Columnist Jon Ralston: Senate debate was a nice idea, but …

Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2000 | 9:54 a.m.

Jon Ralston, who publishes the Ralston Report, writes a column for the Sun on Sundays and Wednesdays. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or by e-mail at ralston@vegas.com.

If you're waiting for a report on the first U.S. Senate debate of Campaign '00, my apologies: I'm still waiting for the first debate.

What occurred Tuesday night at the Flamingo Library (televised on KVBC Channel 3) can be called a lot of things, but debate ain't one of them.

Constrained by the usual silly format strictures and hampered by questions seemingly posed by Lori Harrigan, the to-and-fro between Republican John Ensign and Democrat Ed Bernstein was a colloquy between two robots who differed only in their programming.

Given 90-second or minute-long dollops to answer, the candidates provided automaton-like responses that anyone who has followed the campaigns has heard ad infinitum. No follow-ups, no pointed queries, no probing. Thus, little insight.

So we listened to Ensign drone on about his Yucca Mountain-fighting bona fides, how he and Gov. Kenny Guinn think alike, how he loves Democrats, can name a few, and can even sound like one. We endured Bernstein's repeated familiar mantras from the Democratic Party playbook on prescription drugs and a patient's bill of rights, reminders that he is pro-choice and caricatures of Ensign as a drug company shill who likes polluted water, doesn't like kids and loves HMOs.

Ensign appeared confident, relaxed and facile with issues. Bernstein started tentatively, hit his stride about halfway through and aggressively challenged Ensign, but clearly is not as comfortable with federal issues much beyond the Democratic Party boiler plate stuff.

The 90-minute faux debate had the soft and gauzy feeling that comported with the Channel 3 ethos -- making it friendly for viewers but not too concerned about providing any meaningful illumination. In addition, taking questions from the audience at the library might have been fine, but it was packed with Democratic partisans who took full advantage of the opportunity. Does anyone think that maybe a debate should feature a real argument between candidates, not necessarily nasty or mean-spirited, but giving them a chance to show how they think, perhaps accidentally revealing what they really believe?

Instead we had less-than-riveting moments such as this:

Ensign: "I will fight every day to keep deadly nuclear waste out of this state." (What about the non-lethal kind?)

Bernstein: "I will always stand on the side of clean air and clean water." (That's a relief.)

Lest I be adjudged too cynical, there were moments that, if not memorable, were noteworthy. To wit:

On that same-sex marriage initiative, Ensign invoked President Clinton and Democratic vice presidential contender Joe Lieberman as fellow opponents. Bernstein surprised me by saying he opposes gay marriage but doesn't like the ballot question: He calls it "divisive."

Ensign, who has previously and very recently opposed citizenship benefits for the children of undocumented aliens, claimed he recently had an epiphany and is rethinking his position. It can become problematic for conservatives when real life interferes with their rote positions on social issues.

Bernstein probably referred a few times too often to what seemed like a love affair he has with the federal government, which is not a popular position. Ensign emphasized local control on education, which may have scored points.

The rest was standard stuff. Bernstein, like many a trailing, underfunded candidate before him, tried to get Ensign to agree to pull down all the campaign ads and just debate every day for the rest of the campaign. Didn't hear Ensign agree on that one. Better get out that checkbook, Mr. B.

How will voters react? Don't ask me. The fundamental disconnect between the pundit class and the benighted masses is well-established. But it's hard to believe anyone watching what amounted to a televised sound bite duel will have learned much or that it changed or made up a lot of minds.

Ensign has a double-digit lead in credible polls, and he probably didn't do himself any harm. His campaign released a nonsensical news release after the debate, declaring that Ensign focuses on "experience" and "Nevada solutions" in "winning Senate debate." Those kinds of self-congratulatory press offerings always make me wonder if the candidate doth brag too much. But the release befitted the event: It had little substance, contained stock rhetoric and could have been written beforehand.