Massachusetts Democrat Senate Debate Analysis
As promised, here is my analysis of the one hour debate between four prospective Democrat challengers vying for the late Ted Kennedy's seat. The four candidates are:
Attorney General Martha Coakley
U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano
City Year co-founder Alan Khazei
Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca.
Let's quickly get to the point, the four candidates are extremely similar and appear to be creepy clones of each other citing traditional liberal talking points via embedded recording devices. Their unique qualities can be summarized in the following manner. Coakley thinks she is guaranteed to win and is extremely cocky despite being asleep at the job here in Massachusetts. Capuano is extremely proud of his work as a member of the House and constantly makes it a point that only he knows the dirty tricks played in Washington and is capable of, as he puts it, "trading horses". Khazei has a sense of humor about him and at least makes an effort to deviate from the pack with some unique ideas. Pagliuca is extremely uncomfortable and apparently admires Capuano a great deal because all of Capuano's ideas appear to be synchronized with Pagliuca's, he said so several times.
Every candidate promises to return jobs to our state, fix the financial crisis and boost the economy. All promise to continue Kennedy's traditions which is to effectively siphon as many taxpayer dollars out of the federal coffers into Massachusetts as quickly as humanly possible. None of the candidates understand anything about basic economics and all vigorously support passing a second stimulus package either because the first one failed or because it was wildly successful - take your pick. Capuano objects to the crushing debt and proposes to raise taxes on the wealthy and distribute the money while Coakley sees no problem adding more debt because as the economy recovers tax receipts will go up. Pagliuca may consider tax hikes while Khazei wants to directly help small businesses. All four absolutely love the idea of a public option and spend more of the time arguing over how robust it should be, but all agree government competition is the best way to encourage private markets to lower prices. I guess Medicare and the Post Office are such stunning examples of federal government excellence it would be foolish not to continue it.
When it comes to war, Capuano eloquently stated a position I have written about several times. We won in Afghanistan and it's time to pull out! Frankly the matter of Afghanistan is so obviously trivial that only the most ardent of war hawks would disagree. Unfortunately the remainder of the candidates expressed no confidence in understanding foreign policy and simply stated they would object to a troop surge. Leaving our military in it's current state in Afghanistan is simply criminal. If we do not have enough guts to pull the troops out then we have to surge, but leaving them pinned down under growing Taliban hostility is stupid and negligent.
On matters of illegal aliens the tone got depressingly desperate as every candidate expressed more concern over exploitation of illegal aliens than focusing on the reason they are here in the first place! Beyond the blatant legality of the matter, all candidates want to provide paths to legalization as Coakley put it, it is our moral duty to respect their rights. An attorney general, the most powerful police officer in our state, thinks our duty toward illegal aliens is to maintain their rights? What rights exactly? Khazei pointed out that deporting 11 million illegals is not practical and therefore we should legalize them, which begs the question as to what we shall do in ten years when 20 million more illegals show up. If they were not so hell bent on distributing wealth they would realize that restricting Medicaid access, housing subsidies, food stamps and social services is the absolute best way to discourage illegals from coming. The more free items you give out to illegals paid for by us the taxpayer, the less there will be to dispense to those who truly require the aid and the more impoverished we shall all become. Dismantling the welfare state will work better than a 1,000 foot high fences laced with electricity, barbed wire and border guards. Think about it.
One of these candidates WILL become a United States senator (pending a miracle) and to accuse them of being out of touch with reality is an understatement.
Attorney General Martha Coakley
U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano
City Year co-founder Alan Khazei
Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca.
Let's quickly get to the point, the four candidates are extremely similar and appear to be creepy clones of each other citing traditional liberal talking points via embedded recording devices. Their unique qualities can be summarized in the following manner. Coakley thinks she is guaranteed to win and is extremely cocky despite being asleep at the job here in Massachusetts. Capuano is extremely proud of his work as a member of the House and constantly makes it a point that only he knows the dirty tricks played in Washington and is capable of, as he puts it, "trading horses". Khazei has a sense of humor about him and at least makes an effort to deviate from the pack with some unique ideas. Pagliuca is extremely uncomfortable and apparently admires Capuano a great deal because all of Capuano's ideas appear to be synchronized with Pagliuca's, he said so several times.
Every candidate promises to return jobs to our state, fix the financial crisis and boost the economy. All promise to continue Kennedy's traditions which is to effectively siphon as many taxpayer dollars out of the federal coffers into Massachusetts as quickly as humanly possible. None of the candidates understand anything about basic economics and all vigorously support passing a second stimulus package either because the first one failed or because it was wildly successful - take your pick. Capuano objects to the crushing debt and proposes to raise taxes on the wealthy and distribute the money while Coakley sees no problem adding more debt because as the economy recovers tax receipts will go up. Pagliuca may consider tax hikes while Khazei wants to directly help small businesses. All four absolutely love the idea of a public option and spend more of the time arguing over how robust it should be, but all agree government competition is the best way to encourage private markets to lower prices. I guess Medicare and the Post Office are such stunning examples of federal government excellence it would be foolish not to continue it.
When it comes to war, Capuano eloquently stated a position I have written about several times. We won in Afghanistan and it's time to pull out! Frankly the matter of Afghanistan is so obviously trivial that only the most ardent of war hawks would disagree. Unfortunately the remainder of the candidates expressed no confidence in understanding foreign policy and simply stated they would object to a troop surge. Leaving our military in it's current state in Afghanistan is simply criminal. If we do not have enough guts to pull the troops out then we have to surge, but leaving them pinned down under growing Taliban hostility is stupid and negligent.
On matters of illegal aliens the tone got depressingly desperate as every candidate expressed more concern over exploitation of illegal aliens than focusing on the reason they are here in the first place! Beyond the blatant legality of the matter, all candidates want to provide paths to legalization as Coakley put it, it is our moral duty to respect their rights. An attorney general, the most powerful police officer in our state, thinks our duty toward illegal aliens is to maintain their rights? What rights exactly? Khazei pointed out that deporting 11 million illegals is not practical and therefore we should legalize them, which begs the question as to what we shall do in ten years when 20 million more illegals show up. If they were not so hell bent on distributing wealth they would realize that restricting Medicaid access, housing subsidies, food stamps and social services is the absolute best way to discourage illegals from coming. The more free items you give out to illegals paid for by us the taxpayer, the less there will be to dispense to those who truly require the aid and the more impoverished we shall all become. Dismantling the welfare state will work better than a 1,000 foot high fences laced with electricity, barbed wire and border guards. Think about it.
One of these candidates WILL become a United States senator (pending a miracle) and to accuse them of being out of touch with reality is an understatement.
Comments
Post a Comment