Thoughts on the Warsaw, Indiana Republican Senate Debate
An enormous eagle, inflated outside the Warsaw debate by a local Tea Party group
It was obvious as soon as the debate began which candidates believed themselves to be the frontrunners. Former Congressman John Hostettler and former Senator Dan Coats within minutes began to bicker and tear each other down. Coats was the biggest target of the night. A recent bank lobbyist and Virginia resident, Coats returned to Indiana late in the race only after polls showed Evan Bayh to be vulnerable. His candidacy was encouraged and greeted enthusiastically by the Washington Republican establishment, but skeptically and even bitterly by the grassroots Republicans in Indiana who had been campaigning against Bayh for a year. Indianapolis Tea Party organizer Richard Beheny set the tone for the event when he used his opening statement to welcome Senator Coats back to Indiana. Others more subtlety jabbed Coats and his record, but the one person Coats singled out aggressively was Hostettler. The two clearly don’t like each other, or at the very least see each other as the largest obstacle to the nomination .
Coats was facing a hostile crowd, but by the end of the debate he had won their respect if not their votes. He was very polished, very knowledgeable, and very enthusiastic. That’s not to say he wasn’t without significant missteps. In response to a question about term limits, he bizarrely declared that his dedication to term limits led him to drop out of the race against Evan Bayh in 1998—which begs the question of why he is running now. Surprisingly, none of the other candidates called him out specifically on this claim, and the one attack made on subject was directed at all three of the political office holders on the stage and devolved into a squabble between Hostettler and Richmond financial advisor Don Bates, Jr. (discussed below).
Bates and Behney have the least political experience of the group (that is to say, none), and both wear it as a badge of honor. When asked what distinguished him from the other candidates, Behney declared that the other men wanted to hold office. “I don’t want to be Senator,” he said. “I’m just ticked off.” His lack of political experience, however, may lead to a lack of political knowledge. He lacked specifics and gave a lot of vague answers that he would know to avoid if he learned anything from Sarah Palin’s mistakes. What federal departments would he cut? “How about all of them,” he answered. What entitlements would he cut? “All of them,” he answered.
Specifics were not a problem for John Hostettler. The man is a walking Constitutional database. He managed to answer nearly every question by putting it into the context of some specific section and article of the Constitution. He was also the most aggressive of all the candidates, which sometimes gave him the appearance of having a mean streak. After Don Bates, Jr. accused him of breaking his “Contract with America” pledge for term limits, Hostettler pointed out that the pledge merely bound signatories to allow a vote on the floor of the House, not to actually support the implementation of term limits. This is why some of the candidates “can’t be trusted,” Hostettler said, adding that the reality was different than what Bates “thought he read.” It was a direct attack on Bates’s trustworthiness and a subtle attack on his intelligence. It provoked groans from the audience. Hostettler would probably have been better off with a gentler rebuttal, especially since his explanation embodied the sort of nuanced, legalistic, misleading reasoning that people tend to hate about Washington.
Being shot down by Hostettler, and delivering a whiny, “I’m really disappointed” response, were probably low points in the debate for Bates, who otherwise preformed quite well. Bates played the part of the much-needed peacemaker. After nearly every spat between candidates, he would take a step back and remind everyone that in the end, we’ll all need to support the Republican nominee. He also nearly always answered questions with specificity, and didn’t attempt to dodge them. “I’m not going to wax eloquent,” he said at one point after all of his colleagues gave vague and noncommittal answers to who should be the next president of the United States (Bates unabashedly supports Mike Pence). It played well with the audience, and he was interrupted quite a few times with applause—even though they were told to refrain from clapping. For someone with virtually no name recognition in the northern part of the state, his connection with the audience was impressive.
Victory in the debate, however, belonged to citizen legislator and family farmer Marlin Stutzman. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted for Stutzman in the straw poll afterwards, and I have for some time intended to vote for him in the May primary (and hopefully in November as well). I have a sneaking suspicion that the Tea Party leadership that hosted the debate supported him as well—Stutzman got the center podium, surrounded by Behney and Hostettler, with Bates and Coats relegated to the fringes. Part of Stutzman’s State Senate district runs through Kosciusko County, and this was clearly his territory.
