More GOP Senate Debate

Yesterday, the Republican US Senate hopefuls Greg Parke and Rich Tarrant faced off in what was their first debate, since Greg Parke was absent for the Channel 17/Mark Johnson Show debate.

According to the Free Press story, the two were virtually identical, with the exception of the issue of healthcare.

I was surprised to hear this since I have met both men in person and they are anything but the same.

I interviewed Greg Parke on She's Right and had a conversation before and after with him and his wife. I have a good feeling for where he stands and he is a solid conservative.

I also met Rich Tarrant at a small luncheon at the Wind Jammer last year when I was still Chair of the Burlington GOP. I sat right across from him while he was grilled by a conservative friend of mine. Let me just say, he did not pass that test.

I will have to listen to tonight's debate on VPR's Switchboard at 7:00PM and hear for myself. That debate will also have candidate Cris Ericson.

More on this race tomorrow.

The Green Mountain Daily Debate

I just returned from Channel 17 where I taped a show with Jess Wilson about today's online debate over at Green Mountain Daily between the two Democratic primary candidates for Lt. Governor, John Tracy and Matt Dunne.

It was a brief spot where we discussed the growing role of the internet in campaigns.

The debate is just now wrapping up. If you missed it (as I did, since I was at channel 17, then traveling home), you will be able to view the full transcript at www.greenmountaindaily.com shortly. There will no doubt be discussion there as well.

If you are looking for more Dem. Lt. Gov. debate action, check out the podcast of the channel 17 debate here.

Man, those people at Channel 17 are fast. The podcast is already up of the show Jess and I just taped. You can listen to it here. I am not sure yet when it is going to air. The Channel 17 daily schedule is here, but I will post dates and times when they become available.

Tarrant's Bernie

On Friday, I received an e-mail from a leftie She’s Right reader asking me to give my opinion of the “attack ads” that Republican US Senate candidate Rich Tarrant has been airing against Congressman Bernie Sanders.

I know you're supporting Parke, but wondering what you think of the latest series of Tarrant's Bernie-bashing ads?

I have been able to miss most of the Tarrant ads, so I had to watch them online.

Bernie has responded with his own ad, which I have seen on TV. In it, Bernie directs people to his website “The Truth,” where he defends his record.

According to this BFP article, “Noting that Tarrant has tapped his personal fortune to finance his bid for a Senate seat, Sanders said he couldn't answer each Tarrant ad with one of his own.”

BS doesn’t just stand for Bernie Sanders. According to the last filing with the FEC, Sanders actually had more money than Tarrant. Tarrant’s self-financed campaign was the best thing that ever happened to Sanders. It has made it easier for him to milk as many donations as he can out of his left-wing supporters.

Back to the ads, I think that when facing a politician who has been in office for such a long time, whose record has been largely unchallenged and has been given a free-pass by the media, it is perfectly acceptable to call his record into question. Bernie should have to answer for these votes, especially when he is one of 15 or so representatives who voted no on most of them.

In some cases, he has responded and he certainly has the venues to do so through the media and his own campaign.

I can’t help but notice that Bernie’s truth website does not address some of the areas raised by the Tarrant campaign, most notably the charge that he repeatedly voted to cut intelligence funding.

The question being raised, by Bernie himself even, is whether or not this type of campaign is acceptable in Vermont. To that I propose a counter-question: if there was a Republican candidate in this election, who held a federal office and supported President Bush, would it be okay to criticize his record? Would the holier-than-thou left-wing refrain from such “dirty tactics”?

No. They would jump on that quicker than you can say “Jim=George”!

Two wrongs indeed do not make a right, but I felt the need to highlight the blatant hypocrisy at work here.

Now for my opinion of the ads themselves. I think they only serve to make Tarrant look bad. I doubt that many people will want to believe that what they say about Bernie is true, even if it is. Bernie has a persona built in the minds of Vermonters as someone who cares about them and these ads portray the opposite of what they have come to know about Bernie.

I think a better strategy would be to represent Bernie as he is known to people and explain why Tarrant is a better choice.

Bernie is a Democratic Socialist and admittedly so. Bernie cares about the poor and the working class. Bernie believes that the best way to help them is by taxing the rich and the greedy corporations and putting that money into government programs.

That is who he is. People know and believe this.

But, is that what people really want?

When I was growing up (in Vermont, BTW), there was a saying, “you can’t trust the government to fix anything; they’ll only make it worse.” The stubborn, hard-working native Vermonter does not trust the government to get it right.

Bernie Sanders represents the opposite of Vermont’s independent roots. Bernie encourages dependence and Vermonters don’t want that.

There is no shortage of hard-working Vermonters, who would never rely on a government program due to their rock-solid work ethic, who continue to vote for Bernie because they believe that he cares, even though his brand of caring goes against their own beliefs. Someone should point that out to them.

