Too nice at these debates

Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2008 | 2:01 a.m.

So this is what it has come to, this is the elevated dialogue the Democrats have foisted upon us in their attempt to take over the Legislature, this is the distilled version of the campaign themes of one Allison Copening and one Shirley Breeden:

They are (cue the groans) “nice” and their opponents, Bob Beers and Joe Heck, are “mean.”

Although this has the value of being as substantive and trenchant as the average Carson City floor debate, it is nevertheless — oh, what adjectives to choose? — pathetic and depressing. And this emblem of Campaign ’08 crystallized Monday evening at the Clark County Library during a series of debates I moderated, two of which featured those potential power-shifting state Senate races.

If vacuousness were an Olympic sport, we’d have had a couple of gold medal performances from Copening and Breeden during the Congregation Ner Tamid-sponsored debates.

Breeden, an educator, not only seemed to have nothing of substance to offer, but she was the proverbial deer caught in the headlights, impressively managing to hold that look for many seconds at a time. She even mangled the talking points Democratic leaders had programmed Copening and Breeden to use: The mean Beers and Heck voted against cervical cancer and other insurance mandates, with Breeden twice referring to “prostrate cancer.” It made me want to lie down.

Copening, a public relations pro, consistently offered the kind of rhetorical mush that so many in her profession provide for clients — she said a lot but said nothing, which in her vocation often earns you a raise. And when she disgorged one of her talking points — Beers “doesn’t play well with others” — and I asked her for an example, she informed the crowd that Democratic legislators would back her up on that assertion. Stop the presses.

And yet, they both seemed so ... nice.

This was painful to endure. I could almost hear the Democrats in the audience praying for it to be over. And lest you think I exaggerate, consider the post-mortems from two bloggers predisposed to be sympathetic to Democrats:

Las Vegas CityLife Editor Steve Sebelius wrote that Breeden and Copening “turned in two of the worst performances we’ve ever seen in covering politics.” Liberal blogger Hugh Jackson said he “simply couldn’t take it, and had to leave the room. Breeden was that bad.”

This take is not emanating just from media elites. Anyone who attended that event and tells you differently has the same last name as the Democratic candidates.

Imagine Copening talking about “creative solutions” for the budget woes and then offering the least creative one of all — a lottery, which has died many deaths before, has plenty of policy infirmities and is the epitome of an easy fix for a complicated problem.

Beers made a couple of snide comments, as is his wont. But he seemed content to give an almost somnambulistic performance, willing to let Copening dig her own holes. This seems like a potential winning strategy for Beers: Just don’t talk.

Imagine Breeden struggling to mouth cliches and, when she tried to go deeper, she inaccurately accused Gov. Jim Gibbons of making cuts “unilaterally” and then appeared to have no idea what the state’s per pupil spending is when quizzed by Heck. He was direct and animated, parrying the talking points, defining his record and scurrying away from Gibbons. This seems like a winning strategy for Heck: Just stay alive.

Both Democrats temporized on taxes, but that’s straight out of the playbook drawn up by Democratic leaders. Much more disturbing is that these candidates are thoroughly unprepared for the offices they are seeking. This general phenomenon has been more evident — or more noticeable — this year than ever before in races for the Legislature, in which candidates either can’t or won’t say what they stand for.

Legislative Democratic leaders are so desperate to make inroads that they and their candidates say nothing. And they say nothing because they believe if they say something — i.e., what they really believe — they will lose. Thus do they acknowledge their ideas are not winners, thus does the appeasement of the other side of the political spectrum become complete.

All of this is not to assert that Copening and Breeden will lose. Sometimes — and I know this is a shocking proposition — the best candidate doesn’t win, and a rising Democratic tide could lift even these sad ships.

And if that occurs, if the Democrats’ plan to boost hollow but nice candidates into important state offices succeeds, will they be proud and boastful? The depressing answer, of course, is:

Absolutely.