Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > June > 12
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Because we can’t resist: Video on the 10th District debate
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
This is from Ms. Spacey G.
Click and enjoy.
Verbatim: Iraq and the 10th District debate
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Iraq was the topic of the first question asked of the nine candidates for Congress participating in the Atlanta Press Club/GPTV debate on Tuesday afternoon.
Republican Jim Whitehead of Columbia County, thought to be the front-runner in the contest for the 10th District seat, was the only candidate who chose not to appear.
Even so, with so many candidates talking, it’s hard to make generalizations. But it’s fair to say that the five Republicans in the debate spoke less about bringing troops home than the three Democrats and one Libertarian.
We’ve transcribed their remarks on the war. You can see them in full on the jump.
James Marlow, Democrat: The quicker we have an honorable exit from Iraq, the better. In Congress, I’ll do everything possible to make that happen. What I’m recommending that we do is listen to the wise counsel of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and that we have a staged withdrawal from Iraq, that we have a major diplomatic offensive in the region, and that we work to fight and protect America both here and abroad. There are many things that we need to be doing. We’re clearly not going about it the right way. The American military has done their job, it’s now time for the Iraqi people to do their job. We’re currently fighting the war on a credit card, and that credit card is owned by the Chinese. And I just don’t think this is the right way to go about it. We don’t have to occupy a nation in order to fight terrorism in it.
Denise Freeman, Democrat: We have to honor the men and women who are fighting in Iraq. And as I talk to them across this district as I travel, they’re telling me it’s time for us to come home. It’s time for us to bring them home, and until that time, if we have a timetable, it needs to be confidential. We need to make sure that our commanders who are in the armed forces, who know what’s best — because that’s what they were trained to do, they know what it is they need to do. Give them the tools, the equipment so that they can continue to fight this war, end it efficiently, and effectively with the [least] amount of lives lost, and they can come home to us safely. And that’s what we need to do — is to bring our troops home.
Nate Pulliam, Republican: I am the only one of the 10 candidates who was actually a career military officer and who actually served in combat in Iraq. I was an advisor to the 6th Iraqi Infantry Division from November ’05 to November ’06. My boss was wounded three weeks after I got there. The Iraqi general I advised was killed in an ambush, and I lost two very close friends in November. The Bush Administration has made terrible mistakes in Iraq, but despite that we absolutely must prevail in Iraq. I define victory in Iraq as leaving a stable, peaceful Iraq that’s under neither the domination of Iran nor a safe haven for Al-Qaida. We must do three things. We must provide security to buy time for the Iraqi government to stand up, we must assist their military, and we must keep pressure on them to do the right thing. A government that does not win its wars will not survive as a nation.
Evita Paschall, Democrat: We have to support our troops. It is my belief that we should allow the surge to continue. It has been alleged that the surge will bring the results that we’re seeking by the end of the year. I think we should allow that to happen. And if it’s not resolved by the end, it’s my belief that we should have a gradual reduction of the troops, but at a time when the military determines that we should have a gradual reduction. I don’t believe we should have a specific time when the troops are removed.
Jim Sendelbach, Libertarian: The libertarian position would be one of non-intervention. We wouldn’t have been there in the first place. But the fact is that we are there and doing a fine job, but our goals are not clear. What is it that we’re doing there? I’d like to see the president clarify that for the benefit of the American people. And once that is clear, then to have him work with the other countries. All of the neighboring countries — Saudi Arabia, Jordan — really should be involved in this conflict. And if they are not, at least I don’t know why they’re not participating in it, this is not an American war. And I also believe that a timetable would be disastrous for our American forces there.
Erick Underwood, Republican: I’m the only person here with a plan. It’s called the Underwood plan. It’s a bold step in the right direction. The Underwood plan separates Iraq into three regions: Sunni, Shi’ite, and Kurd, and creates one national parliament at the national level that will elect a rotating prime minister and/or president. I believe that the Underwood plan will unite Iraq together, and will finally be the infrastructure that we need to bring our troops finally home. More of my plan is at erikunderwoodforcongress.com.
