.
.
.
.
.
The one and only debate between the contenders for California’s 46th Congressional seat took place at OCC Tuesday, with 20-year Republican incumbent Dana Rohrabacher and charismatic Democratic challenger Debbie Cook joined by Green candidate Tom Lash and Libertarian Ernst Gasteiger. And what a colorful and interesting debate it was! I will aim to make you feel as though you were there in the Moore Hall with the rest of the “unruly crowd” as the Reg called us. But you know what, let’s be MAVERICKS and start at the end, with Debbie’s beautiful closing statement!
More – MUCH MORE – over the flip:
Do you ever think to yourself, “What would it be like to be a Dana Rohrabacher supporter?” I mean, not somebody that just shows up on Election Day and checks off the name with an “R” next to it, but a real, hardcore Dana Devotee. Someone who will follow Dana anywhere, like Peggy Kane or Dr. Grace Molino, someone who gets to be in a TV ad saying things like, “Dana TAKES CARE of us, and he does it for the RIGHT reasons!”
Well, going by Tuesday’s observations, first you have to be at least 65 years old, somewhat short, and you must have been ANGRY enough for the vast bulk of your long life that the anger lines show in your face even when you’re pleased.
On a red-letter day like Tuesday, when you know you will be entering the lion’s den of a College Auditorium to see your hero fearlessly take on both the Dangerous Liberal Environmental Extremist Debbie Cook and the crazed Green maniac Tom Lash, you would get up extra early, put on a patriotic outfit, prepare a tiny American flag and possibly a “Boo!” sign, fidget nervously for a few hours till it’s time to pile in the car, and then still show up an hour early. There would be forty or fifty of you, clustered together front and center in mutual support.
And then, whenever Dana says he’ll protect you from the Illegal Immigrants, or when he says humans have nothing to do with climate change, you would cheer and wave your tiny flags; alternately when Debbie or Ernst affirms that climate change is man-made or Tom sticks up for the undocumented, you can groan and hold up your “Boo!” signs. MAKE SURE to bring a “Boo!” sign or you’ll end up looking like this, which is just rude:
Other observations: Even the Register reporter found it somewhat remarkable that Dana could work in an immigrant-bashing statement at the end of nearly every response, even though immigration was not among the eight topics the audience chose to ask the candidates about. I remember Dana doing the same thing in debates two years ago, and both times it met with ever-increasing laughter from the bulk of the audience, but I’ll tell you what: the folks pictured above would have been mighty disappointed if he’d left any of that out. He also gradually became obsessed, even Ahab-like, over Debbie’s nuanced statement on the bailout, demanding a simple yes or no answer from her and accusing her of flip-flopping and obfuscation. I’ll be sure, below, to transcribe her answers thoroughly so you can judge the validity of Dana’s charge.
Ernst the Libertarian was an unobjectionable, slow-talking fellow, whose answer to everything was always the same: Less Federal Government. Sometimes that answer made sense, sometimes not so much. My friend the Green candidate Tom Lash had the most laugh lines and fun theatrical moments, and was the only one who seemed to be enjoying himself on the stage. Some Debbie folks grumbled afterwards that he got to enjoy the Bulworth-like comfort and freedom of a candidate with nothing to lose, as he and Ernst have no chance of winning. I pointed out that he sort of held down the “left flank” of the debate, showing how moderate and reasonable Debbie really is. There seemed to be no limits to the nice humanitarian things Tom believes our government can afford to spend money on – once we get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dana was Dana and did not disappoint, and we know all about Dana if we read this blog. Once the audience saw that he had a little contingent that would cheer him and boo everyone else, we joined in the unruly fun, and they were outnumbered maybe five to one.
I think it was clear to most of the audience that there was only one real grownup on the stage (politically speaking) and that she was a woman. Even Tom was good enough to admit that Debbie would be “hand over fist” a better Congressperson than Dana, and it’s clear to almost everyone that this is not a year or a race to waste one’s vote on a spoiler.
