Tonight, I attended the candidate forum at the Assembly of God Church in Montgomery.  The Citizens for Community Values sponsored the event for the candidates to discuss their views on religious and moral issues.  The three pro-life Democrats attended, while most of the Republicans attended (minus DeWine).  Because of the nature of the event, the majority of the crowd was hardcore Republican.  There were plenty of old people with the occasional young couple sprinkled here and there- certainly an older crowd than the Democratic candidate forum on May 22nd.  The resounding messages from these candidates were predictably anti-gay, pro-gun, anti-abortion.  

I walked in a little late and found, Tom Bemmes speaking at the pulpit, while the rest of the candidates sat behind him. I got sandwiched in a pew by a thirtysomething man who attempted to flirt with me throughout the forum.  Based on his derisive laughter at any candidate who expressed a remotely independent idea, he must have thought I was a Republican.  As you can imagine, the evening was surreal in a variety of ways.   (Keep in mind that the opinions I formed about the various candidates are relative to the extremely oppressive atmosphere of the forum and reflect my attempt to extract any vestiges of progressivism from the candidates).  

Bemmes is a teacher from Sycamore, and he frankly seems like a good guy: sincere and energetic.  With regards to education, he spoke of the abysmal underfunding of No Child Left Behind, the need for reducing testing pressure, and the importance of low-class size.  He talked about the exploration of alternative energy sources, like ethanol.  "It's good for the energy problem, and it's good for the farmers."  But then, just like all of the candidates in whom I found a vaguely progressive streak, Bemmes' stance on moral values- the heart of the forum itself- emerged and stifled my hope.  He discussed family values, albeit ambiguously, with implications for gays and religion.  Still, on a Republican morality scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being, say, John McCain, and 10 being James Dobson, Bemmes was about a 4.  Not bad.  There was considerable more offensiveness to come.

McKewan was up next.  He is characterized by a stately appearance: tall, authoritative, and grandfatherly.  He opened the speech with a nod to Citizen for Community Values' role in getting the anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot, and hence helping attract the conservative base to vote in 2004.  He was the first to engage in a trend that has prevailed throughout the Republican primary campaign: attacking DeWine.  Dewine wasn't there, but that didn't stop McKewan and virtually every other candidate from making veiled and not-so-veiled ad hominem attacks against him.  McKewan decried the filibuster compromisers (DeWine's daddy) and I tried to feel good that the attack was based more on political backbiting and less on principle.

David Smith, a young engineer who connected the founding fathers with God and religion, spoke next.  He was by far the most theocratic candidate, mostly talking in metaphorical and spritual language.  Speaking behind a pulpit, as all the candidates did, the distinction between public servant and minister all but disappeared with him especially.  I can imagine that, even amongst that crowd, his appeals came across as pandering and overly earnest.

Eric Minameyer was next. He didn't talk in loaded or figurative language. He talked in facts.  He's a man in his late fifties, tall and bulky with white hair.  His credentials are frankly superlative.  He has served as an inspector-general in the Gulf War, Afghanistan War, and Iraq War.  Unsurprisingly, he is the only Republican candidate that has criticized the War.  (It seems to be a trend that those with actual experience in war criticize it).  He passionately reminded the audience of the humanity of the soldiers, one of whom is his son, and his committment in bringing them home.  Minameyer has also been a county prosecutor and his toughness on crime impressed me.  He also gave the funniest attack at DeWine all night- ridiculing him for the cell phone legislation of which DeWine seems to be so proud.  Minameyer insists that what you see is what you get, and unfortunately, his positions on moral issues would seem to fall into that category as well.  He opposes abortion, and he's committed to allowing greater power of the majority party to appointing judges.  Still, his overall competence and sanity impressed me.

Tom Brinkman embodies the put-upon psyche of the average conservative male: the taxes, the liberals, the gays, everything is a drain on the simple man's desire to live a simple life.  Or so that's how the rhetoric goes.  He's all about deregulating the environment, limiting government, and lowering taxes.  He insists that he has never voted for a tax in his life and will never vote for a tax in his life, proving that fundamentalism isn't just confined to religion.  Brinkman made an interesting reference to stopping the abuses of power of the lobbyists- the first and only of the night that could be interpreted to reference DeLay, though I doubt it.  For one thing, the loyalty to the Republican higher-ups in the room was palpable.    While discussing family, Brinkman made a blatantly mysogynistic comment, distasteful even by the offensive standards of the forum.  He said that taxes were anti-family because bad economic conditions force women outside of the home.  "Most of us don't want our mothers and wives to work outside the home but sometimes they have to..."  Brinkman also made a patently false claim that embryonic stem cell research "perpetuates the death of children."  Brinkman is, without a doubt, mad as hell and he isn't going to take it anymore.  I don't think he'll win the primary.  

