So, Thursday night I attended the GOP candidates’ debate for
the open Senate seat in OH next year.
The Strongsville GOP and the Ohio Values Voters were putting it on, and
as it was free, and I like politics…off I went.
I barely made it in time – traffic at the mall seems to be back to its
pre-pandemic pace – and was pleasantly surprised to be on a mailing list – with
pen and paper – so I didn’t have to fumble with the e-ticket. As it turned out, it started late, so I
didn’t have to worry. I did check out
the crowd; very white (even for Strongsville) and fairly…well,
white-haired. Not that I was surprised,
but…
Anyways, eventually, we began with a prayer (of course!),
the Pledge of Allegiance (ditto!), and an invite to the Strongsville GOP
Christmas party (and this was stressed as a Christmas party, which of
course amused me), and then the introductions and moderators. One was leader of the local GOP (check out
the Politico article on him), who joked that Matt Dolan (also in the primary)
was meeting with Tim Ryan, which brought loud cheers from the obviously
pro-Tribe crowd. The other was one of the leaders of the Ohio Values Voters,
who looked like a younger version of Jerry Falwell; I had to ask myself if all
these Baptist pastors come out of central casting. I almost made a comment that
I wondered if he liked seeing people bang his wife, but then I realized that
that was tame for ecclesiastical scandals in Strongsville and thought
better of it.
Then it was the candidates themselves, all of whom gave a brief
(2 minute) introductory speech. The
candidates were:
·
JD Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy: His speech was entirely policy-driven,
carrying his usual messages – culture, big tech and big business are conspiring
against the fabric of the country, etc. Got many laughs for calling Kamala
Harris “Cackula” which was, to me, quite droll.
·
Mike Gibbons, private equity investor: He spoke entirely about his background (dad
was wrestling coach, he was into sports), maybe to remind everyone he is not a
Mitt Romney/Thurston Howell, maybe to help everyone notice he doesn’t really
have any policy ideas.
·
Scott Pukita, businessman: Who? I
had never heard of him, and I follow politics!
Anyways, he is a small to medium businessman who decided to run for the
Senate. Has a 21-point platform which is
an odd but interesting mix of…stuff.
·
Bernie Moreno, used car salesman: Ha!
Ok, he is one, but he also gave a good speech detailing his background –
immigrant from Colombia – and his business rise, and how it has driven his
politics; tried to fuse both the political and the personal.
·
Jane Timken, Ohio GOP chair: Stressed that she
is the only female in the campaign, her short stature, and her background as a
rugby player to stress her competitive nature.
Also mentioned Trump the most during her speech, stressing that she led
his 2020 victory in Ohio. This is true,
but given that he won OH in 2020 by about the same margin as in 2016…well, I
was not exactly impressed.
·
Josh Mandel, former Treasurer: He arrived late,
so went last. Stressed his time with the marines and his conservative
credentials; complained about the effect of RINOs on the party, which certainly
got a cheer from the audience.
Anyways, after that round of
introductions, it was off to the questions developed by the moderators. It was sort of circuitous, as there were six
candidates, so it was kept to two minutes an answer. It appears that there have been a series of
these debates across the state; this was the sixth or seventh of them, I
believe, so I am sure a lot of other stuff was covered.
POLICY: Namely, how will you operate with a
Democratic President? (Everyone seems to
assume a GOP House, and likely a GOP Senate, especially if this seat remains
R.)
Vance went first and stressed that
the role would be one of introducing legislation and also that of
investigation; carrying his usual themes of both values and going after Big
Tech and Big Business. Crowd seems to
like this populist trend.
Gibbons is more of the same,
though less..strident? He also points
out that he has business experience, and as such his legislation will be
focused there.
Pukita has a lot to say,
mentioning things from his 21-point agenda – including health, personal
freedom, gun laws; quite interesting stuff, actually.
Moreno lists what he is against –
a bunch of “antis” – but makes a good transition into what he does support; a
blend of business stuff and some of Vance’s cultural program, tying it to his
immigrant status. I think it was
actually a good blend, and was impressed.
Also mentioned his commitment to free speech, which drew applause.
