If there is any doubt that Jack Goodman is the candidate with momentum in the Seventh District Congressional race, tonight's debate should put it to rest.
The momentum may have started too late to catch up to Billy Long, but Goodman's effective ads, and the fact that he is having an easier time raising money as the campaign enters its latter stages, have added an interesting wrinkle to the final weeks.
Goodman, Gary Nodler, and Darrell Moore all appeared to be more comfortable than Long, who at times seemed to be working much too hard to fit in his talking points about being a businessman who has signed checks for more than 30 years and about needing to send someone besides a politician to Washington.
Humor never hurts in a debate and two candidates, Goodman and Nodler had the audience laughing during the second hour. Goodman's moment came during a bizarre question about what vehicle the candidates drive. While Long got nowhere with a response that he had been driving a Ford truck throughout the Seventh District campaigning before Tea Party favorite Scott Brown did it in Massachusetts, Goodman had some fun with the question, noting that he had always supported Ford, despite his vote and help with Chuck Purgason's filibuster on the Ford/Claycomo plan last week.
Nodler received the biggest laugh with his deft handling of a ludicrous question from KTWO radio personality Brian Calfano, who asked which of the other candidates he would want to win if he were killed in an auto accident. Nodler noted he had been concerned about dead voters casting ballots in St. Louis, but if he were killed he was going to sit this one out.
The winners tonight:
Jack Goodman- Goodman loosened up tonight and seemed like a regular guy, cutting into the area that Billy Long has staked out. His answers were knowledgeable, to the point, and should appeal to his conservative base.
Gary Nodler- Nodler has a much-deserved reputation for coming off as pompous at these kinds of events. He did not try to show how much more he knows than the other candidates, a frequent shortcoming in the past, He showed a command of the facts.
Steve Hunter- By not showing up, he did not make any mistakes.
Scott Eckersley- He was well spoken, managed to mention a couple of times his fight for the people's right to know, and he came off as much more of a regular kind of guy than his Democratic opponent.
Kevin Craig- He had the most fun, and undoubtedly will capture the Libertarian vote.
Maintaining the status quo, but not damaging their campaigns-Billy Long and Darrell Moore.
Tonight's losers- Jeff Wisdom, Michael Moon, and Michael Wardell found no ways to stand out from the Republican crowd and Wardell came off as a "me, too" type guy, constantly saying he agreed with everything his fellow opponents said. Democratic candidate Tim Davis sounded foppish and out of touch.
More commentary to come.
11 comments:
So the lone Democrat is "foppish?" Was that because he is probably more intelligent and educated than the Republicans?
No, it was because he was foppish.
So, Scott Eckersley was well spoken and Jeff Wisdom did not stand out. You must not have been at the same candidate forum I was. Watch it again. Scott really struggled to get coherent thoughts together during the televised portion. Jeff Wisdom may not be the most polished orator, but he gave direct answers to the questions and provided real solutions. It's evident he speaks from the heart, and that's what people want. You really botched your analysis of this one.
hunter was in carthage @ the gop central committee meting last night. he didn-t say much.
Randy--
I feel the winners tonight were Goodman and Nodler. I think they have probably taken a race that was being led by Long and brought it closer to a dead heat (of course, depending on how many people actually watched). I was impressed with Eckersley, too, but wondered just how much of a Democrat he was.
My next tier would include Moore and Wisdom. I was not as unimpressed with these two as you apparently were, but feel that it is probably too late for them to gain enough ground to win. They can play the role of kingmakers, however, and found it interesting that Wisdom said "I agree with Sen. Goodman" 4 times during the course of the debate.
This forum was not a friend to Long. Visually, he looked uncomfortable and lacked specifics. Instead he more or less fumbled through some talking points. This was my first time listening to Long in a live format. He should stick to commercials. The one thing he does have going for him that he utilized effectively are his endorsements of Hancock and Huckabee.
The next tier belongs to Moon, Craig, and Wardell. Not a lot of reason to cast your ballot for them unless you are wanting to make a specific statement.
And Tim Davis is in a category by himself. Yeah, on paper he seemed like a decent candidate. The debate killed any chance of success for him. He probably would have received more votes had he not shown up.
Finally, the debate would have been better had Bolander and Robertson been the only two asking the questions.
What does it mean when you have Miles Ross and Lucas Case both texting to Clayton Bowler during the candidate forum at the fairgrounds?
First, thanks to the MU Extension and MU Alumni for teaming up to conduct the event.
The panel member, a woman, representing the Extension had some thoughtful questions. Some how, only Moon, Wisdom and Nodler seemed to understand the higher education question involving federal government and answered the question without spinning off into campaign talking points.
Second,the debate would have been better if the questioning had been conducted by Bolander and Robertson.
The person from KWTO was introduced by Mike Peters as having credentials that he ceratinly did not live up to as he pretty much made a fool of himself.
Too bad Turner could not have been on the panel.
The showcase concept to call attention to MU Extension did just that. It illustrated that MU Extension is one area in the University of Missouri budget where money can be cut, deeply.
In this day and age, less expensive ways are available to get knowledge than having overpaid, under-performing people in offices all day who seem to be best-schooled on promoting perpetual funding of many, meaningless programs.
Moon is correct, it an extension program does not pay its way as a result of the public using it, dump it and the supporting overhead.
You got to go to OzarksFirst.com and watch Robertson's summary statement on the most impressive question of the evening.
She really dumbs-down the evening to her level of understanding.
Nevermind the critical questions on jobs, education, the roll of government, the Constitution, the federal debt, the...........
Someone said the owner of KWTO was in attendance.
Did he roll his eyes at the performance of Calfano?
larrs wrote:
I think some of you need to pay more attention to the statements of the candidates, instead of who is the best looking, or who can "spar" with the others the best. The best I can see, most the candidates claim then intend to go to Washington and crack heads, straighten up the crooks, and stop wasteful spending.
First of all, what makes these candidates think they can do any better than Roy Blunt has done?
And secondly, it takes cooperation, getting along with the other 434 members, and some "one hand washes the other," type of actions, to get things done. To go to Congress with an attitude of "It's the common man against the crooks," ain't gonna fly.
Gary Nodler and Darrell Moore are the only candidates I saw last night, who seem to have the dignity, calmness, and professionalism, to get into the midst of Congress and do good things for the 7th District. After all, isn't that why we send a representative to Congress?
Post a Comment