Mark Myers, Republican: There’s a lot of uncertainty in Iraq, but one thing is very certain. If the president and the congress send mix messages, it will discourage our troops and it will encourage the terrorist. So I think we need to speak with one voice, and the Iraqis are going to have to accept the responsibility of their own protection. So this is going to be a short-term stay, I hope we can get this wrapped up. But we don’t need to be red states and blue states, we need to be the United States and be red, white and blue states. I have more information at my web site, markmyersforcongress.com.
Paul Broun, Republican: The president has a new policy in Iraq, and I think we need to just give it a chance to work. It needs to be just a reasonable amount of time. Fighting in Iraq is just one front on this whole war on global terror. And actually it’s not a war against terrorism. It’s a war against Islamic fascists who want to totally destroy America and our way of life. We do have a new policy, we need to see it work, we need to do everything that we can to fight these people, because they do want to destroy America. We’re fighting in Afghanistan and Somalia and a whole lot of different places. But the generals need to fight, we need to let the soldiers fight, and stop the defensive war that we’ve been doing.
Bill Greene, Republican: I’m not running for commander-in-chief. I am running for the United States Congress. The question was, ‘What are the next steps that need to be taken in this particular war.’ Well, the first step that needs to be taken is to get Congress out of the war. We have allowed politics to control what we’re doing here. We’ve allowed especially the Pelosi Democrats — who are trying to pull the rug out from under our troops in Iraq. We need to get the politicians out of the way — get the 535 commanders-in-chief out of the way. Let the Army do what the Army does best — all the armed forces — what they do best, which is to kill our enemy and break their stuff. If we allow them to that we will have victory in Iraq and in the war against Islamic fascism. And then they will be able to come home, and not until then.
Things to look for in tonight’s 10th District debate
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Some things you’ll see, and some you won’t, in today’s 7 p.m. GPTV broadcast of the 10th District congressional debate, sponsored by the Atlanta Press Club:
— Yes, there was a fellow in a chicken suit, razzing Republican Jim Whitehead for skipping the debate. He — the guy in the suit — swore he wasn’t affiliated with any campaign, and identified himself as blogger Shelby Highsmith of Atlanta, and author of shelbinator.com.
Highsmith maintained that he just had a new chicken suit lying around, and decided this would be an occasion to use it. You probably have relatives that fit this description. Keep an eye on them.
— Nine of the 10 candidates in the race showed up for the hourlong forum, which was taped at 2 p.m. The Atlanta Press Club left an open lectern for Whitehead, a former state senator from Columbia County.
Two candidates asked questions of Whitehead — Republican Bill Greene and Democrat James Marlow. Whitehead did not answer.
— Once candidates were permitted to question each other, Marlow was the target of three of the first four questions, which tells you who the other candidates think has the best chance of making it into a run-off with Whitehead next Tuesday.
The fourth question was Greene’s for Whitehead, asking why he thought it expedient to skip so many joint appearances.
— No one had a kind word for George W. Bush, save for Republican Mark Myers of Loganville, who complimented the president on his tax cuts.
— Evita Paschall, a Democrat may have had the line of the night, when she attacked Republican Erik Underwood’s plan on Iraq. The “Underwood plan” — which sounds like something advocated by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden — would sequester Iraq into Kurdish, Shi’ite, and Sunni regions.
Said Paschall: “If it was that simple, Bush would have thought of it.”
— Bush wasn’t the only collateral damage in the debate. Republican Nate Pulliam, a retired lieutenant colonel and a Conyers real estate agent, was asked his opinion of the immigration reform bill now in the Senate.
Said Pulliam: “I think we can call it the George Bush, Saxby Chambliss, Johnny Isakson amnesty bill. I am totally opposed to it. Now when Saxby Chambliss got up and tried to convince us all that this was a good bill, it’s like a child coming home with a report card with three A’s and two F’s, putting his thumb over the F’s, and saying, ‘Dad, look at the A’s.’”
