Gubernatorial Debate is Debatable

Those who showed up and tuned in last night to the Indiana University Auditorium for the third and final gubernatorial debate may have been a gotten a little something different than what they expected.

The debate served as more of an insight into the personal lives of the candidates rather than an actual debate on issues facing the state of Indiana. Soft questions such as "What makes you want the position of governor?" and "What or who has been the most important influence in your life?" let the candidates dodge the truly important issues facing the state government.

The questions asked throughout the debate were undemanding and served a lack of purpose. With the current economic crisis and continued "tough times" for all Americans, candidates for government offices should be demanded to explain and debate their plans, policies and issues. However, the questions of the debate focused on an overall, general view of government by asking what the candidates believe the role of government is, and little on the issues that matter most to Hoosiers such as education, health care, taxes and the economy.

Save for one question that was so loaded the candidates couldn't possibly cram their answers into the allotted time. The question referred to the issue of mediocrity among Hoosiers and the state of Indiana towards the issues of health care, education, the environment and so on. The candidates attempted to squeeze their supposed policies into this question that stood as one of few that actually asked about the issues and policies dire to the state and federal government.

Aside from the shared life stories from the candidates, there was some heat shared amongst the candidates as well. From the get go, democratic candidate Jill Long Thomson swayed from the undemanding questions to criticize current republican governor Mitch Daniels for the "loss of 64,000 jobs in the state and one of the highest home foreclosure rates in the country." Daniels denied these allegations claiming that Indiana has been one of the few states not facing the deficit that is ongoing in two-thirds of the rest of the country. He also claimed that he had hoped Thomson would be "kinder and gentler tonight . . . but was wrong".

Meanwhile, Libertarian candidate, Andy Horning tended to answer every question with his strong belief in the constitution. Explaining that if all officials were required to read the state and federal constitution and solely abide by those constitutions, there wouldn't be such a government "monstrosity". When asked to rate the Indiana legislature, Horning stated, "nine in intention, one in execution" and again proceeded to rely on the constitution to fix things.

After fifty minutes of little action and even littler acknowledgement of issues, most left the auditorium in bewilderment, wondering if they had indeed witnessed a debate. While many were expecting some heated arguments about economic, education, health care and tax reform they were instead greeted with candidate's explanations on how their code of ethics will integrate into their work and how they overcame their life's biggest defeats.

In a time when United States citizens and Hoosiers are in desperate need of answers and solutions, last night's debate left the audience with more questions and a continued longing for explanations.