends on social media with Davison, Kempf, Adams, DeLuca, Guererro, and inexplicably, Peabody, and have had a few policy debates with a few of them online and in-person.) In no particular order:
-I asked Rick Guererro to follow up on a discussion we'd had on Facebook after my last debate recap, where I stated I felt that he had dodged the MEDC question. He responded by asserting that through implementing "operational excellency" programs the state could eliminate the need for "picking winners and losers" with the MEDC. On Tuesday, he went on to explain to me that by implementing such operational efficiency programs as 6sigma within state government (a point which DeLuca also mentioned during the debate), he believes the need would lessen for what he referred to as "cumbersome" taxes that cause businesses to seek tax relief elsewhere. Might still not agree with him on a lot of things, but I give him quite a bit of credit for being willing to respond to my line of questioning in the first place and putting serious thought into his answers.
-A common theme was disillusionment with the current state of the Republican Party, but not for the reasons that Courser has asserted. Jim Dewilde, one of the most moderate Republicans in the field, indicated to me that "this is no longer the party I first joined years ago," and that he's running in an attempt to change it from within, but not in the direction in which Courser seeks to do so. Russ Adams echoed his sentiments, conceding that he understands why so many are jaded by the GOP, particularly in light of Courser's actions during his tenure.
-My discussion with Kempf was far more informal, as the first time I met him, at the GOP booth at Lapeer Days, I had interrogated him over the roads, economy, and the then-current rep's unwillingness to work with anybody and whether he'd be any different, which he made very clear he would. Same for both DeLuca and Davison, the latter interrupted by a now ex-Facebook friend of his voicing her displeasure with him.
-Bohm was rather interesting post-debate, as much so as you'd expect from a guy who showed up wearing a hardhat with his name spelled out on it; his main point was that we shouldn't be wasting time on things like gay marriage and abortion (neither of which have been addressed in either debate), but rather... the fact that China is trying to set up a land base on the moon, while we're "wasting money" on exploring Mars. You can't make this stuff up.
Most of the candidates came off a lot better than in the prior debate; Chris Tuski had a better showing than the last debate, particularly when asked about his priorities when elected, and Russ Adams did a far better job of staying on point and reined in the fire from the first debate, while still coming across as passionate about the issues he spoke of. Bohm, while he had some interesting answers, probably didn't do much to sway Democratic voters away from DeLuca. Courser, of course, was defiant as ever throughout, and it's hard to see him winning anybody other than the die-hards over with his performances. Peabody once again had trouble at times articulating her points and directly answering questions, and it's no doubt the outside lobbyist support and mailers, and not her public speaking ability, keeping her in this race. Guererro did much better at explaining his positions, though it remains to be seen which candidate will be hurt more his association with Courser. You'd have to imagine that Guererro would siphon votes from those who like Courser's fiscal policy stances, but not the baggage that comes with the man himself. And there's little doubt that's what he's counting on. But as distasteful as many find Courser to be all around, embracing him and his stances is a risky proposition.
There's one more event for the Democratic candidates on Thursday at the County Center Building, which I plan to do my best to attend, if only to find out once and for all if Eric Johnson is a real person, or just how long it takes for somebody to get Bohm to give up the microphone. After that, the results of the County Press questionnaire for the candidates will be published next Sunday, after which I'll do one final pre-election roundup.
No comments:
Post a Comment