But attempting to step aside from those biases, Stutzman still has clear strengths that would lead me to declare him the victor. His time as a farmer gives him a great connection with his Hoosier constituency, and he was able to masterfully weave his experience on the farm into his arguments about budgetary and tax issues. He was the happy warrior of the group—conservative, but not angry about it. He stayed on message, and wasn’t drawn into any particularly nasty squabbles—though the ever aggressive Hostettler did target his tax record in the State Senate. Stutzman delivered an adequate rebuttal, and the issue was left there. He also got the biggest applause line of the debate when he delivered a call for Washington to behave more like Indiana government—where there are citizen legislators who have to return home and “live under the laws” they enact.
These are exciting times to be a political junkie in Indiana. It’s a great time to be a conservative in Indiana. This is going to be a vigorous Senate primary and a vigorous general election campaign. Regardless of the outcome, I look forward to the fight.
Update via the South Bend Tribune:
Straw Poll Results
Marlin Stutzman 80
Richard Behney 76
Don Bates, Jr. 47
John Hostettler 18
Dan Coats 16
Related posts:
“He lacked specifics and gave a lot of vague answers that he would know to avoid if he learned anything from Sarah Palin’s mistakes. What federal departments would he cut? “How about all of them,” he answered. What entitlements would he cut? “All of them,” he answered.” What Behney said was to start he’d cut them all by 1%. That seems pretty specific to me.
I am a Hostettler supporter myself, but I like what you had to say! Thanks for the good info!
and I have to say, if hostettler wasn’t in the race, Marlin would definitely get my vote!
I hope the following excerpt is appropriate, as a Stutzman supporter myself I was quite pleased with reports including yours that Marlin won a worthy debate:
Northwest Indiana Politics on Senate Debate at Warsaw Tea Party
Thanks for the info and I also appreciate Kathy and mari’s posts. We all must try to temper our biases and in the end support whomever wins on May 4th. However, I find the other side to be “not as nice” and that means we’ll need a LION in the Senate to oppose the Frankens and Durbins. For example, then Senator Obama opposed passing legislation by reconciliation. True to his progressive nature, the ends now justify the means. While Stutzman may be a “happy warrior” we need a reluctant leader (eg. G Washington) with SPINE to stand up to the progressives. For all of the positives, I don’t think that LION is Stutzman. Hostettler and Coates have been in DC, so for me they are out. Only Behney is neither politician nor lawyer and has my unwavering support.
I was unable to attend the debate so thanks for the rundown. The “lack of specifics” does bother me as that shows someone who does not know enough to make an adequate argument both on the Senate floor and behind the closed doors in the Senate offices. I, for one, want specifics out of my candidate. Right now, I am still torn between Hostettler and Stuzman.
What is interesting about the tea parties, is that when they first started coming together and rising up, the cry was to clean out Washington of the same ‘old politicians, and get some new blood and faces in there. Now, little by little, people are forgetting that battle cry and slipping back into the familiar. I agree with what was said before. Stutzman is a “happy warrior”; a great guy, but he doesn’t have the spine to do what it takes in Washington. Hostettler and definitely Coats are just more of the same politicians. I suspect Coats said what he thought the people present yesterday wanted to hear. He’s a politician, people! He knew his audience. Put him in front of a GOP audience, and his chameleon color will change. I’ve actually seen that happen with Bates. He acts one way in GOP meetings, and another way at Tea Party meetings. He also plays to the crowd, and has an annoying ego. You never hear him talk about “us” and “we” — its always about “me” and “my” accomplishments.
Behney is the one guy who doesn’t care about politics the conventional way. I love that! He cares about getting the people’s voice into DC, and is depending on the people’s support to get him in there. You may say that he didn’t provide specifics…I say he did. He wants to start by cutting the budget by 1% – that covers everything! He’s an anti-entitlement guy, so he wants to get rid of all of them. Why choose one? If more men like Behney would stand up across the country and be elected into congress, maybe they’d make some strides towards returning our country to the people, and stop messing around with our money and our lives.
