Braude (to Tsongas)-“Like most Democrats who ran for Congress in ’06, you’re running on a pledge to push for speedy withdrawl of troops from Iraq, but in an NECN-NBC debate last week at Dartmouth, the three leading presidential candidates of your party said they wouldn’t even commit to having all troops out by 2013. So the question is, in light of that, why should voters believe that electing you will get our troops out sooner than electing, say, Jim Ogonowski?”
Tsongas (A)-good answer with specifics and her reasons why. She says she stands for getting the troops out earlier than HRC, Obama or Edwards.
Braude-“Let me start with you, Jim Ogonowski, do you have a timetable? What would be the trigger for a withdrawl from Iraq?”
Ogonowski (F)-refers to a “detailed plan” on his website. I just spent about 5 minutes looking for it, though I didn’t play any of his videos, any section where he details his stance on any issues. It’s just not there. Either he’s lying or an idiot who hasn’t looked at his own website. He goes on to parrot the White House line of helping the Iraq government create some security and finishes up with the specious argument detailing some distinctions between he and Tsongas on the issue of what troops remain there after the “security mission” is finished. Nothing original, as with all his statements I’ve seen.
Braude-“How much time for safety and security? Is there a point in the ‘Ogonowski Plan’ after which you say, ‘no more?'”
Ogonowski (F)-he doesn’t quite manage an answer. Obviously, he hasn’t thought this through.
Braude-“Kurt Hayes?”
Hayes (C)-more specific than Ogonowski (better speaking skills as well). Still, though, it’s the White House line. Pull the troops out gradually as Iraqi forces are willing and able to stand in, and live in the neighborhoods they’re to protect, completely ignoring the stories of rape and murder committed by the Iraq security forces.
Murphy (C)-He doesn’t answer the question, but brings up the issues surrounding the Congressional abdication of it’s war making powers, and brings up his plan to end the war by means of his “Shared Sacrifice” bill.
Thompson (B)-says what Cuomo says: that Congress cannot constitutionally give up their war making powers to the president. Advocates immediate scaling the mission back to training only.
Braude (to Murphy)-“Patrick Murphy, you just mentioned a minute ago your Shared Sacrifice Act. Many Americans feel that when 200,000 families wake up everyday, worried that another member of their family might not be waking up thousands of miles away, they bear the full brunt of this sacrifice. You talk about the ‘Shared Sacrifice Act,’ which is essentially a war tax, not unlike one proposed by Congressman Jim McGovern. If you really believe in shared sacrifice, why a tax, but not mandatory military or civilian service for all Americans?”
Murphy (A)-he scores well here because he’s shown a bit of thought and sensitivity, and the ability to look beyond immediate issues.
Braude (to Hayes)-“Kurt Hayes, how about it? Shared sacrifice. Is there a plan in the Hayes campaign? Whether it’s financial, military or civilian service. Anything?”
Hayes (D)-advocates letting the president send us to war on his own hook and the abdication of congressional responsibilities in favor of the tactical situation. Is not necessarily adverse to civilian service for receiving federal aid for college, for example.
Braude-“Niki Tsongas, any shared sacrifice in the Tsongas campaign?”
Tsongas (D)-dodges the question at first. Launches into a rebuttal of Ogonowski’s earlier statement about troops withdrawls. Then states she doesn’t support either a war tax or mandatory civilian service after being pressed, though she advocates voluntary civilian service.
Braude-“Jim Ogonowski, is there plan in your campaign for shared greater sacrifice by those who don’t have family members in Iraq or Afghanistan?”
Ogonowski (F)-“Absolutely not.” Going on to beat the republican drum of lower taxes. Completely mindlessness, not to mention irresponsibility. He favors cutting pending as a matter of policy. Surprisingly, he mentions, “Bridges to Nowhere,” referencing the pork barrel scandal involving Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. A Republican!
Thompson (D)-His answer is irrelevant. He wants lower taxes all around.
Murphy (A)-adds qualaification and detail to his Shared Sacrifice Act. Once past his accent, I find a mind there, his answer is well framed.
Braude-“Barak Obama and others have talked about the importance of getting back on the Osama Bin Laden trail, and he’s talked about potentially deploying troops to Pakistan, if necessary, to get him. How high a priority is getting Bin Laden, very quickly, and would you, under any circumstances, commit troops to go into Pakistan to do it?”
Ogonowski (F)-though he trots out: “global war on terrorism” and “9-11,” yet he can’t be brief enough to say yes or no.
Tsongas (B)-she goes long on her answer as well, but stands for a more moderate policy than invading Pakistan.
Hayes (A)-frames the moderate view better than Tsongas: he doesn’t want to unilaterally invade an ally.
Murphy (C)-the Hayes argument again, poorly put.
Thompson (B)-strongly advocates the moderate view of Hayes.
Why bother with your incredibly biased “grade post” here? what a farce. Why not just say you hate the guy, give him one of your “Fs’for everything and spare us the time of reading your bias?
ONE SINGLE THING of substance.
<
p>
The guy’s a lightweight. He’s the kind of representative who gets rolled in Washington. The evidence suggests he’s the kind of guy unable to comprehend the complexities of legislation or of its consequences. He’s another rubber-stamp Republican and after the recent legacy of warrantless wiretapping, CIA rendition of innocents, the wholesale acquisition of the records of US citizens by the NSA and FBI, we see that electing yet another spineless congressman doesn’t work out to well in regard to the Bill of Rights.
<
p>
He’s a lamb to the slaughter. A willing lamb at that.