If I was running, I would represent Bernie exactly as he represents himself and tell you why, although he means well, in the long run his ideas will end up hurting our state and our country.

Socialism does not work. It goes against the very nature of human beings to strive to be their best. A socialist system that is based on the government redistributing wealth punishes success and rewards complacency.

I could fill pages with the reasons why socialism will ruin America, but my point is that Tarrant doesn’t need to paint a picture of Bernie that goes against the image people have come to know. He could simply show Bernie for who he is and present himself as a better alternative.

The Aftermath

The early buzz has started about the need for gun control, as the region is reeling from the shootings in Essex. I know this is an emotional time and perhaps not the best time to expect logic and reason from people, but I too am emotional and need to rant.

I am not going to focus on the inanimate object used in this incident. The gun did not terrorize a community and end two lives. Like them or not, we have a constitutional right to bear arms. There is a good reason for this.

If you shouldn't get mad at the gun, then where should you focus your out-of-control emotionalism?

How about at our messed up "justice" system? The shooter in this incident had a record of making threats against a former girl friend in Springfield, Massachusetts. She obtained a restraining order. He violated it three times and never showed up to court. The case is "pending."

Pending? Pending?!? There is something you can be pissed off about. What the heck was this guy doing on the streets? How does this happen? Why does the law enforcement community not take domestic violence seriously? (Don't even try to tell me they do, or I will so go off on you. - Hey, I can be emotional, too.)

There's another thing that can and should be done to prevent this from happening. When a teacher or other school staff member has a crazy ex-boyfriend, whom she just described to the police as "flipping out" for the past two days, keep her away from the school and post a marked police car out front.

I am not trying to attack the victim here. Her mother is dead and I am sure she is in a really bad place right now mentally/emotionally. I truly feel for her. More than you know.

This is about policy - the policy of a government agency that expects us to place our children in their care. They have a high burden of responsibility to keep them safe. Can you imagine if this had happened next week when school was in session? They should have a policy that requires staff to report any kind of domestic situation so they can take precautions. They should require the staff to be reminded of this policy yearly, at least.

Once I worked at a place where a woman was having a domestic problem and they instituted a new lock system and gave us all key cards. This company took the safety of its employees seriously. Why should we expect anything less from the schools?

All schools should require that teachers/staff alert the principle of any domestic situations. The staff member should then be required to take some leave time and there should be police stationed at the school, just in case.

There is no gun control law that would have prevented this. A person with Williams' criminal past can easily obtain a gun on the street. As it stands, the laws already in existence made it illegal for this man to have a gun. It is illegal for a person with a relief from abuse order (restraining order) against them to have a gun. It is also illegal for a person with certain criminal convictions to own a gun. My guess is that selling drugs in a school zone and car jacking fall into that category.

So, if you are angry, upset, grief stricken, fearful, or experiencing any other intense emotions in the wake of this incident (in other words, if you are human), do not focus your anger on guns. It would be far more productive to focus your emotions on changing the systemic failures in our government agencies of law enforcement, criminal justice, and the schools.

Breaking News

(Updated)

WPTZ just had a live broadcast from the arraignment of Christopher Williams, who shot two teachers at Essex Town Elementary School yesterday, killing one, after killing the mother of his estranged girlfriend in her home.

Judge Cashman, yes that Judge Cashman, sent Williams to the state hospital over strong objections from the state prosecutor over the safety of placing this violent and dangerous man in such a low security establishment.

During the hearing that ensued, a social worker from the Howard Center said that Williams was suicidal. This was based on a 35 minute interview, where Williams claimed to not remember what happened, even though he had admitted it to police prior to the interview. This information was not known to the social worker and she did not take it into account after being given this information at the hearing.

The state prosecutor again stressed that the state hospital did not have enough security and placing Williams there would put the other people there in danger. The judge was concerned about Williams’ risk of suicide, even though he can be evaluated and watched at the correctional facility, as the prosecutor pointed out. His understanding is that Williams will be returned to a correctional facility if he turns out to be a security risk.

What I want to know is why we give a flying you-know-what about whether or not scumbags like this off themselves. He did just kill a teacher the week before school starts for crying out loud.

Let’s get this straight: A terminally ill person, who is depressed and doesn’t want to burden his family should have help in committing suicide, but someone who just killed two people and wounded two others, sending shock waves through a community, needs to be carefully watched so that he doesn’t take his own life, even if it puts innocent people at risk? Got it.

The worst case scenario if they put him in the correctional facility: He kills himself, the victims’ families and the living victims are spared the pain of a trial, and the tax payers don’t have the expense of a trial and incarceration.

What’s the worst case scenario if he goes to the state hospital and it turns out to not have enough security?

Update: Yet one more reason why it was sheer stupidity to place this guy in the state hospital instead of the correctional facility, which has tighter security: his "rather extensive" criminal record from Massachusetts includes "escape from custody." (Source: BFP, Hat tip: Alphecca)

GOP Senate Debate

Yesterday, the Republican US Senate Primary candidates had their first debate. Unfortunately, my candidate in that race was a no show. Greg Parke was out of town at flight training school.