Finally Jeff Sinnard, the first Democrat to speak.   He repeated one of his campaign maxims that I recall from the Democratic forum: "I'm not doing this for me or for you, but for my children."  I understand that he is attempting to present himself as a family man, but it comes at the cost of failing to present him as a public servant.  What I liked about Sinnard's speech, despite its occasional rhetorical flaws, was how he injected the values of peace, love, and social justice into the framework of moral values.   Tactful and aware of the audience to whom he was communicating, he discussed the human costs of the Iraq War.  It was a convincing, even moving argument that I can imagine a great deal of Christians- not those in the room tonight- understanding and believing.  "Sounds like a real commie" to me, said my admirer to the left with a goofy grin.

Charles Sanders was up next, the second Democrat to speak.  His speech, in my humble opinion, misrepresented Democrats, delivering the ideals in a wholly incoherent and offensive manner.  Of course,I agree with the essence of what Sanders says:  conservatives have hijacked religion and turned it into a mechanism to divide and deceive the public about the real issues.  But you don't say that to the very people who are in the throes of the massive manipulation.  Furthermore, you don't say it in a disorganized, impromptu, and inflammatory way.  I honestly felt that the contempt in the room might explode.

Jean Schmidt, a striking figure, and my prediction for the winner of the primary, then spoke.  She wore a bright red dress, and her appearance commands attention.  She began her speech, quietly reminding the audience of her experience in the state legislation, and her close relationships with Joe Hagan and Rob Portman.  Her voice can have the soothing quality of a first grade teacher reading a children's book, or a massage therapist.  But then, suddenly with vigor, the voice can take on a wholly different timbre- one of ruthless determination.  Since her cause is characterized by the most extreme elements of the conservative party, her passion and confidence sent a chill down my spine.  Her voice modulated with a piercing self-righteousness around four times: to explain her successful blocking of federal money to Planned Parenthood; her activism as a picketer outside of abortion clinics; her position against abortion with no exceptions; and finally, to announce that as a marathon runner in excellent shape, she can't wait to go to Washington so that she can fight "Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and especially Hillary Clinton."  The comment drew laughs and if I hated these remarkable women- all of whom are role models to me- it may well have been humorous.  But the determination in her voice got my heart racing.  Jean Schmidt is a tough woman, and she means what she says.  She will get the nomination.  

Peter Fossett, a teacher at CCD, was a breath of fresh air after Schmidt.  He was the first to discuss marriage without invoking anti-gay bigotry.  He cited the cultural trends of easy divorce and unwed parenthood as destroying the family fabric.  In an age where Mary Kay Letourneau can marry her former rape victim while a lesbian couple that has been together for fifty years can't, the indictment, as stupidly moralistic and distracting as it essentially is, was refreshing.  He was also the only candidate the whole night to use the word "tolerance."  Furthmore, Fosset was against the FMA because he is a states' rights Republican.  His approach to Roe vs. Wade is that it should be decided by the states.  If there's a candidate who at all represents sanity on social justice issues, it's Fossett.  

Jeff Morgan was the funniest and most charming and candidate.  He's got a down-home wit to him, benefitting from a gift for storytelling and an endearing drawl.  I found myself laughing at the sheer skill of his anecdotes even as I detested the message.  One about abstinence was particularly witty...and deplorable.

Jim Parker, the third and last Democrat, went last.  Parker is wide-eyed and filled with a sense of his own preciousness.  "I've put more than 300,000 miles on my car in the past three weeks," he says.  As it went on, his speech gained considerable momentum, and out of all of the democrats, I can see him appealing the most to the conservative moral voters.  Still, the question remains: if you're a tiny bit moderate, then what does Jim Parker offer that Fossett or Bemmes doesn't?  

After the candidates finished their speeches, Phil Buress, the president of the Citizens for Community Values, addressed those who objected to the candidate forum tonight.  He described the dissidents as trying to preserve the "separation of church and state."  Snickers at the mere phrase could be heard from various locations in the church.  I think that, in a nutshell, captures the experience tonight.