David Cicilline said Brendan Doherty would side with conservative House Republicans if elected to Congress and effectively do damage to social security and Medicare, while Doherty said he would be his own man who would work to protect social security and Medicare.
Can both be true? Cicilline may have made such a point at the WPRI debate at PPAC Tuesday night when he said because Doherty supports the very conservative House Republican leaders how he would vote is less important than who he would vote for.
By the time it comes to voting, Cicilline said, the damage would already have been done. “They don’t need him at that point. He already put them in power.”
Another area where the two candidates disagreed: Cicilline said he would improve the local and national economy by investing in the manufacturing sector; Doherty said he would do so by drilling for more oil.
Seriously, in his appeal to Rhode Island voters, Doherty actually recycled the old Sarah Palin logic of “drill baby drill.”
Cicilline, on the other hand, said high wages in China and rising costs for transportation are making manufacturing a more viable option for growth again. Since we can bring more manufacturing jobs than oil drilling jobs to Rhode Island, the advantage on this one has to go to the incumbent.
A highlight was when moderator Tim White asked Doherty is he took exception to Cicilline’s previous career as a criminal defense attorney. Doherty said it only became a campaign issue because the Cicilline campaign took him to task for not supporting the Violence Against Women Act, to which White said, “You’re basically saying he started it.”
He started it is not indicative of uncommon integrity. Just sayin.
Another interesting moment was when neither candidate would endorse the landmark pension reform bill the General Assembly passed during a special session last year.
“Pension reform is best done by negotiations,” said Ciciline. “People made life decisions based on those commitments.”
Doherty added, “I wish it was done fairer and more equitable. We know we needed pension reform. I wish they put a little bit more effort into it.”
I notice that lots of Republicans are running as “their own men” this year.
So, do they independently place themselves on prestigious committees when they get to Washington?
In the unlikely event that Doherty defeats Cicilline, he’ll sign Norquist’s pledge faster than you can say Moody’s Investment Service.
Or, maybe he’ll have a dramatic change of heart after being worn down for a year–and then sign it.
leftyrite:
If you think declaring yourself your ‘own man’ and reaching across the aisle is a bad thing, then obviously you’re part of the problem. We certainly know what we have with David Cicilline with a track record of voting 96 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi. Is he her lapdog? David Cicilline was an utter failure as Mayor and now as a Congressman. What prestigious committees has David Cicilline been appointed to that have benefited Rhode Island? Bob can beat the ‘uncommon integrity’ label to death but in the end, David isn’t even a blip on the integrity radar. Bob couldn’t beat Doherty’s integrity down that far with a 50 pound sledge. Whine all you want about gridlock but David Cicilline is part of the problem and that translates into you being part of the problem.
“What prestigious committees has David Cicilline been appointed to that have benefited Rhode Island?”
1. Committee on Foreign Affairs
- Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade
- Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
2. Committee on Small Business
Both seem to me to be of interest and of benefit to RI employers. (maybe should pick a different talking point in fact)
I wish I’d seen it. Did anyone ask Cicilline if he consider Simpson Bowles to be an example of protecting Social Security?
“The Democrats Prepare for a Post-Election Grand Compromise with the GOP”
*** quote ***
Nancy Pelosi, who in a long ago time was co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, and who opposed the recommendations of President Obama’s Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission as “simply unthinkable” two years ago, now says she supports it. “Simpson Bowles was really Obama’s vision all the time.”
The evolution of her thinking is quite simple. With the Paul Ryan budget now indelibly stamped onto the Mitt Romney campaign, the way is clear for the Democrats to move another step to the right and embrace Simpson-Bowles $4 trillion in spending cuts that will eviscerate what’s left of the social safety net. Which is what President Obama offered the Republicans, last summer. The Republicans didn’t take Obama’s offer, because it included modest tax increases and cuts to the military.
The current speculation – and I think it’s correct – is that Obama will again offer the deal to the GOP right after the election. And, why not? Simpson Bowles was really Obama’s vision all the time: the austerity plan he had in mind when he announced, two weeks before taking the oath of office, in 2009, that Social Security and all other entitlements would be on the chopping block. Back then, the Republicans were in no shape to do any pushing, having just suffered a whopping electoral defeat.
It was Obama who put austerity on the Democratic agenda. He has always been determined to forge a Grand Alliance with the GOP. The trick has been to make his war against the poor appear to be a “compromise” necessitated by Republican meanness and intransigence. Nancy Pelosi and the rest of Democratic leadership act as magician’s helpers in this performance, edging ever further to the right side of the stage. At the end of the show, the audience thinks they’ve witnessed some kind of victory for the little guy. The President will once again pull Simpson-Bowles out of his hat.
*** end quote ***
You have nailed it PHL. Obama has always been too conservative and remains so reaching out to the Democratic base only when he needs their votes.
What Republican means, in all sincerity or cynically, when he says he will “protect” Social Security: Social Security will run out of money unless it is privatized with vouchers and the income for the elderly from Social Security is put under the psychopathically risky whims of Wall Street . The Social Security income for the elderly will be considerably reduced but Wall Street firms will make a lot of money off Social Security. And that’s called wealth creation, hooray!
Obama is the one of the last moderate Republican. That’s why the Tea Party hates him. They are instructed to hate all moderate Republicans.
To be fair, Bill Clinton learned that corporations will get their way no matter what you do. The best you can do is try to get some concessions out of them as they forge ahead with their own agenda of maximizing wealth for the top 2%. Obama learned this same lesson as a community organizer, and was also tutored by Clinton in this fundamental doctrine of the New Democrats (i.e., old moderate Republicans).
Let’s re real here. As long as an oligarchic few control the means of production, and through globalization and tax dodge countries are beyond the control of the US government, they will rule – extremely or somewhat moderately.