Candidates spar over debate

Monday's AARP debate at Heritage Senior Center lasted about an hour, but the debate about the outcome continues, with both District 44 legislative candidates claiming victory and criticizing their opponent.

Frank Shoemaker of McCook, responding to the Gazette's coverage of the event, clarified his position on the transbasin diversion proposed by Mark Chris-tensen of Imperial.

Shoemaker's campaign issued its take on the discussion.

"Shoemaker said he didn't hear any real solutions from Christensen. We have been trying to do transbasin diversion in Nebraska since 1923, without success. The Platte is already legally over-appropriated, and has issues worse than ours. Yet, more than 95 percent of water is consumed by agriculture, so he agreed that the need to protect our resources is imperative for the ag base. In any industrial allocation of water, we need to make sure that we don't further deplete the water resource. We have to have practical solutions. We have to have someone that can work with Lincoln and Omaha to resolve these water issues."

Shoemaker's campaign also issued a point-by-point response to a news release issued by Christensen's campaign on Tuesday. The release is reprinted in bold, with Shoemaker's response in plain type.

Christensen release:

The first of what promises to be several more debates between Mark Christensen and Frank Shoemaker was held in McCook on October 2, 2006. The debate was sponsored by AARP. About 50 people were in attendance, and a wide range of subjects were covered. The audience submitted questions, which were then asked by a moderator.

Mark Christensen provided clear and concise answers to all of the questions while his opponent often described the problem but rarely answered how he would resolve the issue.

Christensen's answers to all questions with the exception of the water issue showed a lack of understanding of the challenges facing Nebraskans. In fact, regarding delivery of mental health services, he had no idea the problem exists.

The few areas where Frank did give an answer were on water, where Frank said, "we can't just let every farmer use the water he wants without restriction or he will deplete it and we will have nothing left."

What Frank did say was, "I happen to believe that we are resilient people. We are farmers. We know how to do this stuff and over time, we are going to manage our resource wisely. But I think we need some help to do it. We owe the people who come after us more than that."

Mark has promised to put water in our lakes and, when asked how he would do this did not even bother a response. His plan is to continue to deplete the resource until there is nothing left. His solution will lead to the destruction of our agricultural economy.

Mark Christensen is a farmer. He has farmed all of his life and still does. Mark knows that it is expensive to pump water and doesn't believe anyone uses more than is required by the crop.

In a more perfect world, Frank agrees that every irrigator should be able to use all the water that he desires, but the evidence indicates that our water resource is being depleted. As farmers, we need to be open to change our techniques and crops to preserve our resource

Frank also commented on the Conceal Carry law. Frank said at the debate that he believed the penalties should be increased for those who have a gun in their glove compartment.

Before the concealed weapons law was passed, peace officers told me they would prefer a clearer definition of "concealed weapon." Frank used the example of a handgun in a glove box and advocated stiffer penalties for carrying a concealed weapon used in the commission of a crime. I believe the concealed weapons law, as written, is regulation of guns and is thus a violation of our constitutional rights under the Second Amendment.

Mark Christensen, in contrast, has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association with an A rating and believes that good honest people should be allowed to carry a gun and defend themselves.

Mark Christensen indicated that he is in favor of gun registration on an online survey then changed his answer when Frank Shoemaker disagreed with it. Either he doesn't know what he is writing or he is not being honest with the voters.

Frank is part owner of a telephone company and says that, if elected, he wants to be on the Transportation and Telecommunications committee. This is the committee that regulates phone companies.

Frank believes that bringing his background in telecommunications to the transportation and telecommunications committee would be a benefit to the people of the State of Nebraska. The Transportation and Telecommunications Committee is not, however, a regulatory agency. Telephone companies are regulated by the Public Service Commission. Frank's campaign is supported by many telecommunications companies and they believe he would be a benefit to our communities.

Frank believes that power companies should not be allowed to enter the Internet business in competition with his phone company.

This is not a correct statement. Delivery of broadband services over power lines is a complex issue which will be resolved for the benefit of all Nebraskans as the power and telecommunications industries continue to discuss these possibilities.

When asked what committee he wanted to be on, Mark Christensen said that he would like to be on the Natural Resources Commit-tee which deals with water but added that, since the seats on that committee are not likely to be available, he would also try to be on Appropriations or Revenue.

If Mark has only one issue he is concerned about, and is on the wrong side of that issue, but can't even get on the committee dealing with that issue, how will he serve all citizens of Southwest Nebraska on all challenges faced in the legislature?

Mark Christensen clearly won the debate, for he answered the questions instead of just redescribing the problem.

Of course he claims victory, as do we. Any credible judgment of who won or lost the debate should be reserved for the voters--who are always the winners when issues are discussed in public.

Mark Christensen has stated repeatedly since the Primary in May that he is willing to participate in more debates. He simply wants those debates to be open, sponsored by a neutral party, where the press covers the event, and moderated. He also thinks the questions should not be limited to just what one candidate wants to focus on.

On Aug. 1, I asked Mark to appear on the same stage with me. After three requests in news articles and a personal request at a parade, on Aug. 19 my opponent said he hadn't had time to respond. We invited him to our listening session in his hometown to discuss his only issue and he didn't show up. What is clear is that my opponent is trying to control the debate and I can only ask how will he able to work with other senators to bring the best of Nebraska to Southwest Nebraska. By Aug. 19, any response was past due.