October 26, 2010

Were any voters swayed by 1st District debate? Doubtful


Our three 1st District Congressional candidates shared a stage Tuesday night, comparing and contrasting their positions on a variety of issues. It's impossible to tell whether any of the 80 voters in attendance were swayed; each candidate received scattered applause before moderator Dr. Deborah Ford, chancellor of UW-Parkside, asked for silence.

There were no real surprises; Republican Paul Ryan, Democrat John Heckenlively and Libertarian Joseph Kexel stuck to the party line, as they took turns tackling more than a dozen questions. Best line of the night, though, went to Ryan, who compared himself to ... Goldilocks!

In opening remarks, Heckenlively said Ryan's views are "extreme." He votes, Heckenlively said, "with the most conservative members of his party," "for the fat-cat elites. He's the poster-boy for all that's wrong with Washington."

Kexel said the federal government "is out of control." He advocated repealing the income tax, shutting down the Federal Reserve and returning the election of U.S. Senators back to state legislatures.

Speaking third, Ryan cast himself as the moderate. "It's a Goldilocks thing," he said. "There's a liberal, a Libertarian and something in-between." The case he made for himself was based not on issues, but rather on his accessibility, constituent service and "principled representation."

He seemed to echo Kexel's statement that all that's in our future are "nostalgic stories about when America was great." Ryan said the U.S. is at "that proverbial fork in the road" where "our country will lose its greatness." The "debt-threat," he said, will produce a future with a "lower standard of living."

No one expected the debate to change the election's predictable outcome, given Ryan's millions in campaign funds compared to his opponents' um... any?*; his name recognition as a five-term incumbent; the feeling that we're in for a  Republican surge this year. Still, their answers to specific questions clearly delineated policy differences.

How do you feel about government regulation of executive salaries?

Kexel: "I do not believe the federal government is responsible for redistribution wealth. I'm not going to second guess that salary of a CEO."
Ryan: "I agree."
Heckenlively: "I disagree...but Ryan calls for tax cuts for the wealthy which would massively redistribute wealth." He went on to propose raising the cap on Social Security taxes (so individuals would pay SS tax on income over $100,000, and limiting corporate tax deductions for excessive executive compensation.

Should a tax deduction be given to companies that send jobs overseas?
Heckenlively: "While promoting exports is good (it creates jobs here), our policies give companies tax benefits to move jobs overseas."
Kexel would repeal all corporate taxes (as well as the income tax).
Ryan: "We should take taxes off exports and put them on imports."

How would you increase bipartisanship in Washington?
Heckenlively: "We have the most polarized Congress and Washington in decades," but -- despite that -- the Obama administration "at least reached out," and then passed health reform and Wall Street reform. Bipartisanship, he said, "is up to the people standing in the say saying 'no, no, no.' "
Kexel: "If I'm elected, we'd have tri-partisanship." His real solution would be to remove all domestic issues from federal control and back to the states, leaving only defense, international trade and the court system to the federal government.
Ryan: "The President went far left, with a Congress tht's far left. I do not see what has happened over the past two years as a sincere effort (at bipartisanship)." His preferred solution is that Congress' Democratic majority switches to a Republican majority; "then we'll have bipartisanship."

In southeast Wisconsin, what should the role of improved public transit be? 
Kexel: "A transit system needs to be based on market systems. The downside of KRM is that Racine and Kenosha will pay for it forever."
Ryan: "The cost does not add up." He prefers fixing roads and bridges.  "Infrastructure is a big deal."
Heckenlively agreed on infrastructure "but you have a lot of people who can't afford cars." KRM, he said, "is absolutely essential for economic development."

Social Security has been a success for 75 years. What would you do with it?
Ryan agreed with Social Security's success and said, "I don't support privatizing." His plan, he said, makes no change at all for people now 55 or older.
Heckenlively: "While Ryan argues he doesn't want to privatize Social Security, look at his Roadmap; it is privatization." Heckenlively is "dead-set" against any privatization. "All we need to maintain its long-term solvency is to raise the cap."
Kexel: "I don't believe the federal government should be managing your pension at all." He suggested "educating people" about where to put their retirement funds as they get older. 