Timken stressed her pro-jobs
agenda, with details not-so-surprisingly sparse. Also trotted out the 8-1/2% line again,
leading to speculate if I should have picked her in the Trump drinking game…
Mandel, though, trumped her;
claimed the election was stolen, and hugged Trump even more tightly. Most of his time was allotted to election
reform, which was…interesting, given his former role as Secretary of State.
The next question was about the role of the federal
government; suffice it to say, all candidates spoke of the need for federalism,
less government in their lives, etc. No
real comments stood out here. Timken mentioned Trump again; Vance made a nice
pivot into his approach; Bernie Moreno made a couple of digs at Tim Ryan, which
amused everyone.
COVID: This question was about vaccine mandates and in
general “What about Biden and COVID?”.
Pukita went first and made a buzz by proclaiming he was not
vaccinated; somewhat loud cheer from the crowd, given their average age and…
health?
Moreno noted he was vaccinated but, of course, government
should respect the choices of those who don’t want to. Made an interesting point about the slippery
slope of “essential;” not sure the crowd got it but I felt it was a very good
small government argument.
Timken mentioned Trump again (liver poisoning by now) and
that the mandates were both an abuse of power and illegal.
Mandel went even further; not only did he denounce the
mandates but also called out DeWine for the shutdown, to thunderous and
sustained applause. This was odd; not that I don’t agree with the anger over
the shutdown, but DeWine has some pretty solid polling numbers (62% in last
week’s Capitol Letter); stuff like that may help now but not in the general.
Vance made the tie to Ron DeSantis, pointing out that this
was a governor who was following the science without damaging the state in the
process; some applause there. Vance and Moreno seemed to make the more reasoned
arguments against mandates.
Gibbons stressed the economic nature of the mandates –
hurting business, forcing them to police their customers, that sort of thing,
and was of course opposed.
LEGISTRATIVE STRATEGY; namely, how would you work as a US
Senator? Especially with the prospect of
a Biden Administration?
Moreno went first; had a yuuuugggge applause line
when he suggested he would like to work with Speaker Trump (this seemed
surprising; expected it from Timken or Mandel).
That said, he noted he would be the one to pass conservative
legislation, and used his background – business, immigrant – as an example of
what that meant.
Timken noted she would enact the Donald Trump agenda. Of course.
Nothing else notable.
Mandel was of the opinion that the GOP needed fighters to
stand up to the Democratic agenda, and that he was one. Mentioned gun rights – not really mentioned
before – as an example of the legislation he would enact. Called himself the
“Anti-Kasich” of the bunch, which also brought sustained applause. I thought this was odd, given he was in the
administration with the guy… maybe it was just not a RINO-friendly crowd.
Vance: Made a bunch
of specifics here – more military spending, but only on the military, and not,
say wokeness and CRT. Also inveighed
against big tech; challenged the rationale behind the new Voting Rights Act
floating around Congress.
Gibbons noted he was the one endorsed by Rand Paul and
indicated he would echo his approach; pointed out that he was a constitutional
conservative and would govern as such.
Pukita: I think he was checking the boxes more than speaking
– both of his plan (again) and of the basics of conservatism.
Next were a couple of audience generated questions. The
first was about how you, as a candidate, could position yourself to speak with
minorities. Not much realty
differentiated them; Pukita went on at length about his time talking to black
people at the Hamilton County Fair.
Gibbons went back to coaching and wrestling, while Mandel referred to
his stint in the Marines. Moreno pointed that many minorities were already
Republicans in mindset, you just had to bring them along (reminding everyone of
his immigrant status). Rah.
The next one was about healthcare – a conservative version
for it, and one where they discussed providing health care to illegal
immigrants. I was interested in these, given that this is usually a Dem talking
point, and if anyone could develop something to counter that.
Vance went first and mentioned that it was not so much a
question of spending but on how it was spent; noted that there was a trend of
hospital consolidation which affected competition and pricing, especially in
rural areas.
Jane Timken did not mention Trump – maybe we were out
of hooch – but offered nothing but platitudes.
