Sunday, October 08, 2006

6th Congressional District Debate Wrap-up...

Welcome Pharyngula readers, from a "wing nut." As I stated late last night, I put this post together from 14 pages of notes. Some of it is verbatim, but most of it is paraphrased. And yes, there are some of my own comments mixed in, (most of those in parentheses and italics) It is my blog, after all.

And yes, "moonbats" are invited to read, as well ;-)

(BTW--this forum was also being covered by C-SPAN, CNN and Fox News)

I attended the MN 6th U. S. District Congressional Candidate forum at Apollo High school this past Saturday, between Republican Michele Bachmann, Democrat Patty Wetterling, and Independence Party Candidate John Binkowski.

It was interesting, to say the least. Thirteen questions were asked to the candidates in the 90 minutes allotted. I'll go through each of the questions, along with the responses (paraphrased, in many cases).

The first question, of course, was the gratuitous "Page Scandal" question--specifically,

Q1: Do you think that there was a conspiracy to keep the Congressional Page scandal under wraps? If so, what evidence do you have?

Binkowski: You can't jump to conclusions whether there was a conspiracy or not. On top of that, Binkowski stated that he didn't want to see the scandal occupy the energy of the entire election cycle. Binkowski mentioned what he felt were more pressing issues, such as the possible nuclear test this weekend by North Korea, and the genocide going on in Darfur, to mention two.

Wetterling: She didn't think it was a small issue. Claimed many people reported it, and Pages were told to stay away, but people chose to do nothing about the issue. Those participating in what she claimed to be a cover-up should be removed from office.

Bachmann: Related that Foley's behavior was "sick." Bachmann related that she would not want a sexual predator approaching her 16 year old daughter; Bachmann made the point that this has happened before in both parties, and whomever knew about this, whether republicans, democrats, or those in the media needed to be held accountable. Bachmann related that as having been a foster mom for many years, she was familiar with children who had gone through abuse, and related that it had left a lasting emotional scar. She emphasized that this issue was not about democrats or republicans and the issue was not appropriate to be used for political gain for any party.

Q2: Should we stay in Iraq or develop a timetable for immediate withdrawal?

Wetterling: Wetterling let loose with the Murtha/DNC talking points: Immediate withdrawal is needed. Bush is knowingly sending troops into a civil war, with poor equipment. Wetterling stated that troops after returning are getting no health care. (I wonder if Wetterling ever heard of the V.A.)

Bachmann: The plan for Iraq needs to be victory. We are in a war to win that war. Whereever we are fighting in the war on terror, we need to win. I'm here to win!

Binkowski: (and this is where he totally jumps the shark).. Jumped on "this is a war for oil" meme. Said that he had some friends fighting in Iraq, and that he doesn't know what they're fighting for. Called for immediate withdrawal of troops. Binkowski called for the replacement of U.S. troops with a U.N. force. (Yeah.. we know how effective the U.N. can be..)

Q3: What should be done about soaring tuition costs?

Bachmann:
Supports continuing state sponsorship of institutions of higher learning. Bachmann stated that getting an advanced degree requires a measure of committment from the learner; and related her own experience about how she and her husband had to sacrifice to get their education. Basically, she was saying that the students need to make a committment and pull their own weight in the equation, but didn't make that very clear.

Binkowski: (who happened to be pretty rude to Bachmann throughout the forum) said, "Thanks, Michele, for taking all that time to tell us very little." But then went on to say very little himself. Binkowski latched on to the "$600" toilet seat meme to say that we're overspending on defense, that we don't need to spend anymore. Never did come back to make the connection to higher ed.

Wetterling: Said It's a matter of priorities. Wetterling never touched on higher education, but did say that the federal government needs to fully fund special education. She criticized Bachmann for wanting to get rid of the U.S. Department of Education (and her point is?)


Q4: Has the negative advertising affected your campaigns?

Binkowski: "My opponents have very graciously left me out of their negative advertising" (laughs)... Binkowski stated, "Negative ads have been proven to be very effective, because it seems to work with voters. It's up to you, the voters, whether you want them to remain effective."

