Ward-Labrador on Idaho Reports Round Up

Some thoughts on the appearance of Ward and Labrador on Idaho Debates:

• The first part of the show was uncomfortable for Ward as he tried to explain the list of issues that have come up. Given the fire he’s been under, I think he did alright. Though, I think the way he pivoted  to discussing the actual bailout issue was somewhat awkward and it could reinforce a perception of him having a bunch of talking points.
• You lied? Who lied? Some confusion here in the middle, and I think Betsy Russell didn’t give the discussion enough context in her blog post. She tells us that Labrador said, “What I’ve learned is that if you’re willing to say lies about small things, you’re willing to say lies about big things.” I found this puzzling until I watched the video because Russell didn’t explain what prompted Labrador to make the statement. Ward accused his opponents of bringing up his wife’s employment with Fannie Mae. Labrador, who has not brought up the issue and refused to comment on it.  “What I’ve learned is that if you’re willing to say lies about small things, you’re willing to say lies about big things.” Ward then took offense at Labrador’s statement. The truth of the matter on this it’s a dicey issue. Labrador hasn’t attack Ward, but I received a jolly e-mail from Michael Chadwick who is no longer a candidate, and wasn’t considered a major candidate. So, Ward may have had a technically correct point that an opponent did raise the issue, but making the statement while sitting next to Labrador inferred that Labrador had raised the issue when he didn’t. Thus, while it wasn’t lying to say that an opponent raised the issue when it was a minor opponent who has since withdrawn, it skirted the truth quite a bit.
• The exchange over immigration was ugly on Ward’s part. Labrador showed some political intelligence and avoided commenting on the specifics of the Arizona legislation, but said he understood what drove the policy and spoke effectively on the border.  Ward said, “I find it’s ironic that we’re talking about immigration and someone who defends illegal aliens, the very people we’re having problems with. That’s what he’s made a staple of his in life, to defend those illegal aliens.  I’m telling Idahoans what I believe on illegal immigration, and they can bank on it…And I haven’t spent my life defending them and buttering my bread with what I do based on that.”

Labrador responded well as he always did by pointing to the role of lawyers in defending the rule of law, and said that it was a pity that Ward, having spent his life defending the Constitution, didn’t understand the Constitution’s requirement of due process, and reminded us once again that John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston massacre.

Ward’s response to Labrador was, “I simply said that if you’re going to send someone to Congress who is going to fight against this problem, why send someone who defends illegal aliens. I didn’t say it was wrong. I just say that you have a choice.”

Wow. The, “I didn’t mean anything by saying that you’re  defending, “THEM!” I’m just saying, people have a choice.” thing is pure political malarkey and it undermines what he said about responsibility earlier in the program. The tone of voice and the words both implied there was something wrong with being an immigration attorney. Instead of owning his statement and his tone, and either apologizing for it or defending it, Ward simply tried to claim he wasn’t saying what anyone listening to him would hear.

I also have to question Ward’s understanding of the issue, as well as his articulation. The people who have been Raul Labrador’s clients aren’t the source of the problem. We have a system where we make it very hard to get into the country legally, and we penalize people who can’t keep up with all the movements of the bureaucracy, and we fail to protect our country from illegal entry.The problem starts with our politicians in Washington first and foremost. It’s like blaming people stealing money from the bank when the bank leaves the door and the safe open and unlocked every night.

Secondly, the articulation of the issue was ugly and divisive. It was as if he was playing to the worst stereotypes of those who support border security. A clear and winning conservative position is one that makes it clear in calling for border security, it is not because we’re anti-immigrant, but because we support the rule of law and legal  immigration to our country. Ward didn’t make that his message, and I think that was unfortunate.

• Jim Weatherby’s question on the repeal of the 17th Amendment may have been the biggest waste of time during the whole discussion. Both Labrador and Ward indicated support for returning to the legislature electing U.S. Senators. Weatherby called this out as some big problem.In reality, it’s one of those conservative wish list items that Ward and Labrador won’t spend one minute thinking about if elected to Congress. It’s because moments like this that the issue won’t be addressed, because the argument is not given a serious treatment.And Weatherby asking question in this forum really only served to further the use of caricatures and straw men rather than actually adding light. I’d be happy to take an hour some time and have a Lincoln-Douglas style debate on the issue of the direct election of Senators, but asking two politicos to explain the flaw with our current system in 45 seconds or less doesn’t serve the public discourse very well.
• I’ve endorsed Labrador, but I’ve got to be honest that there were a couple awkward moments here for him. The first was when he tried to link Ward to the bailouts because Ward was working for McCain when McCain supported the bailouts, and Ward didn’t come out and publicly rebuke his candidate. Kind of tenuous. Tactically, I could understand linking Ward to McCain, but I think it doesn’t work to try to link Ward to the bailouts directly through McCain . It’s too convoluted.