Representative Leonard Boswell and Republican challenger Brad Zaun are about to hold their only debate of the campaign on KCCI-TV at 7 pm. (They also taped a joint appearance on Iowa Public Television earlier this month.)

I’ll update this post later with thoughts on the debate. Share any thoughts about the debate or the third Congressional district race in this thread.

TUESDAY UPDATE: I only caught part of last night’s debate live, but watched the whole tape this morning. Boswell and Zaun had their strong and weak points, and I doubt many people’s minds were changed by the debate. Both candidates gave strong closing statements framing the choice in this election. More specific comments about the debate are after the jump.

ECONOMY

Zaun’s best card to play is the state of the economy, especially the high unemployment rate. He mentioned unemployment repeatedly but showed his ignorance in saying we need to “get government out of the way” in order to create jobs. When businesses are shedding jobs because of collapsing private sector demand, as was happening in 2008 and early 2009, “getting government out of the way” will do nothing to spur business owners to hire. You can cut as much “red tape” as you like, but businesses won’t hire until they feel confident about demand for their goods or services. That’s why we needed a stimulus bill. I thought Boswell was effective in reminding people that we were “in a ditch” or “about to go over a cliff” into another depression, which could have happened. The stimulus didn’t spend enough on public works and infrastructure in my opinion, but Boswell is absolutely right that we’d be in worse shape without it. If not for government intervention to bail out automakers, many people in the supply chain would have lost their jobs.

Boswell also made the case for spending on infrastructure, green jobs and getting us “out of bondage to OPEC.” That plays into his role on the House Transportation and Agriculture committees. During this part of the debate, I thought Boswell missed an opportunity to explain how the stimulus saved many Iowa teachers’ jobs as well, or how extending unemployment benefits gives customers more money to spend at locally-owned businesses. Republicans who bash the stimulus never acknowledge those things.

During an exchange on the “Cash for Clunkers” program that was part of the stimulus, Zaun suggested it had failed because four of five cars purchased were foreign models. This article from Bloomberg news says that 47 percent of the new cars purchased in the early weeks of Cash for Clunkers were made by Ford, GM or Chrysler. I think Zaun got confused because four of the five most popular models purchased using the initial Cash for Clunkers incentives were foreign (e.g. Honda Civic and Toyota Camry). A lot of those cars are manufactured in the U.S.

BUDGET, TAXES

Zaun railed against out of control spending many times, so he gets points for staying on message. He didn’t offer many ideas on reducing spending beyond cutting back on salaries and benefits for federal employees. He brought up earmarks, but those don’t add to spending bills–they only let Congress (rather than executive branch officials) determine where money will be spent. For that reason, eliminating earmarks wouldn’t save a dollar. Zaun doesn’t understand that. Zaun also was open to increasing our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would of course be very costly.

Asked whether we can afford to extend all the Bush tax cuts, Zaun said we “can’t afford not to” extend them. He refused to admit those would add significantly to the deficit and accused Boswell of supporting the biggest tax hike ever, which isn’t true, since Boswell wants to extend most of the tax cuts. I thought Boswell’s answer on the this issue was one of his strongest during the debate. He pointed out that Republicans designed the tax cuts with the sunset provision in the first place, and that middle-class people tend to spend extra money they get because of tax cuts, while the top 2 percent generally don’t spend that money. He also pointed out that letting the top tax cuts expire would reduce the deficit by $700 over the next decade.

Boswell also pointed out that the Republicans did away with the Clinton-era “pay-go” rules when Bush was president, and Democrats had restored pay-go during the current session. Zaun said pay-go was just a shell game with lots of loopholes.

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Both candidates scored points here. Zaun talked about the need to “repeal and replace” the health care reform bill. I think he’s misguided about his solutions (tort reform didn’t hold down health care costs in Texas and wouldn’t do so nationwide; letting insurers sell policies across state lines would erode consumer protections). But someone watching the debate would get the impression that Zaun has some ideas on health care. Zaun said Democrats promised that anyone who liked their health insurance plan could keep it, but now 21,000 Iowans can’t keep their Medicare Advantage plans. Those plans were less efficient and more costly to taxpayers than regular Medicare, so I think Congress was right to cut back on them, but Zaun’s point will resonate with some people.