Wetterling:
(This is one question in which she became completely unhinged). She stated, "I am not a terrorist!" She also stated, "I am not going to raise anyone's taxes!" (She later qualified that unless you were making $1- 2-million per year, she might think about it--but then again, could one ever trust a democrat not to raise taxes?) Then she went over the meme again that Bachmann wanted to raise taxes with a 23% "...Flat..errr flat tax thing.." Wetterling was absolutely clueless regarding what is the proposed Fair Tax amendment (which Binkowski, incidentally also supports). But then again, I've never seen a democrat interested in making taxation a fair proposition. Wetterling also alluded that Bachmann voted against every K-12 funding bill.

Bachmann: Stated that she has voted for every K-12 funding bill. She also made the statements that the last three Wetterling ads have posted mis-truths about Bachmann, stating that she wanted to raise taxes.

Bachmann related that Wetterling wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts, which would translate in a $2000 increase for families making between $50,000 and $100,000.

Q5: Should "Intelligent Design" be taught (along with Darwinian Theory) in the p science curriculum in public schools?

Wetterling:
We need to teach the truth about science. Evolution is scientifically accurate. We can't let our science curriculum to be based on religious beliefs.

Bachmann:
"We need to trust teachers and the local school boards in what they want to teach. The federal government has no business in moving toward censorship. Bachmann stated that Darwinian theory was by no means ironclad, and to be able to question its tenets (i.e., the secondary law of thermodynamics, the fossil record) is a move toward academic freedom. She stated that it should be up to faculty, students and parents to draw their own conclusions.

Binkowski: Related that he took a class in astronomy, and that it was a "mindboggling" and "spiritually moving" experience, and led him to the conclusion that maybe we aren't alone. But he also said that Intelligent Design was not a proven scientific fact, and that it would be detrimental to teach it in the science curriculum. He suggested that it should be left up to the market to decide; that is, if schools wanted to teach it, Binkowski intimated that it would lead to lower scores in science to those who were taught Intelligent Design as part of the curriculum. (Binkowski left out the fact that it would only be the case if the science test didn't contain Intelligent Design questions).

Q 6: What role does the Federal Government play in your vision of America?

Bachmann:
The Federal government doesn't have a role in teaching morality. There must be no silence placed on churches nor on speech. Bachmann then went on to decry judicial activism, in that she says that such practices tend to impose the judges version of their own morality upon society. Bachmann states that people should retain tehir right to choose the lawasthat they want to live under.

Binkowski: (Unhinged, again)...Bachmann is right--we should not legislate morality. Then went off on a tangent regarding "pre-emptive wars", disenfranchisement of minorities (you know, the DNC talking point playbook).

Wetterling: Brought it back to the Page scandal (and was milking it for all it was worth). Wetterling stated that there were "way too many scandals, and paired it with the phrase, "I'm not satisfied" (a phrase she would repeat throughout the forum)

Q 7: In light of increasing gas prices, what do you plan to do not only to fulfill our needs for the long term, but also to provide short term relief for high fuel costs?

Binkowski:
Reminded us of the Arab Oil Embargo (Binkowski quipped that he is "too young to remember" it--a point which shall become important later on). Stated that we have done nothing since the Embargo to go to alternative forms of energy. Binkowski SUPPORTS RAISING GAS TAXES..

Wetterling:
Gas prices have created a "middle class squeeze". Too dependent on foreign oil. We have done very little to change the gas mileage in cars (comparing the technology in cars to the technological advances that have come in cell phones). Wetterling promoted ethanol and biodiesel as alternatives.

