Dave Rich debated on his idea that he will be an advocate (a theme he was able to incorporate into nearly every response) because of his litigation experience and more commanding personality to the meek and mild policy wonk in Peter Westerholm.
Peter's theme was that he's been an involved member of the community who can build consensus and relationships inside the council while maintaining contact with the members of the community, compared to a newcomer to Nashville's political scene who is more style than substance.
While much of the debate had a "me-too" feel to it regarding questions about the Gallatin SP, CAN-DO, or public safety, the "fireworks" were saved for the end of the debate when the candidates were given the chance to ask each other a question.
Peter's first question revolved around the idea that while Dave Rich may have lived here for 7 years, he hasn't made his presence known to the community during that time. When asked to give four examples of how he's been involved, Rich's response was that he 1) bought a home here, 2) helped cleanup during the flood and 3) he's done pro-bono legal work for members of the community.
Peter's second question was regarding perceived disparaging remarks Rich made about Peter's work as a state employee. The quote from the City Paper is “I am required in my job to achieve tangible objectives for my clients,” Rich said. “The lives of my clients are affected by my performance. The other candidate’s only requirement is to show up to work for the government.” Rich failed to see how such words could be construed to be disparaging of government employees, and said he was sorry if Peter took them that way. Senior Adviser to the campaign Jamie Hollin followed up with Tweets designed to suggest that Peter, in sticking up for public servants, was thin-skinned and that "politics isn't for the feint of heart".
Dave Rich's first question to Peter was a bit convoluted regarding what percentage of change there was from the budget submitted by the Mayor and the one passed by the council. Peter said that it was generally 1-2%. While many in the audience were scratching their head as to what the purpose was, it became clear when Hollin tweeted "I think the other candidate just admitted his job skills translate into an expertise on 1-2% of $1B budget". Which I guess was designed to say that budget issues aren't all that important, but in responding to a question about public safety Rich said that making sure the budget fully funds public safety is one of the most important jobs a Councilman does.
Dave's other question revolved around MDHA oversight, and Peter's response was basically that they need to make sure their priorities are with ensuring housing for the disadvantaged and don't get tunnel vision towards bigger projects.
So, at the end of the day, who won or lost the debate is likely based on who you were partial to going into it...I didn't have any doubt that in terms of presence, Dave Rich has an edge, but Peter showed at the end of the debate that when given the opportunity to ask tough, pointed questions, he's not gonna shy away. The central rationale of Rich's campaign seems to be precipiced on the notion that somehow floor debates matter, and that we need a commanding presence on the floor...but the purpose of any floor debate is largely for councilmen to play to the cameras or explain their votes, if you are promoting an ordinance and are hoping on oratorical skills to get it passed, you've already lost.
