Debate outlines stark differences
Friday, Sep 22, 2006 - Posted by Rich Miller
It would be impossible to claim that these candidates are indistinguishable.
Sixth Congressional District candidates Peter Roskam and Tammy Duckworth disagreed on literally every issue during their first debate today.
Whether it was war, immigration, taxes, stem cells or Social Security, Republican state senator Roskam and Democratic Army veteran Tammy Duckworth had little common ground and weren’t afraid to mix it up, either.
“Neither one of us are the shy, retiring type,†said Hoffman Estates’ Duckworth during the debate co-sponsored by WBBM-AM radio and the Daily Herald.
Roskam took Duckworth to task for what he says is a “cut and run†strategy on Iraq of wanting to start bringing back U.S. troops as their Iraqi counterparts are trained. But Duckworth fired right back that Roskam essentially supports giving the Bush administration a blank check on the war.
- Wumpus - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 3:05 pm:
How dare he insult and degrade her service..blah, blah, blah, barf! At least Duckworth is better than her supprters here. At least they are debating.
- Iggy - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 3:15 pm:
Does Roskam think he’s going to win this election by defending the indefensible in Iraq? Even if you were naive enough to buy the Bush propogandist’s rationale for the war back in ‘03, it’s been prosecuted so incompetently that even the commanders are going public with criticism of the Pentagon’s ineptitude.
Duckworth was there, and almost lost her life fighting in this war. If she has the courage to come back here and say we need to change strategies–so that other young men and women don’t have to suffer what she has–I say more power to her!
- HANKSTER - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 3:17 pm:
I heard a recording of the debate, Duckworth was very relaxed and well spoken…Roskam was fairly weak..no big mistakes but many times sounded lost when getting away from his talking points. It was only 30 minutes long and Krol was fairly weak with the questions.
- Old Quack - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 3:46 pm:
So much for being the best oral advocate, Peter.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 4:06 pm:
The answer to Iggy’s questions is, “Yes!”
We want protected borders, a secure homeland, an end to the Iraq war by WINNING the Iraq war, and bin Laden’s head, regardless of CIA tactics used to get it.
Call us ruthless, call us every name in the book, just remember we are the VOTERS who do not buy the Democratic bullcrap anymore.
We have families to raise and protect. As long as the Democratic Party refuses to see the dangers we face, we are voting for someone else.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 4:09 pm:
I’m glad Roskam smoked Duckworth out. She has been hiding behind her uniform for too long. An attractive candidate she definately is, but she is wrong.
- Bill Baar - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 4:25 pm:
Well blank-check vs cut-and-run a heck of a way to frame GWOT or Iraq.
It would have been better to ask both to comment on Bush’s UN speech. I suspect the would agree more than differ on it.
Should have asked both on ImpeachPac. When you get down to it, that’s the only difference that will count in the next session should Dems take congress.
- Elihu Smails - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 4:28 pm:
Well, I wasn’t there either, but I imagine it’s a limited universe of reporters and campaign types who were allowed into the debate taping. Given that you already “heard a tape,” guess that makes you a Dem partisan or maybe a gadfly, would-be journalist, eh Hankster?
- HANKSTER - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 4:31 pm:
VanillaMan: Maybe you should listen to the debate and talk about that instead of pretending you heard it and then attacking Duckworth. Or are you too biased to do anything but use angry and simple talking points?
Oh and WE the voters sure like to Bush and Republican Congressional policies so much that we have given him and them the highest approval rating ever! Oh wait, thats not right is it?
- HANKSTER - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 4:34 pm:
Elihu: There were a decent number of reporters there and both Roskam and Duckworht talked to them after the debate. And in case you were wondering, the next debate they are hosting on WBBM is for cook county sheriff.
- anon - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 5:03 pm:
impeach pac? Now I am convinced we have some members of the tinfoil hat club here…
- Chalkline - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 5:10 pm:
Need to straighten out this vanilla man. Is this Roskam from the same draft dodging ilk that Bush and Cheney are from? If the veteran that served over there says we need to exit then we need to exit. Roskam is a real brave man for sayin stay the course. Course that’s not him getting shot at.
- Col Warning Close - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 6:00 pm:
Roskam should have cleaned her clock with all his PI court experience. He was shallow at best. When the chicken hawks start talking “cut and run” you know they are worried. Duckworth’s position can’t be any clearer even to those who choose invasions of choice and not necessity, to wit; FOR EVERY IRAQI BATTALLION THAT STANDS UP WE STAND DOWN A US BATTALLION. Based on the smoke and mirrors coming out of Rumsfeld we should have withdrawn over 200,000 troops,(number of Iraqi forces alledgedly trained) far more then we actually have there.
What we need is Roskam to demonstrate his great leadership ability and take command of a rifle platoon and show us how its really done. Then he will find out what”warning close” means.
- Old Quack - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 6:18 pm:
since when is having a plan for Iraq “cut and run.” what else are we supposed to be doing there if not creating a system of accountability. roskam may be the republican, but he definitely is on the short end of the national security credentials stick
- West - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 6:38 pm:
Chalklinie is right, Vanilla Man. I think they call people like Roskam and Cheney and Bush “chicken hawks.” They’re all for sending other people’s kids to die in wars of personal ambition (but not national security), but they used every trick in the book to avoid putting on a uniform themselves abroad.
Our troops in Iraq aren’t destroying an enemy army. They’re “nation building” something the Republicans used to ridicule for it’s naivete. As a result, they’re sitting ducks, targets for nationalist militants who want to blow them up. They can’t fight back because they’d create collateral casualties and lose the “hearts and minds” of the populace.
Colin Powell was right. If we can’t go in with overwhelming force, destroy the enemy, and get out, we have no business being there to begin with.
- T.J. - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 8:44 pm:
I’m sick of Democratic candidates chosen specifically because you’re supposed to feel sorry for them.
- Bridget Dooley - Friday, Sep 22, 06 @ 9:37 pm:
Has the debate not actually aired yet?
- Bill Baar - Saturday, Sep 23, 06 @ 7:17 am:
impeach pac? Now I am convinced we have some members of the tinfoil hat club here…
H.RES.635
Title: Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration’s intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
Sponsered by John Conyers, co sponsers include Danny Davis and Jan Shakowsky.
What would Duckworth do? And Roskam too…