Bachmann: In the long term, we need to increase our sources of energy supplies. Right now, we are "artificially crimped" We need to begin drilling for offshore sources of oil and gas. At the same time, we are the most innovative nation on earth, and we need to put our energy into developing alternative energies that are affordable and make sense. Bachmann downplayed the use of corn to make ethanol, as she (correctly) pointed out that ethanol is not as efficient as gasoline, takes a lot of space to grow, and has unintended natural consequences, such as a decrease of the water table in areas where it needs to be irrigated to grow. At the same time she reiterated that we cannot be dependent on the Middle East for oil, and that we need to secure our own sources.

Q 8: What about ethanol?

Wetterling:
Promoted corn-based ethanol as an alternative to oil. She acknowledged that producing corn based ethanol takes its toll on the water table, etc, but stated that it would still be a good idea to pursue the technology.

Bachmann: Ethanol--mixed results, still in the early stages. It takes a great deal of land to produce it, and it's a less efficient fuel than regular oil. Bachmann cited nuclear power as being very effective, and that it's used as a primary source of energy in a lot of countries. Cited that there has been a moratorium on building nuclear plants for over 30 years now, and it's time we again explored it as an alternative.

Binkowski: Reiterated taht corn ethanol is not efficient, that there are more efficient crops that would not take up as much land to grown (i.e., sugar beets, grasses) that can be grown without tilling or fertilization. Binkowski related that it would be a great idea to continue to produce hybrid cars that can be "plugged into the wall and go 50 miles, then have a gasoline engine take over after 50 miles" (again, what Binkowski fails to realize is that energy is needed to charge the batteries when one "plugs the car into the wall," as it were).

Q 9: Should illegal immigrants receive benefits from the Federal Government?

Bachmann:
Our efforts to curb illegal immigration need to contain these measures:

1. Secure our borders and stop the flow of illegals.
2. Deal with illegals who are here--let some stay, deport others (i.e., felons)
3. English needs to be the official langauge of this nation.
4. Minnesota is number one in the nation with regarding to providing welfare and medical benefits. Immigrants should live here for at least 12 months before being able to receive any of those benefits. Right now our expenditures (not only on illegals, but on U.S. citizens who move to Minnesota for the same reasons) are draining our public treasuries.

Binkowski: No. Favors securing our borders with a "virtual fence." Says that the Mexican government urges their citizens to go to work in the U.S., and then to expatriate that money back to Mexico. A physical fence would do no good if we havn't addressed the problem at its root.

Wetterling: "I'm not satisfied" with our efforts. We need to secure our borders, and we need people on our borders to guard them. Also, we need to hold accountable those meployers that bring them here. (Wetterling did not answer the question whether illegals who are here should get government benefits)


Q 10: (lame, non-sequiter question of the day award)....How can we even begin to compete as a nation if we don't acknowledge global warming?


Binkowski:
I don't pretend to know whether it's man made actions that are causing global warming or not, and that's not important. What is more important is to find out if there is something we can do to stem it. Just like the moon landing was made less than a decade after declaring our intentions, I want to initiate an "Apollo Style" program to find alternative sources of energy, whether it be wind power or solar power.

Bachmann: In the 1970s, there was a lot of talk about the dawning of a new ice age... scientists thought we were in a period of "global cooling." Then they thought we were in an era of global warming, and then global cooling, and then global warming again. To date, there is no hard scientific evidence that humans are causing global warming (at this all the moonbats in the audience started to audibly mock Bachmann). Bachmann went on, undaunted, stating that the prospect of global warming, whether real or not, has nothing to do with making our nation competitive. Bachmann went on to reiterate that it is our freedom of self-determination that makes us a competitive nation. And that continued freedom will be the thing to keep us competitive.

Q 11: What changes to Social Security do you support or oppose?

Wetterling:
We must continue to protect Social Security so that it remains secure, and we need to quit raiding the S.S. trust fund. We cannot risk making cuts to the SS. Program (made an allusion to the myth of the "lock box").


Bachmann: We must continue to keep our contract with our seniors who have invested into S.S. But at the same time, the current S.S. system is owned by the government, not the individual. She emphasized that current social security contributions only yield a return of about one percent. Bachmann stated that young people should be given more ownership of their social security, and that even people of Binkowski's age could benefit from being able to invest in safe, private sector funds that yield higher returns.