Pukita, of course, referred to his plan (that drinking game
would have been a smash) and even called out some points from it – one of
which, implausibly enough, calls for all Americans to lose weight. I completely agree, but it did not appear
that that message would resonate with that well-fed audience…
Moreno drew the immigrant card again (it’s a good one) and
pointed out that such a plan would be offensive to those, like him and his
family, who came here legally; thus pivoting to immigration reform and pointing
out that we can’t care for everyone…
Mandel issued a fairly strident call against this and
against immigration in general, taking the Timken mantle of secure borders.
Gibbons linked this plan to the notion of repealing the Hyde
Amendment, and noted that both – no care for illegals, and no sponsored
abortion – were once long-settled policy, until, of course, Biden and the
Democrats came along. I liked the tie-in
actually; good pivot and point.
Next were a series of candidate-specific questions.
Mandel’s was about the large sum of money he raised in 2018
while sort-of running for the Senate; namely, there was a debate as to whether
or not he had returned some/all/none of it, which was a shame, given that they
needed the money to support other candidates (I guess some of it was returned
but not all). This was somewhat contentiously answered by Mandel, who claimed
he returned the money to all who asked for it.
Gibbons: The question was about job losses, which are a huge
issue. Given his role as a private
equity dealmaker, could he say that any deal he worked on did not cost
Ohio jobs? (This, to me, is a strike
against him, both now and in the general.)
He gave an artful dodge, pointing out that no one invests in businesses
to close them down, but to make them more profitable and thus invest in them –
and create more jobs. Left unsaid, of
course, is that these investments came after OH jobs were lost.
Moreno: His question was about the lack of support for
Trump; I guess there is a clip of him out there saying Trump was crazy of
something. As someone who would vote for
the man again, but would prefer not to… well, let’s just say that that was a minority
view in the audience. Moreno pointed out the clip was doctored, and that he
supported him in both elections – even donating $50K to the campaign. I don’t think the audience was exactly
convinced.
Pukita: This one
amused me immensely; basically, why are you campaigning seriously, given you
have $5900 in the bank and have virtually no name recognition. He answered that this is why he was here, for
one, and that money didn’t mean anything, it was the message, and that people
wanted someone who was not a career politician -- like Trump. I thought
this odd, given that only Mandel is the one who could be considered one;
Gibbons and Moreno are businesspeople, Timken married money (bully for her),
and Vance is an author/policy wonk.
Less seriously, I mean… if someone wants to drive around
Ohio and run for the Senate…more power to him?
Does anyone really think he will be a force in the campaign? Unless you
figure in a tight race, even the 0.4% of the vote he gets will be important,
but… if you need that to win a primary election, you have...other issues.
Timken’s question was about the perilous state of the Ohio
GOP’s finances; the books have not been audited in many years, questions about
where they money went… after the customary disclaimer about her role in 2020,
she claimed that all was well, Chip Diller-style; the books were being audited,
no irregularities or such were there, and that big donors were satisfied.
Vance: This question
seemed…interesting. Namely, given his hardscrabble origins and populism… how
come all of his cash (or at least a lot of it) came from Big Tech? Also, why does he spend so much time
fundraising in New York? He replied to the first one by pointing out that the
Big Tech money was mainly from Peter Thiel, who, as we know, spoke FOR Trump in
2016 (dig at those who question his Trumplove), and that Thiel shared his ideas
for reform and the libertarian idea in general.
He then switched to the next point, which was that he was a frequent
guest on Tucker Carlson’s show, and that given his influential role in the GOP,
it was simply an honor to be invited.
This followed a more general point that elections were expensive and he
had to catch up with…wealthier candidates.
Brief closings followed; nothing particularly memorable. The Strongsville GOP guy noted that they
would have a post-debate fest at a bar on Pearl Road, the opposite way of home,
so I decided to hustle out of there before the old people got on the road. I quickly navigated the campaign staffs (I
accumulated a small stack of campaign literature, which I read when I got home)
and managed to literally bump into Josh Mandel, who gave me a firm handshake,
if nothing else.
My own take: I am
still a Vance guy, and I think he was as good as anyone there. I was most impressed by Bernie Moreno; my
comments about not wanting a used car salesman in the Senate notwithstanding, I
thought he had a good message, intelligent replies, and came off as
conservative without being excessive about it (ahem, Mandel and Timken). I could see myself enthusiastically
supporting him in the primary if need be.