What's the answer to environmental challenges like Asian carp?
Heckenlively: "You can't make this a state issue. Pollution crosses interstate lines."
Kexel: "The Constitution does allow the federal government some role in (issues about) navigable waters." But he suggested that "states can work together."
Ryan: "We need better fish barriers." He also suggested "reversing" the Chicago River.

Would you support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?
Kexel: "I have no objection if the companies have reliability." By which he means proper liability -- the company would be "on the hook" for a complete cleanup.
Ryan: "I do support drilling and liability," he said, but in the past companies "cut corners and permits were rubber-stamped." His long-term answer is to invest in alternative fuels -- "get into nuclear" -- "and get us off Mideast oil. We have lots of our own."
Heckenlively opposed drilling in the ANWR. "This is one of the last pristine places on the planet" and any drilling will have environmental impact. "We need a massive investment -- a Marshall Plan" to move the U.S. beyond carbon and coal and into wind and solar power, he said. "Compared to what we spent on the Iraq war, $500 billion is a bargain to end our dependency."

Given the high unemployment in the region, would you extend unemployment benefits?
Heckenlively: "Absolutely." We have "tens of thousands of people desperate, but Ryan voted against extending benefits six times this summer."
Kexel: "Unemployment benefits shouldn't come from the federal government; it's a state issue." While saying he feels "sorry for those who are unemployed," Kexel said the solution is a free market. "I can imagine a market that is red-hot," he said.
Ryan defended his votes by saying the measures all required borrowing to pay for the extended benefits. "If borrowing and spending were the keys to sucess, we'd be booming right now."

How do you see the end of the Afghanistan war?
Ryan: "Not with the signing of a treaty on a battleship." We're starting to see "material results" he said. "I think President Obama has done a pretty good job on this."
Heckenlively agreed. "There will be no signing ceremony to end this war. It's virtually impossible to come up with a victory scenario...We should recognize it's a quagmire, call it a draw and leave."
Kexel said the issue will "come down to whether the people there want to live together peacefully." But he criticized Congress -- and Ryan -- for letting President Bush declare war, which is constitutionally a Congressional prerogative. Congress "should have declared war -- or not."

How would you change the Health Care Reform Act?
Heckenlively: "I like it, but there should be a single-payer system. The biggest problem with our health care system is how we finance it."
Kexel: "I would repeal it," he said, in favor of a free market system.
Ryan: "I would repeal it. It won't stand, it's a fiscal house of cards that will give us massive deficits."

*Addendum: I just looked up the candidates' campaign finance reports. None from Kexel, which indicates that he hasn't met the minimum $5,000 threshhold for reporting. Heckenlively reported total contributions of $9,388, with $6,530 on hand as of Oct. 13. Ryan reported $3,429,930 in total contributions this election cycle, with expenditures so far of $1,367,485. During the debate, Heckenlively noted that Ryan has spent $700,000 on professional fund-raising for himself and other candidates.

Get more Post! Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Want to advertise? Learn how!

58 comments:

  1. How slick Paul Ryan is with his pretty boy answers. Voters in the 1st District ought to take him out before they find themselves out of jobs, Social Security, Medicare, etc. Ryan is the wealthy persons best friend.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did anyone ask why John Heckenlively backs Hamas?

    ReplyDelete
  3. A polished politician doesn't mean that politicians is the best. Paul Ryan is polished and slick. Too slick. Anyone ask him why the insurance companies gave him over a million bucks for his campaign chest?

