Hostility oozed from South Florida TV screens Sunday morning as Tim Canova and Debbie Wasserman Schultz faced off in their first, and likely only, debate before the Aug. 30 Democratic congressional primary.
Incumbent Wasserman Schultz and challenger Canova clashed on a handful of issues, most notably on Israel and Social Security, which are both important in the Broward/Miami-Dade County 23rd Congressional District, home to a large Jewish community and to many seniors.
Even sharper exchanges concerned charges about judgment, temperament and commitment to South Florida. The two repeatedly expressed exasperation with each other, often seeking to interrupt the other to make a point.
“I would say it was a draw, and that doesn’t help Canova. He really needed to score some points,” said Sean Foreman, a political scientist at Barry University. “As an objective point of view, I would say that he didn’t do enough to claim victory.”
They disagreed over several questions related to Israel.
“My opponent has been mealy-mouthed and waffling in his position on Israel from Day One. Israel needs certainty,” said Wasserman Schultz, who noted during the debate that she’s the first Jewish woman elected to Congress from Florida.
Canova touted his own ties to Israel, as someone who has lived there, traveled to the country half-a-dozen times and grew up with a Jewish stepfather. “No one is more committed to the state of Israel’s security than me,” he said. “I will not bow to anyone.”
The subject showcased the lack of regard each candidate has for the other.
While Wasserman Schultz was talking about Israel, Canova said, “May I interject.” Wasserman Schultz snapped in response, “No, you may not.”
When it was his turn, she interrupted him, and he stopped her with an “excuse me” and continued on with his answer.
Wasserman Schultz said Canova has been inconsistent on Israel. “He’s taken three different positions in the last eight months,” she said, criticizing his support of demilitarization in the Middle East, which she said would jeopardize Israel’s security.
Canova: “I certainly don’t appreciate words being put in my mouth.”
Wasserman Schultz: “It’s on your website.”
Canova: “I actually never singled out Israel whatsoever.”
Wasserman Schultz: “Israel is in the Middle East the last time I checked.”
Canova said he was talking about Saudi Arabia and Iran, though his website refers generally to the Middle East.
They disagreed over President Barack Obama’ 2015 deal with Iran aimed at preventing that country from developing a nuclear weapon.
Wasserman Schultz voted for it. Canova, who in January said he supported the agreement, said Sunday he didn’t know how he would have voted if he’d been in Congress at the time and said it wasn’t a good agreement.
Canova portrayed Wasserman Schultz as someone who doesn’t support increases in Social Security benefits. She points to legislation she supports that would increase benefits. He said she only co-sponsored some of that legislation because she was worried about the primary challenge from him.
At that point, Wasserman Schultz laughed out loud, and quietly said, “Oh God.”
As he continued the line of attack, she laughed again and shook her head, then said the residents of the district know Canova’s argument “is silly” because she’s spent years fighting what she termed Republican efforts to weaken Social Security. “I stood in the breach over and over with my vote and my voice,” she said.
Canova said the residents of the district “should be thanking me for having a primary challenge to get her on the right side of that issue.”
Foreman said Wasserman Schultz seemed to have the upper hand on the discussion of the Middle East, but Canova did a better job on Social Security.
On other issues, Canova said he would support a ban on oil fracking in Florida; Wasserman Schultz said she would be OK with fracking if there were “significant” regulations on it.
Canova reiterated his strong support for medical marijuana. Wasserman Schultz, who opposed the proposed 2014 amendment to the state Constitution to authorize medical marijuana in the state, wouldn’t give her position on this year’s proposed amendment.
The debate took place on the early Sunday morning “Facing South Florida” program on WFOR-Ch. 4. Canova has sought a series of debates, but Wasserman Schultz has indicated Sunday’s session would be the only one.
Among the other clashes:
* Who has deeper roots in South Florida.
Wasserman Schultz said she has a better feeling for the region where she’s lived for 30 years and is raising her children, who attend public school in Weston. “I have deep roots in the community,” she said. “The reality is my opponent has not been involved in the community at all.”
Canova has lived in the district since 2012, which he said sounds misleadingly short since he’s lived South Florida for a total of seven years on and off since the mid-1990s, and relatives have lived in the area “for decades.”
Canova is professor of law and public finance at Nova Southeastern University. He said Wasserman Schultz’s suggestion that he isn’t involved in the community is an “insult to teachers everywhere.”
To test Canova’s knowledge of South Florida, debate moderator Jim DeFede asked Canova if he knew the name of the mayor of Southwest Ranches, in the heart of the district he’s seeking to represent. Southwest Ranches was the location of a now canceled immigration detention center, an issue Canova has used to criticize Wasserman Schultz.
“I’m not going to play that game,” Canova said, before conceding he didn’t know.
Wasserman Schultz interrupted. “Jeff Nelson. He’s also the assistant principal of Cypress Bay High School.”
University of Michigan debate analyst Aaron Kall — who grew up in Plantation, where his parents and brother still live — called it the “gotcha moment” of the morning.
* Each candidate’s bona fides as Democrats, progressives and liberals.