OK, here’s a summary or description of Ernst’s, Dana’s, Tom’s and Debbie’s opening statements:
Ernst is running to give us a choice outside of the two main parties. The Federal Gov’t is out of control, lifelong politicians are entrenched. Everyone should get involved and run for office, and not stay in too long either, get in and get out.
Dana believes that his “classic conservative philosophy” reflects the voters of the area. He says he’s created thousands of jobs thru C-17 programs, and satellite and space programs. He is proud of a state-of-the-art Desal plant being built in Long Beach, and a flood control system for the Santa Ana River. He is a national leader in the fight against Illegal Immigration and staunchly opposes any “amnesty, whatever it’s being called that day” (i.e. pathway to citizenship, guest worker program, etc.) He opposes any benefits being given to “illegals” and is eager to “secure our southern borders” with a Great Wall. This drew hearty cheers and howls from his little contingent, which signalled to the rest of us that applause was okay.
Tom must have left out the first half of his opening to respond to Dana’s anti-immigrant tirade. No human beings are “illegal,” and “Rohrabacher should be ashamed of himself.” (Splendid mix of boos and cheers!) Immigrant workers documented or not make great contributions to our society, this scapegoating comes up cyclically any time the economy takes a downturn, and “What job that you wanted have immigrants ever taken from you? It’s a fantasy!” Immigrants pay plenty of taxes (which got howls of disbelief from Dana’s group, but is true.) We’re the most powerful nation on Earth, we can afford to be kind. Tom is running on a platform of NO WAR, NO WALL STREET BAILOUT, NO (global) WARMING, and HEALTHCARE FOR ALL.
Debbie finds the current crises—an ecomonic system in freefall, infrastructure crumbling, environment treated like an old paper cup, and the beginning of the end of cheap fossil fuel—to be a great opportunity to begin a new green economy. She is running because she is scared to death of where our country is headed, and has never shied away from a challenge. She is a “homegrown, grassroots politician” who has spent the last twenty years making a difference on issues that are important to her community (some of which I documented in my Debbie Cook song—keeping development off of HB parks and beaches, preserving the Bolsa Chica wetlands, stopping the dumping of untreated sewage off HB, and educating “whoever will listen” on the need to get off fossil fuels.. The qualities she’s demonstrated over these twenty years are the same ones she hopes to bring to Washington: collaboration, intellectual rigor, and pragmatism. BIGGEST APPLAUSE YET.
TOPIC ONE: GLOBAL WARMING and GREEN TECHNOLOGY
Ernst agrees that global warming is real and man-made, and anyone who doesn’t realize that isn’t looking at the evidence correctly. California can certainly lead in G.T. He doesn’t like the idea of Federal Government (from here on FG) getting involved in this, it’s up to every individual person “voting with their pocketbook” demanding that we get “stuff that’s made in a green way.” One thing we can all do right now is to stop eating BEEF, the cattle industry being a HUGE CO2 producer.
Dana, as expected, pointed out that climate change has been going on millions of years, and contended that whether human behavior has any effect on it is still up to debate. This provoked mirth and catcalls, an interruption which Dana protested should not be subtracted from his speaking time. Several times he urged us all to go onto the internets and investigate the claims on “both sides.” He claims to focus more on clean technologies that will minimize pollution that hurts our health. This would include “nuke-ular energy” as well as a Mag-Lev rail to cut down on the diesel trucks near the Port. He finds concern over CO2 as comical as he finds panties on the heads of prisoners (he didn’t say the last half on Tuesday, but he repeats “CO2” in the same sardonic way.) The geriatrics cheered (but forgot to laugh at all the CO2 gags.)
(Later, in his rebuttal on this issue, he made no new points but responded to Tom on immigration—if we are not careful we will have MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS MORE coming to this country! So Tom used his rebuttal time to say “I love immigrants. We are all immigrants. What have immigrants ever done to you. Etc.”)
