Mac D'Alessandro, the only real Democrat running for the MA-09 CD, had a chance to square off against his pseudo-Dem opponent today in a debate sponsored by WBZ-TV, the CBS affiliate in Boston. The sixteen minute debate is available on the WBZ-TV website, here and here. The video, unfortunately, is not embeddable, so you'll have to head over there to see it. What I'll do here is provide brief synopses of the two parts of the debate and again urge kossacks to do all you can to support Mac, who has already been endorsed by Move On and was a runner-up for DFA All-Star.
You also might want to drop kos an email and ask him to include Mac in the Orange to Blue to campaign.
More on the flip...
In the first segment of the debate, host John Keller noted that both Lynch and D'Alessandro are labor leaders and asked each why he would better represent the labor movement in Congress. Mac, on leave from his job as North East Political Director for the SEIU, went first and deftly suggested that he would represent all working people, whether or not they belong to unions. Lynch talked about strapping on work boots and his 18 years in the construction trades before he became a politician. For the first time in my life, I noticed a physical resemblance between Lynch and Fred Astaire.
Responding to Mac's statement about representing folks regardless of union membership, Lynch mentioned doing pro bono work as a lawyer for people in substandard housing. Mac took the opportunity to fire his main salvo, Lynch's vote on March 21 against the president's health care reform bill. Mac defined that as having "let down a lot of those very same families," and of turning his back on the chance to "clamp down on the insurance companies." The exchange starts at about 3:10 of the first video. Lynch tried to say HCR was "a big sellout to the insurance companies" because it restored the insurance industry's antitrust exemption, it taxes health care benefits, and because the public option had been stripped from the bill. What Lynch ignored, of course, is that every single other vote against the bill came from a Republican or a conservative Blue Dog Democrat, so his complaints against it ring more than a little hollow.
Then Lynch at about 4:15 gets all caught up in a Kerry-style "I voted for it after I voted against it." It's almost pathetic to watch his tongue literally get tangled as he tried to have it both ways, alleging that he supports a bill he actually voted against. Mac remained firm, insisting that there was only one bill on March 21, a bill the insurance companies opposed, and that Lynch voted against. Mac then went on to list the positive effects of health care reform, eliminating lifetime caps, eliminating rescission, and pointing out how many people in the district will benefit from these reforms. Lynch interrupted Mac here to claim he supports all those positive effects, and returned to his weak "I voted for it after I voted against it." Mac was having none of it, though, pointing out again and again that Lynch voted against the major reform bill that did in fact provide these specific reforms. As he put it, the choice was "to do something... or to do nothing." Lynch, he said, "stood with the insurance companies because they opposed the bill." Lynch lied about Mac, saying he supported stripping the public option, that he supported the special deal for Big Pharma. Mac did respond, though maybe not as effectively as he should have.
Mac finished this segment by turning to the question of cost savings, citing CBO figures that HCR will reduce the deficit by some 1.3 trillion dollars over twenty years. Lynch challenged the CBO figures, suggesting that newer figures that call into question the earlier ones. Mac had the last word, acknowledging the newer CBO numbers but questioning Lynch's interpretation of them.
Keller began the second segment asking about foreign policy. Mac took a strong pro-peace line, calling out Lynch for his votes in favor of funding the Afghan war. (I should point out here that my own position on Afghanistan is a lot more forgiving of the president's policy than Mac's is, but that doesn't mean I like Lynch. An issue that didn't come up in the debate is Lynch's vote in favor of the Iraq war authorization, or his constant support of the Bush administration's war there.) Mac pointed out that Lynch stood alone in the MA delegation supporting the Afghan war and he also questioned whether the military, Petraeus in particular, would allow the president to hold to his 2011 withdrawal date. Lynch talked about the number of times he's visited Iraq and Afghanistan, called cutting funding "insanity" and basically played to the "support our troops" crowd, which is powerful here in the district. Mac insisted that the policy in Afghanistan, and in particular the objectives are unclear. Lynch said the objective is to prevent an al Qaeda takeover in Afghanistan, and Mac cited CIA figures that there are less than 100 al Qaeda there. He suggested that diplomacy and other tools could achieve our objectives of stabilizing the nation.
Keller then asked about Mac's allegation that Lynch's values are "out of touch" with the district. Mac said it really had to do with Lynch voting with the Republicans against health care. Lynch came back to his "I voted for it after I voted against it." It's a stupid argument, but then he turned around and called Mac an "ideologue." Mac responded that he's not an ideologue but that he stands with families against insurance companies.
Lynch finished by citing his vote against the TARP bailout, portraying that as "standing up to Wall Street." Mac correctly responded that the bailout wasn't just about Wall St., that sometimes it's necessary to hold your nose and vote for something you don't fully agree with, that the bailout prevented banks from collapsing and taking with them working people's savings and pensions, forcing more people into bankruptcy and foreclosure. Lynch returned to interrupting Mac, accusing of supporting the Wall St. bailout and repeatedly saying "shame on you, shame on you."
In all, I think Mac had a better debate. He appeared poised and in command of the issues, and he did an excellent job of keeping focused on the main points of distinction between the two. Lynch scored points at several places in the debate, but he also lost his composure the first he time he tried out the lame "I voted for it" line and, in my opinion at least, he returned to that same line way too many times in the debate. Folks dropped Kerry like a stone over exactly that excuse, and there's no reason to believe it will work better for Lynch.
Finally, Lynch did a good job at the end painting Mac as a friend of Wall St. Mac defended himself ably, appropriately, and correctly from the false charge, but unfortunately it happened at the very end of the debate and he didn't have enough time to show just how duplicitous a lie Lynch had thrown out there.
I've been backing Mac from the beginning of this race, giving him money, writing diaries here, phonebanking, and canvassing for him. Watching his opponent cover himself in shame in this debate makes me redouble my commitment to defeating him.
Mac is a Democrat who acts like a Democrat. He's the Democrat the voters of the Ninth deserve. If you're here in the district, give us a hand canvassing and phonebanking as the race enters its final weeks -- primary on September 14! If you're not, help as best you can, especially by donating to Mac's ActBlue page. And do write Marcos to tell him to include Mac in the Orange to Blue campaign. This site is about more and better Democrats, and Mac is about as good a Democrat as you can get.
Mac D'Alessandro for Congress
Mac D'Alessandro Act Blue
kossacks for Mac Act Blue
Update: Mac's campaign has factchecked the debate. Here's the second point they make:
INCORRECT STATEMENT # 2: "Now they are saying there are no net savings over the next 10 years."
The Candidates:
Mac D'Alessandro: "You can't say that it does nothing to reduce costs."
Congressman Lynch "Now they are saying there are no net savings over the next 10 years...you just need to update -- that's an old argument." (referencing the CBO).
The Facts:
The most recent communication from the CBO regarding the cost savings of the health care bill came out on August 24th, 2010.
http://www.cbo.gov/... (click on the August 24th link).
In that letter, the CBO states:
"First, we can confirm the estimate of the overall impact on the federal budget of the major health care legislation enacted in March. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA (Public Law 111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152) will produce $143 billion in net budgetary savings over the 2010-2019 period.1 That figure includes $124 billion in net savings for the health and revenue provisions of both laws and $19 billion in net savings for the education provisions of the Reconciliation Act."
When Congressman Lynch claimed that the CBO said there was no net savings over the next 10 years, it was factually incorrect.
The weasel Lynch didn't just lie about Mac's positions, he lied about official statements by the CBO. If you needed another reason to vote against him or donate to his opponent...