Ellsworth attacks Coats’ lobbying career in debate

U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth on Monday used his first debate with Republican Dan Coats in the race for Indiana's open U.S. Senate seat to attack Coats for his time spent as a lobbyist.

Coats, as he has done for much of the campaign leading up to the Nov. 2 election, criticized Ellsworth for voting with liberal Democrats on the health care overhaul, federal stimulus and other bills. He said Democrats are taking the country in the wrong direction and that voters need bring back the principles of limited government.

Ellsworth, Coats and Libertarian Rebecca Sink-Burris answered voter questions on the economy, Social Security and social issues at the debate in downtown Indianapolis. Ellsworth is behind in the polls for the race to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh and is running fewer television ads than Coats, a former senator. Two more debates are scheduled.

Coats and Ellsworth traded barbs and stuck to campaign messages, while Sink-Burris tried to set her party apart by staying above the fray.

Ellsworth has said throughout the campaign that Coats wouldn't be a good senator for Indiana because he's represented special interests as a lobbyist. On Monday, Ellsworth tried to blame Coats for jobs lost at a Wabash auto supply factory because Coats' firm advised a hedge fund that sold off the struggling plant in 2007. Coats has said he had nothing to do with the shutdown and that Democrats want to blame him for anything anyone in his firm ever did.

Coats said he expected the attacks from Ellsworth — "it's been a constant drumbeat" — but spent the entire time allotted for one question about jobs addressing his lobbying record instead. Coats was cut off for time limitations during several questions and said later he wished he had more time to address the economy, national security and other top concerns of voters.

"These are the issues we ought to be talking about," he said.

Ellsworth defended his attacks on Coats' lobbying career.

"Our resumes are part of this debate," Ellsworth said after the debate.

Most questions came from Indiana residents, but moderator Mizell Stewart III, editor of the Evansville Courier & Press, gave Coats and Ellsworth a chance to discuss what they saw as misconceptions about themselves.

"He has totally mischaracterized what I have done," Coats said of Ellsworth. "It's a tired old Washington game of if you don't want to talk about you did in Washington, if you don't want to talk about what you're party has done for the last two years, you put out a distraction."

Ellsworth responded: "You can say that, but the facts are the truth."

Stewart then asked Sink-Burris what she had to add to the "wonderful tennis match," spurring laughter from the crowd of about 250 people gathered on the campus of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

"I am not beholden to any special interests," she said before repeating her message of smaller government.

On health care, Ellsworth called the federal overhaul a "good first step." Coats said the bill was a "liberal wish dream" that imposes more taxes, mandates and spending.

"The health care bill is one of the prime examples of what is wrong with Washington," Coats said.

Asked about Social Security, Coats said it will face a funding crisis in future years and that a variety of options should be studied, including possibly raising the retirement age.

Ellsworth said he opposes privatization and that 70 might not seem that old unless you work in construction "on the end of a jackhammer." Sink-Burris focused her answers on limiting the size and scope of government and said her party would bring true change in Washington that many voters want.

Bob Rawlings, a retired engineer from Noblesville who asked one of the questions, said he thought Sink-Burris had the best answers. But he said he would likely still end up voting for Coats to ensure Ellsworth doesn't win.

"What choice do I have?" said Rawlings, who considers himself a tea party conservative.

Sink-Burris said polls show Ellsworth isn't close to a win, so people could feel free to vote for her to show they want limited government.

"That would send a very strong message," Sink-Burris said.