Summary of Clean Elections candidate debate - LD17

Again, this is a long post, but hopefully it's an easier read that last week's LD8 Forum report.

Caveat: I tried to be thorough in my note-taking, but may have missed something along the way or even made a mistake. I recommend that anyone who is interested in viewing this debate should visit the Clean Elections debates website to view the webcast. It should be up within a day or so.

Any time I editorialize during the report part of this post, I will separate my comments with [brackets].

Sponsored by the Arizona Capitol Times, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission held a District 17 candidate debate at ASU last night. The forum was moderated by Phil Riske, a reporter for the AZ Capitol Times, and was held in the Carson Ballroom of the Old Main Building on the Tempe campus.

The format of the debate was similar to that of the LD8 forum last week – each candidate gave an opening statement, answered questions in turn from the moderator, answered questions in turn from the audience, and gave a closing statement.

After reading the tedious summary of last week’s LD8 forum (for what it’s worth, it was tedious while I was writing it, too :) ), I’ll do this one differently. Instead of a step-by-step recounting of each moment of the forum, I’ll summarize each candidate’s positions and then add in some details about the occurrences at the event.

My summaries of the candidates’ responses will follow the same order as the questions/issues and will intersperse their opening and closing statements.

From the moderator -
The candidates were first asked for their feelings on lobbyists;
With a Democratic governor and a conservative legislature, what could be done to make the government run more smoothly;
Immigration;
What is the candidate’s commitment to K – 22 education, and to raising the salaries of teachers;
What is the best way to spend funds in a publicly-funded campaign (my clarification: what’s the best way to use Clean Elections money);

From the audience –
Would you vote for a parental consent abortion bill;
Do you support the minimum wage proposition that’s on the ballot in November;
Do you support finding renewable energy sources/fighting global warming;

Ed Ableser:

Lobbyists - Supports ‘citizen lobbyists’ not career lobbyists.

Governor/Legislature conflict – supports Governor Napolitano, observed that some Republicans in the legislature are trying to do what’s best for AZ, but too many are ‘divisive’ and more interested in partisan one-upmanship than in serious legislating.

Immigration – a federal issue that due to a federal failure to do its job has fallen to the states. Strongly supports enforcing current laws, including going after employers of undocumented immigrants.

Education – It’s essential to our economy; advocates a partnership between the state’s universities and community colleges to expand educational opportunity, especially in rural areas.

Clean Elections spending – Voter outreach (pretty much every candidate responded similarly to this one)

Parental Consent bill – No, would not support one. He brought up an incident from his experiences as a school mental health counselor where a 14-year old girl needed help because she had been raped by her father. He observed that such a bill cause the girl to be victimized twice – once when she was raped, once when her attacker had legal control over her choices.

Raising the minimum wage – Strongly supports raising it. Pointed out the pay disparity between U.S. CEOs and the lowest level worker ($139/$1) and that earning the minimum wage puts a family well below the poverty level ($20,144 PL for a family of 4 vs. $10,300, assuming 2000 hour work year).

Renewable energy – Strongly supports searching for renewable energy sources.

Angie Crouse:

Lobbyists – can be indispensable to the uninformed legislator, but as a professional researcher she already knows how to find out the information she needs. Her priority will be listening to constituents.

Governor/Legislature conflict – supports the governor; thinks the process would work more smoothly if the Republicans in the legislature wouldn’t “shove Democrats out of every conversation” such as over the budget; would work to find areas of agreement.

Immigration – The state of Arizona has been “let down” by the federal government; this wouldn’t be the problem that it is if the U.S. Congress and the President did their jobs. Favors enforcement of existing laws, including employer sanctions.

Education – Supports increasing funding for schools; believes our children and college students should be put first.

Clean elections spending – Voter outreach.

Parental consent bill – Would not support one. Government should not tell women what to do with their bodies. Period.

Raising the minimum wage – “You bet” she supports it. Sees this as a moral issue, as a pro-family issue.

Renewable energy – Yes, she supports efforts in this area. Wants to know why Arizona isn’t the leader in solar power (didn’t I hear something similar from Harry Mitchell last week? Great minds and all that… J ) and doing more with wind power.

David Schapira:

Lobbyists – notes that legislators can’t be experts on every subject, but there is a line that should not be crossed. Also noted that frustration with the undue influence of lobbyists was a big reason the Clean Elections law was passed.