Canova said he left the Democratic Party for a time because he was disillusioned by its course under Wasserman Schultz. He returned in the months before he announced he was challenging her in the primary. He said that overall, he’s been a Democrat longer than Wasserman Schultz.
Wasserman Schultz countered that “I’ve been a lifelong Democrat. There is not one minute that I have been a registered voter that I haven’t.”
She also said that “I am a liberal. I embrace the ‘l word,'” she said.
Canova said Wasserman Schultz may have been “progressive” when she was first elected to office, but she’s now softened and is now simply a “liberal.”
“I haven’t seen her pick up a finger and help local Democrats run against Republicans,” Canova said. She fired back with a list of local Democrats and said there are “countless” more in Broward and Miami-Dade counties, Florida and across the country.
Canova shot back that “she’s unable to talk about the historic losses in the House and Senate under her leadership.”
* The significance of each candidate’s campaign contributions.
Canova has raised more than $2.8 million, an extraordinarily high amount for a challenger to an incumbent member of Congress — but only 10 percent of his contributions have come from Florida. Canova said Wasserman Schultz has a problem with campaign contributions, because she takes money form corporate interests, which he said control what she does in Congress as a result.
“For her entire career she has raised millions of dollars from the largest corporations,” Canova said.
* Endorsements from organized labor.
Canova has a support from a handful of labor unions; Wasserman Schultz has more than 50.
He complained that the unions who endorsed Wasserman Schultz weren’t fair for not sending him questionnaires, calling the labor union endorsement process “very rigged.”
Canova complained earlier in the campaign that he didn’t get a questionnaire from the Florida Democratic LGBTA Caucus, which endorsed Wasserman Schultz. But he’s also benefited from the same process he calls rigged. Last week the Florida Progressive Democratic Caucus endorsed him; it hadn’t sent a questionnaire to Wasserman Schultz.
The debate started with questions and back and forth about the leaked internal Democratic National Committee emails that brought about Wasserman Schultz’s resignation as national party chairwoman last month after holding the post since 2011.
She repeated her condemnation of staff emails — which she wasn’t a party to — that discussed whether Bernie Sanders’ Jewish faith or suggestions that he’s an atheist could be politically damaging in southern primaries against Hillary Clinton. “I absolutely condemn and condemned that email exchange,” Wasserman Schultz said, pointing out that the exchange included the warning that she never would go along an attempt to make an issue of Sanders’ faith.
She also disputed Canova’s claim that DNC staff was improperly coordinating with her re-election team against him. Wasserman Schultz said it makes sense that people who worked with her at the national party would be interested in her campaign, but after 25 years repeatedly winning campaigns in South Florida, “I know how to run my own campaign.”
She said there wasn’t any aid given to her campaign by national party staff that in any way violated party rules.
That question, at about five minutes into the debate, helped set the tone. DeFede attempted to move on to another topic while Wasserman Schultz was answering, and she said, “No, Jim, let me finish my answer please, because you asked a question and I need to finish my answer.”
When Canova said he was most troubled by a Wasserman Schultz email insisting that an MSNBC personality stop criticizing her stewardship of the DNC —suggesting the congresswoman isn’t committed to free speech — she said moved on like an experienced political figure.
She said there are many more important issues — like jobs, Social Security and protecting Israel — that matter much more to voters.
“It will be decided and should be decided not on the content of private emails that were stolen by Russian spies, but who is best suited and most prepared and has the best experience to represent the people,” Wasserman Schultz said.
Near the end of the exchanges on the emails, Canova agreed with Wasserman Schultz that the emails wasn’t the issue that’s most important to voters.
Foreman and Kall said that was a mistake on Canova’s part. Kall said the email discussion “was a rough first five or 10 minutes” for Wasserman Schultz, but Canova “kind of let her off the hook on that [and] in some ways made the first five or 10 minutes largely irrelevant.”
Both analysts said Wasserman Schultz’s years of experience debating in the legislative arena and appearing on national and local television showed throughout the hour-long exchange.
“He wanted a debate. The stage was set and they did this. But it wasn’t like Canova came ready to play,” Foreman said. “He fumbled in areas where he could have had an impact. If he had a do-over, Canova would probably say some different things.”
Kall said Canova came off as “more definitive. And maybe not as a more typical politician. Wasserman Schultz came off as kind of a traditional politician and not willing to take definitive positions, whereas he was.”
The sharp elbows continued until the last seconds of the hour-long program, when Wasserman Schultz cited what she said was “a massive difference in experience and roots in the community.”
Canova likened himself to Obama, who once taught constitutional law. “You’ve got a president of the United States who has a background like I do,” he said, drawing a quick retort from Wasserman Schultz: “The president of the United States who supports my re-election.”
Two Republicans are seeking their party’s nomination in the Broward/Miami-Dade County 23rd Congressional District, but the voters are so overwhelmingly Democratic that the winner of the Aug. 30 Democratic primary is virtually certain to win the November election.
Watch the full Canova-Wasserman Schultz debate at SunSentinel.com/politics
aman@sunsentinel.com or 954-356-4550
