Democratic and Republican Candidates for Congress Face-Off In Public Forum
On Columbus Day, Democrat Paul Tonko and Republican Jim Buhrmaster met at the Dean Alexander Moot Court Room at Albany Law School for one of their only debates open to the public. The seats in the lecture hall were about half full, and the Albany Law Schools College Democrats and College Republicans both sponsored the debate.
Local radio personality Al Roney of 810WGY moderated the debate for an hour’s worth of questions he posed to the candidates after Tonko and Buhrmaster were allowed to make opening statements. Following this, representatives from the College Democrats and College Republicans asked the candidates questions posed from the audience, which is where the fireworks have always come in the debates to replace retiring Representative Mike McNulty (D-Green Island) since this campaign was in Primary mode.
Now that the 21st and the entire nation is in full General Election mode, jump below the fold to see what each candidates’ answer to each question was...in detail that is nowhere to be found in the local media.
In introducing the event, it was made clear that Albany Law School did not endorse either candidate or party and that fundraising on the part of either candidate was strictly prohibited. In describing the district, the President of the Albany Law School Republicans made two errors: that the district was composed of only 650 people as opposed to 650,000 was quickly corrected by the laughter of the audience. That Mike McNulty has represented the district since 1993 was incorrect; Mike McNulty has served in Congress since 1989.
McNulty’s announcement that he would retire last November was what triggered this new slate of candidates, both looking to become freshman Congressmen in 2009. Paul Tonko survived a tough primary challenge on September 9th of this year, having soundly defeated five Democratic challengers. Jim Buhrmaster defeated only one Republican opponent by a substantially larger margin, yet his opponent was not through asking questions of him.
After introducing the candidates, moderator Al Roney, who hosts a weekday morning show on the regions top-rated local AM station, read the rules of the forum. "I told my mom I’d make it to law school one way or another," Roney joked before he began. He would end up keeping good time of the candidates throughout the debate.
Opening Statements
Paul Tonko won the coin toss and proceeded to highlight his 23 years of experience as a New York State Assemblyman and President and CEO of the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority. In explaining his candidacy, Tonko said "I’m running because I truly believe we can do better than we have been doing over the last several years," and that a "new course" needed to be charted for America.
He provided examples such as the "historic burdens" caused by energy costs, health care costs, education costs, and the recent financial crisis, which would loom large over the entire debate. Tonko cited the gap between rich and the middle class as "the largest we have seen in many a year."
In describing his experience, Paul Tonko said he was "always working in an outreach format to develop sound policy, sound solutions, and hear the concerns, be a good listener, in the role of a legislator." He stressed building bipartisan and bicameral coalitions in order to achieve this.
"There are those who will tell you this election is about change," said Paul Tonko. "I can tell you, my career has been about change." He then spoke on change as it related to renewable energy, where he claimed to have helped "build the foundation" for renewables and with Power for Jobs, change in education through the CFE program, and change in health care by authoring New York’s first universal health care bill and Timothy’s Law, requiring mental health parity, largely viewed as his greatest legislative accomplishment.
While Paul Tonko began his speech with his usual nervousness, he spoke with the eloquence and rhythm of a tested statesman. To read more on Paul Tonko’s battle with "butterflies" and his positions, read my Interview with Paul Tonko from back in the days of the Democratic Primary he was victorious in.
Jim Buhrmaster, the Republican challenging Paul Tonko, wasted no time in differentiating himself from his opponent. "The difference is very clear: he is a career politician and I am small businessman." Buhrmaster proudly proclaimed himself the fourth generation of his family to run Buhrmaster Energy Group, a local home heating oil business run since 1913. "We’ve survived, in New York State, under the regulations, the spending, the taxes we’ve had in this state...that doesn’t happen anymore," Buhrmaster said.
Buhrmaster said he could take this "real world experience" to Congress. "One of the things I’m so strong on is relating back to the people," said Buhrmaster, "because Republicans and Democrats simply don’t care." He pointed to the change in party control in Congress in 2006, claiming, "nothing claimed." He then rattled off a laundry list of government regulation that he had dealt with "not from the political side, but from the personal side," a refrain he would return to throughout the debate.
