(The following is an interview between Ryan Anderson of NewNebraska.net and Richard Carter, the Democratic candidate for United States Congress in Nebraska's Second Congressional District. Please consider giving a donation to Richard's campaign. There are only 22 Days left in the primary!)
Part 1 - The Soldier in the Classroom
Thanks for sitting down with me. I'm just gonna launch straight into the questions: When did you first start thinking about running for public office?
Well, I've always been interested in politics, both at the national level as well as the local level, but I did not think I would be running for office at this point until probably Janurary... being in the military and being here and being gone for such short periods of time didn't really give me the opportunity to be involved in the way I'd like. So after I left the military I started going to the county party meetings, talking to some people, and telling them that I really wanted to get involved. At that time no one had really stepped forward to challenge Terry, so people were telling me 'you know, with your background and the issues you're concerned with, this race would be a good fit for you. 'So I launched an exploratory committee and spent about seven weeks talking to people in the party, trying to see what their response would be... talked to Jim Esch and he said he wasn't going to run. And I was pretty encouraged by the response I got and it looked like no one else was going to step up, and so I went ahead and announced in February.
So do you think you would be in this position if Esch had announced before Janurary?
That's a really tough question to answer. I'm assuming it would've affected my decision quite a bit had Jim been willing to run early on, before things changed which made it more favorable for him to run. I can't say for sure, but it certainly would've affected my decision.
Going back, could you tell me a bit about your time in Iraq? How long was your tour? Where were you stationed?
Well, in the Air Force we have a little shorter tours. We're limited on our flying hours: there are so many flying hours per month, and so many hours every three months. Generally you would max out on those hours and they would bring you home, because otherwise if you're not flying there's not a whole lot you can do. So generally we were there two and a half or three months, come home and then go back... I did a couple of those. During that time I'd fly to Iraq and Afghanistan, and I did tours in 2003, 2004 and 2005.
What lessons did you learn from that experience?
A lot of lessons. I really saw a kind of transition. In 2003 it was a much different war than it was from the latter part of 2004 until today. In 2003 we were going against the Iraqi army, Saddam Hussein's military, and we took them down relatively quick. And then things started to transition slowly. We won the war, President Bush even said so himself, and at that point we should have probably all come home, started the withdrawal then and really let the Iraqis start to stand up.But there were some very costly mistakes that were made at that time. I observed those first hand and really disagreed with them. But at the time [being in the military], you weren't really able to voice your opinion or even have an opinion that really mattered very much. So then in 2004 things started to get more hostile, there was that first event in Fallujah where the contractors were hung off the bridge and really started to show that maybe things were gonna get more violent, and then it was just downhill from there...
So I saw some of how we mismanaged the war in Iraq, and also how the war has diverted us from Afghanistan where we've seen this resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban...
Your primary opponent, Jim Esch, ran for this seat in 2006. Did you follow that race at the time? What do you think his campaign did right last cycle, and what are some ways you think your campaign can improve upon that performance this time around?
What Jim did right was that he had the courage to get out there and work hard, which a lot of people weren't willing to do. I really commend him for doing that and taking that bold step.I did follow his race and I was encouraged by Jim, being relatively young at the time, being into politics... he showed that Lee Terry was very vulnerable. However, [the question is] what are the differences there, where do you capitalize, where do you make up the difference? Unfortunately, while Jim got what is considered to be close, he's still a long ways away. He got further than anyone else had, but he was still thousands of votes from winning. Where he lost of that was in Sarpy County. That's an area where I have a lot of strength. [You've got to be able] to appeal to such a broad base, not just Democrats in Omaha but also the Democrats in Sarpy as well as the Independents and some of the more conservative voters. And being a veteran, having lived in Bellevue, being a teacher and working in North Omaha and being involved in that community, teaching in Elkhorn and being involved in that community... these are all communities that the Esch campaign didn't completely reach out to. Had he been able to carry Sarpy County, as well as the western part of Douglas County and a little bit more in North Omaha, we would've had a different result. That's something I think I can really capitalize on.
A point of distinction that Esch raised during the debate... he said he knew this district better than anyone, having been born here and having lived here all of his life. How do you respond to that?
He did say that, and what did he say? That he was born and lived his whole life in Omaha, and that he knew that area better than anyone. So Jim still hasn't gotten the message, that there's more to this district than just Omaha: there's the western part of Douglas County and there's Sarpy County, which he lost by about 20%, and that's really what carried Lee Terry home. So that's how I respond to that. 'You're absolutely right, you've very fortunate to have lived here your whole life,' however I'm the one who really knows the community, even having lived here less time than him, I'm not forgetting that there's more to this district than just Omaha.