    ReplyDelete
  4. At least Mr. Ryan does not cheer for terrorists and would not let Israel be destroyed

    ReplyDelete
  5. John seems to back everything that the public is against. I was stunned that he wanted the public option for health insurance when the public doesn't want it. We need to elect someone who represents us not some left wing agenda that is already failing on many levels. I'm sticking with Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good Luck with that. Medicare for all is supported by a huge segment of the population. Ryan wants another chance for the GOP and says they won't screw it up again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Democrat's pushed through all the socialistic bills this year the majority of voters did not want. Their payback will come next week.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Can someone explain to me how the dems, Feingold in particular, can claim to be protecting medicare when the new health bill strips a half trillion dollars out of the program just when the baby boomers hit the program? The mystery group for proecting SS and medicare supposedly backs dems yet their bill will do great damage to medicare. Also it is hard to understand when both parties at various times agree social security is going broke that candidates get beat up for saying we need to look at all the options to save social security. It will be broke in a few years so everything must be on the table to fix it. This is a strange year of illogical negative campaigning. It seems to be all about fear and now how to fix the big issues facing this country. I will not be voting for candidates with the real negative ads. Candidates who go that direction aren't worth my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  9. About time we see the real Paul Ryan - his slickness can't hide that he sat idle while the car plant closed in his hometown of Janesville, his roadmap for America is full of potholes as described by Pulitzer Prize economist Paul Krugman has shown, his privitization of social security would have us all holding tin cups on the street corner, his ability to say lots of trite sayings and say nothing, his taking over a million dollars from the health care industry and say he represents everybody, and his method of talking and never really answering the questions posed to him. Paul must go - he doesn't represent me or very few people in his district!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Enough of this talk of "bipartianship". You don't join hands with a group that's determined to make detrimental decisions for the nation by ignoring what the citizens want. Anyone elected by the conservatives should ignore the push to join hands with those that chose to make decisions against the people. The reason dems are pushing for "bi-partianship" is to hang on to what little thread of power they can get after losing. No one should fall for this ploy. Holding true to your conservative convictions and the interests of the people that elected you into office is far more important, than if you appeal to democrats and liberal media's opinion of bi-partianship. We don't elect candidates based on bi-partianship, but on how well they respresent us the citizen. Holding hands, singing kumbya should be left for the scouts, not elected officials. If both parties put the nation's & citizen's best interest foremost, they would naturally flow into a working relationship, WITHOUT this push for abandoning your principles and stands on issues, in order to claim bi-partianship.

    ReplyDelete
  11. He seemed to echo Kexel's statement that all that's in our future are "nostalgic stories about when America was great." Ryan said the U.S. is at "that proverbial fork in the road" where "our country will lose its greatness."

    Just consider some of the facts. Paul Ryan voted with the Bush GOP-led legislation 90% of the time or more during each congressional session. At the same time, Ryan won awards for those same votes from an outfit ironically called the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). This is key because although some will claim that jobs leaving Wisconsin is due to our state's tax climate, that doesn't explain why jobs have left other states and still many more are leaving the country. The truth is, is that jobs leaving the country due to wrong-headed national policies passed in DC over the past decade. The exact legislation Ryan won awards for.

    Ryan and the republicans were at that proverbial fork in the road when he entered congress in 1998. He chose the wrong road and sent the nation on a race to the bottom. If twelve years of Ryan's manufacturing excellence along with the Bush tax cuts were the keys to success, we'd be booming right now. Instead we're on glide path of record unemployment and hopelessness. All the while local officials arrive at the sinking reality that manufacturing jobs are irretrievably lost forever.

    Things were pretty good when Ryan entered office and thanks to him we have nothing but nostalgic stories to tell. Few congressmen are worse for our country and our district than Paul Ryan.

    ReplyDelete
  12. John Heckenlively apparently does not even own a shirt that he can button at the neck....

    No wonder is his so ashmamed that he can not even put his own name on his yard signs.

    WORST CANDIDATE EVER.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No one can point to anything Paul Ryan has done, good, for his District. His support for NAFTA, as well as his backing Most Favored Trading Nation status for China has gutted thousands of decent American jobs. Just look at Janesville and Kenosha. Thanks to Paul the Traitor Ryan the no longer is automobile production in Wisconsin. The facts are the facts, and those who ignore them while supporting Ryan are just as irresponsible.