After this biographical introduction and a by-the-book Republican claim that taxes were too high and government too big, he pointed to his bipartisan experience as a second term Schenectady County Legislator. "Check with anybody," he declared "I’m the most bipartisan politician in the Schenectady County Legislature." As far as experience in state government, Buhrmaster pointed to his position on the Superfund Management Board in the 1980s as well as the Diesel Tax Advisory Council in the 1990’s.
Jim Buhrmaster also claimed that the campaign had changed since he announced in March, saying the Iraq War issue had changed because the "surge had worked" and that the gas prices issue has changed as well because prices had gone down. He again attacked Tonko as a member of "a dysfunctional state legislature" and that he didn’t want to go down to Congress as a "career politician."
Moderated Questions from Al Roney
Question One: Al Roney cited the low approval rating of Congress and asked the candidates to define their role as Congressman, what Congress was doing right and wrong, and what each candidate would do to move Congress in the right direction.
Paul Tonko defined his role as "an architect of legislation, driven by those that you represent." He also suggested that constituent services and responding to individuals was a key to his understanding his role as Congressman and that the Federal Budget needed to "meet the expectations" of the constituents.
Tonko then attacked both special interests and his opponent by describing how Buhrmaster had been a voice for the oil industry and had visited Tonko’s office when he was still an Assemblyman. "You are part of the special interests in the petroleum sector," Tonko said. "You used to come to us routinely."
On what Congress was doing right, Tonko cited the Democratic plans to end the War in Iraq and the revision to the recently passed bailout plan that "would have been devastating if passed in its original construct."
Jim Buhrmaster answered the same question by marveling that Congress’s approval rating was so high. He said the economic plan was "still not very good" and that Congress "hasn’t done their job."
"They do not relate to the people," Buhrmaster said, and committed to meet with constituents "on a month-to-month basis" as Congressman. He responded to Tonko’s comment by saying "We were struggling under the regulations and controls...we were trying to find a way to survive." He continued to rail against big government and sending problems "to 20 committees" to be solved.
Buhrmaster said that the only thing Congress was doing right was finally responding to the people. "That forever hasn’t been happening. I think we’ve got to the point where folks have made Congress and the Senate a career," Buhrmaster said.
Question Two: Al Roney joked that he was "already beginning to feel like Tom Brokaw" after cutting off both candidates for time, then asked what the candidates’ number one priority would be going into Congress.
Paul Tonko quickly answered "Without a doubt, the economy." He wanted much more oversight and responsibility in the new regulations that the economic crisis would require.
Tonko’s other priorities were related to energy, including rebuilding the country’s transportation infrastructure and building green collar jobs, stressing investment in the community.
Jim Buhrmaster refused to name just one priority, saying "I’d like to say that there was one number one, but I think they are tied together: the economy, energy, and the problem we have in Washington right now of not being able to take care of everything without putting it out to committee and having too many people look at it."
Buhrmaster seemed to stammer through an explanation based on energy and the price of oil’s rising to the point where enough people complained. He then decried Congress’s actions. "They had over 20 committees looking at energy. That, to me, is a tragedy." He said he wanted a more streamlined government and that government was "too big," and that only bringing down the size of government could result in any changes.
"I’m going down there as a representative of the people, not a political party or a special interest," Buhrmaster repeated.
Question Three: Al Roney sensed that the conversation had tilted toward the economy, and so asked how each candidate would have voted on the recent economic bailout plan had they been in Congress already.
Paul Tonko had addressed this previously, and reiterated that he would not have voted for the first iteration of the package, but would have voted "yes, with reservations" on the second proposal that passed. "Doing nothing could have the collapse of the national and global economy," said Tonko.
The reservations Tonko expressed included the absence of any guarantee that people could keep their homes and any measures for what he called "prevention therapy" more than once. Tonko also pointed out that the bailout amounted to the taxpayers taking on assets that had "little or no value" and would have preferred to see a purchase of more profitable stocks in the companies that participated to help strengthen the economy.
Jim Buhrmaster also answered that he would have voted nay on the first proposal and yea on the one that passed. He called the first proposal "a disaster" and then claimed that the proposal that did pass he would have voted for, but "it would have made me very angry," because of the add-ons.