Governor/Legislature conflict – Thinks the Governor has done a great job and has been the “saving grace” for the state, providing a balance to the Republican legislature.

Immigration – It isn’t economically feasible to “round up” and deport all undocumented immigrants; favors enforcing existing laws, including in the areas of employer sanctions and ID fraud; it’s a federal issue that has been left to the states.

Education – Early education is “crucial”; favors parenting programs; also thinks higher education has been underfunded.

Clean Elections spending – Voter outreach. [Yeah, I know. What a shock. lol ]

Parental Consent bill – No. Period.

Raising the minimum wage – Yes. Observes that Arizona is one of the few states without its own minimum wage.

Renewable energy – Thinks the legislature has failed in this area; realizes that many people are leery of anything labeled “alternative” energy due to Jeff Groscost’s alt-fuels giveaway/scam. Thinks that moving to new sources of energy is necessary due to economics (i.e. – gas prices).

Rhett Wilson:

Lobbyists - Doesn't think lobbying is good for our system of government; he mentioned the Abramhoff scandal.

Governor/Legislature conflict - supports the Governor; thinks that the Republicans in the Lege need to sit down with the Governor and try to meet somewhere in the middle [for the good of the state.]

Immigration - Dealing with undocumented immigrants has become the obligation of the states in the absence of the federal government's fulfilling it's duties; urges going after ID fraud.

Education - Supports increasing funding to schools and raising teachers' salaries; also thinks that supporting education is an issue vital to the long-term economic success of Arizona.

Clean Elections spending - Voter outreach.

Parental Consent bill - No. Period.

Raising the minimum wage - Yes. Noted that in a year of the Lege sending a large number of issues to referendum to avoid the Governor, an initiative to help the working class was sent to the ballot to avoid the legislature.

Renewable energy - Yes, he supports working to find other sources of energy and thinks tax credits for research. etc.

Now for the Republicans. This section will be a little shorter than the ones about the Democrats; I wasn't listening as hard to them. That's not an insult, but I'm a Dem and haven't made up my mind yet about who I'm going to vote for in the primary and was focused on digesting their answers. I was hoping that this debate would help, but all 4 Dem candidates are really strong candidates who would make great representatives of D17.

Dale Despain:

Lobbyists - Play an important role in the political process; legislators need to use their expertise, but should listen to citizens as well.

Governor/Legislature conflict - Would work for what's best for Arizona, not best for just the legislature or best for just the Governor.

Immigration - We can't wait for the federal government to do its job; secure the border now; we need to address the issue of people already here, perhaps with an ID card.

Education - Noted that teachers are doing well in spite of the issues that have been brought up by other candidates; supports more money for education; considers it an investment in Arizona's future.

Clean Elections spending - Voter outreach.

Parental Consent bill - Yes, "without hesitation". "Government should never take the place of parents."

Raising the minimum wage - No, because it's not fair to employers.

Renewable energy - Yes, but in a reasonable way; no mandated uses.

Dan Gransinger:

Lobbyists - They're a resource, but listen to citizens first.

Governor/Legislature conflict - Governor Napolitano should "keep her word" when she makes deals with the lege.

Immigration - Wants to increase manpower on the border, with the additional people focused on enforcement, not administrative support. Wants a fence along the border, employer sanctions, and to take away benefits from undocument immigrants.

Education - Blames the Governor for the state's high dropout rate; supports increasing salaries along with school choice.

Clean Elections spending - Voter outreach. The only difference here with the others is that Dan mentioned 'travel expenses' from travelling the district where the other candidates spoke mostly about signs and postage and such. Not a big difference there.

Parental Consent bill - Yes, he would support one. Wondered why teens can't get a tattoo or piercing without parental permission but can get an abortion.

Raising the minimum wage - No. Cited a study from Cornell U. that said the raising the minimum wage was bad.

Renewable energy - Yes, he supports private research in this area, perhaps with some partnerships with ASU.

Laura Knaperek:

Lobbyists - Lobbyists are a resource, a tool, for legislators.

Governor/Legislature conflict - Thinks that in spite of the conflicts and what was in the news, the Lege and the Governor dealt with a number of complex issues this past session. Feels that the Governor is a demanding person but that's (mostly) good. Thinks that there are a handful, but not a majority, of legislators interested in partisan bickering.

