[Jack] "Goodman Guys" Not Voting for Billy Long: Long's Attacks on Goodman Still Fresh in Some Voters' Minds

Just got done talking to a campaign advisor about what's going on in the 7th District. He had spoken to a group of doctors he labeled as the "Goodman guys." Those doctors are claiming they voted Democrat for the first time in their lives, still upset how Long assassinated Jack Goodman's character during the primary.

If this is true, it will be interesting to see how the Jack Goodman factor plays out tonight in Missouri 7. I too have verified with other Goodman supporters that they would absolutely not vote for Billy Long after Long lied about Jack Goodman.

It will be interesting to see if Goodman announces a challenge to Long in the next few months. In case you are unaware, the Lawrence County Record is on record saying Billy Long is a mistake and already promoting a Goodman 2012 candidacy.

We have no idea how many area residents watched the 7^thCongressional District debate, carried live on a Springfield television station last Thursday evening, but the two major party candidates better hope the event garnered low ratings.

For the event was less a debate between two intelligent adults with differing political viewpoints than it was a playground dispute between a pair of self-centered kindergartners.

In total, we saw the debate as embarrassing for both Republican Billy Long and Democrat Scott Eckersley.

At several points, neither Long nor Eckersley bothered to answer questions posed by the two-member media panel.

When asked about the nation's border security and its possible link to terrorism – an opening in which a politician can easily mine votes in the 7^th District – Eckersley ignored the topic and continued an allegation he'd made a night earlier in Joplin that Long wants to “dismantle” Social Security.

The Democrat maintains his Republican opponent had filled out a survey with an organization that hopes to “dismantle” the government-sponsored retirement program.

Long, then, ignored the same question at hand and responded to Eckersley's attack – denying that he has any intention of messing with retirees' benefits.

He finally resorted to calling Eckersley a “liar” on numerous occasions.

There was a third candidate at the debate – Libertarian Kevin Craig – and he was the only one of the trio who conducted himself like an adult.

Of course, Craig's real problem is his stance that practically everything the federal government does today – from its foreign policy to its stance on illegal aliens – is unconstitutional.

Whether he's even close to being technically correct or not, that ship has sailed long ago, so Craig should – instead of advocating doing away with the federal government – work to pare back Washington's various tenacles.

If the Libertarian candidate had such a reasonable approach, it would be easy to say he “won” the debate.

However, Craig isn't reasonable in his approach, so he did not so much “win” the debate as Eckersley and Long lost it.

And to think that we could have had Jack Goodman – a sane, calm voice or reason – on the panel Thursday if the August primary had gone differently.

There's always 2012.