Click here to subscribe today or Login.
By BRETT MARCY
[email protected]
Sunday, October 31, 2004 Page: 1A
“OK, so what is your definition of a liberal?”
A kind, compassionate, caring person, answers Democrat Jon Marie Garlan,
pouncing on the moderator’s question.
“I’ve got a good definition for liberal,” says George Trent, a
self-described conservative.
Then he adds matter-of-factly and deliberately:
“Empty scrotum.”
Eight others around the conference table cringe, digesting the four
syllables that seem suspended in the air. Their groan is collective.
Trent leans back in his chair and grins widely.
“That’s so typical for a conservative,” Garlan spits back, glaring at
Trent. “I’m not surprised you would say something like that.”
The exchange marked one of the few times this group – brought together by
the Times Leader in an attempt to highlight issues in the presidential race –
found nearly unanimous common ground.
A red-faced moderator struggled to keep order, admonishing the five
Democrats, three Republicans, and one self-described conservative who wouldn’t
give his party affiliation, to try to remain civil.
Was this a recipe for disaster? Would we hear only partisan bickering?
Could this be done without police backup?
We made a pitch weeks ago for voters with strong views about Bush and Kerry
to participate in a forum. Fifteen people – many dedicated readers and
contributors to our op-ed pages – responded. Of those, nine showed up the
evening of Oct. 13.
By coincidence, the panel was practically split down the middle, mirroring
the great national divide. They ranged in age from 38 to 82, their occupations
varied, from cashier to self-employed business owner.
The discussion began politely, but quickly escalated into a boisterous
shouting match. Insults and profanity spewed, and one panelist threatened to
walk out for not being allowed enough time on the floor.
What got them so incensed? Read on.
CLEAR DIVISIONS
The panelists arrive and are ushered into the editorial boardroom. By
happenstance, they choose their seats in almost a completely partisan way –
Republicans down one side of the long table, Democrats along the other.
An assortment of cookies, shortbreads and sodas sit in the center of the
oval-shaped table, but the panelists hardly touch them. It’s clear they are
there to talk, not eat.
Once everyone arrives, the moderator, Times Leader Public Life Team Leader
Todd Meyers, gives each participant two minutes to explain their support for
Bush or Kerry. Some read from prepared statements, others speak impromptu.
Doug Glawe, a 48-year-old claims analyst from Hanover Township starts it
off.
“I support President Bush for re-election,” Glawe says. “He keeps his
principles straight. He doesn’t change his opinions from one to the other. …
Now, I may not agree with him all the time, but at least I know where he’s
coming from.”
On the other side of the political spectrum, and seated directly across
from Glawe, is Garlan, the self-described liberal.
“I support Sen. Kerry for president,” Garlan says. “I respect Sen. Kerry. I
think he is a great man, a good man, a sensitive man. I can’t imagine who else
would be running, but I am from the ilk of `anyone but Bush.’ I feel as though
he did tremendous harm to this country.”
Fellow Democrats at the table echo Garlan’s sentiments, something
Republican Chris Hackett points out as common among Kerry supporters. Still,
he says, he needs to hear more than just Bush-bashing rhetoric to convince him
that Kerry is the right choice.
“My only point is that it seems as though a lot of people who are for Kerry
are really anti-Bush, and that’s OK,” Hackett says. “But what I’d like to hear
about some of the other issues. Why Kerry?”
Garlan tries to explain her opposition to Bush’s handling of the war on
terrorism, in Iraq, on health care, but fails to detail how Kerry would do
things differently.
Almost as if they’re a team, the Democrats at the table begin to build a
concerted case for Kerry.
Anneliese Moghul, a retired nurse from Mountain Top, puts it this way:
“We know we’re on the wrong course now. Do you want to go over the cliff
and stay with the so-called steady course that he is charting? If you’re wrong
about something, you change course, and that’s what I’m hoping for.”
As if speaking to the American public, Moghul pleads with Hackett to give
Kerry a chance.
IRAQ AT THE CENTER
Although all of the panelists list domestic issues, such as the economy and
health care, as among their important concerns, nothing trumps the war in Iraq
as the No. 1 issue.
The Democrats at the table launch a full-scale verbal assault against the
Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war. They level charges that he
lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion, and insist he
has refused to recognize that his decision to invade was a mistake.
The Republicans fire back that Kerry has flip-flopped his position on the
war several times. Some question Kerry’s Vietnam record.
Hackett praises Kerry’s service in Vietnam, but rapidly points to the
Democratic candidate’s anti-war activities upon his return from Vietnam.
Repeating themes from a TV ad from the Bush-backing Swiftboat Veterans
group, Hackett says the most heinous act was Kerry’s meeting with
representatives of the communist Viet Cong after the war.
“I felt it was somewhat treasonous,” Hackett says.
Other Bush supporters at the table are more pointed still in their attacks
of Kerry, likening his anti-war sentiments in Vietnam to his critique of the
war in Iraq today.
