Everyone Loves A Tea Party

No one cares about Afghanistan. Everyone loves those ​“passionate” Tea Partiers. And all that hullabaloo over the Vietnam War? That was so last summer.

That’s how the world — or at least Connecticut’s electorate — thinks.

At least that’s what you would might believe after watching the first head-to-head debate Monday night between the two major-party candidates for Connecticut’s open U.S. Senate seat.

Democrat Richard Blumenthal and Republican Linda McMahon met for the first of three debates at Hartford’s Bushnell theater. FoxCT and the Hartford Courant hosted the debate. For a play-by-play live blog of the debate with color commentary, scroll down farther into this story.

The debate said as much about what two sophisticated campaigns have concluded about Connecticut voters (all but some 3 or 4 percent have made up their minds, according to pollsters) as it did about the candidates themselves.

For instance, there was but one question about foreign policy. It was about the Afghanistan war. It lasted about a minute. Neither candidate attacked each other on that issue — even though they attacked each other all through the night. (They did disagree about the war: Blumenthal said the troops should come home as planned. McMahon said the strategy has been confusing and needs to be tightened.)

With the Petit murder trial taking place in New Haven, it’s also apparently trayf to question the death penalty, at least in this race. Both Blumenthal and McMahon embraced it as a ​“deterrent.” (In the governor’s race Democratic candidate Dan Malloy has maintained his opposition to the death penalty, which he said has never been proved to work as a deterrent.)

Similarly, the Tea Party, while not a majority force, is apparently too hot to criticize in Connecticut, at least in the Senate race. McMahon, whom the movement has endorsed, spoke of its ​“passion” and ​“commitment.” She said she’s in ​“lockstep” with its members on economic issues. Democrat Blumenthal also offered only praise for the movement — which is the far right of the Republican establishment and has revived long-buried tracts from the John Birch Society.

In post-debate press conferences, both candidates admitted they disagree with Tea Party on one plank: eliminating direct election of senators. Blumenthal said he has plenty of disagreement on issues.

On the other hand, the debate showed that the definition of economic populism might be up for grabs. That’s where the real difference between the candidates emerged. Over and again, McMahon called for less regulation of business to enable them to make investment decisions. Blumenthal called for more government action to restrain corporations from taking advantage of people. She called for freeing corporations. He called for fighting them.

They also offered two visions of the ideal qualifications for a senator. McMahon said government outsiders with real-life business experience can do the job best. Blumenthal said people with government experience can do the job best.

Blumenthal ​“won” the debate in a pure strategic sense (as opposed to on substance; read the blog below to draw your own conclusions on that). For the first time in this campaign, he put Linda McMahon on the defensive all night.

Hours before the debate, McMahon issued a TV commercial reprising this summer’s revelations that Blumenthal made misstatements about his service in the Vietnam War. But Blumenthal answered the question quickly near the beginning of the debate, and it never came up again.

Instead, McMahon had to devote precious debating time to the charge that she called for reducing the minimum wage (she didn’t) and to defend her company’s outsourcing of manufacturing work to the Third World (she did).

After the debate, in meeting separately with reporters in the debate hall ​“Spin Room,” that dynamic continued. Blumenthal beamed and took softball questions about how well he did. McMahon repeatedly was called on to defend her minimum wage comments and to counter Blumenthal’s attacks on her outsourcing jobs when she says she wants to create them. (She said her company, World Wrestling Entertainment, contracted with a company, Mattel, that chose to manufacture toys abroad. She also said the government needs a better policy to encourage manufacturers to keep jobs here.)

A real-time blow-by-blow account of the debate follows:

6:51 p.m. Reporter whine period: We’re all complaining about the Rube Goldberg security system here at The Bushnell: Swarming with security that changes the rules at each stop, directs you to the wrong rooms at different floors to set up, and can’t figure out where you can have a camera and where you can’t. (In the end a bunch of sneak in cameras anyway — not to use, but because we got so many contradictory accounts of where we should stash them or how we can get form one room to another.)