Immigration - "The legislature did a great job addressing a multitude of issues" but blames the Governor for vetoing many of their proposals. Wants increased use of border radar and stretches of fence.

Education - "We are trying to do a better job" in spite of the problems; wants more education choices and options.

Clean Elections spending - Voter outreach. [Thank God I only have to type that one more time. :) ]

Parental Consent bill - Yes. Parents should know about their child's life.

Raising the minimum wage - The state of Arizona already complies with the federal minimum wage and raising it would hurt small businesses.

Renewable energy - Yes, and says this is not a partisan issue. Calls for tax credits for LNG (liquid natural gas) and solar power use/research.

Chris Derose:

Lobbyists - Makes a distinction between 'hired gun' lobbyists and issue-oriented [read: citizen] lobbyists.

Governor/Legislature conflict - Doesn't support Governor Napolitano but will respect Arizona's voters if they choose to reelect her; hopes that the lege and the Governor will work together; decries "government by press release."

Immigration - Secure the border with radar; hire and empower local police and DAs to go after illegal immigration.

Education - Public education is very important; it's a "gateway" issue.

Clean Elections spending - [Stop me if you've heard this before...] Voter outreach. [Whew!]

Parental Consent bill - Yes, he would support it. Advised that people shouldn't be "fooled by red herrings," referencing Ed Ableser's answer on this.

Raising the minimum wage - No. Thinks the federal government should raise it and that raising it unilaterally would make Arizona less competitive; believes that the interests of business are of primary importance in this area.

Renewable energy - took some of his time on this question to comment on David Schapira's minimum wage answer (DS talked about his family's small business and its employees) and compare David to Jack Kennedy (JFK knew the Depression had hit when his father laid off 10 of his employees.) David responded in his closing statement, basically saying that Chris could compare him to JFK any time he wants. [Everybody laughed at that comeback.]

Notes and observations about the forum (this is all editorializing, so I'm not going to bother with brackets):

The Democratic candidates really are a strong group (as I noted earlier in this post.) They are all hard-working, dedicated, intelligent and insightful. That means some tough choices for the primary, but no matter who wins in the primary, we are going to have great candidates for the general election.

The Republican party should be complimented. They found not one, but two (two!) candidates that make Laura Knaperek look moderate and reasonable. Of course, if you ignore her words and examine her voting record, you realize that she's just as much a hard-line ideologue has her more vocally extreme colleagues.

Disappointments include the fact that only one of the eight candidates, Ed Ableser, mentioned Scottsdale by name, in a way that acknowledged that part of Scottsdale is in D17. Even the one candidate from the south Scottsdale portion of the district (Dan Gransinger) didn't do that.

Also disappointing was Dan Gransinger. Positions aside for a moment (I would never vote for him), he just seems to have the least depth as a candidate. Of all of the candidates, he seemed to be the least 'district-oriented' and the most 'party talking points-oriented'. And that's saying something with Laura Knaperek sitting next to him.

As you can see from the report above, if going into the debate you didn't know which candidates were affiliated with which party, you would soon figure it out. (See the abortion and minimum wage answers.) All of the candidates presented themselves and their positions fairly well.

If there is a debate for the general election, it should be interesting. While everyone was basically on their best behavior for this one, the candidates all have the intelligence and energy in support of their positions to make for a lively exchange of ideas in a more partisan debate. And they have the wit to deliver some good one-liners too.

"Lively exchange of ideas"? LOL, I love euphemisms. If the sponsors of such a hypothetical debate allowed, the debate would rock!

The campaigns for the general should be fun. :)

Other notes - At the beginning of the debate there was a technical issue with Laura Knaperek's microphone. It was picking up the broadcast of a nearby A.M. radio station. The consensus in my part of the room was that it helped her by masking what she had to say, LOL. There was a brief break after the second question to fix the issue.

Also, the moderator mispronounced Dan Gransinger's name all night. It was sort of annoying after a while.

Also, I have linked the candidates' websites to the summaries of their positions, except for Laura Knaperek and Chris DeRose. I could not find campaign websites for them, but I did link to Laura's bio page from the legislature. If anyone has links to their campaign sites, please leave them in a comment and I'll be happy to update this post.

Thanks for your patience everyone!