Of who was to blame for the crisis, Buhrmaster said, "It probably started as long as back in 1977 with Jimmy Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act. We wanted to make sure that everybody could have a home that they can live in. That’s admirable, but really not achievable," he conceded.
Question Four: Al Roney stayed on the subject, pointing out that New York would be impacted heavily by the crisis because of the focus on Wall Street, and asked what the candidates would do for the local economy.
Jim Buhrmaster answered that "We’ve done an awful lot of things here with the money from Wall Street, but that’s over. It’s not gonna happen anymore." He suggested that we had to "tighten our belts" and then returned to his solution of reducing government spending.
Buhrmaster said "We have not made it easy for our business to survive," referring to high taxes "driving people away" from the 21st Congressional District.
Paul Tonko pointed to the diversity of the district in both high-tech and agricultural industries as opportunities to grow the local economy. He cited his work with Beech-Nut moving their corporate headquarters from St. Louis to his home county as State Assemblyman. He also pointed out his work investing in business technology in companies like GE Wind and AMD.
"The final prevention therapy," Tonko explained, "is providing for the prevention of never having what we’ve seen lately reoccur." He pointed out Buhrmaster’s consistent refrain of reducing regulation and that this was the very reason this economic crisis had come to pass.
Question Five: Al Roney lamented that neither candidate had opted to rebut before framing the next question as though he were still on his radio show. "Gas prices are down...whoopee!" he said with a sarcastic tone. The bigger question was how to keep the country going in energy policy, both long-term and short-term solutions.
Paul Tonko cited his 15 years of experience as Chairman of the Energy Committee in the New York State Assembly and as former President and CEO of NYSERDA. He said energy efficiency was the number one long-term solution to the crisis. "I advanced policy and then implemented programs that really show us the true value of energy efficiency investment," said Tonko, describing it as "a well-kept secret" and under-utilized
"We need to do far greater," Tonko said of requiring higher fueled efficiency standards in 2030 under the current plan. He also connected the necessity to apply a supply and demand mentality to solving the problem He added, "You don’t cut R&D when you’re in an energy crisis." said Tonko. "We saw what happened when science was promoted with JFK and his presidency. He convinced and encouraged this nation that we were going to land on the moon. And when you set the goal, you get there."
Jim Buhrmaster countered that he could talk about "practical" solutions and not just "political" solutions, pointing out that Tonko had left his Assembly position to head NYSERDA. He also stressed that his company had installed solar panels thirty years before. Buhrmaster again said that energy efficiency was never able to happen because "New York State government, particular taxation and finance, would not allow us to escape the sixty cents worth of tax."
Buhrmaster again stressed that the private sector provided better solutions than government
Question Six: This was a follow-up question by Al Roney, who wanted to know more about drilling for more oil in the United States and reliance on foreign oil.
Jim Buhrmaster said "I’m totally frustrated because in 1973 we had the first oil shock. We should have learned our lesson then." He cited his energy plan that included energy efficiency. He cited the GE Wind opportunity in Schenectady County and solar energy, as well as nuclear power. "France uses 80% of their energy from nuclear. We have to look at that again." said Buhrmaster. He also stressed that more domestic drilling had to happen.
Paul Tonko answered the follow-up by saying, as head of NYSERDA, "We finally brought planning back in New York State." He said drilling for more oil was a lower priority because of the many approved drilling areas that exist but aren’t being utilized by the oil companies. "We don’t just talk about it, we’re doing a clean coal demonstration through NYSERDA," said Tonko of that issue, and again stressed that nothing can get done with huge cuts in research and development.
Question Seven: Roney then asked the candidates, on the same topic, about the causes and effects of Global Warming.
Paul Tonko responded saying, "My concern is that we are stewards of the environment and our fundamental responsibility is to hand over the environment to the next generation in as clean as and primarily improved condition than we inherited." He cited that both regional and national strategies were needed to reduce our collective carbon footprints and his work in a ten-state program to develop the beginnings of a national cap-and-trade program to provide business with incentives to reduce carbon emissions.
