Seen But Not Called: Stansell Squanders Debate Opportunity

By Kleinheider Posted on July 5, 2008 at 8:50 pm

If the “citizens” who woke up early and trudged on down to the East Police Precinct for the 52nd State House District debate on this holiday weekend morning expected to see clear delineations and differences on policy between the two progressives vying for Rob Briley’s soon-to-be former seat, they were sorely disappointed.

In the debate this morning, in front of a small crowd of mostly campaign staff and volunteers and progressive activists, both Eric Stansell and Mike Stewart toed the progressive party line on question after question posed by the usual suspect interest groups in the progressive portfolio.

On issue after issue, agreement was the rule and exceptions were few and far between — if existent at all.

On taxes, both candidates spoke to the progressive imperative of removing the tax on food. How offsetting revenue was to be found to accomplish this “imperative progressive goal” was not discussed much by either candidate.

On health care, both candidates, while promising to fight for increased accessibility and affordability in the broadstrokes, conceded that a federal answer to the health care question was needed. Mike Stewart promise to be an effect advocate for that federal change while Eric Stansell pointed to his stint as a lawyer at the Department of Commerce and Insurance as preparation for leadership on the issue.

The question of SJR 127 and the issue of abortion came up and both candidates committed emphatically to defending a woman’s right to choose and to stand in opposition to attempts by the Right to change the state Constitution.

Eric Stansell give a bit of lip service to the goal of decreasing the amount and necessity of abortions. His answer was less knee-jerk pro-choice rhetorically but substantively there did not seem to be any daylight between the men on the issue.

On a question on hate crimes against those practicing alternative lifestyles, both were, as anyone would be, horrified by recent events in Memphis and pledged to lead the fight on the issue. Stansell sought to draw a contrast noted that he was the only candidate at the Nashville Pride Fest but Stewart countered that he too was at the event.

On predatory lending, Mike Stewart emphasized his refusal to take money from title lenders and urged more regulation while Stansell brought the issue back to his experience as a lawyer for the state dealing with the issue. Stansell believes there needs to be “lenders of last resort” but they should be highly regulated. Again, no major difference between the candidates on the issue.

The name of Rob Briley was mentioned by a questioner on the death penalty noting the Representative’s leadership against death penalty calling for both a moratorium and a study committee. Both candidates lauded the efforts of the retiring incumbent and pledged to continue the efforts.

Here like on the abortion issue, Stansell seemed, rhetorically at least, to be more conservative (relatively speaking) than Stewart. Stansell made it emphatically clear that he supports the death penalty in principle for the most serious and heinous crimes. Of course, Stansell ended up saying that if further studies proved that innocent men were being put at risk, if the state continued to apply the penalty less than uniformly, he would support abolition. As, of course, would his opponent.

Mike Stewart, responding to a question from the Sierra Club, said they was no danger in Tennessee of us “overprotecting the environment” and that we should not move backwards in regard to the very limited progress made. Stansell echoed the remarks but did add that job creation and environmental protection did not have to be mutually exclusive.

On education, Stansell said the key to bringing middle class back to the public schools was to make the high school diploma “worth something again” advocating, among other things an end to any type of social promotion. Stewart, on the other hand, seemed much more an incrementalist citing progress already made and the folly of pursuing the path of radical reform.

On the state employee buyouts, once again, both were opposed to how they were handled by the current administration. Stansell, again citing his experience as a state employee, explained that it was important to keep experienced people on staff. Stewart noted Governor McWherter’s handling of a similar situation without the current mess.

On eminent domain, the two candidates did betray a small difference, while both candidates bemoaned most cases of economically motivated use of eminent domain. Stansell said that the government should reserve the right to use eminent domain in cases where the one individual is stubbornly holding up a good project, putting the interests of one individual ahead of the whole. Under very few circumstances, Stansell allowed that government could and should step in under an economic rationale.

In the end though, differences seemed few and far between. As Matt Pulle noted, the setup of the debate seemed to run a bit counter to the interests of a substantive discussion. Facing questions by prominent progressive special interest activists in their area of expertise does not encourage candidates to go much past talking points designed to appeal to the sparsely populated audience of committed liberal activists.

When asked after the debate about the lack of substantive differences, both candidates conceded very few policy differences and instead pointed to there backgrounds and “where they are coming from” as reasons to vote for one over the other.

Stansell, again as noted by Matt Pulle, exudes a very John Edwardsish populism in his approach. He believes that his status as the outsider in this race and his willingness to give voice to the voiceless as the major difference.

“I have been throughout this district talking with people and listening to people in places where most candidates don’t go,” explained Stansell, “I have talked to and heard the concerns of people who say they have never seen or talked to a candidate [pursuing the 52nd seat].”

Stewart, while citing his incrementalist approach towards education which recognizes progress already made a small distinction, granted few differences.

“It would appear that we are both solid progressive Democrats,” said Stewart.

Stewart argues that his background in Democratic politics would simply make him a more a effective advocate for the district. When asked if his advantage over Stansell was knowing more of the people “one needs to know,” Stewart agreed that his connections do give him an advantage.

“And it’s not just the people in my firm, I have worked with many people, included the current Mayor, on many different issues and that experience will benefit the people of the district,” Stewart explained.

So who won? As always, tie goes to the money. In a debate between a well funded downtown lawyer and an underdog former state employee, the underdog needs to show something. By not seizing the opportunity to draw distinctions and attack or challenge Stewart on any of his answers, Stansell yields to the stubborn inertia of the perceived frontrunner.

Additionally, Stewart, while he did not make any bold impressions on the audience, did take more opportunities to talk about the district than Stansell. An unfunded underdog like Stansell should be going out of his way to show an in depth and intricate knowledge of the district with which to distinguish himself from the well heeled downtown lawyer. He didn’t.

Stansell has nothing to lose, he is expected to go down to defeat. As he prepares for the next encounter between the candidates on July 15, he would be well advised to find distinctions, any distinctions, between himself and Stewart and blow them up or the district will simply elect the man whose money and connections make him an almost defacto incumbent.

SEE ALSO:
Nashville Scene
Laura Creekmore
Grand Divisions
Sean Braisted

permalink | 1 Comment

Tags: 52nd District, East Nashville, Eric Stansell, Mike Stewart, Rob Briley, Tennessee Alliance For Progress, Waller