Very interesting take on the Bates vs. Hostettler fiasco.
The question originated as which Constitutional Amendment the candidates would promote (barring the latest proposal from Rep Pence). Three candidates voiced their opinions, then Bates went. He meandered through several appointments – instead of picking just one (typical political pandering – get as many mentioned as possible before picking just one). During that process, he specifically mentioned term limits (but didn’t pick it as the ONE he’d go for – he just mentioned it to dig at three of the others).
After Behney’s response, in which he said he’d go for term limits (Behney is on record as saying that his first bill introduced or sponsored would be for Term Limits), Coats followed up with the insistence that he had term limited himself in the Senate and fulfilled a promise.
Then Stutzman jumped in to dodge the term limits question: “I think that we have other opportunities and that we can do without a Constitutional amendment on Term Limits,” and instead went down the path of “citizen legislature with limited time in DC (a good idea -but still a dodge on Term Limits). Coats followed up with the insistance that he had term limited himself in the Senate and fulfilled a promise.
Hostettler then rebutted, and asked Bates for clarifications on his remarks. Bates called Hostettler out about signing the Contract with America
Then Bates used a rebuttal card to say:
“I think it’s interesting to note that the three [current or past politicians] on this stage who have spent quite a lot – all of them – in politics, are not honoring the term limit pledge…”
Hostettler then used his rebuttal to question Bates about which “term limits pledge” he was referring to. Bates responded with the Contract with America:
“One of the pledges in the Contract With America” was that we would push for term limits”
Hostettler then corrects Bates – rightly so – that the CwA does NOT say that the signators to the CwA would push for term limits. It specifically says that:
“Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny, ” and includes item #10 term limits.
Hostettler was correcting Bates miss-stating his record – for which I applaud him. As much as Bates has bragged about spending his money on hiring Mike Pence’s former election team – one would think that these gents who Bates calls “The best team in the business” would have educated their candidate better.
I believe, after listening to the video from that section of the debate several times, that Hostettler is out of touch with the Tea Party folks who see long term politicians as the problem – not as the solution. That was what they were booing: that he didn’t support term limits – not that he was calling out Bates.
Overall, once the situation of the CwA is understood – Bates looks like the loser in this one. Hostettler isn’t far behind due to not supporting term limits – but then again – neither does Stutzman.
Thanks for all the comments, and a special thanks to “daltonsbriefs” for plugging the Wabash Conservative Union blog.
Let me say that I think Behney’s problem in the debate was a problem of perception. “All of them” is an answer that may well correctly characterize his beliefs, and those beliefs may well be good for the country — but it tells us nothing about his grasp of the issues. It was an easy answer that played well with a large part of the audience, but it was an answer that almost anyone, regardless of his competence, could give. Answering “I would cut Medicare, and here is how and why” would give me more confidence that he would be an effective legislator and wouldn’t be in over his head when he reached the United States Senate.
Your answer of “I would cut Medicare, and here is how and why” would probably best be explicitly explained in a forum where the candidate isn’t limited to 2 minutes, or whatever the time was that they had. The best way to hear EXACTLY where any of the candidates stand on issues is to go hear them speak at an event where they are the only one speaking, followed by a Q & A time.
I believe his overall point throughout the entire debate was to cut big government across the board, get them out of our lives, and to the extent that there needs to be regulations, give it back to the states. That’s the way I took it. I didn’t see it as lacking specifics, but as being consistent.
I would agree that an individual candidate format is better for more in-depth questions and answers (and I applaud Mr. Behney for hosting such an event at a Warsaw coffee shop after the debate), but I still think that two minutes is adequate time for a skillful debater to get a point across while still showing some level depth. Senator Coats, for example, was able to single out the FDA in one of his answers and demonstrate that he has knowledge of how the institution works. I have no doubt that Mr. Behney is consistent, sincere, conservative, and better than anything the Democrats have to offer, but I’m still looking for more details.