Shea-Porter did well last night, but I thought she was given some openings that she could handle differently in the next debate.
This is stricly Monday-Morning quarterbacking, not criticism---if I were up there I would have trouble remember my party affiliation let alone being able to think on my feet. I admired how she handled herself, and I think she did well. I also missed the last ten minutes.
That said, I thought there were three openings that she could have handled to much better effect. One was about the Metal Workers endorsement, the second was Bradley's question which touted his own independence from his Party, the third was the question of her taking PAC
Money.
The question about the Portsmouth Metal Workers Union endorsement of Shea-Porter turned into a discussion of the successful fight against BRAC closure, which is really the LAST thing that the endorsement was about. This is because by all accounts Bradley pulled his weight with the rest of the NH delegation to fight the closure, so all things being equal, you would expect the Union to back Bradley over someone like Shea-Porter who had no political power to help with BRAC. That is the point of the endorsement---on the bread and butter issues that matter to working NH families, Shea-Porter won the Unions backing even though her opponent helped save the Ship Yard. Carol's answer was moderately defensive, in that she said she participated in protests, etc.---as if that is why they endorsed her. I submit she could have ticked off a list of issues independent of BRAC, and made the clear point that Bradley's positions are antithetical to the interests of workers and their families. Then bang home the conclusion that rather than being "out of touch with the main-stream" as Bradley likes to paint her, she is so in touch that the Union supported her despite Bradley's help on BRAC.
The second un-exploited opening was when Bradley asked Shea-Porter a question which started with a list of 10 votes where Bradley has departed from his Party's line, followed by a challenge to Shea-Porter to name just five issues where she departs from her Party line. A good answer would have been to congratulate Bradley for those instances, and to pledge that when she is our Representative she will vote for what she feels is best for NH, regardless of her Party's position. Then she could go on to say she wished the Military Commissions Act was on that short list Bradley gave---because Habeus Corpus is the foundation of our democracy which Bradley and his party flushed down the drain. Shea-Porter could have gone on to two other issues with the same pre-amble that it would have been nice if Bradley departed from his Party when they voted $60 Billion in cuts to things like student loans in the same week they voted for $70 Billion in tax cuts for the very wealthiest. Then she could bring it back to perhaps this is why the Metal Workers Union endorsed me instead of Mr. Bradley despite his efforts on BRAC. (As the answers went, Shea-Porter was saying she helped the best she could re BRAC, then Bradley got to tout his BRAC efforts and IGNOR the Union's rejection of his basic voting record.) Habeus Corpus and authorized torture of prisoners and detainees---"Why didn't you part with you party when it came to doing away with Habeus Corpus?"
The third question was her response to the question from Bradley that she had pledged to not take PAC money, but now is accepting PAC money from potential Presidential candidate's PAC's She stumbled a little on this, saying something about only taking money from people we know are the "good guys," while I think she could have brushed that aside and get to the war chest of Bradley and connections with how he has voted. (Insurance industry, and votes? I'm not up to speed on these issues, but I hope her campaign might be.)
The Bradley camp has clearly chosen one line of attack with: How much more will this cost, Carol. They now have road signs with this question. I would have liked to see Shea-Porter turn that back on Bradley with How much has your tenure cost us? Thousands of lives and Billions of treasure in Iraq, deficits that will be paid for by our grandchildren while you give more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest of our citizens and block any raise in Minimum Wage, and the end of Habeus Corpus which is the foundation of Due Process.
If prepared right, she could mount a devastating attack by pivoting off of his "How much will it cost" question.
I also hate to see Bradley get away with his Rosie economy picture, when the country has been run into the ground. I was hoping she would have some economic figures that belies Bradley's claim that we have cut the deficit by half. That is just Bull shit, and he needs to be called on it.
And then there is Social Security. Bradley's position is that he will wait for the recommendations of the commission before he takes a stance (we are all familiar with this political dodge as a way of not taking a stand), and any solution has to be "bi-partisan," which is complete nonsense since his Party's leadership in the person of Speaker Hastert has expressly forbidden any bill from coming to the floor for a vote unless it had the support of "the majority of the Majority." In other words, the Democrat's position on any bill is irrelevant to legislation that is brought to the floor. So there will be no bi-partisan bill regarding SSI or any other issue as long as the Republicans control the House, and it is a cynically disingenuous dodge for Mr. Bradley to suggest otherwise. The real question for Bradley is, next spring, when his party's leader President Bush brings forward a bill (as he has promised as recently as two days ago) that will partially phase-out Social Security in favor of private or personal accounts---and when the arms are being twisted---HOW WILL BRADLEY VOTE? Will he promise before the election to oppose his Prsident's bill?