Culver, Branstad camps both claim debate victory

Chet Culver lacked poise or Terry Branstad seemed uninterested during the second Iowa Gubernatorial Debate on Thursday, Oct. 7, 2010, depending on who you ask.

Both candidates met at Coe College to answer questions about their platforms, and opinions vary on which candidate benefitted more from the debate.

Democratic nominee Culver presented a clearer vision for the future of Iowa, according to Bruce Gronbeck, a University of Iowa political communication professor.

“He projected a good optimistic image about where he has come from and where the state is going,” Gronbeck said. “Culver certainly needs this to get out of his 20-point hole in the polls.”

Gronbeck also felt Republican nominee and former governor Branstad wasn't forceful enough during the debate.

“He seemed to be lacking energy and enthusiasm, and I'm not sure why,” Gronbeck said.

The governor's physical appearance weakened his presentation, according to Steffen Schmidt, a political science professor at Iowa State.

“(He) looked sweaty and he was constantly touching his nose,” Schmidt said. “If you watched the debate, it was pretty clear Branstad was the winner.”

Scmidt felt Culver's poor performance came down to a comment he made about Branstad during his closing remarks. Culver said that Branstad's policies were a return to the 1920s. Branstad was first elected governor in 1983.

“Either (Culver) was disoriented or he was deliberately trying to say that Branstad was too old,” Schmidt said. “Either way, it didn't work.”

Opinion among debate attendees was split along party lines, with Culver supporters, such as Cedar Rapids native Joe Michalec, 57, saying that the Democratic nominee demonstrated superior poise and knowledge during the proceeding.

“Branstad seemed like he wasn't really interested,” Michalec said. “I was confused why he rejected a few of his rebuttals.”

Branstad supporter and Cedar Rapids retiree Fred Johnson felt the debate showed Branstad was the more pro-business candidate.

“We need to move this state forward and the only way to do that is to focus on the economy,” Johnson said.

Although he supports Culver, Sam Bergus, 26, said he was unsure which candidate performed better during the debate. The Cedar Rapids engineer was disappointed that neither Culver nor Branstad reached any new ground in their talking points.

“They both avoided saying anything useful, they just went back to their stump speeches,” he said. “Neither covered anything in depth, they just kept saying statistics without providing sources.”

Candidates tangle over same-sex marriage decision

Although the debate was on the campus of Coe College in Cedar Rapids where 2008 flooding caused nearly $5 billion damage, the candidates' flood recovery responses didn't incite nearly the audience reaction as their analyses of how the state Supreme Court decision striking down a same-sex marriage ban has affected Iowa.

“It has not had an effect on the state other than allowing people to make their own decisions,” Culver, 44, said.

As applause died down, Culver said he respects the importance of an independent judiciary and accused Branstad of oversimplifying the issue of letting people vote on a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

“We need to move on. We need to move forward,” he said. “We do not need to add discrimination to our Constitution. We want to move forward in this state in regard to civil rights.”

Branstad said Iowans have a right to vote on an issue of “this magnitude.”

“I signed the Defense of Marriage Act that said that marriage is between one man and one woman in this state,” Branstad, 63, said, drawing applause from his supporters. “I think the Supreme Court was wrong to it strike down.”

He called on voters to change the leadership of the Democratic-controlled Legislature so the issue could come to a vote of the people. Voters should have the final say on the issue just like voters in 31 other states.

That prompted a question from an audience member who wondered if they could vote on Branstad's marriage.

No commitment to sales tax diversion

The two candidates discussed a plan proposed by Mayor Ron Corbett calling for the state of Iowa to divert to Cedar Rapids for a period of time the future growth in the state's 6-percent sales tax collected in the city and Linn County. This growth, which might equal more than $400 million over 20 years by one city estimate, would help provide required matching dollars for federal funds to build the city's new flood protection system.

Both candidates liked the plan, but neither formally committed to backing it.

The plan “has merit,” Branstad said. He wants to “review it and other alternatives.”

Culver accused Branstad of flip-flopping on the issue, saying his rival opposed the sales tax diversion earlier in the week.

Without speaking directly to the plan, Culver said he has been in “lockstep with (Cedar Rapids officials) for two solid years on flood recovery.”

An aide said earlier the governor supports the Cedar Rapids plans, but there are details that need to be worked out.

Cedar Rapids official say the sales tax diversion is needed to pay for a flood protection system for the city's west side.

The Army Corps of Engineers is prepared to recommend a no-frills, $100 million system to protect most of the east side of the Cedar River in Cedar Rapids, but not the west side. City leaders call that unacceptable. The Corps said a cost-benefit analysis does not justify the west side protection.

The city's “preferred” plan would protect both sides of the river and at various places would employ more-expensive removable flood walls in the downtown rather than less-expensive permanent concrete flood walls. The price tag for the preferred plan has been put at $375 million.

If the sales tax diversion would be approved by the state Legislature – it approved a similar plan for the Iowa Speedway at Newton, it could generate a revenue stream to allow the city to sell bonds to build a flood protection system in two to three years and pay off the bonds in 15 to 20 years.

Heated discussion

Throughout the debate, Culver sought to portray Branstad as out-of-touch and untrustworthy. He said Branstad promised not to increase taxes, but raised them 63 times, opposed gambling but signed legislation that has resulted in 17 casinos and failed to deliver the 300,000 new jobs he promised.

Afterward, Culver said Branstad “was like Rip Van Winkle.”

“He didn't know much about what our administration has done for four years and what the Vilsack administration did for eight years,” Culver said. “There seems to be a lapse in his memory of what we've been doing in the 12 years he's been gone.”

Iowans aren't interested in name-calling, Branstad responded.

“They want to know where you want to lead the state,” he said. “I think most Iowans think the state is going in the wrong direction.

“What Iowans want is a leader who will bring out the best in the people of this state, who will focus on the future and bring good jobs here. That's not getting done."

What's next?

This was the second of three scheduled debates between the two major party gubernatorial candidates. They debated in Sioux City Sept. 14 and will meet again Oct. 21 in the Des Moines Register-Iowa Public Television debate.