Tom knows of “no credible scientist” who makes the denials Dana makes. This is one of the most important issues we’ll address in our lifetime. There’s never before in the history of the planet been the level of CO2 we have now, it is not a “cyclical problem.” Nuclear power creates problems of waste disposal. Instead of bailing out Wall Street we should have spent the money on a Coast-to-Coast MagLev, or solar panels for everyone’s roof to charge their electric cars. Rohrabacher will use a lot of fear on us—fear of immigrants, fear of terrorists. Our biggest fear should be ignorance.
Debbie, in her impatient, suffer-no-fools style: The debate over climate change is over and just a useless distraction that she refuses to get sucked into. Humans are overtaking the ability of the planet to sustain itself. Now we need to move toward a Green Future, the only thing that can save us – an “Energy-smart America campaign.” Germany is way ahead of us, with a quarter-million Green tech jobs. We’ve wasted 30 years or more since the time of Nixon, knowing we have to address this. California is already a leader, and has saved $68 billion in energy costs from being in the vanguard of this. Huntington Beach under her mayorship has saved over ¼ million just this year by addressing its energy consumption. There’s so much every single one of us can do to address this problem.
Thanks Vern, I missed the debate and appreciate you covering it here
“I will aim to make you feel as though you were there in the Moore Hall … ”
You succeeded, Vern. Like Anonyms, I missed it and wish I could have been there, but you have done an outstanding job of capturing its most colorful and salient aspects!
Great job!
Thanks Miss Longboobs, I still gotta do part 3, gonna try to keep it a lot shorter…
Will look forward to it! Having transcribed 2 hours worth of interviews on a work-related matter this week, I have a great appreciation for the patience it takes to reduce a recording to the written word. Here’s my sage advice (ha ha). Remember to keep saving the document … 🙂
If you would like to have a better idea of what it was like to be at the debate by hearing most of it yourself (part of the last question and all of closing statements were not recorded due to lack of disk space) without the spin and selective quoting that you might expect from somebody with a “crush” on one of the candidates (Ernst, especially, seems to get short sheeted in Vern’s account), listen and make up your own mind at: http://ocvoice.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/listen-to-the-46th-congressional-district-debate/#more-316
Just click on the links related to each of the questions and the audio will magically appear.
John,
I’ve just spent the last hour-plus greeting trick-or-treaters and listening to the debate you posted in order to compare it to Vern’s depiction. I don’t think Ernst was short-sheeted, as you suggest. He didn’t seem to say as much as the other candidates, or, as Vern indicates, his consistent theme was the government staying out of everyone’s business. That was a fair account and my compliments to Ernst for being true to his party’s beliefs.
The only thing Vern underemphasized, in my opinion, was how nervous Debbie Cook seemed, but that’s understandable considering this was her first foray into this kind of arena. Also, as I mentioned in other comments, she had more to lose than her Libertarian and Green counterparts. The “spin” that you insinuate Vern’s account contains really was not founded in my listening. Frankly, I found his “selective quoting” to be pretty on-point and his “color commentary” certainly made the event seem more interesting than it proved to be on audio recap …
Longboobs: Thank you for at least listening to the actual debate. Don’t you think people tend to hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe? But there are such things as facts, I think, and when one section of Vern’s pseudo transcript describes Ernst’s comments as a “mumble,” no, that’s not an accurate description, but an obvious attempt to belittle without having to make a fact based reply. Yes, “color commentary” may be far more entertaining than plain facts–which is probably why there is so much of it on CNN, Fox News and blogs; e.g., Vern’s shoot from the hip (and false) claims about Tom Lash. None of this reflects on Debbie Cook, of course (save her from her followers), but I think Vern’s account is more haigiography than historiography. But give the people what they want, right?
Vern take license to spin something a certain way? Next he’ll be adding riffs to the covers he plays – oh he does that already? Well I for one think that the title haigiographer-in-chief (whatever the heck that is) should be hung around his neck for the remainder of this political season so that trusting folks will not mistake him for a historian. Not that any reading person would but you know those non readers might. Protect the illiterate from Vern – and I thought there would be nothing to do after this election.
Anonyms, you crack me up!
Haigiographers rock!