When pressed by Roney on whether Global Warming was man-made or natural, Tonko answered "Primarily our pollution through transportation, through our building, and through the generation of electricity is a large piece of the pie"
Jim Buhrmaster said "An awful lot of this is natural and we’re making more of man-made than we should," to the contrary of the scientific consensus that Global Warming is, in fact, a man-made phenomenon. But he said that we were addressing the man-made factor through higher efficiency standards, which are, of course, government regulations.
"Detroit is working with government," Buhrmaster said. "Every vehicle coming out is now more efficient." He then proudly proclaimed that he recently did his party by buying a hybrid car: a Ford Escape hybrid SUV. He said of this vehicle "It is curious how it operates." And of Global Warming, he said "I think t is as much man-made as it is natural."
Question Eight: Al Roney decided to "switch gears" and asked whether the solution to the nation’s health care crisis was private or universal care and what we could do to improve health care in the United States.
Jim Buhrmaster first said "That’s a lot of questions," then added that universal health care was not a good idea. "I’m very, very concerned that our Federal government hasn’t proven that they can run a program of that size and capacity real well."
Buhrmaster also said that businesses like CDPHP and MVP Health Care would "not be necessary" under single-payer and would result in the "loss of six to seven thousand jobs." This is contrary to the provisions of H.R. 676, this year’s proposal in Congress.
As for Buhrmaster’s solutions, he said "We have to do something with the huge medical liability cases that we have," and claimed that doctors were leaving their practice and moving out of the area because they couldn’t afford liability insurance. He concluded by saying that the health care lobbyists and pharmaceutical companies had too much power in Washington.
Paul Tonko said that universal health care and access to health care had to be the goal. "In this country of abundance, I believe we should state emphatically that health care is a right." said Tonko. "I believe the single-payer plan gets us into a good thinking process."
Because it is modeled after the Medicare system, Tonko said similar results for younger Americans could be achieved as Medicare has worked well for seniors. Tonko also cited the lower administrative costs of a universal health care system as that would result in fifteen to twenty percent of savings that could then be invested to help the many uninsured Americans as opposed to going toward "paper shuffling."
Question Nine: Al Roney wanted a follow-up on this issue as well, asking how "far-reaching" the program would be, specifically whether or not a universal health care system would cover contraception, abortions, and cosmetic surgery or laser eye surgery would be allowed.
Paul Tonko answered that these points would be negotiated as the plan moved forward. "Obviously, the fundamentals here would be to have a huge bulk of standardization for essential services," Tonko said, and added that state laws would be complied with in the case of abortions.
Jim Buhrmaster said the government shouldn’t pay for contraception or abortions at all, but stressed that he was not in favor of universal health care to begin with.
Question Ten: Al Roney then asked in general about foreign policy about what needed to be done about Iraq, Afghanistan and whether we should keep the status quo or if something different needed to be done.
Jim Buhrmaster again mentioned that early on in the primary campaign the focus was on Iraq and that currently "the surge is working. We are going in the right direction." He said a time limit of 2010 or 2011 was a good goal for getting out of Iraq, but keeping a small force there. "As I understand, infrastructure is going greatly," said Buhrmaster.
He said the religious differences in Iraq would not be easily solved and "we should probably be more concerned about Iran next door." Buhrmaster said that the job in Afghanistan was "probably" not done and that it needed to be done with "the other partners that we have, the people who believe in the free way that we enjoy here in America." He said there seemed to be more of those allies working with us in Afghanistan than there were in Iraq.
Paul Tonko answered that we need "changes on both sides in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American public has spoken clearly and forcefully: they want an end to this war." He reminded the audience that Iraq "was entered into under false pretense and has cost the American public dearly at anywhere from eight to ten billion dollars a month," in addition to the cost in human life.
Tonko also said that the rush into Iraq and the poor stewardship in Afghanistan was what lead to "the empowerment" of Iran and that "we went after the wrong enemy." Tonko said one solution was to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan to finish the job, presumably of capturing and killing Osama bin Laden.
