Yesterday's Candidate Forum

at Temple Emanuel in Tempe.

Note: The ASU State Press has a less partisan report here.

Ten candidates attended or sent representatives.

U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mack (L) was there; Jim Pederson was represented by his policy director Steve Rabin, and Jon Kyl was represented by Andy Chasin.

US Congressional candidates Harry Mitchell (D), JD Hayworth (R), Warren Severin (L) from the CD5 race were there, as was Don Karg (R) from CD4.

Gubernortorial candidates Len Munsil (R), Barry Hess (L) were there; Janet Napolitano (D) was represented by Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix.

Messrs. Chasin and Rabin, and Mayor Gordon each did a fine job of going over their candidates' records and positions, but since they are not the candidates, I'm not going to really cover them. Most of what they said can be found at the websites of the respective campaigns.

Richard Mack, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate went over his background and basic beliefs. As with most Libertarians, that means less government. Much less.

He spoke and presented his message very well. While I won't vote for him, I have to respect how seriously he takes his candidacy. He almost certainly won't win, or even be a significant factor in November, but in October, his voice in the campaign could help focus the rhetoric on issues that really matter.

For example, he (and the other Libertarians) received their loudest applause when they commented on the Bush administration's attempts to subvert the Constitution, as well as the out-of-control federal budget.

Barry Hess, the Libertarian candidate for Governor, came across as much angrier.

He hates Clean Elections as unethical.

[Personal comment: What? Like the institutionalized bribery that is our current campaign finance system *is* ethical??? Get real.]

He also hates the idea of publicly-funded education, but he will follow Arizona's constitutional requirement to adequately fund it. He stated that "government education is a welfare system."

He did deliver some good punch lines that had the audience laughing, as did the other Libertarians.

Len Munsil went over his background then launched into a series of criticisms of the Governor. He connected border security and illegal immigration to Arizona's high crime rate. He also blamed her for Arizona's poor ratings in the area of education.

Later, while answering a question about state education funding, he spent most of his time attacking the Governor over illegal immigration. He criticized her initial opposition to sending the National Guard to the border, only to later deploy them.

[Funny, but he didn't criticize George Bush for opposing a commission to investigate 9/11, only to support one when it became obvious that the investigation was inevitable.]

Don Karg, the Republican running against Rep. Ed Pastor in CD4, was ummm....."unique."

The high point of his presentation was when at the beginning of his opening statement when he delayed his speech to walk around handing out some copies of articles and letters he had written (I didn't get one, so I don't know for sure what it was.)

It was the high point because he wasn't speaking.

He said that it was his fourth time running for Congress, but it was hard to tell. He speaking style was mumbling combined with rambling. The only position that espoused that I clearly heard is that he wants to build a wall at the border and to arm the border.

The rest of his presentation would have fit better in an argument in an alcoholic-filled dive bar on a slow afternoon than in this room.

He had the audience laughing, but it was a laugh "at" situation, not a laugh "with."

Warren Severin, the Libertarian nominee for the CD5 Congressional seat, took some time to explain Libertarian policies. He went on to criticize Iraq as a disaster, called the immigration issue overblown (got some cheers here) and advocated for a "real" guest worker program.

During a question about illegal immigration, responding to JD's claim that illegal immigrants want Social Security benefits, called that a "non-issue." He went on to state that he thought that neither of his opponents were "dealing with reality."

His speaking style, while a little less-polished than Richard Mack's, was personable and effective.

JD....where do I start?

First, the compliment. He *is* a skilled public speaker and performer. With the exception of Don Karg, the other speakers each did well, but JD was easily the most comfortable on stage. He delivered his message very professionally.

However, that message was garbage.

Most of what he said he has said many times before. He wants English to be our official language; on immigration he wants "enforcement first."

Regarding the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, he got a little creative. I already posted about his M*A*S*H moment, which concerned the war in Iraq. On terrorism, he said that the name "War on Terrorism" should be changed to "War on Islamofascism" and that Iraq was a "central front" in that war.

He was definitely reading from the "Campaign on fear and demonization" playbook.

Harry was easily the most popular, receiving a rousing ovation when he was introduced. [Yeah, there was a lot of home field advantage there, but it was genuine affection. Everyone else was treated courteously, even warmly, but this was much more than that.]

He spoke about his background and then talked about wanting to restore "the honor of public service."

[You listening JD??]

After that, he moved into discussing his positions. As with JD, there wasn't anything new here.

On immigration, he calls the current crisis a failure of the federal government to do its job. He supports the bipartisan approach proposed by John McCain, among others.

Regarding the economy, he also criticized out-of-control government spending.

Harry received his strongest response from the crowd when he talked about supporting scientific research, specifically stem cell research.

[Personal note: that the audience supported him on this was not a surprise; the strength of the support was. I'm only guessing here, but it's a safe bet that the Mitchell campaign noticed this too.]

On Iraq, he said the big problems were incompetence and mismanagement. He said that we need an exit plan, one based on benchmarks (aka - achievements), not time.

His presentation, while not as theatrical as JD's, was effective. Facts and reason are the best counter to overblown rhetoric, especially in front of an intelligent, involved audience.

The organizers of the event did a great job of keeping things going (though Don Karg dragged on and on) but I do have one minor complaint.

It was a little too much of a good thing. Perhaps focusing on one or two races would have served the audience better. Ten candidates and their speeches in a little over two hours is a lot to digest.

Let me close with something JD said about the war on terrorism, but that applies elsewhere.

"All the wishing and hoping in the world won't make the problem go away."

We know that, JD. That's why so many people are actively advocating and working for a change.