Moving on to some policy questions. I read through your post yesterday on withdrawal from Iraq, and at one point you say that we should continue to encourage the sheiks to provide security in places where the Iraqi government isn't able. Do you have any concerns that by entrusting all this power and responsibility to local tribal leaders in the short run that we might be threatening the ability of the Iraqi government to exercise domestic sovereignty in the future?
That's always a possibility, but you have to look at what's going to provide the most stability. There's always been a battle, and we see this battle in any government anywhere, between a strong local government versus a strong federal government. It would be ideal, or at least better probably in theory, if the national government was more unified and could bring in the local governments to work them. That's the ideal situation. However they're apparently just not able or willing, I'm not really sure which but I think it's more of the willing, to do that. Our first goal has to be to provide for stability, and that's why I'm calling for the locals to stand up where the national government won't.So yeah, this could lead to some potential problems in the future with the country being unified, but it doesn't have to be that way. In America we have local police that provide the security, and they're not at odds with the federal government or the state government, so they can certainly work together. And I think that probably is the most effective way to do it, because they know their neighborhoods better than anyone else
At the Presidential debate on Wednesday, both Democratic candidates said that they would continue to follow their timetable for withdrawal even if circumstances on the ground changed or their generals advised against it. Do you think that's a wise position to take?
It's really tough to limit yourself, you never want to tie your hands or limit your options. So no, I wouldn't limit myself if I were Commander in Chief. I mean, you're saying anything could change but boy I'm gonna stick to this. So what happens if all the sudden Iran and Syria join forces and invade Iraq? No, no, I've got to stick to a timetable so... As a commander you never want to limit your options.
Moving on to the economy. I noticed on your issues page, that you put 'Fiscal Responsibility' at the very top of your proposals to solve this mess we're in. But considering that we're likely already in a recession, how can we reduce the deficit without negatively impacting our economic growth? Can we really address both of these problems at once?
In economics there's always that old trade-off between inflation or unemployment: in a recession you have unemployment and in the boom periods you have inflation. Well now we have both, and that's the dreaded stagflation that we first experienced in the seventies. And both times we've seen the same thing happen: it's the oil shocks, where we have prices go up and we also have unemployment on the rise.So a lot of these issues are tied together. The war, oil prices and the economy are all intertwined, and you can't really completely separate them. And that's why you need a leader that really understands all these issues and can come up with comprehensive policies. And I feel that I'm the best candidate for that with my experiences in all three.
Now how do we get to fiscal responsibility? To balance the budget, that means you've got to have the same amount of revenue coming in as you're spending. How do you do that? Well, you've either got to increase one or decrease the other, right? So I think the first step to reducing spend is to make sure we have full disclosure to make sure we know where the money is going... You should be able to get on your computer, go on the internet and see just what it is you're paying for... and if there's spending for classified projects than we'll just say this much is going to Defense projects, so you're not risking your security here.
When all the American people can log on and see exactly what they're paying for and how much it's costing them, then they can decide if they really want that. And when they decide what they really want to spend... then we look at 'how much money do we have?' If we don't have enough revenue to pay for that, then we're going to have to raise the taxes... So that probably means we need to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% expire, so there's that part of it. Also, you have to look at... making sure the national income goes up. You know, if you take a fixed percentage of a said amount, and you raise that said amount then your overall revenues going to increase.
So we've got to try and grow our economy. How? By making some smart policies that allow companies to grow, correct tax incentives and correct tax cuts that are geared towards the most economic impact - which is probably the middle class - that's going to help the economy to grow. And then we should encourage investment in infrastructure.
So when we have a stimulus package we shouldn't put it towards consumption, which is currently what's happening, because that just stimulates demand on the consumption side which would just lead to higher prices again... but if we invest it in creating jobs by investing in infrastructure, like building bridges or education. Education is investment in the American workforce, invest in them and then the workforce will become more productive, so now they're more efficient, you can produce more, supply increases and prices drop... it helps to fight inflation, that grows the economy. And once we get the economy growing, our overall revenues will increase, and so that way our revenue can try and catch up to where our spending is at.
It's kind of a two-sided attack that I've laid out. The first side is to reduce the spending, get rid of everything you don't need.. and then the second part is investing in infrastructure and getting the economy to grow so that the revenues will increase... It's going to take a little bit of time, but we can do it.
Be sure to catch part 2, where we delve into some of the biggest policy distinctions between Carter and his primary opponent Jim Esch.
---
You can learn more about Richard by going to his brand new website here.
Consider giving a donation to Richard Carter's campaign to bring real leadership to Nebraska's Second Congressinoal District.
Thank you.
P.S. Check out Richard's latest post where he announced his Plan to End the War in Iraq.