“He has strengthened the resolve of the enemies of the United States by
undermining the policies that are in place, and especially the troops that are
out there and in the field,” Trent says.
“As a Vietnam veteran, I’m very keenly aware of negative comments and
statements,” Trent says. “I would feel very uncomfortable as a professional
military person, as in some of our National Guard from our area that are over
there, having the politicians undermining my safety by questioning
everything.”
In response, Moghul beats on the Republicans for their cries of
anti-patriotism and treason for anyone who speaks against the war in Iraq.
Speaking with a thick Eastern European accent, Moghul explains she was born
and raised in Germany and still has family there. She says she hears the
anti-American sentiment coming from Europe and around the world, and it pains
her.
That, she says, is why it’s necessary to speak out.
“I love this country as much as the conservatives do,” Moghul says. “I just
think we need a different direction. … I don’t want these young people to
die for something I cannot believe in. You can be pro-military but anti-war.
“I firmly believe it is the wrong war and, as Kerry says, the wrong time
and the wrong place. We are as patriotic as any blue-blooded Republicans.”
PASSIONATE DISCOURSE
Moghul finds backup from her Democratic brethren: T. Dooley Adcroft, 38,
Harry Rothstein, 82, and Lou Rigle, 79.
Rothstein and Rigle both recall personal losses they suffered during World
War II. Rothstein lost a brother, and Rigle a brother-in-law. They say they’ll
trust Kerry, who volunteered to go to Vietnam, over Bush, who remained
stateside in the National Guard.
“The reason I get emotional is my brother-in-law was killed in the second
world war, six weeks before Hitler decided to quit,” Rigle says, choking up
and growing steadily angrier. “Unless you have been touched by a death like
that, don’t be casual or flippant about it.”
As Hackett continues to make his argument in favor of Bush, Rigle grows
increasingly impatient and volatile and starts, several times, to speak over
him.
When the moderator, Meyers, cuts in and asks Rigle to give others a chance
to finish, Rigle raps two knuckles on the table and demands to be heard.
“I’m gonna leave if I can’t talk,” Rigle bellows. “I’m just gonna leave.”
Rigle rises from the table, strides to the door and begins a tirade against
Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Cheney’s former company, Halliburton,
which has a multibillion-dollar contract for war-related work in Iraq.
Noticing he has stolen the floor, Rigle circles back to the table and
chastises forum participants.
“Read for God sakes! Read!” Rigle shouts at the panelists, slamming his
hands on the table. “Read the Times Leader. Read the New York Times. Read a
Republican paper. Read the opinion pieces from out of town. Wake up! Wake up!”
Slowly, Rigle settles back in his chair as the other panelists chime in. He
mumbles under his breath that he isn’t getting enough time to talk, but
eventually stops and listens to the banter that has drowned out his voice.
AGREEING TO DISAGREE
Throughout the forum, several participants proclaim the importance of God
and religion in their political beliefs and, at times, claim God is on the
side of their candidate.
It has become a familiar theme in this campaign – religion as a way to
reach voters – and it hits a nerve with some of the panelists.
Peter Gagliardi, 49, of Wilkes-Barre, praises Bush’s pro-life stance
against abortion and expresses hope that Congress will pass a pending bill
that would require employers to accommodate the religious convictions of their
employees.
“I believe that God will greatly bless this nation if this legislation is
passed,” Gagliardi says.
The notion that God is on the side of the United States in the Iraq war and
the war on terrorism rankles some of the Democrats at the table, particularly
Moghul.
“I would like to see the separation of church and state,” Moghul says. “I
do not want a president who gets his orders from God. I think God has better
things to do. … This president has made religion the central issue of his
policy and it guides his policy, and that’s just going too far.”
After some spirited discussion about the economy and health care, the
panelists drift back to Iraq and the Middle East.
“The economy, health care, all of it is inter-related with this invasion in
Iraq,” says Garlan, her voice swelling. “We are killing babies, women,
children. You people that want to support Bush, going into a war where these
people have nothing to do with it.
“The Iraqis were never coming for us. They had nothing. They had no weapons
of mass destruction. … You knew they were lying. Let’s tell it like it is.
Not deception, not inferring. They were lying.”
Hackett tries and fails to steer the conversation away from Iraq. Others
begin to talk over each other, some wagging their fingers in accusatory
fashion.
Through it all, though, no one left the room. No one had to be restrained.
No one tossed a cookie at a detractor.
Trent, who had said little throughout the forum, summed up the evening just
right.
“I just enjoy the passion for the discussion of issues that I’m seeing here
tonight,” he says. “Unfortunately, that’s not going on enough in America. …
I love the discussion that’s going on here.”
“I just wish we’d turn down the volume a little bit.”
Brett Marcy, the Times Leader’s Harrisburg correspondent, may be reached at
(717) 238-4728.
Editor’s note: We thank our forum participants for their willingness to
volunteer their time and opinions for an open, and sometimes heated,
conversation about the issues.