The moderator asked his question clearly: "Tell us how you would help alleviate
Kentucky's dependency on coal, Mr. Lally." The candidate's response, however,
was something out of Mars. Lally, the Republican Congressional candidate, began
a spirited diatribe about the number of power poles on Bardstown Road. He was
getting fired up (characteristically, it seems) about this ' serious problem' when
there was a murmur from a group of his supporters:
"Coal! COAAAL."
The MC shushed the crowd, but everyone figured it out. And then it hit center
stage: the political newcomer sheepishly realized that the moderator hadn't
asked him about POLES--but rather COAL, Kentucky's one-time reigning industry.
Such a hearing malfunction could happen to anyone. I'll give Todd Lally a break
on that one, considering that he's an Air Force National Guard pilot. I'm sure he's
watching clips of that priceless moment today and thinking to himself, "Damned
loud engines."
It is difficult to determine who won last night's debate. Even though incumbent
liberal Democrat John Yarmuth sings my tune, I fairly admit that both candidates
displayed qualities worthy of any voter's attention. Yarmuth, prone to rambling,
also had a slight tendency to stutter. And while he played constant defense (being
placed there by both challenger Lally and the American public), the Congressman
was by no means a wallflower. When Lally implied that Congress was responsible
for the second-year lack of increase in Social Security payments, Yarmuth was
quick (and justified) to call the Republican's comments "ignorant and irresponsible",
as Congress has nothing to do with Social Security payment structure. Immediately,
Lally looked down. I got the impression of a father chastising a wreckless child. In
this case, the 'child's' brief showcase of guilt was surprising for a politician.
Todd Lally showed a Dick Cheney-esque zeal as a bulldog, chasing Yarmuth on
topics ranging from the national debt to health care reform and the Middle East.
His first couple of attempts to directly question the Democratic incumbent were
bold; Lally definitely tapped in to some of that Tea Party rage and attempted to
make John Yarmuth appear like Satan's right-hand man. Unfortunately, Lally
made frequent use of this tactic, which didn't exactly conform to rules of the
debate. Yarmuth did appear like a deer-in-the-headlights on a couple of occasions,
but as the debate continued, he used political saavy in waiting for the moderator
to approve Lally's question/attack before answering. This bought time for Yarmuth
to make the most sensical use of the last word, thus making Lally to look like a
dangerously-misinformed bully.
Lally spoke of being a native Louisvillian, but really spent much of the hour
trying to tie Congressman Yarmuth to "Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco-agenda", a
phrase that he used three times. His simple answer regarding the distracting issue
of abortion rights: "Only to protect the life of the mother." was well-received by
supporters, especially in comparison to Yarmuth's clear but wordy explanation
of his pro-choice stance and respect for the views on both sides. Lally's passionate
views on U.S.-Afghanistan involvement and his personal reflections of combat
definitely helped him with that segment of the Republican voter.
Still, an objective listener would have felt that John Yarmuth was more focused on
bettering Louisville. For all of Todd Lally's firm direct challenges ("Have you
been to Iraq, Congressman??") ("Some stimulus--do you feel stimulated!?"), his
commanding voice, passion and appeal to many voters, he offered few, if any
solutions to these complex, vast issues. I left the debate feeling more confident in
my opinion that Congressman Yarmuth should keep his job.
Before the concluding speeches, Lally and Yarmuth touched on the seemingly-
lifelong Louisville problem of new bridges. Although rambling, Yarmuth asserted
that he would not intervene with the design and decisions of the Bridges Project.
Lally, however, couldn't answer quietly. His points were concise, but he tapped
into that Tea Party rage a bit too much, saying that the bridges should be designed
'without the need for poles'.
Come on, Todd. You Tea Partiers may not want any type of tolls, but building bridges
without supports?
Even Queen Sarah wouldn't dare...
No comments:
Post a Comment