Boswell mentioned some good specific points in the health care reform bill and refuted the false Republican claim about $500 billion in “Medicare cuts” that Zaun has been using in his campaign ads. (The Chamber of Commerce has also made that claim in its ads against Boswell.) Boswell pointed out that Medicare spending was redirected to cut out the middleman and extend the solvency of the program. That will save money over the next decade but won’t kick anyone off Medicare or cut their benefits. Boswell also called Zaun out for one of his campaign’s false claims:

Zaun again blamed the health care reform bill for a recent decision by Principal Financial Group to get out of the medical insurance business. He said the decision will cost jobs in Des Moines.

“You continue with your fear-mongering, and there you’re at it again,” Boswell said.

Zaun’s comments are incorrect, according to Principal Financial. The company said it made a business strategy decision because 97 percent of the company’s earnings are from growth businesses such as asset management. Medical insurance is less than 3 percent of Principal’s business.

Boswell chided Zaun, saying Principal Financial officials had told him privately and publicly that the health reform bill was not to blame for the decision.

Zaun said he stands by his statements, saying he read it in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

FOREIGN POLICY

The only foreign-policy questions in the debate related to our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Boswell and Zaun didn’t attack each other here, but Zaun emphasized not going home until we “win.” He is willing to send more troops to those war zones if the generals ask for them. Boswell emphasized that we can’t afford to stay there forever and need to turn things over to the local authorities. However, he didn’t give any firm date after which he would refuse to support funds for troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

IMMIGRATION

A weak point for both candidates in my opinion. Zaun had little to say besides sound bites on securing the border. Boswell started well by saying how immigration reform needs to focus on the employers who hire people here illegally, and how we shouldn’t refuse medical care to people in need. But as he talked about comprehensive immigration reform, it sounded like his main concern was keeping food prices down by keeping wages low for manual laborers who are guest workers in agriculture.

NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING

This was probably the strongest aspect of the debate for Zaun. He pounded Boswell for “hit and run” campaigning that focused on personal attacks rather than issues. He said he paid all his personal debts, and the tax lien had been dismissed. He said he had criticized Boswell on the issues (glossing over the factual errors in some of his issue-based attacks).

Boswell said the voters of the third district know who I am,” and after doing some research on Zaun during the Republican primary, he wanted to tell voters what he’d learned. Boswell also said Zaun “set the tone” by going negative first. Look, everyone knows long-time incumbents don’t go negative as a public service. They do that when they are worried about losing.

The best point Boswell made during this part of the debate was saying Zaun had a “disconnect”; having experienced personal financial problems, he should show more empathy and compassion for other people facing those problems, and government trying to lend a helping hand.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Zaun vehemently denied that he would do anything to privatize social security, contrary to claims made in one of Boswell’s ads. Boswell defended the ad, saying Zaun had told a questioner at a campaign event in Conroy, “I agree with everything you just said,” and one of those things was privatizing Social Security. Zaun said the man in question had made a long, rambling comment that was mostly about government spending.

Boswell’s comments on Social Security’s long-term solvency were good, but I would have liked to hear specific promises not to support cuts that may be proposed by President Obama’s deficit commission.

TRUST

Zaun asked Boswell why anyone should trust him after he broke several promises, mainly his initial pledge to serve no more than three terms. Boswell responded by saying that he didn’t fully understand the way the seniority system worked until he got to Congress. If Iowa didn’t have House members with some seniority, we wouldn’t be at the table when the farm bill and other important issues are discussed. He said the seniority system protects small-state interests.

CLOSING ARGUMENT

At the end of the debate, each candidate emphasized the clear choice facing third district voters. Boswell talked about how we can go forward or backward, and again brought up how his seniority will help Iowa when Congress shapes the farm bill and works on transportation funding. He talked about the need to invest in education and infrastructure.

Zaun said he and Boswell both love Iowa and this country, but Boswell says we’re headed on the right path, while he disagrees. When people go into the voting booth, he wants them to think about whether we are on the right path. It’s a smart closing argument. Most political handicappers now see Boswell slightly favored to win this race, and Zaun’s best chance is to frame the choice as a referendum on the economy.