No winners in Wednesday’s 4th Congressional District debate

There were no winners in Wednesday’s debate involving candidates in Florida’s 4th Congressional District.

For one thing, Republican John Rutherford passed on the event.

It was a wise move. He would have gained little from the experience, and would have exposed himself to downside risk.

Democrat Dave Bruderly debated write-in/independent candidates Danny Murphy and Gary Koniz Wednesday evening in Jacksonville.

The event, held on the North Campus of Florida State College — Jacksonville, drew a student-heavy crowd and offered little in the way of fireworks or dramatic moments.

In an effort to draw bipartisan parity, Bruderly repeatedly tried to draw contrasts between himself and his absent opponent, which seemed mostly lost on the dozens in attendance, during rather superficial policy discussions throughout the hour-long event.

The first question dealt with government regulations, and whether or not they encourage wasteful spending.

The answers from all parties were pretty vanilla.

Bruderly contended that regulation, in both the environmental and financial spheres, is necessary.

Koniz opined that the “highway department,” the TSA, and the NSA are examples of necessary regulation.

Meanwhile, he added that “we have to learn to live with each other … and love each other.”

Murphy spoke to issues with “federal overreach,” while contending that “there is a need for regulation” and “finding a balance.”

“It’s just a matter of studying the issues and finding a balance,” Murphy added.

Government’s role in helping small businesses came up soon thereafter, but answers from the trio seemed to pivot away from that point.

Murphy described the Affordable Care Act as a “hardship for many businesses,” one that will require re-evaluation by the next president.

Bruderly concurred, advocating for modification of the ACA, before calling for decoupling of health care from employment.

“I’m now on Medicare,” Bruderly said, adding that Medicare works better than many private insurers at this point.

Koniz called for an increase in the minimum wage, to “give people more money to spend” and a revision of tax laws.

“Society needs to be people oriented,” Koniz contended.

Bruderly chimed in, saying our “19^th century economy” doesn’t jibe with our “21^st century reality,” citing driverless trucks as a potentially devastating force for the three million truck drivers.

Teacher shortages came up next.

Bruderly contended that his “opponent has suggested we eliminate the Department of Education.”

That opponent: Rutherford.

Bruderly sees that recommendation as “short-sighted” in the light of global competition.

“I support the idea of having performance-based standards … consistent across the country,” the Democrat said.

Koniz contended that schools are funded by “taxation in private communities,” and that “fiat money” would facilitate federal funding, especially in the “inner cities.”

“We need the drugs out of these cities,” Koniz said, “so they can be normal again.”

Throughout the evening, Koniz painted a Trumpian picture of inner cities that seemed less in tune with contemporary reality than they were with plot lines from 1970s sitcoms like Good Times and Blaxploitation flicks.

Murphy diverged from his opponents, saying education is a “local issue,” funded locally and with products that will be seen locally.

Discussion turned to a no fly zone in Syria.

Koniz referred to Syria as a “pile of rubble.”

“What are you going to accomplish by trying to remove a dictator? Are we going to increase an escalation with Russia over something that’s going to tear us apart?”

Koniz advised that we “beat the rebels” and ISIS as well.

Murphy pointed out that a no-fly zone was “problematic” and that America has difficulty discerning friend from foe in Syria.

Bruderly contended that “we can work to support democracy,” but “we are up against the Russian government, and we are sort of in a proxy war with Russia,” Bruderly said, urging diplomatic resolution.

“We broke the Middle East in a big way when we overthrew Saddam Hussein,” Bruderly continued, advocating soft power and “smart power,” along with “holding out a hand and offering non-military assistance.”

“We have to work with Russia, with NATO, with European allies … there’s no magic bullet,” Bruderly said.

Koniz then pointed out that empires are destroyed by war, and our national debt exemplifies that “our country is failing very badly,” urging a “quiet retreat.”

Immigration reform likewise had its day in the sun.

Murphy contended that “immigration policies need to be enforced” with immigrants being “properly vetted.”

“As a sovereign nation,” Murphy continued, “we get to choose who we let in and who we don’t let in.”

Bruderly castigated Ronald Reagan for “kicking the can down the road” with his 1986 amnesty, which left the legal status of immigrants opaque.

“We need to figure out a way to give them legal status,” Bruderly said, including a “path to citizenship.”

Koniz contended that he’s in favor of “giving them green cards,” but raised the specter of 100 million people coming from Latin America.

“What are we going to do, make slaves of them,” Koniz asked.

The final question was asked by a transgender Mormon woman who was also a military veteran.

“What will you do to provide for our safety and protection?”

Bruderly noted that the 14^th Amendment offers equal protection under the law.

“The law says person, it doesn’t say citizen … there are a lot of people who want to use their belief system to take away rights under the law … we need to push hard against those who resist progress and move forward,” Bruderly said.

Murphy and Koniz concurred.

There may be a time when Congressional District 4 is not a safe Republican seat.

But 2016 is not that time.

Murphy’s closing remarks were of interest, as they essentially were an 80s style standup routine, explaining how his plan to “make America laugh again” would “bring our country together again.”

“Give me laughter, or give me death. Preferably laughter,” Murphy said.

After that hour-long slog, laughter was in order.

A recurrent contention of the Bruderly side is that Rutherford is somehow in the wrong for not engaging his Democratic opponent.

However, this is a different setup.

In the primary, Rutherford faced a group of impressive candidates, including a legislator with decades of experience, and a legacy candidate who was able to self-finance and fundraise his way to a million dollar campaign.

In the general election, there is no equivalent operation, and no state or national Democratic Party support for a candidate like Bruderly.

That’s not John Rutherford’s problem to solve.

That’s the Democratic Party’s.