GOP Primary Gubernatorial Debate Recap Jan 5th 2022

A debate that could shape the Keystone State

Here’s a recap of the GOP Gubernatorial primary debate from Jan 5th 2022. In no way is this newsletter affiliated with an employer, party, or candidate.

If you are new here Commentary is a newsletter for a right of center audience covering topics of political and philosophical interest. This post discusses the GOP primary debate that went largely undiscussed by the press and members of the public at large. Please subscribe to Commentary for future updates about politics and philosophy by typing in your email and clicking submit below. Thank you!

The toplines:

A major question surrounding the debate is this -- where was Lou? Mr. Barletta, apparently playing the role of self-anointed front runner, skipped the debate. Why? After running a lousy race against Senator Bob Casey the former Congressman missed an opportunity to demonstrate that he wants to get in front of people and wants to win. After a particularly uninspired run in 2018 it’s surprising to see the gentleman indifferently stand on the sideline.

On another note the debate featured too many candidates with too little time to do any actual debating. This made the debate longer than necessary and some candidates should either spend more time differentiating themselves from the pack or drop out. It’s terribly dry for those at home who have to suffer from listening to over an hour plus of indistinct drivel.

In regards to actually trying to debate Sean Gale should be commended. Although likely considered something of a firebrand, the gentleman’s willingness to outright criticize made the debate feel more like a debate and less like a high school reunion of old friends. Others could, and perhaps should, utilize a similar tactic in order to better stand out in an already crowded race.

Additionally the quality of the debate was brought down by the inability of candidates to directly and concisely answer the questions asked. Answers were usually loaded with needless cliches, generic campaign sloganeering, or uninsightful boilerplate. To create a more engaging debate -- and to better set themselves apart from one another in order to win -- candidates have to find a way to address the questions with greater substance, coherence, and thoughtfulness.

On the policy front two candidates offered bad recommendations right off the bat. John Ventre and Jake Corman supported tax breaks and tax credits for businesses. Both are bad policy. The government shouldn’t have to pick winners and losers -- and hence force taxpayers to pay more -- to compensate for the inadequate tax codes, burdensome regulations, and unrestrained spending that politicians rubber stamped.

As for other policies the field appeared to reach a consensus on school choice and support for natural gas and opposition to Wolf’s version of the Green New Deal called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. While it is great that candidates agree on these issues it would be nice if candidates spent more time differentiating themselves from each other on important policy.

When it came to discussing how they’d implement their agenda despite “gridlock” candidates who stood out in this regard were Charlie Gerow and Scott Martin. Charlie pointed to his experience working with people on both sides to support the right policy thereby allowing him to pass his agenda, while Scott took a different approach and highlighted how despite taking what some claimed were unpopular but fiscally conservative positions he was still able to win and get re-elected. This didn’t directly address the question asked but did point to the fact he’s able to be a fiscal conservative and win no matter what.

A strange and all too chummy moment took place when a moderator asked a question about who the candidates would support for lieutenant governor to boost their odds of victory. The stipulation was, however, that they could only choose those currently on the debate stage. Guy Ciarrochi and Mellissa Hart said they’d pick each other if the other won the gubernatorial nomination, Joe Gale refused to pick anyone who voted for Act 77, Zama politely declined to pick anyone as did White, and the rest picked Zama. This was a lame and unserious moment. Nobody took the question seriously and therefore further tainted the quality of the debate.

Despite this hurdle, Guy Ciarrocchi, Scott Martin, Charlie Gerow, Bill McSwain came out ahead in this debate. None supported exceptionally bad policy and all sounded more prepared than the rest of the field. Likewise all the candidates who participated should be considered better candidates for their desire to win than those who intentionally choose to skip out. For if 2018 taught us anything it’s that you can’t win from the sidelines.

Zigmund Reichenbach holds a M.A. in Philosophy from West Chester University.  You can find him commenting on news stories of national and state interest at his Facebook page Zigmund Reichenbach -- Commentator or you can follow him on Twitter @zreichenbach1.  To support the creation of articles like these visit our Patreon here.