The three candidates on the ballot in November for the 2nd Congressional district squared off Thursday evening in the first debate of the season. Democratic incumbent Glenn Nye and his two challengers, Republican Scott Rigell and Independent Kenny Golden, faced an overflowing crowd at Princess Anne High School. I managed to not only make it to the debate, but to broadcast it live from a rather hot balcony at the school, thanks to Wifi help from fellow blogger Joel McDonald, who live blogged the debate.
Traveling down Virginia Beach Boulevard, I was met with a sea of Rigell signs. It was a harbinger of things to come. Once I finally found a parking space and made it into the building, it was clear that the Rigell camp had turned out its volunteers and supporters. Golden was out front greeting people and I saw a few members of the Nye campaign staff before rushing upstairs to get positioned for the broadcast. Being more concerned about making sure the broadcasting was working, I only half listened to the debate. Having reviewed the video a couple of times, I’m ready to declare a winner.
That winner would be no one.
Seated between Rigell and Nye, Golden had a tremendous opportunity here to make his case as the alternative candidate. In my opinion, he fell short. Perhaps it is his Republican roots, but I found him too much in agreement with Rigell. (Part of that was a function of the questions, discussed later.) Golden, who I interviewed earlier this year, has a lot more depth than was demonstrated in the debate. It wasn’t until his closing statement that he was able to work in his “blue glass, red glass, clear glass” appeal – and that rang hollow, based on his responses. I did enjoy, though, his gregarious personality. In the future, if he is truly an independent, I’d like to hear some more independent answers.
Rigell played to the crowd, throwing out Republican talking points over and over. Contrary to what his handlers may have told him, this was a debate, not a campaign rally, and his speaking style in this context – call it preacher talk, if you will – seemed out of place. I know Rigell has a greater understanding of some of the issues, but he failed to articulate them. I have to admit that I expected more from Rigell but he seems to be still in primary mode.
Early in the debate, I tweeted that if this turned into a Nye-bashing fest, Nye would win by default. While both Rigell and Golden got in their digs at Nye, it didn’t overwhelm the conversation. In his answers, Nye referred to his record in Congress or the old standby, his service prior to entering Congress. I have to admit that I cringed every time Nye said he voted on issues the way his constituents wanted – because rarely does he vote the way I’d like him to, and I’m one of his constituents.
As others have said, this debate sounded like one for a Republican primary. Perhaps the biggest reason was the phrasing of the questions. Except for the one on the environment, the questions themselves appeared designed to elicit only conservative responses. While I applaud the organizers for getting this debate done, I wish they had gotten some input from others on the questions. (And I wish someone had taught them how to pronounce Rigell’s name!)
Fortunately for the voters in the 2nd, we’ll have other opportunities to hear these candidates. Once such opportunity is coming up on October 9, when the League of Women Voters, of which I am a member, in conjunction with WHRO and ODU, will host what will likely be the only TV-broadcasted debate. As of this writing, Nye and Golden have committed to attending. Rigell’s camp is still holding their three (or five) independent polls position on whether they will show, ludicrous in light of their participation Thursday.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
The one pure environmental question sucked too, IMHO. “Name your three biggest environmental issues”. Rigell and Golden said “Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Bay and Chesapeake Bay”. Nye mixed things up a bit and said “Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Bay and Lynnhaven River oysters”. Lame ass question!
Great write up, Vivian. I think you nailed it.
Oh, I don’t disagree that the environmental question was bad. But at least it was something other than standard conservative fare.
And thanks đŸ˜‰
I was dismayed that suburban air and drinking water fell off the radar. Childhood asthma is disproportionally high, especially among children who ride diesel fueled school busses. Although I am a republican I can honestly say that no party owns environmental causes and few politicians will ever match Barry Goldwater or Teddy Roosevelt for the support they gave to clean air initiatives, under the radar.
I thought Rigell spoke with the most passion. I especially liked his answer on illegal immigration. And Nye’s no vote on Obamacare is a joke and everyone knows it. Rigell has created hundreds of jobs in this area. We need a businessman in Congress!
The massive grassroots turnout of Rigell supporters just goes to show how his message of fiscally responsible government, pro-business and free market economic climate, and much needed congressional reform are ringing true with voters.
His criticisms of Nye were spot on, especially the fact that clarity on his vote comes to congressman Nye at the same time that clarity comes to speaker Pelosi on the vote count.
Rigell’s the proven job creator and leader we need in Washington
Maybe Rigell is still in “primary mode” because he’s running against two Republicans.
Nye’s entire campaign is blur the differences.
Ain’t nothin’ about this comment that I disagree with, sadly.
I actually thought Rigell did the best, mainly because he was able to steer so many of the questions into what is his natural strength; jobs and the economy.
Nye seemed uncomfortable the whole time, maybe because it seemed that 3/4ths of the audience were sporting “Rigell” stickers!
Bryan, of course the gop nominee had more stickers in the audience, that is what many of those same campaigners and volunteers do wherever they show up.. Seems the same faces appear everywhere. If you consider the cross section of people who were not in any way affiliated with any campaign I think the 3 way forum attendees had roughly 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 support for the candidates. Nye is smart to let Rigell beat up on him some. Whoever flings mud loses some ground among independents and undecideds.
There is no need to fling mud or engage in personal attacks in this election. You either like what the federal government is doing, or you don’t. It’s that simple.
I think your assessment of the debate may be a little off. Which question didn’t Rigell win? He did play to his strengths, jobs and the economy, but it’s no coincidence considering that’s the most important issue facing our country. He has experience in what matters most in getting our country back on track, creating jobs!
