Lee vs. Kryzan

I fondly recall Jack Davis debating Tom Reynolds at this very event two years ago, and if it was anything, it was lively. You had the Washington veteran, with his sense of entitlement and privilege, and you had the curmudgeonly industrialist, with his sense of rage and moral rectitude. They had no problem going after each other, and the crowd loved every minute of it.

Last night’s Lee vs. Kryzan debate was pretty staid, which is to say boring. They never really took each other on in any meaningful way, and instead concentrated on their policy differences – substantive, but hardly exciting. A few things stood out, however.

Kryzan rebutted the charges that she’s going to raise taxes, and she took on the notion that she’s some kind of big-government big-taxer. She’s for efficient government, which was a winning point that Lee never made.

I think Lee has potential, but he seemed nervous and a bit shaky, and he occasionally contradicts himself on issues.

For instance, he advocated for drilling offshore, but then criticized Kryzan’s desire to expand green energy production by saying it would take many years. Well, so would drilling, so what’s the point there?

“Drill baby Drill” is like telling a heroin addict that he needs to find new sources of heroin, rather than coming up with ways to kick the habit. Kryzan’s position is right because if we can find a different way to generate energy and power our transportation needs, then drilling offshore becomes moot.

Lee also tried to make a bold statement by looking at Kryzan and rebutting the charges made in DCCC ads about the sale of his company to ITT. The point in the ad is that the sale of the Lee family company to ITT took place after ITT had been caught and fined selling military secrets. This is a fact. He can claim that Enidine/IMC never sold a secret to China, but the company he sold Enidine to did. Reach your own conclusion as to what, if anything, that means.

But the larger point is that Kryzan didn’t put out those ads. The DCCC did. Kryzan herself hasn’t paid for or “approved this message” of any negative ads attacking Lee, while he trots out the “liberal trial lawyer” nonsense. His ads are pretty dumb, and I think voters are somewhat numb to attacks that are such – cliches. At one point, Kryzan slipped and said “25th” when she meant “26th” district. A dopey misstatement, but a misstatement nonetheless, and I have no doubt that the Republicans will try to make some hay with it about Kryzan not knowing what district she’s running in. Whatever.

But turning back to the issues, they were both predictable. Kryzan’s positions are very similar to those of Barack Obama, while Lee’s are very similar to those of John McCain. On healthcare, on taxation – they’re almost identical.

At its heart, this year is a change election. Change is coming to NY-26 either way, because Tom Reynolds is done. The question now is whether you want the sort of change that Barack Obama is bringing, or whether you go along with the McCain brand of change. Personally, I think we’ve had quite enough of Republican ideology and theorizing, and it hasn’t done the country a whole lot of good.