Same strengths and, more importantly, same flaws

This election year, the congressional race could have taken on a great deal of importance. An uncomfortable level of power might be dealt to one party with an Obama presidency and strong Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. A strong, pragmatic candidate would have easily captured our vote.

This Editorial Board is more than happy to make its recommendations when it comes to some of the races this year. Yet when it comes to the race for Indiana’s 9th Congressional District, we feel we can make no endorsement.

It is not entirely an issue of disdain for the three candidates.

When Republican Mike Sodrel was in Congress, he did little to stand out. He adopted fairly typical positions for his party. He voted for constitutionally defining marriage as one-man, one-woman and voted to make the PATRIOT Act permanent. One of his most activist moments involved introducing a bill that would prevent federal courts from ruling on the content of speech in state legislatures. This was in response to a ruling by a U.S. District Judge that official Indiana House proceedings could not begin with sectarian prayers.

Baron Hill, the Democratic candidate, has served as a congressman for eight years now. He styles himself as a Blue Dog Democrat who promotes fiscal discipline. But he has supported wasteful farm subsidies, blamed illegal immigrants for many problems they don’t cause and backed a bill to curb the same oil speculation that had mediated rising gas prices. At a recent debate in Jasper, he talked about renegotiating NAFTA. He voted against the recent financial bailout both times it came to the floor.

Eric Schansberg, running with the Libertarian Party, has emerged as one of the most appealing third-party candidates. He is comfortable with policy details, no doubt a result of his background as an economics professor at IU-Southeast New Albany.

Representing a party known for its abstract arguments and inflexibly, Schansberg sets a stark contrast and is just as strong a candidate as his two main-party competitors.

What becomes quickly noticeable about these three is how much they have in common. All three candidates claim they opposed the bailout. They all claim to be fiscal conservatives and they pander excessively to values voters.

You know when the NRA endorses the Democrat over the conservative Republican and the Libertarian that you are not exactly facing the most diverse pool of candidates.

The 9th District used to be represented by Lee Hamilton. Hamilton behaved as a moderate and a pragmatist. His leadership earned him the respect of Republicans and Democrats alike, and he was recently given the opportunity to lead the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group.

None of the candidates, from the leadership we have seen so far, seem likely to achieve such a high status.

They could be worse. But, as we go into the fourth race between Hill and Sodrel, it is hard not to think we could have much better candidates.