A couple of issues stood out as wins for Governor Rendell: gun control and gambling.  While Mr. Swann acknowledged the existence of gun crime as a significant problem for the state, his call to blame the person instead of the gun just didn't come across as that strong and his support for reigning in straw purchasers of guns seemed to only address some of the proposals called for by the Governor.  On the issue of gambling, Mr. Swann just didn't appear to have much in explaining why gambling might not be economically beneficial for the state.  His argument seemed to revolve around the role of an unidentified "middle man" that undercuts the economic benefits of allowing gaming in Pennsylvania.

On other subjects, the tides turned in Swann's favor.  One such issue was property taxes.  This time Lynn Swann was much more prepared and had a clearer articulation of his proposal and was ready to refute the challenges offered by his opponent in both debates.  Swann's explanation of the linking of property taxes to purchase prices of houses was substantially clearer than what he offered us in the last debate.  At the same time, Governor Rendell seemed off his game here tonight.  While he reiterated his current efforts to reduce taxes for seniors, it was interesting that he quickly moved back to the question of gun control and addressing straw purchases.  Karl Stark's (panelist, Philadelphia Inquirer) qualification of his question, which emphasized the ability of a leader to persuade, appeared to prevent the Governor from moving the blame for failed tax reform to the legislature.
On the issue of using budget surplus dollars to fight crime, Swann again controlled the debate.  In response to a question regarding the willingness to use surplus money to fight crime, Swann was the only one to offer a clear answer.  Swann said that he would support such efforts; Rendell again talked about passing legislation to reduce the number of guns one person could by at a time.  While this persistence might show determination to some, to me it came across as an unwillingness to engage.

Swann also seemed to do much better in this debate on issues such as addressing the Pennsylvania high school drop out rate.  While Governor Rendell didn't necessarily do badly on the subject, Mr. Swann was able to better develop his solutions to this problem, such as the creation of education zones to monitor failing schools.  He also was able to spend much more time discussing the exclusion of African-Americans from current gains in academic achievement.  I'm not sure how indicative, or relevant, evidence about African-American success in the Pittsburgh area on the Advanced Placement test in history is, but given that this is something Swann has discussed previously I expected a stronger response from the Governor.

The subject of health insurance was another area where Swann won the debate.  Again, this is a subject that Lynn Swann has consistently addressed (it was a large majority of his closing statement in the last debate), and again, the Governor didn't seem prepared for it.  While Mr. Rendell's ideas about using technology to reduce costs and increasing responsibilities of registered nurses might make sense, he had to know Swann was going to move the debate to the issue of tort reform and medical malpractice.  To this, Rendell had nothing.

Many other issues were draws or non-factors in the outcome.  One such issue was that of a Pennsylvania judge who wishes to give back her pay raise that was given to her by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  On this issue the candidates were asked if Judge Melvin should be able to return the money, which she can't do in the status quo.  Neither candidate answered the question and instead gave a speech on the legislative pay raise from 2005, which was completely unrelated to the issue at hand.  As a side note, this discussion of the legislative pay raise broke no new ground from the last debate.  Other issues where the candidates agreed or really didn't develop anything to differentiate themselves included terrorism, English-only laws, global warming, mass transit funding, support for the arts and cultural institutions, and school safety.  The candidates generally agreed with one another, or they offered a proposal but didn't compare it to the ideas of their opponent.

The final issue worth discussing was a question posed by the moderator regarding the size of the Pennsylvania state legislature.  WPVI's Jim Gardner asked the candidates why the state body is so large (second largest in the nation) and asked if it should be made smaller.  In many ways this issue was a draw as both candidates agreed that the assembly should be made smaller, but in other ways the subject was devastating for Governor Rendell.  The Governor argued in favor of redistricting and establishing term limits, and then stated that the state needs to move life-long politicians out in favor of more "citizen-soldiers."  As mentioned at the start of the article, this was astonishing to hear from someone who has made a career in politics, and Mr. Swann was quick to turn this to his advantage.  Given that the Governor's close was all about why his experience as a career politician makes him a better candidate for the position of governor, the "citizen-soldier" claim seems at best out of place and at worst a reason to vote for Lynn Swann.  

Jim Lyle - Clarion University