Question Eleven: As another follow-up, Al Roney wanted to know about American troops in other nations, such as in Europe and Asia, saying we spent hundreds of millions of dollars there, and asked if we should pull out there. He also asked what the candidates thought the greatest threat to our country was now.
Paul Tonko answered that "If they so insist that we withdraw troops, there would be a strong review as to whether or not to comply." But he offered a caveat that perhaps the global energy issue required presence, considering Russia’s recent actions in Georgia and "the emergence of China as a force in the world."
As to our greatest threats, Tonko said that terrorism was still a huge concern, but added, "What troubles me is that we have not resorted to diplomacy as often or as greatly as we could." He called these efforts "critical" before resorting to war and of the need to "shine our image" and regain global support and new allies around the world.
Jim Buhrmaster explained that United States forces have stayed in places like Germany and South Korea since the end of the previous land wars there, largely because our presence was wanted. "But we have to remember," Buhrmaster said "that we are spending an awful lot of money that we are not spending here in our own country where we’re struggling with health care and homeless and all the issues that we just can’t seem to solve."
Buhrmaster said that each nation with U.S. military presence had to be looked at in terms of sharing a burden, and then said again that terrorism was our countries greatest threat. His wife was flying on September 11th, though thankfully not on one of the four planes that crashed that day. He said that fighting terrorism may mean "a lot of things that we are uncomfortable with, but if we want to protect what we believe in, the American way, we have got to protect against terrorists."
Question Twelve: Still on foreign policy, Al Roney asked, with relation to other global crises such as Rwanda and Darfur, whether we should be "global cops" or take a "wait-and-see attitude" toward international crises.
Jim Buhrmaster quickly said that a wait-and-see attitude was out of the question. "We are our brothers keeper, we have to help each other. I’m not an isolationist." said Buhrmaster. He explained that the United Nations existed to solve these sort of problems and that it was "set up for this very reason."
Buhrmaster also said "we need to be regional" while not referring to any specific regions of the world. "We’ve got the people and the where with all to do it, so I would look to the United Nations to being the major impetus for solving those types of problems."
Paul Tonko answered "I would still think that we’re the defenders of this world of human rights and civil rights." He mentioned that genocide in this century was "disturbing and there needs to be statements made." He said more support for African Union troops in Darfur in Sudan was needed, but that it was not enough.
"I believe I would vote for intervention," said Paul Tonko in the case of genocide "as long as it’s done with an ethic of humanitarian concern, and that would have to be done as an investment with the UN...and doesn’t find us bearing all the burden."
Question Thirteen: Al Roney was surprised to know this was the only question left he had time for, so he asked on that he claimed had not yet been asked of the Presidential candidates, and it was about immigration. On his radio show, Roney had been at the forefront of opposition to former Governor Spitzer’s plan to allow illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses, to the topic was understandable. He asked the candidates what should be done about "an influx" of illegal immigrants and what kind of Congressional intervention would be required.
Paul Tonko cautioned against the debate taking on "a different tone that may not be very complimentary at times" and against viewing immigrants in a stereotypical way. He stressed that "we are a nation, by definition, of immigrants" and said we needed to look at the underfunding of agencies that work with immigration. "The time space over which someone is made legal is far too long." said Tonko.
Tonko added that "Where business utilize undocumented workers for their own economic advantage, there should be more punitive measures." He said that visas needed to matched to the strength of the workers, and reiterated that immigrant labor was part of growing the economy.
Jim Buhrmaster fielded the final question by saying both "We can’t leave it alone," and "We need to enforce the laws on the books now." He cited as an example the "fooling around" with drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
He said he had some experience with the issue because his cousin is the farming business who employs workers on farming visas. Buhrmaster also said "There are other people who just want to come and live off that land, and we as taxpayers are trying to carry the load of people who are taking a lot of our services that are not part of the system." Buhrmaster said that immigrants should "go through the proper channels" to become citizens and that a lot of people were not following the rules. "We need to enforce them."
Audience Questions
The first question came from a former candidate for the seat, Republican Steven Vasquez. His question was what would the current candidates do about a purported $53.3 trillion deficit faced by the Medicare and Social Security systems, claiming that both would bankrupt the government within nine years. This was a frequent charge by Vasquez during the primary campaign.