Binkowski: Slammed Bachmann for "taking a swipe" at his age (I don't think Bachmann took a swipe... Binkowski earlier joked about not being old enough to remember the Arab oil embargo of 1973). Binkownski stated that Social Security currently has an unfunded liability of 75 trillion dollars. Since people are now living longer than they used to, Binkowski proposes cutting off payments to recipients after a fixed amount of years. (So, if Binkowski has his way, will 90 year olds be put out on the street?)


Q 12: What would you do to fund road projects?


Bachmann:
We are "woefully behind" in the building of roads, said Bachmann. Michelle related that living in Stillwater, that community has waiting over 50 years to see the Stillwater Bridge replaced, and that they are still waiting. For the past 35 years, we have not kept pace with population growth. Bachmann emphasised the regional economic impact of roads, and vowed to enhance the St. Cloud Airport. She proposed committing the motor vehicle tax, and gas tax to road improvement.

Binkowski: Claims that he's the only one in the room willing to raise taxes. He states that gas is too inexpensive, and that raising the gas tax, while having it permanently indexed to inflation, is the answer.

Wetterling: Promotes public transportation. She sang the wonders of the D.C. transit system, saying the $1.35 ride on the D. C. subaways was a "gift."

(Question, Patty--just who is paying for that "gift"?)

Q 13: How do you plan to deal with the rising cost of health care?

Binkowski:
It's a supply/demand issue. We invest in "wellness programs"in the form of grants to schools that promote exercise and a healthy lifestyle. If you make people healthier, demand placed on health care via what he called "lifestyle diseases" will go down, and decrease costs.

Wetterling: Related that her husband is a health care provider (he's a chiropractor in St. Joseph, Minnesota). Stated that pharmaceutical companies need to be held responsible for their role in the high cost of medications. She decried the amount of money being spent in advertising of prescription medications. She states that health care is a "basic American right." (find that one in the Constitution). Slammed Bachmann for allegedly voting against small business to be able to pool together to buy insurance.

Bachmann: Minnesota has the best health care in the world, with among the highest insured via percentage (92%) in the nation. Michelle did say that she favors allowing small businesses to pool their resources. She also promotes legal reform for tort liability, as well as tax deductibility for health care premiums.



Quick Impressions (It's getting late--5:30 am comes awfully fast--It took me over two hours poring through 14 pages of notes to put this post together. I apologize in advance for any editing errors):


Bachmann: Seems to have it together; stayed on message. Seem a bit flummoxed (rightly so, in my opinion) when gratuitously slammed by Binkowski, but she needs to appear more unfazed when attacked.

Wetterling: Pretty much right out of the DNC talking points playbook. She flat out denies wanting to raise taxes, but is more than willing to roll back Bush tax cuts (that will have the net effect of raising taxes, anyway). She has no clue regarding economic issues and effects of taxation, and is unaware of tax alternatives. Pretty damning for somone who wants to hold office in a legislative body responsible for controlling the "nation's purse strings."

Binkowski: Erudite, cocky, and often flat-out wrong. His stance on the Iraq war is actually to the left of Noam Chomsky. Not even Murtha is willing to go so far as to say it was a war for oil.

Although Binkowski articulated some good points regarding energy and illegal immigration policies, his frequent forays into moonbattery suggest that he would not be a safe choice.


***UPDATE**** (11:32p CDT, 10/8/2006)

After the forum ended, I sought out Patty Wetterling, and asked her to put a check on her rhetoric against the Iraq war. I told her that I have a son fighting there right now, and in this instant age of communication, words can come out of her mouth, and can nearly instantly be posted on a web site, ready for our enemies to read.

She told me that she "forgot to say" that she supports our troops. I told her that if she really supported our troops, she should support their mission.

Afterward, I went to the Republican office in Waite Park, and Michele Bachmann was there. She related that both she and Patty Wetterling would be on ABC's Nightline tomorrow (Monday night).