Contrast in messages is evident in opening U.S. Senate debate

ERLANGER --This morning’s U.S. Senate debate between incumbent Mitch McConnell (R-Louisville) and businessman Bruce Lunsford (D-Louisville) was perhaps, civil, but found the two agreeing on little and hammering on completely different messages. Throughout, the four-term incumbent dodged general critiques from Lunsford and asked for policy specifics. Lunsford, alternately, blasted the established political “process” as a principal enemy and attempted to tie McConnell to its weight.

The debate was in the “Lincoln-Douglas” style, for which the candidates questioned each other for an hour bookended by opening and closing statements.

The questions from McConnell largely looked at particularly policy areas: Russia’s recent invasion of South Ossetia, nuclear proliferation in both Iran and North Korea, and Lunsford’s position on particular pieces of legislation.

On those, Lunsford’s responses were characterized by McConnell as either non-answers or ill-informed.

At one point, McConnell questioned how Lunsford would have voted on the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, referencing Lunsford’s own business history in the healthcare industry.

Lunsford answered that he did not see the legislation as an actual “attempt to modernize” health policy, arguing legislators squandered their “bargaining power”, and then returned to a more systemic criticism for much of his reply.

“When you protect certain industries, it’s hard to exercise that bargaining power,” said Lunsford.

“It’s because we are not looking at the total picture,” he added before referencing the energy issue and the national debt as examples of problems that accumulated because of the “status quo.”

The systemic attack was a principal part of Lunsford’s debate rhetoric, but, for McConnell, the big picture was not the issue.

“He didn’t say yes or no. This is not a trick question. This is one of the major pieces of legislation of this decade,” said McConnell on the Medicare question. “I think the people of this state are entitled to know – not on little bitty questions, but the mega questions - where he stands.”

When queried on handling Iran’s nuclear potential, Lunsford said “all of you have done what you should” before again returning to a critique of past foreign policy decisions, arguing the conflict in Iraq had limited options elsewhere.

“We have been operating from a position of weakness because of what has happened in last 6 years,” said Lunsford. “You ignore that.”

McConnell, however, was not satisfied with Lunsford’s response.

“It’s pretty obvious Bruce doesn’t even have a newspaper knowledge of the issue,” said McConnell.

While McConnell demanded specifics, Lunsford’s tact against his opponent was to ask what he called the “bigger question,” sticking to a critique that targeted the perceived failures of Washington and McConnell’s place therein. For Lunsford, it was a further development of the “change” mantra he has been pushing in his campaign efforts – a sentiment often defined by observers as capitalizing on anti-McConnell feeling rather than rallying pro-Lunsford support.

“I’m answering the bigger question. You don’t want to answer the bigger question,” said Lunsford. “The bigger question is the process. It’s the process that has to be changed. Since we are going to talk about this , when you talk about a do-nothing congress - and you consider yourself the guardian of gridlock -how does it work that you’re not part of the do-nothing congress?”

The Louisville businessman argued the political climate and the actions of the current administration had “weakened” the country militarily and economically. His efforts focused on painting McConnell as the ultimate insider, claiming he was a “proxy” for Bush.

“We don’t have the options that we’ve had in the past because we have made ill-fated decisions that have hurt our military and hurt our economy and for that our country is paying a price that limits our options,” said Lunsford when asked about how he would address the Russian invasion of Georgia.

When asked about denuclearizing North Korea, Lunsford tried to tie McConnell to the conflict in Iraq – a conflict he again characterized as a drain on American resources that could be used to handle other foreign policy issues.

“You and George Bush have led us down many paths in the last six years,” said Lunsford. “This is another one that I believe has weakened our ability and our options.”

Again, however, McConnell tried to deflect the systemic criticism by calling for specifics.

“You’ll notice the answer had nothing to do with the question,” retorted McConnell.

Lunsford’s efforts to paint the incumbent as a Washington insider - calling McConnell a “porkaholic” for his heavy take of federal earmarks - were countered by McConnell instead saying his positioning in the U.S. Senate as Minority leader was a boon for Kentucky

In his closing statement, he noted he brought $500 million in federal funds to Kentucky.

“Which part of that would you rather see go somewhere else?” he asked the crowd.

“Kentucky has an enormous investment in the seniority and clout that I have accumulated over the years,” McConnell said. “To throw that away and put a freshman in there who is only a couple of years younger than I am - who won’t be there long enough to have any particular impact - would be a dramatic loss of clout and influence in the Commonwealth.”

The contrast in debate tactics will be on display at least once more in the campaign, as McConnell has agreed to debate Lunsford again on October 23 in Paducah. Though Lunsford has agreed to a schedule of eight total debates, McConnell’s camp said its candidate’s attendance at the others is still being considered.