Well, thanks for having my back Longboobs, but I don’t want to be a hagiographer. In fact I told Debbie that she should hire me to be her minstrel when she goes to Washington, but I had to warn her – just like Sir Robin’s minstrel in Monty Python’s Holy Grail singing “Sir Robin ran away” – whenever she screws up or sells out I will definitely sing about that too.
If I have a “crush” it’s definitely on both Tom and Debbie, but even more than that it’s on the idea of beating Dana. Still, I made a lot of effort – HOURS! – summarizing just about everything each of them said as fairly as I could. (And I used your recordings too, John – thanks – they were better quality than the one I had… until they ran out in the middle of “No Child Left Behind.”)
If I didn’t write as much about Ernst, it’s because he didn’t say as much and repeated himself a lot. I am sure if you asked him if he were short-sheeted, he would blame it not on me but on the “Federal Government.”
The part where I said “mumble” was accurate – John wouldn’t know because it was after he ran out of disc space! Ernst had just told the crowd of college kids that nobody should have to pay for their education, then said “I’m just telling the truth, if you want somebody to tell you whatever you want to hear then…” and then wisely trailed off before calling everyone else on the stage a pandering liar. It was kind of funny.
Also by that point you could hear everyone getting tired. The debate was going past two hours, the seventh and eighth questions were both about education, so taking into account the rebuttal time, each of them had to make four two-minute statements about education. Eventually they were all reduced to relating their own college experiences and their kids, and almost audibly yawning. As was I, transcribing.
Happy to have a new nemesis on the left, I’ve got way too many on the right! Cheers, John.
V,
Err, I wasn’t really defending you on that last comment. Honestly, I don’t know WTF a hagiographer is. S’pose I could look it up but mostly, I was enjoying Anonyms’ funny comment!
A haigiographer presents historical figures as if they are saints, regardless of the facts. The church record of St. Benedict is a haigiography. Much of the “history” of Ronald Reagan we have been told is a haigiographical. Much of what Obama and McCain tell us about themselves is haigiography. When a haigiographer short sheets the other candidates or otherwise gives a biased summary (carefully laced with editorial comments) of their debate, he also becomes a spin doctor. Ernst was more brief than the others, but he never mumbled. I’m sure that if an editor asked Ernst to write an 800 word column he would never trouble the already overworked and hen-pecked editor by going over the limit or complaining when the editor trimmed off the fat. Praise be to God for that! Such a person deserves serious consideration at the ballot box!!!:)
Couple of corrections, John. My article wasn’t “carefully laced” with editorial comments, it was recklessly peppered with them.
Also, thanks for educating Juice readers on a fun word, but it’s spelled hagiography. And I probably wouldn’t use it for a politician or anyone else touting their own good points – just someone else doing it for them.
John,
Vern explained my new word-of-the-day pretty aptly: a biographer of saints who attributes only “saint-like” qualities to the individual being described.
As it relates to self-hagiography, I suppose most people are guilty of that to some degree. Obama’s and McCain’s hagiographical propensities, especially in the context of an election, don’t seem so unusual. I don’t know many people who run around espousing their quirks, detriments and dark sides! I usually try to wait at least a year before I expose people to THOSE facets of my personality! 🙂
My personal opinion is that you’re over-reacting to this post. If someone wants to take the time to document an audio and highlight portions of interest, then that is the author’s prerogative. I believe the vast majority of the readers of this blog recognize that those observations were that of the writer and not necessarily of everyone present (praise God! I do not want to hear a Dana supporter going gaa-gaa over his position on Prop. 8).
As a journalist, I know you appreciate the amount of time it takes to listen to a recording, especially one of this length (re-winding it over and over again), to summarize it as fairly as possible. No one else took the time to do this. I challenge anyone who thinks it doesn’t accurately summarize the debate to write their own version. Then we can all debate about perspective!
So far as I heard, Vern did not write anything that was untrue. If you wish to characterize adding commentary as “spin,” having listened to the debate myself, I will have to respectfully (and strongly) disagree.