    ReplyDelete
  14. At least Heckenlively is poor like the majority of Racine's hapless wage slaves, who've been ground into the muck by a certain corrupt corporate clan. Anyone who'll stand up to the Sons of Scam and the Waxclass has my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ricardo says: How can anyone vote for Paul Ryan when all he does is travel around the nation and be on talk shows touting his roadmap for America (Which is only approved by 13 members of his own party in the House and has been shown to be a costly farce) and has done nothing for the people in his Wisconsin district?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Can anyone possibly say they are better off in any maneer since Obama was put into office? If so, how?

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'Ricardo' is right; Paul Ryan is aiming for the 'big league'. He doesn't care about Wisconsinites; he cares about Paul Ryan. He doesn't want to be a 'lowly' Representative any longer; he wants to be at least a Senator, or, preferably VP or Pres. Heaven help us!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous 12:32.....GO AWAY!!! Quit with your Sons of Scam talk. Blaming SCJ for everything is getting old. You are mad cuz you got fired. We're getting tired of you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. America needs more people like Heckenlively in office. Real people, not politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear Anonymous 2:05 PM, You have me confused with another blogger. NEVER have I worked for the Waxclan. I would as soon accept a job from them as join the Mafia. Enjoy a pleasant evening!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Josephus says that Ricardo is a wise man. Today on C-Span, I was watching The Daily Beast Forum. Ryan's Roadmap came up, and to a person, from conservative historian Niall Ferguson, Sheila Bair (head of FDIC), Peter Orzag, and Joseph Stiglitz, criticized Ryan's pothole-of-a-plan was regressive in nature. In other words, the poor and the middle class get the shaft while tax breaks for the wealthy will average $279,000 per year for the top 1% (Milwaukee JS,9/9/10). It is truly amazing that those of you, including RacineGal, fall for this stuff put out by right-wing goofballs whose real objective revolves around power and authoritarianism; telling us how to live our lives. Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. My elderly neighbors and I have already voted the straight Democratic ticket. Somebody has to stop Lyin' Ryan.

    ReplyDelete
  23. That predatory pretty boy with the lovely hair belongs in the private sector with his SCJ masters.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Maybe the Waxies will hire Ryan and Dickert. I can easily envision them dancing attendance on Miz Yellin' in their spiffy butler suits.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ryan, Dickert and the rest of the Waxflunkeys ought to wear Cherokee red outfits so everyone would know whom they serve. Furthermore, until a WAXFREE MAYOR moves into City Hall, the damned place should fly the SCJ flag.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Boy you left wingers sure are full of hatred and funny names of people you don't like. How childish.

    I'll be laughing my ass of when you get your asses handed to you next Tuesday.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dear 8:06 PM A Republican landslide on November 2 wouldn't faze us in the least because then the GOP would have to solve America's economic problems. When the Republicans fail to do so, the electorate will swing left in 2012 and give Obama a second term plus lots of Dems to help him dismantle our corrupt capitalist system.

    ReplyDelete
  28. He who laughs last, laughs best.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I find it interesting that no one will respond to my post yesterday at 1:46 - I guess that tells me something!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sir, get over yourself.

    We are all better off, if for no other reason than simply that BUSH is gone. Worst, stupidest president ever, who got us into TWO unnecessary wars and quadrupled the national debt in eight years. Nobody could have reversed all that he caused in two years.

    As for better: When you're diagnosed delusional and need health care, it'll be there -- despite its being a pre-existing condition.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dear Al, AMEN!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Al ole boy, you did not answer the question - how are you any better "today" than you were when Obama went into office. Give me a couple personal improvements!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dear Sir, First of all, an elderly Auntie with severe diabetes two may now obtain health insurance despite her pre-existing condition. Then there's my kinsman the high school history teacher who recently got a job thanks to Obama's "Race to the Top" program. Finally, I have a pal who's working on a bridge which would never have been built without Obama's legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  34. No, Obama isn't perfect. Even so, he's doing the best he can to create jobs or encourage private sector employers to hire more of our fellow-citizens instead of sending jobs out to Changsha and Mumbai.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Whether or not we like it, a government-regulated economic system complete with a cradle-to-grave social safety net is coming to America. Obama is only doing what any man in his position must do. The Crash of 2008 was a wake up call announcing the demise of free enterprise and the dawn of a new dirigiste dispensation.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 12:12 - 1st of all you still haven't told me how it has helped you. What is your kinsman teacher going to do next year when the stimulus money is no longer available? Same holds true for the bridge man. To put us into additional trillions of debt for short term potential gain is no way to run a country or business. Also how has helped the 16% unemployed in Racine and finally, have you read the Obama Care bill - do you really know what's in it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The Democrat's mantra - "vote and vote often."

