Gubernatorial debate few viewed reveals little
Blog: Between The Lines
Missing its most important ingredient, the televised Louisiana gubernatorial
debate sponsored by media outlets and interest groups provided few useful
glimpses into the contest.
Republican Atty. Gen. Jeff Landry, the inarguable front
runner, didn't participate over concerns the Urban League as a sponsor which has
demonstrated outright hostility to some actions he has taken in his job. Five
others lined up: Democrat former cabinet member Shawn Wilson who is the only candidate
within shouting distance on Landry in the polls, independent lawyer Hunter Lundy, and Republicans state
Sen. Sharon Hewitt, Treas. John Schroder, and former gubernatorial
assistant Stephen Waguespack.
Without Landry, it's pointless to compare and
contrast candidate issue preferences uttered. Instead, winners and losers in
certain aspects will be described.
Best performance: Waguespack. A former Republican Gov.
Bobby Jindal adviser, he came off as a paler and slightly-slower speaking
version of his old boss, meaning he packed a lot of information into making
salient and convincing points.
Least impressive: Lundy. Maybe he's good in court,
but not so much on the political stage. He came off as, even for a politician, making
overly simplistic and broad statements, unaware that viewers will catch that
his promising so much stuff means quite a bit higher taxation levels than he's
willing to admit.
Most botched issue: teacher pay increases. All
pledged this, which at the level would cost about $200 million annually, but the
state faces starting
in fiscal year 2025 the headwind of deficits approaching $500 million yearly.
Where will the money come to pay for this, especially as the Republicans
essentially argued for no net tax increases, including not renewing the 2016/18
sales tax hike of 0.45 percent?
Least credible answer: Wilson came off fairly
polished, but anybody knowing his history knows he has no credibility in saying
he wouldn't back a gasoline tax hike after
he stumped for one for the past few years.
Biggest mistake: Schroder, after over more than
one answer touting the need for a better business climate, then torpedoed his credibility
when he said a minimum wage hike that destroys jobs and impairs commerce was in
order.
Best turnaround: Perhaps the most ridiculous
question of the night (see below) asked the candidate's response to the NAACP's
declaring a fatwa on Louisiana's tourism industry, warning visitors
away, after the Legislature – overriding
Democrat Gov. John Bel
Edwards' veto – enacted a law protecting children from irreversible and
often harmful medical interventions to produce a sex change, often the product
of transitory feelings of immature children bolstered by adult ideologues. The
Republican candidates batted that away, Hewitt the most effectively, in emphasizing
the law was to protect children and didn't deal with adults who for whatever
reason wanted to alter surgically or chemically their sex.
Most disappointing: Differing from all the others,
Wilson, who appeared comfortable in placing blame for the fatwa on the
Legislature rather than leftist ideologues, backed expanding legal abortion in
describing it as a choice to be decided among the unborn's mother, her family,
and medical confidants. Conspicuously absent from that was consideration of the
life that an abortion would kill, which says much about his lack of character.
Biggest tool: That wasn't earned by any
participant, but generally by the organizers who paraded several loaded, if not
stupid, questions such as about the fatwa, and specifically WWL-TV New
Orleans reporter Eric Paulsen, who not only shilled for these but also at times
felt compelled to add his own commentary that in one instance lasted longer
than any candidate was given to answer it.
This week another debate, which Landry will
attend, will occur. It's unlikely to be as meaningless as this one, yet also
not likely to be too much more informative.