Buhrmaster started answering that tort reform was needed to bring down the costs of medical liability insurance. He also said that "We need to go after the pharmaceutical firms that are spending more money promoting, not producing, the good we have." Buhrmaster disagreed with the time frame of Vasquez’s charge, and again said the solution was not to "make government bigger."
Tonko’s answer for the Medicare bankruptcy problem alleged was the implementation of the Medicare-for-All universal health care system. On Social Security, he said that "We need to have that lock-box mentality." He then shifted his attention to his opponent’s previous statements in support of privatization.
"Jim said that private investment is better than government intervention." said Tonko. "I look at the events of the last month and see how many people are hurting by the investments they made in their 401(k)s." Tonko added that any attempts to privatize Social Security were a "threat to the system."
Buhrmaster was allowed a rebuttal, and he began by saying he didn’t think the question posed was even about Social security. He said, "I said I wanted to augment the current system with private investment."
In the only truly tense exchange of the debate, Tonko took an opportunity to offer a counter-rebuttal by saying his opponent’s model "would weaken everyone in the process." As the Albany Law students moderating the audience questions attempt to move on (one mentioned that the back-and-forth could go on until November) Buhrmaster became visibly and audibly annoyed, saying in a high pitched tone, "That’s not what I said!"
The next audience question asked "What will you do to protect civil liberties and civil rights, especially of gay couples and the reproductive rights of women?"
Tonko answered first, saying he had "voted pro=choice for my entire career" and that he believed strongly in "the civil rights venture of marriage equality." He added that all couples in America should be guaranteed their rights.
Buhrmaster wasted no time in vocalizing the Republican boilerplate phrase, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." He did add that "we need to be very understanding of life partners." On reproductive rights, he was pressed to answer, after a rather long pause, that he was "against abortion except for incest or rape."
A third question from the audience asked the candidates what their position was on defending Israel in the event of an attack from Iran or its allies.
Buhrmaster answered this first, saying "Israel is one of our strongest allies in the world." He continued, "We would have to join Israel in trying to protect their way of life." He qualified Iran as a "bad actor" in the Middle East, but pointed out that it was the Iranian leadership, not the Iranian people, that were to blame for this.
Paul Tonko agreed that Israel was a strong ally, as well as "a strong defender of democracy in the region." He explained that the United States should be advocating for "peaceful coexistence" and diplomacy before resorting to military action, but seemed open to the idea of supporting military action against any nation that engaged in an act of war against Israel.
The fourth audience question was initially directed to Paul Tonko, but addressed to both candidates, and referred to a part of Tonko’s six-point education plan. A part of that plan is providing loan forgiveness to teachers as an incentive to teach in troubled schools; the question asked whether this was still a viable option given the current financial crisis.
Tonko first said that this specific proposal was still a good opportunity. He then broadened his scope, saying "I think it’s important to note that in some of the toughest moments of our history, when our economic future was most at risk, we invested in our human infrastructure." In this respect, he mentioned that looking into loan forgiveness for math, science, and technology college students might be a good idea as well to help America compete globally.
Buhrmaster said "I think it’s admirable, I’m just not sure, prefaced in the economic times that we’re in right now, I don’t know how we can have a loan forgiveness program." He said if it was done for one group of students, it would have to be done for all others, and asked rhetorically "Where does it start and where does it stop?" His only solution was to extend the time to pay the loans off. "I don’t think that’s fair to any one group of people," said Buhrmaster.
The fifth question was related to student loans, and came from another Albany Law student. This student wanted to know the candidates thoughts on federal education grants and student loan repayment programs. While it was a serious question, a round of laughter from the audience and both candidates indicated it may have been viewed as redundant given the immediately preceding topic.
Buhrmaster fielded this question by repeating much of what he said in his previous statements about not forgiving student loans. "We need professionals," said Buhrmaster. "Forgiving I can’t do, but I think the federal government has to set the guidance and direction and handled on a case-by-case basis." He thought that state governments should have more jurisdiction in this matter.
