M. Charles Bakst: Lawless' race: Debates show her potential

Jennifer Lawless performed so well in two TV debates with Rep. Jim Langevin that it makes you wonder how she'd fare in the Democratic primary if things were different. Say, if she had tons more money, could nearly match Langevin's dramatic personal story and weren't running when the Republican Senate race monopolizes media attention. The 31-year-old Brown University political scientist was cool and crisp as she recently debated Langevin on Channel 36 and then on Channel 10. In the Channel 36 session, sponsored by the League of Women Voters, Lawless was asked to name three challenges she's overcome that reflect an ability to represent Rhode Islanders. She began, effortlessly, "I'm a teacher, and I've spent the last six years educating the leaders of tomorrow, and a lot of time that's quite the challenge. It takes listening. . . ." She worked in key themes: Langevin is not as strong a foe of the Iraq war as she thinks he should be, is wrong to oppose abortion rights and is weak on other privacy issues. On Channel 10, Langevin noted he'd allow abortion in cases of rape. He spoke of minimizing the need for abortion in general by saying society should do more to provide prenatal care, health coverage, child care and job and education opportunities. Lawless replied, "What are we supposed to do in the meantime? You want to restrict a woman's right to choose, you want to put her in a very difficult position . . . while we're waiting to bring about better prenatal care or we're waiting to bring about health care or child care? That's wrong." Moments later, Langevin moved to regain the offensive. He said that when constituents come to his office or he meets them on the campaign trail, they don't talk about abortion. Instead, they say, "How am I going to pay for my health care?" or "How are my kids going to get a better education?" A good point. But then Lawless fired back, "They're not talking about the right to choose with you because they know that they can't count on you to help protect it." Slash. Lawless says that until she watched a tape she didn't realize how harsh she might have sounded. But she doesn't regret having said it. She says, "I have had hundreds of conversations with women who have actually said that they no longer even consider talking to him because it's been so ineffective." I admire Lawless for making abortion rights an issue, but I doubt it will do much for her. Kate Coyne-McCoy tried it in her 2000 primary with Langevin, the year he first won the seat. It didn't work. Most folks don't vote on the basis of abortion. Still, Lawless calls it "a clear policy difference" with Langevin. For the most part it is, which is why it's unfortunate that a powerful Lawless TV ad on the subject gave Langevin a justifiable reason to cry foul. The spot begins with someone saying, "If you know someone who's been raped, you know that it changes you. . . ." Since Langevin backs abortion in cases of rape, he calls the ad "misleading." Lawless resents Langevin's highlighting some exceptions he's willing to make. She says her ad "draws people in" on the subject. True, and she also could draw them in by saying, "Did you know Jim Langevin is a liar, thief, con artist and traitor? Now that I have your attention, may I also tell you. . . ." Langevin says he's "very confident" he'll win but takes nothing for granted. Lawless wants a third debate, on Channel 12, but it doesn't seem in the cards. Too bad. Langevin has a lot to say for himself, and their dialogues have been informative. Isn't that what campaigns are supposed to be about? M. Charles Bakst is The Journal's political columnist.

This column, written by M. Charles Bakst, appeared on September 7, 2006 in the Providence Journal.