Why Vince Whitacre is better than Bryan Kennedy in the Dem primary in WI-5

[redeye]

Note: Vince's campaign can feel free to use this comparison in whole or in part.

Another note: I include all issues both candidates address, including those where both are equally good, both are equally bad, or Kennedy is better than Whitacre.

Anyway:


Attitude

Kennedy proclaims on his site's main page: "I am a MODERATE Democrat" (uppercase in original), and "The answers to today's problems in government do NOT come from political extremes. They come from the MIDDLE GROUND."

Whitacre, by contrast, adopts a Dean-like rhetoric of taking the country back: "This is our country, and we cannot afford to let it be sold to the highest bidder... We have a chance to reverse that trend, all we have to do is take back what is rightfully ours: the United States government."


Taxation

Kennedy talks about Wisconsin's high tax rates and about federal contributions to WI. My first thought when I read this part of his platform was, "Is he running for the US Congress or for the Wisconsin State Legislature?"

Then, Kennedy states his support for cutting taxes: "Until we can bring down our tax burden, we will continue to have difficulty in creating new jobs because we cannot attract businesses to our state" and "LOWER TAXES ATTRACT NEW BUSINESS. New business means more jobs. More jobs means an increased tax base... The cyclical effect of lower taxes will further prompt new business growth, which brings new jobs and a larger tax base, and so on and so on..."

Biased note: Even Lieberman voted against Bush's tax cuts. Draw your own conclusions (no, not about Lieberman - about Bryan Kennedy).

Whitacre states his tax plan without a single reference to Wisconsin in the first two paragraphs, and only then talks about the effect on his state. He supports reducing taxes, but not for business but for the people: "I will work to lower the tax burden of working families by reducing the payroll tax rate. Currently, only the first $87,000 of your income is subject to the federal payroll tax... We can lower payroll taxes for working and middle class families, and permanently save Medicare and Social Security simply by expecting multi-millionaires to pay these taxes at the same rate as the rest of us."

Whitacre not only describes a specific plan (i.e. eliminate the FICA ceiling), but also talks generally of governmental accountability, quoting Truman, "The buck stops here," and blaming the current administration for "cutting taxes while raising spending."


Health care

Kennedy doesn't mention universal or public health care at all, and only proposes increasing private coverage. He supports increasing competition on the grounds that "COMPETITION KEEPS PRICES LOW" and that "Rarely do consumers have much of a choice regarding their healthcare options." To paraphrase, Kennedy opposes universal health care but supports using the market to somehow drive prices down.

Whitacre is far less specific here. He says: "My mind is open as to how we will ensure that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care. All that matters is that we do." In other words: Whitacre doesn't have a specific plan here. He does mention restraining the power of drug companies ("pharmaceutical companies are continuing to make huge profits... The drug manufacturers can charge whatever they feel like... it's called price gouging, and it's illegal and immoral"), but only in general.


Education

Kennedy supports No Child Left Behind but lambasts Bush for having refused to fund it adequately. He also supports reducing class size and helping underachieving schools by making measures less punitive, though.

Kennedy also supports making college costs tax deductible, and mentions the fact that "Nearly every other industrialized nation has a federal university system that is FREE."

Whitacre acknowledges the usefulness of standardized tests, but explains why they shouldn't be so central to the USA's education system: "but (tests are) just that - tools." He opposes No Child Left Behind not only because of its emphasis on standardized tests (he cites polls showing that "66 percent of teachers said they now concentrate on 'teaching to the test'... and 79 percent said they devote class time to test-taking skills such as filling in bubbles") but also because of its punitive measures against underachieving schools. Note: yes, I paraphrased the last bit from Kennedy's campaign to show its contradictions - I admit to bias in favor of Whitacre.

Whitacre also proposes a variety of other measures to help education:
- Giving teachers a substantially higher tax credit to cover out-of-pocket costs: "Proposed legislation seeks to up (out-of-pocket expenses) deduction to $400 (H. R. 785) or $500 (S. 695)... The average teacher spends about $520 out-of-pocket each year... First-year teachers spend even more of their own money - $701"
- Repealing the recent law giving control of Head Start to the individual states that have "no experience in this endeavor" and "could turn Head Start over to private entities... (that can) discriminate on the basis of religion."
- Passing a formal federal teacher mentoring program.
- Restoring IDEA from its current 17% federal contribution rate to the original 40%


Crime

Kennedy supports "zero tolerance for any crime committed using a firearm" and says that "the 'three strikes rule' for felonies should be fully enforced." His plan to prevent crime before it happens is to combat "hopelessness" and make young people "feel important and self-confidant [sic]."

