Last night Bill Goodman at KET moderated the one and only debate between democrat Bill Adkins and libertarian/republican Thomas Massie. What became immediately clear is why Massie has refused all other debate opportunities thus far and how much of a disservice that has been to the voters of the fourth district.
Adkins came into the debate presumed to be the guy who is about to lose, and Massie came in on cruise control having already measured his drapes and chosen a guy from California (reportedly his buddy from MIT with no political experience at all) to become his chief of staff. What the very few voters who were watching saw however was quite surprising.
It is my humble opinion that undecided viewers form general sense impressions of candidates rather than remember specifics regarding policy or promises. Those with their minds already made up might watch and applaud their guy's statements which reaffirm the reason they support him to begin with, but as with most debates the after debate focus is on "performance."
In the world of human behavioral psychology the word "affect", pronounced "AFF`-ect" means "observable expression". And for people with my background and training, watching a persons "affect" becomes part of the over all study of body language and what they are communicating in a non-verbal way.
Both candidates had a very odd "affect". Whereas cool, calm guys like Bill Goodman know the camera and how to hold still, where to look and are aware of what the viewer is seeing, neither candidate seemed to understand what a series of closeups would make them look like.
Adkins has a tendency to bob his head and straighten his back in a display of nervousness. His eyes look half closed much of the time. He gives the impression that he is uncomfortable and aware that some of what he is saying might be a bit provocative.
Massie makes faces. He opens his eyes very wide at odd moments, he purses his lips and has a halting cadence to his speech. His smile seems practiced and flashes at very strange times. His face gets splotchy and he bristles at criticism.
To poker players these are "tells", little things that show more than the words are saying. On this score they both came off as abnormal guys.
On substance, however, Adkins was the most surprising. His understanding of the issues and how they impact real people seemed very genuine and well thought out. Yes, he clearly has a democrats view of things, but he delivered that view based upon compassion rather than merely parroting the liberal talking points. His commitment to Medicare and Social Security, as well as his reason for supporting the Affordable Care Act (it provides for those with pre-exisitng conditions) should score well with mature voters and with a lot of people all around the district.
Massie on the other hand when asked about such things made the gaffe of the night. He referred to those people who have to go to emergency rooms because they don't have health insurance as "free-loaders". When a shocked Bill Goodman asked him if that is what he meant, Massie, apparently aware of what he just said, merely repeated that the government is the biggest free-loader. He didn't retract what he had said about the less fortunate among us. If Adkins could find the money he could use this gaffe to drive a stake through the heart of Massie's chances. Can't you hear it now? "Another millionaire republican thinks of America's poor as freeloaders." It might not only hurt Massie, but it might hurt the republican cause as well.
But that was not a slip up by Massie, it was a very revealing moment. Time and time again in answer to a number of questions, Massie spouted the libertarian viewpoint that the government is the problem, spending is the problem, debt is the problem, but he offered very little in the way of solutions. He came across as very shallow, rhetoric laden and unsympathetic.
Massie is from that school of thinking that says "you are on your own". And that might be fine for bright guys who made millions. And it might explain why he is anxious to get out of Lewis county and back to the atmosphere where other "intellectuals" live, like he experienced in Massachusetts. Dealing with those "poor people" and living among them might not be his comfort zone.
And Adkins seemed to sense that when he reminded folks that Massie had made a number of promises when he ran for Judge Executive only to leave office in a year and leave his promises unfulfilled. As an Adkins plant (a caller from Vanceburg) said, why should we believe you (Massie) won't try to run for something else once you get in Congress. And he might have a point.
As we've seen with Rand Paul who has been running for President since being elected to the Senate, there is a movement of Ron Paul groupies in the nation who have plans for a "revolution" and their goal is to win seats everywhere, take over the Republican Party and inject their own brand of libertarianism into government. Positioning Thomas Massie to primary Mitch McConnell in two years could very well be part of that plan and no doubt very appealing to the growing number of Paul supporters that are finding themselves on the inside after having been on the outside for so long.
Adkins support for Obamacare will not set well with the district, but his reasons were not crackpot, fall in line, liberal democrat babbling. Massie on the other hand couldn't seem to explain himself much beyond the sound bites he has been repeating since February.
Some have suggested that Adkins debate skills are due to the fact that he is a lawyer, and Massie said we need fewer lawyers in Washington DC. In fact Massie blamed the rising cost of health care on "trial lawyers" and called for tort reform.
But once again Adkins bettered him. As Adkins pointed out, Massie's reliance on the Constitution is well placed, but doesn't inform him sufficiently. There are hundreds of cases which intepret the Constitution and have resolved conflicts between the executive and legislative branches of government which are as much a part of our Constitutional form of government as the Constitution alone. And while Massie's rail against trial lawyers might sell to the Chamber of Commerce and AMA types, again it is a criticism that was not fleshed out with proposed solutions.
The idea that lawyers make bad legislators is nothing more than a popular pander. It is like saying doctors only care about how much they get paid without giving them credit to them for the depth of the dedication.
On balance what viewers actually got to witness was the fact that Adkins is far more of a credible candidate than people probably thought, and Massie is much more of a front man for a philosophy than the kind of guy who can get into the fray of a contentious congress and fight for the things his district needs and wants.
I would encourage anybody who missed the debate to watch the archived video at KET.org. I think if you go into the thing with an open mind you might find it surprising.
Does this mean that Adkins might win? I sincerely doubt it, but what I now wonder is how slim will Massie's margin of victory be? Considering that there are more democrats than republicans in the district and that Massie has left some open wounds in the republican voting block, taken the voters for granted and hasn't permitted much of a head to head comparison until last night, victory seems far less sweet than what he might have been expecting.
Marc:
Nice summmary and I agree with your thoughts on Adkins. While a tad liberal for my tastes, he is clearly the compassionate human being in the race and is running for the right reasons- to help people and the 4th district. Massie is a puppet of the ideology that will ultimately ruin the Republican party.
Posted by: Jack Gatlin | October 23, 2012 at 08:10 PM
Marcus,
This is a very good look at the debate and very well written. A+
John Stephenson
Former Superintendent of Public Instruction Commonwealth of Kentucky
Now I must let the Lord lead me in my voting.
Posted by: John Stephenson | October 23, 2012 at 09:58 AM