Mr. Lunt Goes to Washington

Last night, I attended a debate between five candidates for the 37th congressional district, which took place at the Signal Hill Community Center. One candidate showed up late, appearing disheveled, and was repeatedly reprimanded by the moderator for violating the agreed-upon rules of the debate. Another seeemed confused by many of the questions, giving answers that would make Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric look like a demonstration of eloquence and insight in comparison. At one point, I sent the following text to my wife, who was at church choir practice:

At other times in the debate, it seemed more like a Saturday Night Live parody of a debate, rather than an actual debate.

The other three candidates were, however, much better. As far as composure and presentation, the best candidate was the one republican in the group. Too bad for her that I, and a majority of the voters in this district, disagree with her on most of the key issues. Plus, she did at one point admit to not really knowing anything about Signal Hill. I admired her for her honesty, but I doubt she won too many points with the audience.

The questions that were asked came from the audience, and I found it interesting that just about all of the questions were a variation of, "What can you do for me?" Questions about how the candidates could help the community or district were few and far between, and questions that asked how the candidates could help the nation or world were non-existent. Is it because I've moved a lot--this is the sixth community in which I've been registered to vote in my life--that I have a wider view of what a representative in the U.S. Congress is supposed to do? Or are most voters really as self-centered as many in the audience last night seemed to be?