After a 20-minute odyssey, we’re all seated in the orchestra section, a row of reporters and … Rob Simmons, the former Congressman who ran for this Senate seat and lost the Republican primary. What’s he doing here? ​“I figured: If you can’t beat ​‘em, join ​‘em,” Simmons said.

Panelists: Fox 61’s Laurie Perez and Courant capitol chief Chris Keating.

6:00 p.m.: Fans of both candidates have been lining the streets outside the Bushnell for hours ​‚calling to passersby and getting in each other’s faces. Not exactly a hopeful sign about the debate to come. (Click on the play arrow to watch a snippet.)

6:52: Four years ago the national and world press crammed the Senate debates: That race, between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman, was prime time. Tonight it’s mostly regional press except … sitting next to me is Alexander Kirst. He’s reporting for Nippon Hobo Kyokai, the Japan Broadcasting System. So this race definitely ranks: McMahon has some celebrity cred, and it’s too close to call. (Or was. Today’s polls were better news for Blumenthal.)

6:56 The candidates have taken their positions at lecterns. Blumenthal is standing the way he did in debates with his last real opponent, in the 1990 attorney general primary against Jay Levin: ramrod straight, like a former Marine. (We won’t go there.) His opponent then, Jay Levin, schlumped. Linda McMahon knows the camera: She’s a telegenic match for him.

7:01 p.m. New Haven shout-out: The Yale Debate Association is keeping time.

7:02 Question: How has public experience — without business experience — prepared you to be a senator? Blumenthal goes into his main talking point: ​“I have fought for the people of Connecticut” for 20 years; and he’ll put people back to work with small business loans and payroll tax deductions. So far he’s ducking the question about his lack of private sector experience. This election year private sector business is supposed to be a big sell — and actually having run government offices is supposed to be bad experience. Now Blumenthal is bragging about ​“opposing” the bank bailouts and saying McMahon supported them.

7:04 The question goes to McMahon in reverse: how about your lack of public experience? How does that qualify you to be senator? McMahon too is going to talking points: Her opponent is about fighting business and raising taxes. She talks about being against tax hikes, especially on small business. ​“In a time of recession, let’s not raise taxes on anyone.” She too is not answering the question about lack of government experience. You’d think Blumenthal would have said: Government experience is good for a government position. You’d think McMahon would say: Private sector experience is better experience for knowing how to create jobs.

7:06 They’re arguing about who’s really for ​“middle-class tax cuts.” Without saying it here — but they’re saying it elsewhere — they’re talking about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Blumenthal supports Democrats who say let the cuts on the top 2 percent of wage earners expire, while everyone else (“the middle class”) keeps theirs. McMahon argues that those top wage earners also need the tax cuts permanently so they can create jobs. (The debate: Do they reinvest it, or create jobs with the money? This campaign hasn’t gone to that level.)

7:07 ​“That’s a lie. You know that’s a lie”: McMahon responding to the latest Blumenthal ad claiming (falsely) that she said she’d consider cutting the minimum wage.

7:09 Now McMahon gets to the private sector argument: ​“I’ve been bankrupt. I’ve come back from bankruptcy … Mr. Blumenthal doesn’t have that experience. He’s been on the government payroll all his life.”

7:10 Lori Perez is now showing McMahon’s latest ad reminding everyone that Blumenthal’s misstatements about serving in Vietnam. Perez asks: Why didn’t you serve (and why did you lie about it)?

Blumenthal: ​“I’m proud of my military service.” He ​“regrets” the ​“few occasion” out of hundreds when he described his service ​“inaccurately.” He apologizes again to veterans. We knew this was coming. Perez is smart to get this out of the way early. Now he’s turning it around, saying McMahon didn’t take responsibility for her mistakes — taking government money to create jobs, then laying people off.

