First a third party candidate joined the fray; Stan Jones the perennial Libertarian candidate took his third of the time and complicated the encounter in meaningful ways. I am not a fan of multi-candidate debates. While everyone should have a voice the winnowing process happens in the primaries and there comes a time to narrow the decision to realistic candidates. Yet Stan took the stage and changed the encounter.

Senator Burns is often (unfairly) dismissed in media (and certainly blogs) accounts of the debates. In the first two encounters (and certainly in Whitefish) he held his own. There is a certain charm, good old boy, wheeler dealer quality that appeals. Even in the Bozeman debate he was convincing in promoting technology and research at Montana State. Testor on the other hand in the earlier debates was at times timid, showing in several ways his novice status on the national stage. All of this reversed in the Student Union ballroom.

Jon Tester with each debate builds confidence, refines his message, and extends the example he brings to the discussion.  He is getting his sea legs, gaining confidence, and it showed. He self-assuredly admonished his own supports to quite down and listen to his reasoning. He controlled the thematic narratives developed in the debate in a relatively soft spoken direct manner. And he ran against Washington, making Burns the consummate insider.

This is where Stan Jones re-enters the stage. He also turns on Washington but with a vengeance unavailable to Burns (or Testor for that matter). At one point he suggests that President Bush deserves to be impeached for dozens of reasons and later emphatically calls for impeachment. Burns is tied to the Bush presidency and tried to make the debate about terrorism and the necessity of the Patriot Act; he became rhetorically one-in-the-same with the President.

One typically expects a Libertarian candidate to augment Republican arguments. Early in the debate that was the case, but turned with a vengeance by half time. The debate became two on one. All this is manageable, but Burns seemed to run out of original things to say. He admonished the student audience that they were in danger of terrorist attack, the credibility of which elicited moans from the crowd.

Burns seemed to have less and less to say and get more and more angry. The charming personage who opened the debate gave way to lecturing miffed character, less a statesman than another angry citizen. The contrast with the passionate yet composed Testor spoke volumes. I expect this development would not have happened absent Stan Jones.

Should debates this late in the cycle only have major candidates? And is there a case to be made for more debates than the standard 1-3? Perhaps.

Media Response:

The media coverage of the debate seemed more mixed than in the other debates. Three major stories appeared in the State press, each taking a different flavor on the debate. APs Matt Gouras focused on the Patriot Act. He acknowledged the role of impeachment in the debate but did not credit Jones role. In fact he didn't even note that Jones participated, maybe appropriate. His striking extracts included:

The crowd broke into applause -- and some boos -- at a question about whether a new Congress should impeach Bush.

"I think it's a bit premature to say there is going to be impeachment proceedings against President Bush," said Tester.

Burns went to the Patriot Act on a few occasions, fighting the audience a bit, saying it takes away no freedoms and gives federal authorities the same power to deal with terrorists as they already have with organized crime.

"If you repeal it, the wall goes back up between the FBI and the CIA and the DIA, the defense intelligence; they cannot connect the dots," Burns said.

Tester called the notion "baloney"

Walt Williams writing for the hometown Bozeman Chronicle made the story about education and the candidates' positioning via MSU.

Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., emphasized his support for Montana State University at a candidate debate in Bozeman Monday, while his Democratic challenger, Jon Tester, responded that aid for higher education means more than "whose name is on the building."

He was referring to MSU's Burns Technology Center, which was named after the senator. The close relationship with MSU is what Burns emphasized in his opening remarks, pointing to the federal dollars he has directed to the university's research programs.

"We started a new era for Montana," the senator said. "Now Montana State ranks among the top at attracting (research and development) and technology transfer into the private sector."

It's actually the faculty and students who make MSU a world-class research facility, "not whose name is on the building," Tester replied.

The challenger talked about his plan to expand tax credits to make college tuition more affordable, while pointing to a bill to cut tuition tax credits for 11,000 Montana students, which Burns voted for.

Finally Mike Dennison, an excellent reporter, writing for the Lee Newspaers captured in a few excerpts the tenor of the debate's meaning, leaving out only Burn's anger.

The Patriot Act and its role in fighting terrorism - or squashing civil rights, depending on your point of view - dominated a U.S. Senate debate here Monday night, as all three candidates clashed over the law.

U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., defended its expansion of government investigators' powers, saying it has helped fight terrorism and other illegal activity.

"You have not given up one freedom under the Patriot Act that you didn't have before, unless you're a terrorist or suspected terrorist - or unless you are affiliated with the Mafia, or with drug kingpins," Burns told an audience of 1,200 people at the Strand Union Ballroom on the Montana State University campus.

That remark brought a sharp rejoinder from Libertarian Stan Jones of Bozeman, who said the act allows certain suspects to be locked up forever without an attorney or civil trial.

"I'm sorry, (senator), you're telling me that I'm guilty of being a terrorist first," Jones said to Burns. "You've turned our legal system upside down. I have to prove my innocence. We have to turn this thing off."

Democrat Jon Tester, who has said the act should be repealed, also reiterated his criticisms that it needlessly takes away individual freedoms while the war on terror is being bungled by the Bush administration.

"Let's not get sidetracked by a war in Iraq, while pulling out of Afghanistan in 2002," he said. "We're taking freedoms away from honest people. If (the government) thinks you happen to fall under it, you're a target."

Montanan do cherish their rights and freedoms (including guns. . .)
The next debate is Thursday!!!