That’s how I saw it. But the real shocker for me was when the Iowa Press panel challenged Ashley Hinson on her positions and statements not once, not twice, but repeatedly. They do that to democrats all the time but never republicans.

Corkery was fearless, knowledgeable, sharp and feisty. She knew exactly when to interject and wasn’t afraid to do so often.  She was able to neutralize and outperform Hinson on every topic in my opinion. She made Hinson look like the cold-blooded party tool she is. I would say Hinson got away with nothing.

Other highlights:

Corkery landed solid blows on education, social security, abortion, the farm bill, Iowa cancer rates, eminent domain, immigration and Project 2025.

Corkery successfully talked over Kay Henderson! Boy did she get a look from the moderator.. Don’t miss it!

And just to show you that the Iowa Press panel does in fact know how to ask follow-up questions and challenge republicans, check out this back and forth between Brianne Pfannenstiel and Hinson. I’m not including all of Hinson’s responses because they were too long but you can watch the show if you enjoy watching a liar frantically scramble.

I also won’t include Corkery’s comments here. They were quite substantive and she really nailed Hinson.  Grab some popcorn and watch the program. You won’t be sorry.

But getting back to the Iowa Press team doing their job.

Read and be amazed.

Pfannenstiel “Ashley Hinson, your colleague Congressman Zach Nunn, a republican, said that he does not support a federal abortion ban. Would you support a federal abortion ban if it looked like the six week ban that Iowa has implemented, a version of which you supported in the Iowa legislature?”

Hinson “Well, I am pro-life and I think what my opponent just said is very extreme….” (long, rambling answer)

Pfannenstiel “So, to be clear, would you support a federal abortion ban if it came before the U.S. House?”

Hinson “No piece of legislation will get my support without including those exceptions.”

Pfannenstiel “Well, let’s talk about those exceptions [rape, incest, life of the mother]. You say that those are very important to you. In January of this year, you co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act, which says that life begins at the moment of conception. If that bill were enacted, it would ban abortions without exceptions. So, where should Iowans believe you on this issue?”

Hinson“Yeah, well that bill is about valuing life, which is my spectrum of work on this issue, which I just described….” (long rambling answer)

Pfannenstiel “So, if that bill came before you, you would vote no on it?”

Hinson “As it is currently, yes.”

Pfannenstiel “Then why did you decide to co-sponsor that?”

Hinson: “…I think the most important thing here is about working with my colleagues to support a culture of life in Washington, D.C….” (more from Hinson on that, check it out).

Kudos to Pfannenstiel although my cynical side says she may have been trying to help Hinson by providing an opportunity for her to explain the contradiction. But it didn’t seem like that. In any event, it seemed like nothing Hinson said about it helped her.

Erin Murphy also asked some tough questions such as this one following Hinson’s attempts to basically say the bipartisan border bill failed because it was flawed.

Murphy “But despite that, your republican colleague Joni Ernst called that the best chance we’re going to have at meaningful immigration reform. Was that not a missed opportunity?”

On education he asked Hinson, possibly because Corkery brought it up as part of Project 2025, “Do you want to see the Department of Education shuttered?”

Hinson’s answer was telling. Watch and judge for yourself.

On Sarah Corkery’s website it says,

“After the debate Corkery spoke with reporters and answered questions.  Hinson did not.”

My take: Hinson is a MAGA tool.  Corkery was impressive and would make a great congresswoman for Iowa.