|
The American Association of Retired Persons (a radical organization, clearly, since they endorsed the health care reform law) sent out a questionnaire to all candidates for federal and state offices. They put together a voter guide based on the replies. There are specific issues and initiatives at both the state and federal level which the AARP supports, and this is an effort to represent candidates' levels of support on those issues, and to present the candidates' own statements about Medicare, Social Security and a wide variety of other topics.
Republicans apparently don't want to put anything in writing. Compare some of Dan Malloy's responses to Tom Foley's:
Hmmm. Peculiar. Tom Foley doesn't want to tell AARP voters his positions on any of these? I doubt it slipped his campaign's collective mind. I doubt you forget to respond to a request from the AARP. Plus, it seems to be some sort of epidemic among GOP candidates. Have a look at the Attorney General race questions. Democrat George Jepsen is pretty clear. Martha Dean, the Republican, has apparently invoked her fifth amendment rights.
(AG and state senate responses below the fold) |
At the state senate level, same issue. I live in the 26th district, so I saw the comparison of John Hartwell (D) and Toni Boucher (Tea Party). Perhaps Toni was too busy wrapping herself in the Gadsden Flag to answer. Or perhaps like Foley and Dean, she had nothing to say. I won't post the "support or oppose" check boxes of the 13 questions asked of state senate candidates, but... Hartwell supported 11 of them; Boucher "chose not to answer" all 13. And on the other questions, which call for a written statement form the candidate, Boucher again "chose not to respond." And the questions include things like "Do you support or oppose affordable energy legislation to reduce Connecticut's electric rates" then lists specific five proposals. Hartwell's response?
I support any legislation which will effectively and fairly lower Connecticut's electric rates for both consumers and businesses. In place of a discounted rate for low income households I'd prefer to look at an income tax rebate, but in general essential services like electricity, gas, water etc. should be subsidized where necessary. I oppose the use of electric rate surcharges to fund bonding to cover current budget shortfalls.
-- John Hartwell
And look at this one:
Hartwell's response is thorough and thoughtful. It's obvious he knows the background and efficacy of the programs in question, and has specific parameters in mind when he will approach the grueling, difficult, complex budgeting process ahead of us. It's a serious answer from a serious candidate. It treats the voter with respect and offers real insight into Hartwell's approach, philosophy and intent. Boucher? Well, her intent is clear from other statements. Cut, cut, cut. And when it becomes obvious what has to be cut, and when the AARP tries to get a commitment from her to preserve services essential to their members, she becomes curiously silent.
Of course Republicans are staying curiously silent when asked to make specific proposals. In the Governor's race, we see Dan Malloy appearing on WABC to face reporters and answer questions about the specifics he is proposing and defend his record. Foley declined. Perhaps he knows he can't defend his non-existent record, or justify his proposals to close a $3.4 billion gap by making $1 billion in cuts. When they need to start actually answering specific questions, their platforms collapse. I believe they will cut services to seniors. They will gut education. Those most in need will be told to sacrifice so Republican constituencies can continue profiting.
If I were them, I wouldn't say a word before the election, either. |
MLN is powered by