7:14 For the third time already, McMahon has to devote precious time to arguing that she never said she would reduce the minimum wage. Blumenthal brought it up again. So while it might not be accurate to say she ever said it — he’s tactically forcing her keep addressing it, and planting doubts in people’s minds as a result. (Lee Atwater and Karl Rove were masters of this on the Republican side in past elections.) On the other hand, McMahon did similar moves against Rob Simmons in the Republican primary — claiming, for instance, that he wanted to put a public option health care plan ​“on the table.” (In fact, he’d said since Democrats had already put that option on the table, all ​“other” options should be on the table.)

7:11 ​“If you knew anything about business,” McMahon tells Blumenthal, he’d know that tax incentives don’t come in the form of ​“getting” $10 million from the state. He responds that if she’s ​“taking home $46 million” in her own pay while cutting job, that’s not how tax incentives were supposed to work.

7:18 McMahon: Unemployment rose despite the economic stimulus plan, which was supposed to create jobs. The question begged: Would more jobs have been lost without it? Though many economists say yes, Democratic candidates like Blumenthal have a hard time making that argument to voters who see unemployment persisting, including structural unemployment for mid-career people.

7:21 McMahon asked a second time: Please name two specific programs you’d cut. She’s at first deflecting, instead mentioning that despite what Blumenthal said, she would have voted against some of the bailouts, especially for car companies. She doesn’t name the two programs.

7:23 Blumenthal: ​“I see great merit in the opposition of many Republicans to the bailout.”

7:25 McMahon zings Blumenthal for taking campaign contributions from the ​“special interests” he promises to fight. Blumenthal zings McMahon for paying lobbyists to influence Washington legislation while calling herself an outsider looking to change Washington. Zing!

7:28 Now the candidates get to ask each other questions. This is promising! Blumenthal asks McMahon why her company bought products from Third World countries like Pakistan. She’s ready for the question, but passes the buck: ​“We do not have the kind of policies here that conducive to manufacturing.”

7:30 ​“Cutting through all you just heard? The bottom line is” personal profit at public expense. ​“As CEO of WWE, Linda McMahon has to be held accountable for the loss of jobs overseas” because of having products made there.

McMahon: We created over 600 jobs here in Connecticut. ​“We need more of that in Washington. We need more of that in our state. It’s a great record. How many jobs have you created?”

7:34 Question: How’s the Afghanistan war going? McMahon: ​“We have seen different strategies, a flaw. On the other hand, she’s glad Obama picked General Petraeus to lead the effort. But she says that the ​“strategy” is confused: Have a surge? Pull out by a deadline? We need a ​“clear strategy. Then ​“take care of our veterans … when they come home.”

7:35 Blumenthal: ​“The president must adhere to the timetable we have set. … We should avoid an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan.” He endorses special operations and cyberattacks (interesting new trend, and one the U.S. and other governments are working hard on). He echoes what Rob Simmons said during the Republican primary.

McMahon and Blumenthal aren’t attacking each other here. I guess that’s because polling shows this election’s about jobs, the economy, domestic issues. Interesting: The Afghan war doesn’t get people worked up the same way, even as it drags on without signs of success.

7:37 Now McMahon is asked a question she keeps ducking when the New London Day’s Ted Mann keeps asking it on the trail: She said we should undo the health care reform law and get rid of some parts of it. Which parts? She’s not giving the answer now, either. Instead she attacks Blumenthal for originally praising the health care bill, then equivocating. (True.) She’s not answering the question (also true).

7:39 Now to Blumenthal: You said this is just a ​“beginning” bill. What’s the end? He’s praising how the bill does what he fought to do as attorney general: fighting health insurance companies for denying coverage for preexisting conditions. Next, he said, ​“eliminate waste and fraud” to bring costs down. And ​“stronger measures to rein in premiums.” He did answer the question.