Paul Tonko began talking about priorities, and reminded the audience that there was a large federal budget surplus eight years ago and an even larger budget deficit each year since under Republican President George W. Bush. "I think we need to make a high priority the investment of those who pursue a higher education path." He called loan forgiveness "an under-utilized concept by the federal government." Tonko spoke directly to the many law students in attendance about the contributions they would make to society in the protection of American rights and public policy spoke to the need for helping students with that potential pay for college. He concluded by talking about some of the efforts he made in the Assembly that allowed parents to start saving for college for their children even before giving birth.
The last audience question, and the final question of the night, asked the candidates what programs, besides educational programs, the candidates would prioritize in light of the current national debt as a member of Congress.
Paul Tonko’s priorities began by emphasizing energy independence. "We need to cut our dependence on fossil-based fuels, oftentimes coming from some of the most troubled spots in the world," said Tonko. He stressed that initial investment in renewable energy and public transportation would translate into massive savings directly to the public. Tonko made the same argument on health care reform, saying that investment in a universal health care system would save the people significant sums of money.
Jim Buhrmaster returned to his oft-stated theme of reducing the size of government. "We have more government waste than we’ve ever had before." said Buhrmaster. He again cited the slow committee system in Congress as the main reason the energy crisis had not yet been solved, and that many of those solutions, such as requiring MTB and ethanol be added to gasoline, had ended up costing more money than they purported to save. "We’re paying the high price of government regulations," said Buhrmaster, and concluded by saying "Following practical sense rather than political sense would be better."
Soundpolitic Blogger’s Note
That brought the debate, the longest public forum of the general election campaign, to a close. I came away from it wondering how well it had been moderated, but knowing full well the differences between the two candidates.
That difference, to me, is between a candidate who knows what he’s talking about and sees American government as one of the means to solving this nations problems versus a candidate who strongly believes that government is unable to solve problems by its nature and floundered on the facts. Paul Tonko made it clear that he is not only ready to serve in Congress, but that he understands how to serve. By contrast, Jim Buhrmaster demonstrated that he doesn’t even believe that government can be used as a force for positive change, and it’s questionable as to why someone who believes government is such an unconstructive thing would even want to be a part of it.
But in a district that is so heavily Democratic and in a year where the Democratic Presidential candidate’s position at the top of the ballot is set to influence Congressional campaigns all around the country in that parties favor, I don’t think the people of the 21st Congressional District have to worry about an inexperienced, anti-government Republican like Jim Buhrmaster representing them for the next two years. I believe they can all look forward to having Paul Tonko as their next Congressman in the House of Representatives and would be very surprised if that were not the outcome.
On a side note, another debate between Paul Tonko and Jim Buhrmaster was aired tonight on WHMT, the Capital Region’s local PBS affiliate, sponsored by that station and the Albany Times Union. That newspaper did not put out any print story about this debate. Had they, it would have almost certainly been significantly shorter than this diary. I presume they are more interested in covering the private events they sponsor themselves than the largest public debate between these two candidates....
The televised debate that aired tonight was, by my viewing, not moderated nearly as well as this public debate and the candidates were not given an opportunity to go into as much depth. For the most part, the questions that were asked and the answers that were given were very similar to the ones presented herein.
As a final note, I’ll justify the four days time it took to post this report based on two things. First, the length of time it takes to get every question and answer down in written form when one is not receiving copious advertising revenues for my labor. Second, that when I began blogging about this campaign here on DailyKos and The Albany Project during the primary season, I was an unemployed college student; I obtained gainful employment as a legal secretary at a prestigious local law firm just one week before this debate was held, and while my new job’s time requirements are both exciting and rewarding, it places blogging on the back-burner to some extent as I invest the time required to truly excel in my profession. I’ll add, as a disclaimer, that nothing I say here should be construed as a reflection on the firm that I work for or as legal advice. The action of blogging this election and the words that result are of my own volition. That’s how I started...
...and I intend to finish. I feel it is necessary that somebody get the full story out there while the mainstream media treats the race for the People’s House as a sideshow when the impact it will have on the people warrants a "main event" mentality. Thank you for reading, and please stayed tuned for more on the race for the 21st Congressional District as Election Day draws near.
Colin Abele
Berne, NY