Published: October 22, 2008 01:49 pm      

Not many surprises during Indiana's 9th District debate

JASPER — The first and only debate featuring 9th District candidates went off with a few fireworks Tuesday.

Most of the forum — which was held at the Arts Center on the campus of Vincennes University’s Jasper location — consisted of the three candidates defending and explaining their platforms on issues such as abortion, economic bailouts and tax strategy.

Republican Mike Sodrel and Libertarian Eric Schansberg aggressively portrayed differences between their ideas and those of incumbent Democrat Baron Hill, who mainly was on the defensive.

Sodrel accused Hill of flip-flopping on his opinion of the economic situation in Indiana and America while Schansberg contrasted himself as the only candidate willing to break away from typical Washington politics, at one point likening the choice between mainstream party choices as “shuffling chairs on the Titanic.”

Hill responded to Sodrel’s claim by saying the bankers and retailers he’s talked to in Indiana seem to be doing OK, though the national economic projection is not as comforting.

Sodrel had compared two statements by Hill to media in which the Republican claimed Hill had described the economic situation as dire after previously stating the scene in Indiana wasn’t so bad.

“Southern Indiana people think it’s a mixed bag,” Hill said.

Sodrel attacked television advertisements paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, including what is known as the “Millionaire Mike” ad, calling them unfounded and off base.

Schansberg said the ads sponsored by Hill were not dirty but also condemned the DCCC spots, saying the candidates should publicly denounce such tactics.

The Libertarian said this campaign is cleaner than the 2006 run, citing a big lead by Hill and less funds available to Sodrel.

Sodrel conceded that it’s harder to run a campaign as a challenger. He said there’s three political parties running Washington — Democrats, Republicans and incumbents.

The two-hour debate was broken down into 60-minute segments, with candidates answering questions from the crowd during the final portion after being quizzed individually by a three-member panel during the first half of the debate.



Abortion

Sodrel and Schansberg said they were against abortion, both privately and in terms of its legality. Hill said he’s against abortion personally, but believes banning the practice could lead to “back alley abortions.”

Hill said he was surprised by Schansberg’s position considering Libertarians are noted for their will to limit government’s role in society.

Schansberg countered that life starts at conception and Libertarians are stringent in their support of life and liberty.

Sodrel said he’s proud of the pro-life movement, saying it has come a long way and developed from being merely an anti-abortion stance.



Taxes

“[Taxes] just keep getting more and more complicated,” Sodrel said, voicing his support for a simplified taxing system.

He believes current tax strategies penalize domestic producers, saying Chinese products can be sold without the high taxes added to American-made items.

Schansberg supports either a flat or a fair tax, but Hill believes the latter to be regressive, saying it would drive up the nation’s deficit even more.

Schansberg believes payroll taxes should be revamped, saying they are damaging to families since they apply to everyone who is employed, even people at the poverty line.



Trade

Schansberg believes trade with other countries that is mutually beneficial and ethical is “a great thing.”

But trading with nations such as China, where fair labor practices are not enforced, is not the way to go, he said.

“When dealing with a communist country, then it’s a different matter,” Schansberg said.

Hill said labor and environmental standards should be enforced, but that “there’s nothing wrong with trading with a communist country if you can make money.”

Each trade policy should be reviewed on its own merits, Sodrel said. He added fair trade is a difficult goal to obtain with countries that aren’t on the same page ideologically.

“I don’t know that we can have fair trade between a communist country and a capitalistic country,” Sodrel said.



Oil

“Drill early and drill often” is part of Schansberg’s solution to the nation’s oil dilemma, but he said it’s more of a weak dollar issue than an energy crisis.

Sodrel said drilling is not the only solution but it has to be part of the equation. He suggests an “all of the above” approach to energy, where alternative forms and drilling go hand-in-hand.

Sodrel suggests providing incentives to companies that can produce energy solutions, but Schansberg said the market should be the driving force for innovation, not subsidies from the government.

Hill touted legislation passed that he authored which raised fuel efficiency standards. He said “we cannot drill ourselves out of this problem” and added technology is on the brink of producing cars that do not need traditional fuel.



Bailout

All the candidates said they were against the $700 billion economic bailout, which was extended to $850 billion after pork was added to ensure passing of the measure.

Hill voted against it twice. Schansberg said he would never use taxpayer money to aid failed financial companies and Sodrel said the answer was somewhere in between doing nothing and the bailout.

“My dad told me you can’t borrow your way out of debt,” Sodrel said.



Term limits

When asked by a panel member if he would support term limits, Hill said such restrictions would take away from the power of having experience.

“We have term limits now — they are called elections,” he said. Hill has served four terms in Congress.

Sodrel said term limits are a good idea.

“America has a deep enough bench that we don’t need to have the same people serving for two generations,” the 2004 to 2006 House member said.

Schansberg said term limits can sometimes be misleading, but urged voters to hold officials accountable for the issues he believes are the most pressing, such as Social Security reform and revamping payroll taxes.



Schansberg’s qualm over lack of closing statement

The program ended without the candidates making closing statements after questions from the crowd exasperated the time limit set for the debate.

Sodrel was the only candidate who was asked a question from the panel during the first hour about Iraq, a topic Schansberg planned to tackle during his final remarks.

“We didn’t get a two-minute closing statement — as per the agreement. I was hoping to use that to speak to our ongoing efforts in Iraq,” Schansberg said.

He claims to be the only candidate who is serious about bringing troops home from Iraq, saying Hill talks about it but continues to vote for the “status quo in Iraq.”

Sodrel said he was pleased with progress in the war-torn country and would support bringing troops home “as soon as practical.”

Hill was not asked about the war during the debate and left prior to a post-debate press conference.

Aside from the lack of a closing statement, Schansberg said he enjoyed the format and wished there were more debates.