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Sir" - Obama has given me and millions a feeling of pride again in being American, Obama has motivated me and countless others to know what America really stands for, Obama has helped me care for my neighbors here and in the world, and since Obama has been President - my investments have risen remarkably since falling during the last eight years of the previous President! There is a positive spirit in the hearts of many Americans since the election of this Great Man.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 10:28 - Aparrently you do not know the difference between an American and a Socialist. Obama and you the latter. I'll take a line from Obama - just think how much more the market would have gone up if Obama was not in office. You have proven nothing from your post - you show no real personal improvement since he has taken office, because he has done nothing to improve people's lives.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dear Sir, If Obama's programs hadn't helped my Auntie, my kinsman the teacher and my bridge-building relative, I would have been supporting them. (In my ethnic group, whose members often belong to family associations, folks are expected to assist their kin.) So Obama's legislation DID improve my life!

    ReplyDelete
  43. 8:33 - So what are you going to do next year when the stimulus money is gone and the country is in debt $1 trillion dollars more. Both will be out of a job. Government does not create private jobs for the long run - it just runs up debt. It's clowns like you that will never learn.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm a liberal, and my problem isn't with Ryan. He's one of the few Republicans who's honest about his opinions on the social safety net. I respect him.

    My problem with the rest of the fraudulent Tea Party crowd that believes there's some divine moral constitutional distinction between providing socialized medicine for someone who's 65 years old and someone who's 64.

    The great irony of Election 2010 is that those who are most dependent on government, the elderly, are the Republicans' most reliable voters. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 9:40 - Maybe they understand that Obama Care will cut Medicare payments!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Northern Pike10/29/2010 11:01 AM

    Sir:

    If you believe in small government, then Medicare payments SHOULD be cut. That's what Ryan wants to do, even though his plan doesn't save the first dollar until 2021.

    Tea Partiers, pick one: Either you believe in small government or you don't. Or just admit you believe in socialized medicine for me, but not for thee.

    ReplyDelete
  47. 11:01 - But lying Obama says it will not affect Medicare.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Northern Pike10/29/2010 11:41 AM

    Medicare's cost to the taxpayers is expected to nearly double between now and 2020 -- from $499 billion to $920. Only a lying conservative would call that a "cut."

    Sir, if that's the best response you've got to "socialized medicine for me and not for thee," then give it up.

    ReplyDelete
  49. 11:41 - Just wait until next week. The tide is changing - and the repeal of Obama Care is not far off. I'm done with you - you are dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Excellent Northern Pike!

    How is Medicare supposed to contribute to the massive deficits Ryan claims it will cause over the next decade if he also claims health care reform cut over $500 billion from the same program?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Northern Pike10/29/2010 12:24 PM

    Sir,

    Next week's election doesn't change the stupid contradiction of elderly people who favor socialized medicine for themselves but not for anybody else but who also want the budget balanced without tax increases.

    Can't wait to see how you guys try to sort all that out.

    ReplyDelete
  52. jas: There's precious little that we censor, but anonymous charges that somebody has body odor crosses the line. Why don't you talk about the issues?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Josephus is right about the panel that saw through Ryan's roadmap to destroy social security. Peter Orzog also said that Ryan's plan would not accomplish his claim of saving tax dollars and would instead increase the national debt significantly.
    Oh by the way, those who keep yammering about Obama and the size of government do not seem to be aware that the total number of federal employees has dropped by 300,000 workers since he took office.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Michael Kroes10/29/2010 10:50 PM

    Paul gets my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Sir" - as you were! Stupid and court-marshalled! You are unfit for service!

    ReplyDelete