The Second District GOP Congressional Primary Has Another Active Challenger Who Deserves a Debate Spot

April 4 Update: A Schmidt campaign representative contacted me to say that “we were never part of the debate ……” This is corroborated by a Georgetown News Democrat story that quotes Schmidt campaign manager Allen Freeman as saying “We didn’t just back down. We never said ‘yes’ to begin with.” In the same article the McEwen campaign, as might be expected, disputes Freeman’s contention.
_______________________________

The challenger’s name is Deborah Kraus.

Matt and Mark of Weapons of Mass Discussion have detailed coverage of our interview with her. I could only be there for the first half-hour, and spoke with her informally for about 10 minutes before Matt and Mark arrived.

My impressions: A genuine, “what you see is what you get” person who has thought her positions through carefully. During my time there, we made the rounds of most of the major issues pretty quickly, and she was ready, not just with memorized sound bites, but with thorough-enough justifications as to why she felt as she did.

She was ready with many examples of non-defense-related pork included in the latest defense appropriations bill, and a defense of No Child Left Behind (accompanied by a belief as a school system computer network administrator that it wasn’t matched with adequate funding). By contrast, she also observed that US education has gotten worse since Jimmy Carter started the Education Department in 1977 (hence, she agreed that if NCLB can’t get it done, serious consideration should be given to dismantling the Department).

In person, she came off as more prolife than her platform would indicate. I now interpret her actual position as being against abortion except in the narrow circumstances indicated at her site, but not making it actually illegal in other circumstances in the first trimester (implying that she would make it illegal after that point, which of course would include banning partial-birth abortions). Ardent prolifers (who I agree with personally) would say that doesn’t get it done, but I consider Deborah’s position to be 95% of the whole enchilada, i.e., not a dealbreaker. “Values conservatives” might be less than pleased with her belief that sex education should not be strictly abstinence-only, but she argues that her position will prevent the use of abortion as a birth-control method. She clearly is against cloning and embryonic stem cell research.

Matt and Mark dissect her positions on security and the War on Terror, and I’m in general agreement with their analysis, including lauding her “finish the job” position on Iraq. I also agree that in some cases Deborah didn’t identify exactly what she would do in response to the things she says have clearly gone wrong in Washington, but I’m a little more forgiving than they are, because, at least while I was there, we hit her pretty hard and quickly with questions and didn’t ask “what would you do?” ourselves.

So overall, I would consider her an acceptable candidate who has to lot to prove in terms of gaining visibility and generating grass-roots support. Someone voting for her would be doing more than casting a protest vote against the other two candidates’ real and/or imagined transgressions, and would be supporting someone who (as much as one can reach a conclusion like this from a brief meeting) would perform competently once in Washington.

I think Ms. Kraus would hold up well in a debate, which leads to another point. At this moment, it appears that incumbent Jean Schmidt has made the decision not to participate in an April 19 debate in Anderson Township for what I have to assume are in reality mostly the same reasons Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell is doing the same thing — both believe they have comfortable leads, and both think there’s more to lose than to gain by appearing. Both appear to have cancelled appearances they originally intended to make. That is, of course, their perogative, and there is obviously a risk that accompanies it that both have been willing to assume. Whether they are right about the leads they believe they have, and how smart their decisions are, remains to be seen on May 2.

Since Ms. Schmidt has withdrawn, I’m not seeing any good reason why Deborah Kraus should be excluded from that debate. Deborah says she has been told that the people running it only wanted the candidates who are going to be in the top two on May 2 to be there. Her answer is “fine, I’ll be there,” implying of course that she expects to be first or second, which is the kind of feistiness you expect from a serious challenger.

The two alternatives being floated to a Kraus appearance are, in my opinion, not helpful, and could actually be harmful even to those who think they will benefit. One option is to have challenger Bob McEwen have the night to himself, which will prevent a dialog on the issues facing the nation and the district, and lose an opportunity for both challengers to shine in a face-off. It appears from what she told us that Ms. Kraus believes that Mr. McEwen does not oppose her presence, but I want to make it clear that I am not certain of that. Of course, the McEwen camp knows how to reach me if they wish to officially comment on the desirability of a Kraus appearance.

The other alternative that is seriously being pursued is to have Saturday Night Live cast member Rachel Dratch, who satirized Jean Schmidt’s cut-and-run speech on the House floor in November in an SNL skit, attend in Schmidt’s place. While that has obvious entertainment value, it shuts out a willing challenger, and by doing so makes all who would be associated with it, including Bob McEwen, look less than serious about serving The Second District, and instead more interested in scoring “gotcha” points than in advancing a discussion of the issues. I fail to see how that helps McEwen or Kraus, and in fact believe it will make Jean Schmidt look like she made the right decision by not attending what from here appears likely to be perceived by many as a circus.