— Asked what he thought of the Patriot Act, Republican Paul Broun of Athens said he like some parts. But some sections, he thought — electronic surveillance without oversight, in particular — were “flirting with tyranny.”
— The cutest moment: The way Greene, the Republican, kept shooting winks and nods up to his wife in the audience.
Advice to Bush from Georgia senators: Show critics the border money
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Johnny Isakson’s chief contribution to the immigration reform package now stalled in the Senate is the concept of border security as a trigger for other measures, including the granting of legal status to illegal immigrants through “Z” visas.
But opponents of the measure have told us that they view Isakson’s trigger mechanism as so much whitewash. Given the federal government’s past record of border enforcement, they don’t trust it.
Apparently, they’ve told Isakson the same thing.
On Tuesday, Isakson and U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (an earlier post about his situation is below) sent a letter to the White House, offering President Bush this piece of advice: If you want to move immigration reform off the shoals, show critics the money. Says the letter:
“We believe that you and your administration could alleviate many of the fears of our constituents by calling for an emergency supplemental bill to fully fund the border and interior security initiatives contained in legislation currently pending in the Senate, as well as any outstanding existing authorizations.
“Such a move would show your commitment to securing the border first and to stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into our nation. It will also work towards restoring the credibility of the federal government on this critical issue.”
Both Isakson and Chambliss are among the Republican senators expected to have lunch with Bush at 1 p.m. or so.
The president’s job was outlined in another letter — sent to him Monday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, according to the National Journal.
“Only seven Republicans joined 38 Democrats in voting to bring debate on the bill to a close in a timely manner,” Reid said. “We believe it will take stronger leadership by you to ensure that opponents of the bill do not block the path to final passage. Simply put, we need many more than seven Republicans to vote for cloture and final passage of this bill.”
Read the entire Isakson-Chambliss letter on the jump.
Dear Mr. President:
Although the Senate’s effort to reform our nation’s immigration laws through the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 is stalled, illegal immigration remains our nation’s number one domestic issue. We therefore believe it is incumbent upon us and our colleagues to tackle this issue and not leave this problem for future generations to solve.
As we travel around Georgia and continue to hear from our constituents, the message from a majority of Georgians is that they have no trust that the United States Government will enforce the laws contained in this new legislation and secure the border first.
This lack of trust is rooted in the mistakes made in 1986 and the continued chaos surrounding our immigration laws. Understandably, the lack of credibility the federal government has on this issue gives merit to the skepticism of many about future immigration reform.
We believe the way to build greater support for immigration reform in the United States Senate and among the American public is to regain the trust in the ability of the federal government to responsibly administer immigration programs and enforce immigration laws.
There is bipartisan agreement that we need to secure our borders first, and we believe this approach will serve as a platform towards addressing the other issues surrounding immigration reform.
To that end, we believe that you and your administration could alleviate many of the fears of our constituents by calling for an emergency supplemental bill to fully fund the border and interior security initiatives contained in legislation currently pending in the Senate, as well as any outstanding existing authorizations.
Such a move would show your commitment to securing the border first and to stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into our nation. It will also work towards restoring the credibility of the federal government on this critical issue.
We urge you to carefully consider this request, and thank you for the opportunity to express the views of the people of Georgia on this matter.
Sincerely, Saxby Chambliss
United States Senator
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator
Opposition to Chambliss from within?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Many conservatives are writing about local repercussions in the fight over immigration reform.
The following lines appear in a piece posted Monday by Martha Zoller, the North Georgia radio host, on the Human Events web site:
In a background meeting of Republican activists last week, [participants] were concerned that Senator [Saxby] Chambliss will be challenged in the 2008 primaries. Republicans don’t like opposition to their sitting elected officials, but if they continue to show complete disdain for the voting public, they will have it. At this moment, there are two members of the Georgia state legislature traveling the state to see if they can garner support for a run against Senator Chambliss.
Zoller doesn’t say so, but we presume the alleged tire-kickers are Republican.
Services »
