An issue-oriented candidate forum for Louisiana’s Fifth Congressional District gave viewers a chance to see three repeat candidates and four new ones vying for the office in November (with a likely runoff in December) that did little to set apart competitive Republican candidates.
This was the second such forum conducted by a Monroe television station, public radio station, and the local Chamber of Commerce and the University of Louisiana Monroe. Some months ago, under a prior and unconstitutional district map these entities held a forum featuring present GOP candidates Board of Regents chairwoman Misti Cordell, state Rep. Mike Echols, and independent businessman Austin Magee. Joining them were four of the other six new contestants: Republicans state Sen. Stewart Cathey and state Rep. Gabe Firment, and Democrats lawyer Dan McKay and state Rep. Pat Moore.
Through the course of the questions and their opening and closing statements, McKay demonstrated himself as the least informed and most out-of-touch with the district’s sentiments (judged by party registration numbers favoring Republicans). For example, he erroneously said removing Social Security tax income caps would solve for the growing depletion of its trust fund, when in fact it, using static analysis only, only about half to two-thirds of the gap would be covered. This may have been due to the severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome he exhibited, and its prominent symptom of suspended critical thinking abilities.
By contrast, Moore was much more measured and focused, with fairly anodyne offerings that at most made general and vague critiques about the need for “change.” She could afford to do so because of district and contest dynamics, she is all-but-certain to advance to a runoff, where she will be joined by a Republican.
Concerning Republicans present, the only one with no appointive or elective experience or activism within the party, Magee, displayed some sufficient grasp of the issues, but the other four from the GOP appeared to have more detailed knowledge and obviously had experience working inside government that would lend greater belief that they could pursue their agendas, seemingly in line with his for the most part, if elected.
Those four didn’t differ much in the agendas that they articulated. Echols gave the most policy-packed answers, befitting communication skills he has developed in hosting a weekly talk radio program for over two decades and in his service at the city and state level. He also mentioned twice Republican Pres. Donald Trump (who has made no endorsement in the contest after the boundary changes) in laudatory terms, whereas the only other participant also to mention the president came courtesy of a bitter harangue by McKay.
Echols and the other two GOP legislators fell back on legislative experiences, particularly legislation they had championed, in delivering answers, a tactic unavailable to Cordell. All four basically agreed on eyeing data centers to ensure they didn’t impose externalities (which Congress can do little about except urge on states), using nonrenewable energy sources to meet power needs (where Congress can control executive branch plans along these lines), and imposing greater oversight over financial transactions made by members of Congress (which it alone can shape).
A small difference among them was articulated on the Social Security issue. Echols brought up most explicitly the option of some equity investment of its trust fund, which has demonstrated over the long run to experience far higher rates of return than the present strategy of investing in low-yield bonds.
In sum, undecided viewers didn’t get much help from this, particularly those who reject the big government liberalism of the Democrats. With so much similarity among the GOP candidates’ agendas, that choice likely will boil down to perceptions of competence in advancing conservatism, with almost certainly only one moving on to a runoff.
No comments:
Post a Comment