We'll Do What it Takes to Get You to Read About the Mike Stewart-Eric Stansell Debate
If you decided to sleep in and skip this morning's debate between Mike Stewart and Eric Stansell, you didn't miss any drama. Held at the East Police Precinct on Trinity Lane before a predominantly white, middle-aged audience, the contest had a seriously flawed format: Representatives from various left-leaning special interest groups lined up to ask a series of predictable and earnest questions to each of the candidates and Stew-Stan gave almost identical answers every time. If they disagreed once, whether it was on capital punishment, health care, tax reform, abortion or gay rights, I missed it. The two are each standard-issue progressives—even if Stewart makes a good living as a corporate lawyer—and if there is any nuance to their positions or contrasts in their perspectives, this debate wasn't designed to bring that out.
Here are just a few examples:
On the recent spate of violence against gays:Stewart:
“I will support the expansion of the hate crimes statute.”
Stansell:
“Without question we have to strengthen the laws in this area.”On the pay day loan industry:
Stewart:
“It's clear you can regulate this industry and make it much more fair to consumers.”
Stansell:
“They should be a lender of last resort and it should be legal but it should be incredibly highly regulated.”On a mandatory joint custody legislation that would cut into a judge's discretion on domestic rulings:
Stewart:
We have judges because we need people who can show discretion on important issues.”
Stansell:
“If we have judges, we should trust judges and trust their judgment.”On the death penalty:
Stewart:
“A moratorium is something that absolutely makes sense.”
Stansell:
“I would support a moratorium on the death penalty.”
So I think you get the point here. Which is not to overlook the good news:
Update: Sorry I'm late on the link here but here's Kleinheider's take on the Stew-Stan debate.
Stew-Stan are eminently qualified to represent the 52nd House District in the state legislature. They're each intelligent, well-spoken and deliberate. They play fair. Neither one of them seem like the type of person who, oh I don't know, will pursue an adulterous affair with a lobbyist. Each of them answered the questions they were asked and didn't interrupt each other or take personal swipes. If anything they were too polite. Neither one of them even tried to draw any distinctions, which would have been nice since people in the audience could have used a little help figuring out what their differences were. (Although with Stewart the heavy favorite here, Stansell should have taken it upon himself to be a bit more punchy.)
As to who won the debate, I don't think anyone can say for sure. Both had lackluster opening statements, but Stewart's might have been less mundane. He chose to zero in on the unlikely success story of Warner Elementary School, which performs at or above state averages even though it draws from largely low-income neighborhoods. I'm not sure what exactly his point was, unless he was trying to show his familiarity with his district, which covers a large swath of East Nashville. In contrast though, Stansell merely offered the same platitudes that didn't exactly work for John Edwards.
“I want to be a voice for those who feel they have no voice, “ he said. “I want to represent everyday individuals. I want to represent the poor, the working class, the middle class.”
That's all good but somewhere in Stansell's introductory remarks he might have said something about, oh I don't know, his district perhaps?
Stewart was also a little more concrete on how to restore state budget cuts to public education, which was the first question of the debate. Actually “a little more concrete” is a relative term because Stewart merely suggested we look for ways to shift public dollars around though he didn't venture anywhere near the world of specificity. Still, that was preferable to Stansell's answer, which simply acknowledged that “funding is going to be tough for the next couple of years” and didn't really offer any way to deal with that.
But after the opening statements and first question, the debate was more or less a draw. Stewart showed glimpses of being a better student of public policy, at one point casually citing how the state of Florida regulated pay day lenders. At times, he seemed a bit more attuned to the goings on of the legislature too, but the format of the debate didn't really allow him to show off any superior political knowledge that he might have had.
For his part, Stansell showed a deft sense of humor and seemed more relaxed. He also was a little less eager to suck up to the various emissaries of the special interest groups. For example, when a woman asked a question about abortion, he replied: “Every reasonable person wants the number to be zero,” which is probably not the best way to endear yourself to the pro-choice crowd.
Immediately after, Stansell signaled that he will oppose any legislative efforts to restrict a women's right to end an unwanted pregnancy, but the fact that he was at least willing to acknowledge the moral complexity of the issue was perhaps the one (slightly) nuanced moment of the morning.