Whitacre apparently opposes the war on drugs, on the grounds that "Drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one. The way to keep drugs off the street is to go after the dealers and smugglers, not the people who are addicted." He supports crime prevention by stimulating the economy, saying that the richer people are, the less crime there is.


Gun control

Kennedy proclaims that "Every American is given a constitutional right to bear arms," and recommends only one form of gun control - "doing a background check on individuals that purchase guns."

Whitacre supports instant background checks too as well as "closing the gun show loophole," but also says that "we can't end crime by banning guns - not only would this be unconstitutional, it would be insufficient" and emphasizes: "I do not support further attempts to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to buy and keep firearms."


Foreign policy and national security

Kennedy says that "true homeland security is ensured when we lead the world in peace and work to lift up areas of poverty. When we follow a unilateral policy like the Bush administration has proposed, we risk becoming the bully on the playground that we all hated in elementary school." On the other hand, nowhere does Kennedy mention the Homeland Security Bill or the Patriot Act.

Whitacre supports "fostering goodwill abroad" and states "All peoples of the world need to know that every human being has a friend in the United States; and that the liberties we enjoy here at home can be enjoyed by them as well, so long as they dare to stand tall against tyranny." He supports "a requirement that the Pentagon pass an annual audit" and opposes spending on "blind faith." He opposes cuts in veterans' and GIs' benefits: "We must not stand for cuts in veterans' benefits, and we must not stand for cuts in the pay and benefits of the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America." Whitacre doesn't say anything abou the Patriot Act or Homeland Security Bill.

Neither of the two candidates here talks specifically or mentions any particular program.


Religion

Kennedy proclaims that he is a devout Mormon who practices "A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN LIFESTYLE" out of chocie and not coercion, and that he opposes legislating Christian morality. Personal note: he sounds too much like Lieberman and his tolerance to every religion as long as it is Jewish or Christian. There are three external links on his site, of which one leads to the LDS church.

Whitacre doesn't say a word about the topic. This can come from any of the following reasons:
- He doesn't think it is important.
- He is an atheist who doesn't want to out himself as such for fear he'll lose too many votes.
- He is a member of another religious minority and doesn't want to out himself for fear he'll lose too many votes.
The third reason is highly unlikely, because in the USA atheists are three-fourths of all non-Jewish non-Christians. If the second is true, then Whitacre will be the first or perhaps second atheist in the House (there're none in the Senate), whereas there're in theory enough atheists for 61 Representatives and 14 Senators. If the first is true, then it's still fairly good to hear that Whitacre doesn't wear his religion up on his sleeves.


One other thing: Kennedy is a member of the DLC. Whitacre doesn't say whether he is or not, but I'll wager that a candidate who has a link on his official site to the Boycott of Tyson Foods isn't likely to be in the DLC.

Final note: Whitacre's site is http://www.vince4congress.com; Kennedy's is http://www.bryankennedyforcongress.org/

Final final note: I've just reported, you decide ;).

[davidinalameda]

1. send him a check

he and his wife are both DUers and I believe in helping out our own

[redeye]

2. I can't...

...I don't have spare money to send.

And besides, support doesn't have to take the form of monetary contributions.

[redeye]

3. Bump

I would've gotten 50 replies by now had the post compared Dean and Lieberman... Do people only care about the presidency here?

[Whitacre D_WI]

4. Well, gee, I'm blushing!

Thanks for the kind words, redeye. And yes, there are ways for people to support my candidacy other than money (note to all: I do still need that money!), and you're doing that right now.

I encourage all voters in WI-5, as well as all potential contributors (financial and otherwise) to do the same sort of analysis; and then, of course, I expect that they'll choose to support me.

Bryan Kennedy seems to be a good man, and I will proudly vote for him against Jim Sensenbrenner if he does receive the nomination. That said, I do hope that people will take a look at the issues and decide that may candidacy is the one worth their support. Otherwise, I wouldn't be running.

[redeye]

5. I guess I'd vote for him too...

...he just doesn't say what he thinks of abortion and gay rights, pissues that the DLCers often take liberal stances on. And he still doesn't have an assortment of religious skeletons in his closet, unlike Lieberman.

And there's no need to blush. Blush when someone as important as Dean or even as Skinner says this; I'm just a completely unimportant person who doesn't even know anyone in your district.