Bill Randall, Rep Brad Miller and Moderator David Crabtree Debate Impressions...

polifrog


Thanks to WRAL.

There were no fireworks, but that was no surprise, as it has been and still is Bill Randall's practice to never attack his opponent, but rather simply present himself to the voter. It is, however, Brad Miller's chosen course. Evidence of this can be found in Miller's campaign attack ads as mentioned within the debate and within the back and fourth of the debate itself. The few times Bill Randall appeared to be returning an attack by Brad Miller, Randall only spoke to Miller's mischaracterizations of him.

The debate moderator seemed prepared for Randall's style and strangely scored debate points for Randall on a couple of occasions . Odd. Moderators historically have argued the other side of the isle as evidenced in the recent Christine O'donnell debate with Chris Coons.



On one of the occasions when the moderator requested a clarification, Miller was visibly caught off guard. The three were discussing Miller's attacks on Randall's questioning of whether the Dept. of Education's funding should continue.

Brad Miller made the same argument in favor of the Dept. of Education that Butterfield and Price had made in their debates, that ending the Dept. of Education would eliminate $4 billion of funding from the Dept. of Education. In each case the argument was made as though the Dept. of Education did not receive funding from the state of NC. Each candidate appears to conveniently forget that NC would keep the money rather than sending it to DC to only return with DC strings attached.

When the moderator brought this bigger picture to Miller's attention, Miller stammered, shuffled his notes as if he had prepared for the question, but never answered the moderator's requested clarification. In a word, weak.

In a second instance where the moderator asked for clarification from Brad Miller, Miller entirely avoided answering the question. Brad Miller and Bill Randall had been asked to comment on the the sunsetting of the Bush Tax Cuts, and the fact that congress had recessed without deciding whether to extend them or not. Brad Miller answered that the Bush Tax Cuts were essentially a cost for government. He avoided the fact that this can only assume that all the the money individuals earn by selling their time on earth belongs to the Federal Government and that the Government incurs a cost when it allows the citizenry to keep their earnings.

Miller did, however, argue that the tax cuts should continue for "ordinary Americans" to which the moderator asked what constitutes an "ordinary American"? Miller seemed to sense the depth of the short question, a question that in essence charged Miller with attempting to divide Americans on the basis of class; he initially stumbled in response. Terms like "Ordinary Americans" can mean so much more in a debate than in ordinary discourse. Miller quickly gained his footing, though, as he began to evade toward a meandering and time consuming basket of nonsense that ended with blaming deregulation.

It seems only appropriate to note that the moderator has a name. David Crabtree. He has my respect as he "stole the show" if such a phrase can be used in a debate. It should be remembered that that opening moves are nearly always obvious, but the follow ups are less so and it was those follow up questions that kept both Miller and Randall on their toes.




out