I went to two debates this week. Both were informative.
First Essex: Sam Meas v. Shaun Toohey for State Senator. A crowded field, the Republican winner will face at least one Independent and one Democrat in November.
3rd Congressional: Jon Golnik v Tom Weaver – a rematch; the winner will take on Niki Tsongas – America’s 3rd stupidest congresswoman.
First Essex – Meas v Toohey:
I am an unabashed Meas supporter – but I’ll try to be objective. The seat is open after Democrat Steve Baddour resigned. Meas ran for Congress in 2010 – came in 2nd in the primary after Tsongas sent in 4,000 ‘un-enrolled’ Dems to vote for Golnik.
Toohey is a long-time school committeeman. His father-in-law is RiNO State Committeeman Bill Ryan.
Of the two debates I watched – this was the better one because there were no ‘softball’ or skewed agenda questions. The candidate answers quickly revealed their true character and beliefs.
Simply told – at best Toohey is the next generation of ‘old school Massachusetts politics’ – the go-along to get-along variety willing to compromise on almost every issue. Some of his answers could have been uttered by one of the Democrats who debated later. Perhaps he was appealing to them?
For instance he seems accepting of the way the MBTA is doing business, even wants to buy them new rolling stock and more tracks. Somehow he feels that money can be saved by ‘cleaning up waste’.
Most revealing was his answer to improving schools. He feels the key is ‘hiring a good superintendent’. I cringed, knowing that this places a town’s entire school system in the hands of one [potentially] bad and expensive hire.
At least six times by my count, Toohey reminded us of his ‘9 years on the school committee’. I assumed he is appealing to the teacher’s unions and parents by emphasizing his school committee work.
I’m guessing he’ll never mention his other work experience…
By contrast, Sam showed a much clearer grasp of the problem, i.e. the generational corruption of the teaching profession by union leadership, and their willing Democrat supporters.
In answer after answer, Sam showed that he understands how bankrupt Mass politics have become under 60+ years of Democratic party rule, and how throwing extra money at any of these problems will not solve anything.
Ryan rose to ask an ‘audience question’ – ‘…if you lose, will you support the winner?‘
This may be the first time in decades that Ryan has actually lifted a finger to help any Republican get elected. Is this the first time he’s felt he has skin in the game?
So after the debate I asked HIM – if HE would support Sam. I got a snarly answer, and he walked quickly away.
3rd Congressional Republican Race:
This year is a rematch between Tom Weaver and Jon Golnik. I’m familiar with both, – not necessarily a fan of either.
I went looking for an improved performance over their 2010 run. I wanted to see which one could articulate true Republican positions, and make them easily understood by the unenrolled, – and by fed up Democrats. The KEY is to get Niki Tsongas out of Congress.
Upon arrival it was hard to miss Golnik’s show of strength. Duly noted.
The debate was a pretty standard format – sponsored by Fitchburg State, the Sentinel & Enterprise and the Fitchburg RCC. I was surprised that there were no obvious Tsongas spies in attendance. Can she be that arrogant?
The first few questions – on jobs, sequestration, foreign wars, biggest external threat were valid questions and served to highlight the candidates’ thinking. In general, I though Golnik demonstrated much deeper knowledge than he had in 2010, and he did a better job of communicating it.
Sadly, both were wordy, and appeared to be ‘trying out sound bites’ in anticipation of the general election debates. Golnik again played the victim card – talking about how he’d been picked on, – and Weaver was quick to attack him on what he’d been doing since November ’10. It ~ almost ~ got snarly.
Weaver did better on questions about the Dept of Education, ObamaCare and immigration. The DeptED question revealed Golnik’s deep Democratic roots – he is reluctant to commit to killing it.
Golnik showed grace under pressure twice, once when asked about the Colorado movie massacre, and again when Weaver challenged him to a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Weaver’s confrontational style here did not seem to go over well.
OVERALL: Two panel members were obviously out to trip up both candidates, – to get them to utter a stupid remark that the Democrats could later use. Both candidates resisted.
Weaver still looks round, fuzzy, and a tad rumpled. He’s had two years to work on image – and hasn’t. He sounds more libertarian now than he did two years ago. He was very tense Tuesday night.
Golnik sounds less like a Democrat than he used to. To his credit he seems to have studied a range if issues and is familiar with problems that two years ago drew a blank stare. Better still he’s learning to reduce complicated issues to sound-bites.
BOTTOM LINE: EITHER/BOTH Weaver or Golnik will be a 400% improvement over Niki Tsongas. We must vote her OUT!
You can watch the entire debate here:
Oh, I just had to show you what a true MoonBat Car looks like!
/s/ Iron Mike
Old Soldier, – Still Good for Parts!