7:41 And McMahon gets specific: Tort reform will bring down costs. We need tort reform. Here’s a classic Republican-Democratic divide: She says free businesses from regulation or court exposure. He says use government power to stop corporations from gouging people.

7:42 Here we go: The Petit murder case. Where do you stand on the death penalty?

Blumenthal: ​“I support the death penalty. There are crimes that are so … heinous that they merit it. I believe that Mr. [Steven] Hayes deserves the death penalty.” He breaks from the Democrat running for governor, Dan Malloy, who argues that it hasn’t deterred crime. (If it did, he said, Texas would be the country’s safest state.)

McMahon: ​“I absolutely agree with Mr. Blumenthal on his assessment of it.”

Interesting: McMahon now notes that Blumenthal attacks her company, WWE — yet he never investigated it until just recently, after the campaign started. Hmmm …

Blumenthal’s response: ​“My jurisdiction is purely civil … Allegations about independent contractor [practices]” at WWE fall under the province of the Department of Labor and other agencies. He says he knows nothing about their investigations.

7:46 How would Blumenthal describe the Tea Party? ​“I would welcome anyone who would be involved in the political process.” Interesting. Democrats elsewhere see the Tea Party as extremists who’ll hurt Republicans. Ever since Republican Scott Brown’s surprise election earlier this year, Blumenthal has seemed to fear them and tried not to alienate them.

McMahon is supported by the Tea Party (a marriage of convenience, since she’s running more as a moderate and has that biography). She praises their ​“passion and commitment” to rein deficit and government. ​“We are in lockstep on those particular issues.”

Blumenthal again: ​“People are angry and upset. The Tea Party’s views reflect that frustration.” Yeah. But does he agree with dumping direct election of senators? Does he consider Obama a socialist communist fascist Hitler Teddy Roosevelt clone?

7:51 Closing Statements. McMahon: Blumenthal is a ​“lifelong politician.” She’s ​“a mother, a grandmother, a wife … and a businesswoman.” She has the real-life experience needed in D.C. She’s spelling out the theme she hatched at the beginning of the debate.

7:53 Blumenthal: ​“I’ve spent my life … trying to help people.” He saved a woman’s automobile dealership. He ​“stood with” ​“Billy Clark” and other Pratt workers to ​“save their jobs.” He mentions ​“Laura Austin” whose insurance company wouldn’t cover ​“baby formula essential to her life.” He praises ​“public service.” She says McMahon ​“puts profits ahead of people.”

7: 55 Signing off until later. Will update in an hour or so (best guess) with the post-game spin.

8:15 Upstairs in the ​“spin room,” reporters await consecutive appearances by the candidates. Meanwhile, surrogates spin. Republican Rob Simmons says Linda McMahon won because the bar was lower for her: She had to hold her own and not lose her composure. But here’s a surprise: Democrat Ned Lamont (who ran for Senate four years ago and then for governor this year, losing both times) doesn’t call Blumenthal the winner. He calls it a ​“draw.” Why? McMahon ​“showed us a business person who would bring a new perspective to Washington.” Wait a second! Isn’t that what Lamont told voters about himself in the Democratic primary?

8:30 First Blumenthal enters and answers five minutes of questions, then McMahon. Both are asked if they’d vote to confirm Elizabeth Warren as the permanent head of the new consumer protection panel created by the new financial reform law. Blumenthal unequivocally says yes. Here’s a surprise: McMahon doesn’t say no. (Republicans have demonized Warren and threatened to kill her nomination, which led President Obama to appoint her to a temporary non-confirmable position overseeing the beginning stages of creating the new agency.) McMahon says she has questions about the wisdom of the new panel and she’d like to sit with Warren and any other nominee.

Otherwise, the dynamic of the debate continues, more dramatically: Blumenthal grins, fields easy questions, describes how he did well in his opinion. McMahon spends most of the time having to repeat that she doesn’t support cutting the minimum wage and explaining her company’s decision to outsource jobs abroad.