Bill Randall and Bernie Reeves have been pitted against one another due to NC election rules that trigger a runoff between the top two vote receivers if no candidate clears the required 40% minimum.
There have been two debates. One attended by the public and one televised. Both were reviewed by Polifroghere and here. The first was quite cordial while the second was significantly more contentious due to Reeves' series of attacks, a tactic the Reeves Campaign began to employ after the first debate. As a result the past month has seen a series of fair criticisms punctuated by character attacks on Bill Randall by Bernie Reeves. In both debates Reeves showed either flashes of anger (to guffaws in the crowd) or moments of clear frustration.
By contrast, there have been no attacks on Reeves by Randall and no anger or frustration expressed by Randall. Polifrog, though, has become concerned with Randall's over reliance on pat, seemingly memorized answers to questions, while at the same time often stumbling through answers to questions that are outside the normal pap candidates endure. A perfect example of this was Randall's recent flap over what the press characterized as an accusation of collusion between BP and the Government to cause the Gulf oil spill. Of course, Randall made no such accusation. His fumbling through his answer, though, allowed for an easy twisting of his words into something he did not intend.
Reeves has many traditional strengths. Money (as compared to Randall), old establishment experience in Carter Wrenn, and what Polifrog believes is an often overlooked support in the local press due to Reeves' long history as a part of the journalism business in Raleigh. This strength was best employed by Biesecker in his spin on the Randall BP/Government collusion statements as pointed out by Polifroghere.
Randall's strengths are fewer but perhaps more influential. He seems to have the excitement of the people at his back. Polifrog has watched this excitement daily through google alerts which admittedly became biased after Randall's BP statements, but prior to which Randall dominated in terms of hits. Not only does he have the excitement of the people, but he has history at his back as well. It seems a new type of republican is sweeping into office due to the disappointment that was the republican congress during the Bush years and the shock of the Obama agenda. Reeves seems, fairly or unfairly, tied to that disappointing congress under Bush while Randall has successfully tied himself to the energized Tea Party movement.
For these reasons Polifrog calls it, and not without reservation, for Bill Randall.
Tonight I met both Bernie Reeves and Bill Randall. They are competing for the seat (NC-13) currently held by Brad Miller.The photos were taken by my son Trey.
Some quick impressions.
Bernie Reeves has both a depth and mastery of the issues that I was previously unaware of. Add to that his smooth delivery and comfort in the public eye while on stage and what we have in Bernie Reeves is the makings of an excellent candidate. In only one instance did Reeves make a misstep outside his normal polish. He allowed a flash of what I, at first, deemed anger, but later feel was frustration, slip past him.
Unfortunately I feel I should speak to that issue. Reeves had a quibble with the time Bill Randall had taken to answer a question and also that Bill Randell had delivered closing statements in addition to his answer to the original question. The moment of frustration revealed itself when a Randall supporter called Reeves a cry baby or something to that effect. The person was across the room from me so the comment was indistinct. Reeves observed aloud that he must be in a room full of Randall supporters. True or not, that was the moment his frustration flared. I heard, at least one case of hushed shock. Unfortunate. It occurred to me that at that moment Reeves may have been considering a possible loss to Randall. Perhaps he simply forgot he was on camera. (Skip to the 2:00 mark through the 4:50mark in the video below.)
Bill Randall was the third person my son and I met at the event. He was greeting people at the door and he even gave my son a fist bump. Cool. My son will remember that. Bill Randall, like Reeves, is an excellent speaker. This is true, though, only when he feels he fully understands the material he is speaking to. There were, unfortunately, many times when Randall was outclassed in comparison to Reeves if one measured the differences between the two solely in terms of depth of knowledge. Randall, though, showed in each answer that he understood the fundamental principles upon which to reach the right conclusion. I saw no apparent missteps by Randall with the exception of some moderate distraction between questions.
In the end the two candidates agreed far more than they disagreed. Not a surprise. And on points scored Reeves came away with a victory.
Reeves is the more polished more establishment candidate with established supporters and is a formidable and impressive debater with knowledge on tap. Unfortunately it is that plethora of knowledge that frightens me with Reeves. He reminds me of long time representatives with a wealth of experience that, invariably, tends to lead those representatives astray. Knowledge and its mastery is not an anchor from which leadership is reliably sourced and those who choose to lead from it get lost in the greys of that knowledge and too often drift from their core beliefs.
This expressed itself in a question on oil drilling and the impact the BP oil spill has on the two candidates position on drilling. Reeves answered that he had changed his opinion and could no longer support drilling. To me he seemed to loose his anchor, and instead gave a politically expedient answer.
By comparison, Randall held strong to his conviction and expressed that we should learn from the accident and avoid repeating it in the future with the understanding that there is currently no future without oil. An answer based on conviction and deft.
In the past I would have supported Reeves without a second thought, but I feel burned by establishment conservatives. Unfortunately Reeves feels very establishment and perhaps too easily set drifting between compelling arguments.
