CD5 Debate: Hayworth slick, but Mitchell wins on substance
This afternoon, I had the pleasure of watching my taped version of the Mitchell-Hayworth debate on Horizon (aired last night). If you're giving points for glossy camera-readiness, Hayworth gets points. But in just about every other area, Mitchell was the clear winner on content and personality.
To begin with the style question, I'm not sure why it is that Hayworth always strikes me as a used-car salesman. He has that fake smile, the broadcaster's voice, and just about everything he says seems cleverly gauged to sell you something. His responses vary between glib and condescending, and I've never felt at ease around that kind of oily, affected personality.
In contrast, Mitchell comes across as a warm, sincere, avuncular and competent man. He's rougher around the edges, not so slick and polished, and all the more real for it. Unlike with Hayworth, I don't get the impression that he's trying to boost his quota or make a commission off of me when I listen to Mitchell. Mitchell's someone I'd feel comfortable asking for advice, and he's clearly well informed on the issues.
When it comes down to content, Hayworth wasn't all that substantial. He seemed to reiterate his talking points in a condescending way. He used a cheat sheet to remind himself of key points which, one would think, should be pretty familiar by now. He completely evaded addressing the issue twice, and once he even lied outright by denying that he'd suggested a 3-year ban on immigration (which he'd written in his book).
Hayworth was completely adrift when Mitchell pointed out that JD had done nothing in 12 years in office on border security, despite all of Hayworth's high-blown rhetoric. And when Mitchell pointed out that Hayworth's immigration bill was so extremist that not even his own party would ever let it see the light of day in the House, Hayworth had no effective response except to try to obfuscate.
It really says something about your inability to govern when your own party thinks your bills are too extreme, impractical and out of touch with the mainstream.
Mitchell stumbled a bit once, when Hayworth tried to mis-frame a guest worker program, but rallied well. He made good points when he noted that Hayworth's plan would be - according to businessmen - a big detriment to business. He also elucidated his position on Iraq, which is quite different from what Hayworth has been trying to misrepresent. And on the stem cell question Mitchell made an excellent points which Hayworth was unable to respond except in platitudes.
Repeatedly, Hayworth condescendingly tried to downplay Mitchell's distinctives by saying "I'm glad to hear that Harry agrees with me on this..." The false-agreement fallacy is an old trick and extremely patronizing, but not at all surprising coming from Hayworth.
In all, one is left with the profound impression that Hayworth is a slick huckster who has managed to weasel his way into a position of power by virtue of a silver tongue and a large Republican voter registration advantage, but who otherwise is uninterested in addressing issues of governance in a mature, bipartisan way. (I'm reminded of the poll of congressional staffers that named Hayworth "Biggest Windbag".)
Meanwhile, Mitchell is an accomplished and sincere public servant, has the competence and understanding of the issues, the right values and priorities, as well as the ability to function in a bipartisan manner to get much-needed results for Arizona.
After the debate, I was left with an even greater desire to see Mitchell win in November and represent CD-5 with a degree of competence, maturity and comity which we have not had for many years.
Update: Tim Wilson has an excellent rebuttal to Hayworth's risible claim at the end of the debate that he's "not a rubberstamp" for President Bush:
Update 2: I thought blogger cpmaz also expressed it well:
To begin with the style question, I'm not sure why it is that Hayworth always strikes me as a used-car salesman. He has that fake smile, the broadcaster's voice, and just about everything he says seems cleverly gauged to sell you something. His responses vary between glib and condescending, and I've never felt at ease around that kind of oily, affected personality.
In contrast, Mitchell comes across as a warm, sincere, avuncular and competent man. He's rougher around the edges, not so slick and polished, and all the more real for it. Unlike with Hayworth, I don't get the impression that he's trying to boost his quota or make a commission off of me when I listen to Mitchell. Mitchell's someone I'd feel comfortable asking for advice, and he's clearly well informed on the issues.
When it comes down to content, Hayworth wasn't all that substantial. He seemed to reiterate his talking points in a condescending way. He used a cheat sheet to remind himself of key points which, one would think, should be pretty familiar by now. He completely evaded addressing the issue twice, and once he even lied outright by denying that he'd suggested a 3-year ban on immigration (which he'd written in his book).
Hayworth was completely adrift when Mitchell pointed out that JD had done nothing in 12 years in office on border security, despite all of Hayworth's high-blown rhetoric. And when Mitchell pointed out that Hayworth's immigration bill was so extremist that not even his own party would ever let it see the light of day in the House, Hayworth had no effective response except to try to obfuscate.
It really says something about your inability to govern when your own party thinks your bills are too extreme, impractical and out of touch with the mainstream.
Mitchell stumbled a bit once, when Hayworth tried to mis-frame a guest worker program, but rallied well. He made good points when he noted that Hayworth's plan would be - according to businessmen - a big detriment to business. He also elucidated his position on Iraq, which is quite different from what Hayworth has been trying to misrepresent. And on the stem cell question Mitchell made an excellent points which Hayworth was unable to respond except in platitudes.
Repeatedly, Hayworth condescendingly tried to downplay Mitchell's distinctives by saying "I'm glad to hear that Harry agrees with me on this..." The false-agreement fallacy is an old trick and extremely patronizing, but not at all surprising coming from Hayworth.
In all, one is left with the profound impression that Hayworth is a slick huckster who has managed to weasel his way into a position of power by virtue of a silver tongue and a large Republican voter registration advantage, but who otherwise is uninterested in addressing issues of governance in a mature, bipartisan way. (I'm reminded of the poll of congressional staffers that named Hayworth "Biggest Windbag".)
Meanwhile, Mitchell is an accomplished and sincere public servant, has the competence and understanding of the issues, the right values and priorities, as well as the ability to function in a bipartisan manner to get much-needed results for Arizona.
After the debate, I was left with an even greater desire to see Mitchell win in November and represent CD-5 with a degree of competence, maturity and comity which we have not had for many years.
Update: Tim Wilson has an excellent rebuttal to Hayworth's risible claim at the end of the debate that he's "not a rubberstamp" for President Bush:
It looks like J.D. likes to point to the P.R. pieces the Bush Administration shot through Congress, failed to fund properly, and then touted as accomplishments. He is proud he put his vote behind those bills. He is proud of being a rubberstamp.Indeed.
But he's not a rubberstamp because he's the immigration rebel. It's that one issue that seperates J.D. from other Bush Rubberstamps. Let us all be thankful that J.D. is on the wrong side of Bush on this one.
Update 2: I thought blogger cpmaz also expressed it well:
Both campaigns claim victory, and they're both right, at least partially. Hayworth won on style points, Mitchell easily won the 'substance' part of the program.
All that I have to add at this point is to note that with the candidates' different styles, that JD came off looking like a seasoned TV performer (which he is) and Harry certainly did not.
The differences can be summed thusly -
JD looked like someone used to looking directly into the camera;
Harry looked like someone used to looking directly into someone's eyes.
Guess which one I think is a better qualification for office?
posted by Geo at 11:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home