I have often held that politics is the most expensive form of entertainment that our money is forced to buy. At the Congressional District 10 Forum held in the Jewish Center in Walnut Creek (June 19) there was some material worth noting. The basic format was that each candidate was given 2 minutes to respond to a question pre-selected by the hosts who were a compilation of the Democratic Clubs and Central Committee of Contra Costa.
When asked what was the first thing that each would do if they got elected Mark DeSaulnier commented: “First I would find my office…”
As part of a question relating to the Democratic Party, after several candidates spoke of being asked to run by party elected officials, Anthony Woods started out with: ‘Well I have been asked NOT to run by many people’.
Towards the end, when summarizing their closing comments and why they should be in Congress Adriel Hampton stated that: “I am loud.” So he was able to make your voice heard?
Each of the candidates commented on the wonderfulness of the forum and the election process of going out and seeing people face to face. However, Mark DeSaulnier got the best laugh when he said: “This is great experience … all of you should run for office.” He then paused and added “But not now.”
On a more serious note there were 6 questions that were hoped to bring out differences between the candidates. The questions were selected or composed from a group of questions submitted in advance by the club members. Those selected leaned more towards overviews and solicited broad policy responses that for many in the audience left the feeling of differences in style rather than substance however, there were a few points that stood out for this observer:
1. On the formation of a retail level government effort to get involved in mortgages, small business finance and financial matters:
- Hampton said no, that Credit Unions already do it.
- Garamendi did not say no out right (in this his years in politics had him well trained), but said that government already does this but it is not working well.
- Buchanan supported the idea.
- DeSaulnier appeared to support the idea as part of consumer protection as a right.
- Woods spoke to ‘understanding…the squeeze.’ Wanted to clean up the regulatory process, but did not directly answer the question.
2. On the Middle East, where the question could have been something very specific such as the Israeli Settlements in the West Bank, the question was the imponderable- how would you deal with the Middle East. This left the field wide open to go into all sorts of areas but there were some interesting distinctions:.
Buchanan and Garamendi both went on a hawkish Economic War Path approach with Iran, calling for embargo/sanctions on the importing of fuel to Iran to try to force them to change their foreign policy.
DeSaulnier put a major emphasis on the development of alternative fuel sources making the comment that if we had put 1% of the defense budget into that then we would not need a 500-ship navy to guard the oil supplies from the Middle East.
Hampton and to a lesser extent Garamendi both went on about the use of more ‘shovels on the ground’ than military boots. One of Hampton’s points was that government was putting so much emphasis on military heavy industry purchases that social services were being provided by the terrorists. No one addressed the issue of how do you protect the shovels on the ground in a terror-war zone and prevent the Peace Corps from being coming Pieces of Corpses.
3. On Health Care, while there was a lot of ‘Rah Rah’ for Single Payer and Health Care as a fundamental right, there were some interesting differences:
- Garamendi supported the idea of taking Medicare and simply changing the age limit from 65 to -0-.
- Buchanan was the only one to talk about raising the compensation to doctors and medical providers under the existing system. She also stated that while she supports Single Payer she would go along with anything that appeared to be better than what there is now.
- Bothwell put an emphasis on preventive care and urged that private industry should compete with the government services and if they could not then it was industry’s problem.
- Woods was the only one to bring about clear disapproval with the current Obama and Democratic Congress plan in that the Single Payer approach was not being debated in Congress and that it was being side tracked with a Public Option.
4. On the issue of education there were some differing views:
- Woods advocated a matching year policy: one year of government service (military/Peace Corps/Domestic Community service) for a year of free college.
- Buchanan, who declared that No Child Left Behind was a failure, wants Federal money to increase the pay of teachers a position similar to Garamendi.
- Hampton broke away from the pack and revealed probably too much of his own bias by declaring that the system was broken and that the ‘Ruling Class’ fears the educated masses.
- DeSaulnier spoke of the large shift of women in the workforce and how this contributed to the need to expand into Pre-School services.
- Bothwell, who had worked in Congress as a staffer in the past, revealed his bureaucratic roots by declaring that he would advocate a Study on Equal School Opportunity.
5. The question on what they would do first in their abbreviated term in Congress provided an opportunity for Mark DeSaulnier to get a good laugh, but also gave some insight into the strength and weaknesses of the candidates.
- DeSaulnier spoke of working with George Miller, a strong supporter of his.
- Garamendi spoke of going to work with Waxman on the Health Care bill, bringing in his background of Insurance Commissioner.
- Hampton spoke of getting to know the thousands of people in the district. This was an interesting distinction because the experienced candidates approach the relationship of the people getting to know them.
- Woods spoke of the need to work on veteran issues bringing into focus his recent military background.
- Bothwell spoke of his support for Obama and trying to keep the promise of his campaign alive.
6. The final question was on what personal value they would bring and count on the most.
- DeSaulnier spoke of honesty.
- Garamendi commented that no one aspect would suffice, but settled on Integrity.
- Hampton responded that he was going to say Integrity but that was already taken.
- Buchanan was not bothered by that and also said integrity. This provided a little insight into Buchanan, as her responses and comments were devoid of interaction with the other candidates, and it was as if she was alone on the stage ignoring all the others around her.
- Woods, as befitting his soldier history, spoke of courage.
- Bothwell, who is a lawyer defending people in whistle blowing cases, spoke of transparency.
Crowds of DeSaulnier and Garamendi workers dominated the scene and it was their presence inside and out that helped to carry the impression that those two candidates dominated the match up. Certainly, of the three elected officials they held a large gap ahead of Buchanan who appeared to be unable to resonate or connect with the audience on a charismatic energy level.
Of the three non-elected candidates, Hampton’s high energy level and willingness to take some shots as indirect as they may have been, is doing him well in a not too subtle attempt to be the candidate of the ‘None Of The Above’. Woods is still in the mode of selling the people on who he is and what he has gone through rather than making the campaign transition to why he should be your Congressman and what he is going to do for you but he has time to do this. Bothwell, who was late to the Forum is also late to both making a positive identification of his distinction from the others as well as gathering to himself the issues and support that can carry him forward through the basic certification process to get on the ballot.
On the whole the several hundred people in attendance had a well spent evening and got their $5 admission ticket worth of entertainment.
For another perspective, see CD-10 Forum coverage at Calitics.