Morris won the 18th District debate (UPDATED with correction)
WCBU News Director Jonathan Ahl has his reactions to the debate he moderated Thursday (here and here). He prods C.J. and myself to hurry and and post our reactions.
NOTE: The debate, broadcast on WCBU can be heard here: HERE. John Morris, Aaron Schock and Jim McConoughey faced off on the Peoria City Council chamber floor. All three seek to replace Ray LaHood, who is retiring as Congressman from the 18th District.
I'm sorry it took so long, but I was trying to think up a decent way to phrase this question: "Jonathan, what the HELL were you thinking asking these guys about their position on trade with Canada? I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are in favor of it. And it's not that you asked just one question about trade with Canada, you asked a follow up question asking if they would ever support Canada's position in a trade dispute, since they are such close friends."
I understand the value of asking a question no one expects. But this one was kinda out of left field. I suppose the question COULD have generated real news, if one of the candidates used it as an opportunity to propose arming Quebec with nuclear missiles. But this debate was intended to help voters figure out who they want to be their Congressman, and an off the wall question about supporting trade with Canada might not have been a good choice.
Nevertheless, I have to hand it to questioner Mike Bailey for asking the most inane question of the night. The editor of the Journal Star's opinion page took a dig at all three candidates for their pro-family stances by implying that being tough on illegal immigration was akin to being anti-Christian. Because, as Bailey put it, couldn't Mary, Joseph and Jesus be considered the equivalents of illegal aliens? Um, no. Neither were they homeless. They were travelers, which is different. I'll leave it to those with more knowledge of the Bible to explain further.
I gave Aaron Schock grief for his original plan to skip the debate because he was needed in Springfield for an emergency session. Jonathan says Schock was in a no-win situation because he would have been criticized for not attending the session. Exactly WHO would have criticized him? The Democrats? There were MANY Dems who skipped out, as there were many GOPers, because NO action was being planned by anyone. Most voters assume that someone running for a seat in the Congress of the United States just might have to take a day off work once in a while. His opponents couldn't criticize him for attending, since they were standing right next to him.
So, I'm not going to apologize for giving him grief for his original plan to skip out, nor give him credit for showing up in the end. He's running for Congress, he BETTER show up. And in the end, he did get quite a bit of criticism for his positions. I found Morris' condemnation of Schock's now-retracted position on arming Taiwan to be especially effective. Morris pointed out the folly of the policy, and made a point that members of Congress as seem as America's leaders by the rest of the world, and that they have a responsibility to not use words that destabilize. Jim McConoughey also laid in a bit.
I really did appreciate the discussion on "exporting" Democracy. I'm glad that all three seemed to show a bit of maturity on the subject, with the realization that the United States can't just reach out and pluck out world leaders it doesn't like and replace them with those we do like. Also, I seemed to hear a reluctance to use trade as a weapon, except in the sense that free trade tends to encourage Democracy. I'm 100 percent in agreement with Morris that freedom is something every group of people in the world is capable of enjoying.
Who won the debate? Morris. Hands down. He was the better communicator. He was the most knowledgeable, and the most capable of thinking on his feet (as Jonathan learned). I cannot imagine anyone unfamiliar with the players listening to this debate and thinking that's it's Shock who's the front-runner and not Morris.
Schock surprised me by out communicating Jim McConoughey, who made a couple of factual gaffes (saying Turkey is the only predominately Muslim nation to recognize Israel). I am willing to give Schock the benefit of the doubt in that he meant to say that we got rid of the Shah of Iran only to get the Ayatollah Khomeini, and not that Khomeini STILL runs Iran.
But in the end Morris won because he benefited most. Of the three, he's the only one I think is likely to have picked up votes from the undecided. Schock didn't screw up, which is a positive result if one really is the front runner. But McConoughey did nothing to break out of the pack, and with the primary election a month away, he's going to have to do something.
The next debate will be televised live on WEEK from 7-8 p.m. on Jan. 14.
CORRECTION: The NEXT debate will be on WMBD-31 from 7-8 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 10. My apologies.
Cross-posted to Peoria Pundit.
5 comments:
As a disinterested party with not stake in the outcome or ax to grind, I listened to the debate and thought Schock won easily.
Morris is one of those people that loves to hear the sound of his own voice; even when he has nothing of signficance to say. He also has a propensity towards arrogance, believing that he is always the smartest one in the room.
Neither of these traits is uncommon to someone already in congress, but that doesn't mean that we need to add another one given the opportunity to choose someone new to represent us.
Morris was an obstructionist on the City Council who could not get along well with his fellow council members, and was ineffective at getting things done.
Either Schock or McConaghey would be far better for the 18th than Morris.
I have given the edge to Schock for his youth, tireless energy, and his proven effectiveness in a deliberative legislative body, even while serving in the minority. Schock has shown on several occasions his ability to work across the aisle to advance good legislation. think he would grow in the job as well, and would not be surprsed to see him advance towards a leadership position in the not too distant future as many of the baby boomer congress people look to retire.
Schock is not the first congressional candidate to speak without thinking or to stake out a hasty position on a matter without carefully considering all aspects of his position. He shows a great deal of maturity however by admitting and acknowledging a mistake, and taking the appropriate steps to remedy the situation.
While I am not uncomfortable with McConaghey, given Schock's successful winning track record of campaigning aganst long odds, I would not bet against him. Even Madigan came to respect him and waved the white flag and gave up trying to mount a substantive challenge to Schock so long as he was standng for re-election.
Morris can blow all the hot air that he wants, but when the dust settles I think it will be Schock's name on the ballot come November.
Anonymous says: "Morris was an obstructionist on the City Council who could not get along well with his fellow council members, and was ineffective at getting things done."
I attend virtually all meetings of the Peoria City Council. "Obstructionist" is NOT the word I would use to describe Morris. When David Ransburg was mayor, Morris was part of the group the Journal Star liked to call the "progressive wing," in that they favored advancing economic development through projects like expanding the Peoria Civic Center, for which he was a cheerleader. When Ransburg was defeated, and newer members joined the council with a somewhat more "essential services first" attitude joined, Morris found himself more in a minority.
But, yes, Mr. Morris DOES have a reputation for being long-winded. Since the voters of the 18th District will not have to sit through his speeches before his fellow legislators, I doubt it matters much to them when they go to the polls.
I assure you he will get along with them, Republican OR Democrat.
If you attend all of the Peoria City Council meetings then I can only hope you are paid handsomely for your time. I would have to believe that you would much sooner volunteer for a water-boarding ride at Guantanamo Bay than to show up at City Hall on your free time.
If you were there however then the Civic Center matter was debated, then this is a prime example of what am talking about in terms of obstructionism. While he was supportive of the project overall I'll never forget watching his Shakespearian soliloquy about the architectural and historical significance of the current glass arcade, and how important it would be to mantain this important design component intact.
That left me scratching my head and wondering whether he was referring to the same dirty fish bowl look that I experience when I walked through that part of the building going to the Braves games.
He seemed willing to hold up the whole project to embrace this run down "greenhouse effect" that seems to be best known for producing indoor rain.
If the voters of the 18th have to count on their representatives ability to get things done, by having them persuade other legislators to support his causes, then they better not be content to send a self absorbed wind bag to Congress whose filibuster's may put even the most caffiene ingested members to sleep.
And this is how you define "obstructionist?"
Oooo-kay.
Post a Comment