Sadler, Cruz Exchange Political Jabs During Belo Debate
By Shawn M. Griffiths on 10/03/2012 with 14 CommentsRead Time: 4 - 6 minutes
Credit: dallasnews.com
Texas senatorial candidates Paul Sadler (D) and Ted Cruz (R) went head-to-head in their first debate on Tuesday night. The race is considered by several political analysts to be in Cruz’s favor since Texas is decidedly a Republican state, but Sadler is determined to silence the skeptics and prove that he still has a chance in November.
The first question moderators of the Belo Debate, which aired statewide on television and cable news stations owned by Belo Corp and nationally on CSPAN-1, asked was directed at Mr. Sadler. He was asked how he planned to appeal to independent voters and moderate Republicans to help his campaign. It is an important question because support from those demographics of the state electorate is the best chance the Democratic candidate has of gaining momentum.
“Republicans and independents should support me because of my bipartisan record,” Sadler said. “I have a record of accomplishment.”
During his tenure in the Texas House of Representatives, which spanned from 1991 to 2003, Paul Sadler was named one of the ten best state legislators by Texas Monthly during four consecutive legislative sessions. He received the John B. Connally Excellence in Public Education Award by Just for the Kids in 1995 for his role in bipartisan education reform, which included rewriting the state’s Education Code.
A Democrat has not won a statewide race in Texas since 1994. Mr. Sadler even admitted that the challenge to appeal to Texas voters is great, but he added that an open race is a challenge for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. Many analysts give his campaign a snowball’s chance in the Sahara to win and many Republicans in the state view Sadler as nothing more than the sacrificial lamb in the necessary process for Ted Cruz to ascend to the US Senate seat left vacant by Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Ted Cruz has gained a substantial amount of name recognition since his victory in the GOP primary over Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, who was the initial favorite to win. He has become a rockstar in the Tea Party nationally and spoke in a premier slot at the Republican National Convention in September. He has focused the message of his campaign on challenging the policies of the Obama administration and has played it safe going into November by ignoring his opponent as much as he can.
The format of the Belo Debate was not based on a traditional debate structure, which is built on specific rules to keep the debate orderly, civil, and on point. Tuesday night’s debate could be best characterized as a “no holds barred” style of debate with no rules, order, or civility. Moderators asked specific questions, but there was no guarantee that the questions would be answered without interruption or the conversation going off topic, which happened frequently in the back-and-forth between Cruz and Sadler.
The candidates were asked questions on government dependency, the Affordable Care Act, extending the Bush-era tax cuts, matters of foreign policy, and a number of issues that will likely be discussed in the presidential debate on Wednesday. Both men, however, could not resist taking fiery jabs at each other which diverted the focus away from the issues being discussed.
Ted Cruz seemed more interested in Barack Obama than his debate opponent until Sadler pushed him on the issues, calling his positions “crazy” at one point, and claimed that the Republican’s message was from someone with no experience or knowledge in government affairs. Cruz fired back by accusing his opponent of running an “unapologetic liberal campaign” with a message that is solely focused on promoting the president’s policies.
There were numerous distractions that prevented the debate from being informative to viewers. Candidates interrupted each other. Moderators interrupted candidates. Candidates interrupted moderators. Without structure and order the Belo Debate quickly turned into chaos and it was difficult for independent voters to get a clear understanding of what kind of leader each candidate would be.
The current political landscape in Texas puts Paul Sadler in a steep up hill battle to gain momentum before Election Day. Sadler’s campaign cites many awards and accomplishments during his years in the Texas Legislature, but his advantage in experience is overshadowed by the fact that voters are not familiar with him. His campaign needs the two debates with Ted Cruz to gain recognition. However, it is unlikely Tuesday’s debate helped those efforts.
Leave Your Comment →
14 Comments
Lucas Eaves
10.03.2012
@lucaseaves
In a republican state like texas, having an true independent candidate could be the solution to avoid more extreme candidate like Cruz to arrive in congress. If Sadler receive a good support, it will be a sign that a middle of the road candidate has a chance.
Blaz Gutierrez
10.03.2012
@blazgutierrez
This isn’t the first debate that’s gotten out of control. What’s the actual problem? Weak moderators, lack of concrete terms…? It can’t just be that this is what we expect a political debate to look like.
Michael Higham
10.03.2012
@michaelhigham
I think weak moderators are a big problem for debates that get out of hand, but sometimes the debaters act childish, start calling each other names and destroy the debate. The mayoral debate here in San Diego almost ended up like that.
Shawn M. Griffiths
10.03.2012
@shawntx
That is exactly what happened in this debate Michael. I felt like I was watching children bicker at one point. It was unbecoming of senatorial candidates or adults for that matter.
Shawn M. Griffiths
10.03.2012
@shawntx
It’s a combination of many things. You’re right, the problem with it isn’t just because this wasn’t the conventional method of a debate. However, that is part of the problem. The traditional structure of a debate is the way it is to avoid this kind of outcome. The moderators were weak. There were times when they would get into it with the candidates. It was just poor planning on the part of Belo and WFAA.
Alex Gauthier
10.03.2012
@alexg
A good move for Sadler could be to rise above the partisan rhetoric. It could help him gain credibility with independent voters
Shawn M. Griffiths
10.03.2012
@shawntx
He is going to lose this election, but by how much will be what to watch out for. If he gets a high enough percentage of the vote it could indicate the beginning of a shift in the political landscape in Texas. It will probably be another decade before there is even a chance that Republicans could lose the tight partisan grip they have on the state.
FiveShooter
10.03.2012
There is absolutly no evidence that any independent voter would choose Sadler, a big government liberal over moderate Cruz
Brandon Fallon
10.04.2012
@bfallon
I admittedly don’t know much about Ted Cruz, but why do you call him a moderate?
Shawn M. Griffiths
10.04.2012
@shawntx
Cruz is not a moderate. There is not a signle issue where he portrays himself as being to the center on.
FiveShooter
10.03.2012
Sadler pursued an attack dog style of argument he rudely interrupted his opponent and repeatedly talked over his opponent’s responses. Mr. Sadler did not answer one question posed during the debate.
Brandon Fallon
10.04.2012
@bfallon
There is a reason debates should have rules. It should be where the candidates answer questions without a teleprompter or pre-determined stump speech, not argue over each other.
Shawn M. Griffiths
10.04.2012
@shawntx
In truth, it was Paul Sadler who seemed more likely to interrupt. You could tell Ted Cruz really didn’t want to be there so Sadler did everything he could to get to Cruz and both men engaged in childish bickering.
Scherel
10.04.2012
I agree with this assessment of the debate’s effectiveness, as well as fairness. It appeared that the moderators clearly favored Cruz and that they came to his rescue whenever he was floundering, which was regularly. If Sadler seemed miffed by all this favoritism, he was reasonably so. Unfortunately, that was taken by some viewers as rudeness. The debate was poorly planned and executed by the sponsors, who deserve to be penalized for unequal treatment of candidates. Let’s hope that the debate on 19th restores order and offers voters a true picture of what these candidates stand for and the skills and experience, or lack of it, that they bring to our government.