Debate? What debate? It was a forum.
@Whiit Miller
Can you name a question that Rigell answered with a specific solution? I can’t.
I actually thought Rigell did a good job of explaining the differences with Nye. That was by far the most engaging that I’ve ever seen Rigell in public, and the audience really seemed to be with him. Nye seemed totally lost. Golden was blustery at the beginning and then totally lost steam as soon as it was apparent that Rigell came out strong.
If I had to declare a winner, I would say that it was easily Rigell.
A Virginia Republican politico wrote in a guest piece in C&E several years back about the top ten mistakes rookie candidates tend to make. He couldn’t limit himself to just ten, though: mistake #11 was “Worrying too much about debates.” You’re lucky if you can just get an undecided non-partisan voter to commit to spending five minutes in the ballot box during the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November; the only way you’ll get one to commit to spending an hour of his weekend watching a debate is to trick him into a seat and then chain him to the floor. Meanwhile because the human brain is wired to favor facts it finds “comfortable” because they fit more-easily with the cognitive framework that mind has created to understand the world, the Decided’s are automatically predisposed to think their prefered candidate won — because that candidate already represents their respective cognitive frameworks.
Long story short (too late) the only way you will win or lose more than a handful of votes during a debate is if someone makes a horrible gaff that is repeated in the next day’s newspaper or rebroadcast on the evening news. Unless someone accidentally utters a racial slur, the debate is ultimately a waste of a perfectly good afternoon.
If I had to objectively pick a winner, it would be Kenny Golden, hands down, but only because he was allowed to show up. He stands the most to gain in terms of name id from whatever publicity is generated by the event. Rigell’s campaign correctly realizes that the real battle surrounding the debate is whether or not Golden gets to steal column-inches in the post-debate write-up in the Pilot. Thus far, it’s a battle he’s losing. And as always, I have no earthly idea what Nye’s campaign is thinking.
###
Purely on a policy note, I am terribly, terribly distressed to see that none of the three candidates seem to understand modern military doctrine or strategy. Congressman Nye’s statement is fairly vague, but I suppose I should take heart from the fact that he is (correctly) focused on the population and on Afghani government services, particularly security. I disagree with Kenny Golden’s assessment over whether or not we have yet turned a corner in Pakistan; based on what I’m seeing and hearing from first-hand sources, we continue to be outmaneuvered in a number of ways.
I will say that Mr. Golden understands how soft power can and should feature into a broader geo-political strategy; however, I am utterly dismayed by Scott Rigell’s complete lack of familiarity with the strategic and tactical challenges that are facing the US and ISAF forces in the region. If your primary complaint about the prosecution of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan was the form of the Congressional declaration issued prior to the commencement of hostilities, then you have not been paying close enough attention. Likewise his notion of “overwhelming force” might get some polite applause — and I’m sure it would have probably gotten even more from a conservative audience during the Vietnam War — but it’s not in keeping with modern US counter-insurgency doctrine as advocated and executed by Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq (and now in Afghanistan).
So, yeah. More than a little surprised to discover how under-informed Rigell is, particularly since I was given to understand that he was running in part on his military service. Considering how much significance the goings-on in Afghanistan can have on the lives of families living in our region of the country particularly, I’m also more than a little dismayed that such an under-informed candidate has such a strong chance of representing this district next year.
Silence,
I do believe Kenny understands modern military doctrine as he wrote quite a bit of it when he was the head of the policy and plans directorate at Joint Forces Command when it was created in 1999-2000. He was also the command briefer for 3 years until he got by the Navy to be a professor and student at Oxford University.
GoldenInsider,
My reference to “modern doctrine” was specifically meant to refer to FM 3-24, which was produced during 2006 after Mr. Golden had already retired, although I readily agree that he’s probably got a pretty good handle on most of the nuts and bolts of previous field manuals. I also think he’s got a good head on his shoulders for our political strategy in the region (such as it is), i.e. he sees the intersection between humanitarian activities in Pakistan with our military goals in the region.
My primary concerns with Kenny are two-fold: first, I disagree that we’ve turned a corner in Pakistan. At best, I believe we’ve identified that there is a corner and we have a reasonably accurate understanding of where that corner is located, more or less. Second, while the Afghan/Pakistan border will obviously figure into how we improve security in-country, of greater weight is how and where we succeed in developing partners locally within Afghanistan itself, province by province. This was not referenced at all in his statement.
I agree with the need to go province by province and Kenny addressed that at his town hall last Friday. He brought up a briefing he got from CSIS that discussed the MAGAI construct. MAG stands for Modern Activity Gap and I can’t recall at the AI is. But basically there is no electronic activity over Afghanistan and the rail lines for Europe, Africa, and Asia all end around the country. The briefing he got said the plan is to connect those rail lines through Afghanistan and use the World Bank to fund it and that is what will bring the massive economic development and feeling of unity we need in Afghanistan to succeed.
I am late coming to this blog, but after reading over the article, I agree with most of it. But, I really can’t wait until the Debate. A debate, which is so much more interesting than a Forum, is really a great way to see what a candidate is made of.
Glenn Nye doesn’t impress me at all: and I too am one of his constituents, and he rarely votes the way I want him to either. Golden does have great ideas, but I agree with you that he failed to show them at this event. Rigell did a good job, he did not “shine” as much as I have seen him in the past (during the Republican Primary).
Again, I can’t wait for the “debate”, I am putting my money on Rigell!