Interestingly, Stewart tried to sound as green as Al Gore, even though his firm, Waller Landsen, avidly represents developers and toxic polluters over neighborhoods and consumers. “I don't think there is any danger in Tennessee that we're going to overprotect our environment,” he said, looking a bit nervous here, as if James (The Dream) Weaver and Tom (The "Progressive") Lee might have just be standing in the back of the room. “I don't think we need to go backward.”
Later in the debate, Stewart struck a decidedly anti-developer note, saying that zoning decisions should be “grounded in the needs and desires of the people who are immediately affected.”
He added, “All sorts of planing decisions are best made by people who are going to be directly impacted by those decisions.”
Well, don't tell that to The Dream, because he represents the developers who wants to turn the pristine Bells Bend into Cool Springs North—over the objections of nearly the entire surrounding community.
Stansell could have brought out the irony in Stewart's pro-environment rhetoric, but chose to remain silent. The only jab he took at his opponent—and it was a light one—was to bring up his sizable cash advantage.
“Prior to this campaign I believed strongly in public financing in state campaigns and now that I'm in this campaign I believe incredibly strongly in public financing...” he said. “It's been pretty well-publicized that I'm David and he's Goliath in terms of fundraising.”
Comments
I don't think it is any surprise that Stewart and Stansell have similar viewpoints on the issues. They are both Democrats. That's why the question of background is important in this race. As well documented on this blog and in the Scene (including, I noticed, the letters to the editor section this week) Stewart has built his career on the backs of polluters and assisting large companies avoid paying state taxes (as I like to say, companies don't hire attorneys to help them pay MORE taxes; they are hired to assist them with LOOPHOLES). With their positions on the issues being even, I'd rather support Stansell, the candidate that does not have ties to and has not accepted money from large corproate interests or the people who represent them
Posted 07/05/2008 at 03:54:58 PMEric Stansell is a liar. He claims to have had little to do with the Trip Assured fiasco when he was with the TDCI. Read the Cease & Desist order that is available on the TDCI website and you will see what "minimal" involvement Mr. Stansell had. He was very involved with the matter and his inaction is responsible for many seniors having been ripped off. Isn't it ironic that the Clements are running Stansell's campaign? The same Clements who were accused of covering up for Trip Assured because of their friendship with the ill-fated company's president.
Posted 07/05/2008 at 05:42:41 PMJust about every time someone raises an allegation against Stansell, it winds up being refuted. I suspect this one is no different.
Guys, you should be in control here. Waller is doing everything it can to win this race--you don't need to raise up a fake scandal from the 1990s to seal the deal
Posted 07/05/2008 at 05:53:32 PMAvi, your comment is unsubstantiated and seems almost panicked. Can you please provide a link and further explanation?
Posted 07/05/2008 at 06:38:14 PMThe Clements are running Stansell's campaign??? Where did that come from? That's like saying Karl Dean is running Stewart's campaign because he volunteered on his mayoral run. I havent seen Bob Clement at the Stansell events I have attended. Seriously, if Avi can back that up, I'd like to see the proof. Really, where is it? Last I remember, wasn't there a story about Clement running some consulting firm out of DC (I think with former Rep Livingston)? And until Avi or someone else can substantiate that stupid assertion, let's just use a little common sense: if lil Bob were running the Stansell campaign, why would Stansell be outspent six to one? If I recall, Clement never had trouble raising money. This assertion is just stupid.
Matt is correct, all of the assertions made on this blog against Stansell turn out to be false. Too bad Stewart can't make the same claim regarding his lobbying work of record and his work as an attorney of record for large corporate interests (and I'm not talking about Waller's record, I'm talking about Mike Stewart representing Exxon and Eastman).
Posted 07/05/2008 at 10:13:24 PMGreat write up. Thanks, Matt!
Posted 07/06/2008 at 11:02:38 AMStewart's ties to large corporate interests worries me. We've had enough both nationally and statewide of corporate lobbysts ruining just about everything. Eric seems like a smart young man and I like that he worked for the Clinton administration. Nice article Matt but I disagree with you about the format of the debate. I think having various groups ask questions made things more interesting covering broad subjects.
Posted 07/06/2008 at 09:26:02 PMIf the debate was a draw and they are both progressive democrats, I'll take the guy without any corporate ties.
Posted 07/06/2008 at 09:33:44 PM