The remaining two candidates - Cris Ericson and Rich Tarrant - did debate, though. I have yet to listen, but you can listen to the podcast here, or read a story in the Free Press about it here.

If you like listening to the Channel 17 podcasts, they have a bunch of candidate stuff. For a full list, visit the podcast main page here.

I am trying to get the house ready to start the homeschool year on Monday, so I might not get a chance to post anything about this today.

Why Mommy Is An Idiot

I usually like to have my own commentary, but Jeff says it so well, I am just going to give you a link to the post on Alphecca. You have to read this.

On to the governor's race...

Scudder Parker released a position paper on “Investing in our Youngest Children.”

(He's the guy running for governor against Douglas.)

Click here to open the PDF of Scudder’s proposal in another window.

There is no one answer to funding a comprehensive and coordinated early childhood system that meets the needs of Vermont families and their young children. I will find creative ways to pay for the care and education of our children in their early years, with a combination of resources from parents, business and the public sector, such as tax credits to employers or families.

He criticizes Douglas for not supporting the early education bill that would have added pre-school for 3- and 4-year-olds to the state education budget. That is the budget funded with property taxes. The one that is already increasing at an out-of-control rate. Douglas was right on that issue.

Vermonters may care about the young, but when it comes to increasing the tax burden on already strapped tax-payers, this is a losing issue for Mr. Parker. The number of people looking for state funded early child care and education programs is outweighed by the number of people who will not be willing to foot the bill for a service they will not use.

Some of his principles:

• We need to help our children grow as competent and confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body, and spirit, and secure in their sense of belonging.
  


• We must provide an environment that fosters children’s learning and development.
  


• I strongly believe that if our children are safe, nurtured, and provided with quality early care, health and education, these investments will improve their opportunities for success throughout their school years and in life.
  

I hate to state the obvious, but all of the same benefits can be obtained by the child staying at home.

I am not suggesting that the government mandate all families have one parent at home, but if both parents choose to work, then it is their responsibility to make arrangements for their children. The only possible exception being for single parents transitioning off welfare.

I know not everyone holds my extreme right wing view on this, but I am willing to bet that there are enough people tired of paying higher taxes to fund education that this will prove to be a losing issue.

Rainville/Shepard Debate: the short version

I realize that my post about the Rainville Shepard debate was long, so I want to sum a few things up.

Here’s a quick summary of their views from the debate:

Shepard:

• Thinks the US needs to get out of Iraq as soon as it is stable enough (a year or two, tops).
  


• The government is too powerful and spends too much of our money. He favors less bureaucracy and lower taxes.
  


• He opposes No Child Left Behind and Medicare part D.
  


• Supports privatizing social security.
  


• He is pro-life.
  

Rainville:

• She thinks we need to stay in Iraq as long as it takes. She hinted at needing to go into Iran at some point.
  


• Gives lip service to fiscal constraint, but also said the government needs to fund "unfunded mandates" (aka spend more money), touted a new bureaucracy to oversee ethics, supports Medicare part D, and the goals of NCLB, but notes that it is too cookie cutter.
  


• Does not support privatizing social security. Says we need to strengthen it long term without cutting benefits, raising payroll taxes, or raising the retirement age. (Yet did not propose how to pull off that magical feat.)
  


• She is pro-choice, but supports parental notification and opposes late-term abortions.
  

So there is the gist.

The reason I like Shepard is because he has a philosophy that is consistent throughout – the Federal government has too much power and spends too much of our money. You can see this strongly throughout all of his answers.

Rainville has the same problem liberals do. She lacks a philosophy about the role of government. She takes the issues one by one, which means there is a lack of consistency in her answers.

I bet you that I can guess Shepard’s position on any issue and be right 90% of the time, or better. The same cannot be said for Rainville.

As for Rainville, if she is going to go on and face Welch, she needs to lose the long-winded answers and cut to the chase. Shepard gave short and to the point answers. She wanted to wander into the nuances of every issue. She might think that gives her depth, but in the age of the sound bite, her words will just get taken out of context as they were here by those wily Dems.

What kind of nerd are you?

What's your nerd score? The score is the percentage of test-takers who scored lower (less nerdy) than you. I scored 81. That's right, I am 81% nerd.

What does this mean? Your nerdiness is: High-Level Nerd. You are definitely MIT material, apply now!!!

I know that it is just another stupid internet quiz, but to a former math and science nerd, who was once a rising star in the UVM Physics Department (albeit very briefly), turned stay-at-home mom with no outlet for her math genius other than to try and produce a new generation of math nerds, it is great to have someone call me "MIT material," even if it is just an automatically generated response from an on-line quiz.

So, how nerdy are you? Take the quiz and report back via comments.

(Hat Tip: O'DonnellWeb)