In final debate, Deeds and McDonnell discuss health care
BOB BROWN / TIMES-DISPATCH
Democrat Creigh Deeds, left, and Republican Bob McDonnell, debate issues in Olin Hall on the campus of Roanoke College in Salem.
|
SLIDESHOW Gubernatorial debate - Deeds and McDonnell debate the issues in Roanoke. FULL DEBATE VIDEO Part 1 | Part 2 MORE Campaign 2009 - Photo highlights from last night's debate between Democrat Creigh Deeds and Republican Bob McDonnell, plus video profiles and an interactive voter guide. |
SALEM -- Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell said last night that Virginia should not participate in a federal health-care program that contains a "public option."
Democrat R. Creigh Deeds said he has reservations about such an approach but would consider it because it might save money for the state.
In the final debate in the campaign for governor, two weeks before the Nov. 3 election, the two rivals broke little new ground and generally stuck to the themes that have dominated their campaigns.
The debate came amid a flurry of political polls showing McDonnell with a clear lead.
Congress is considering several health-care proposals, some that would include a public option meant to allow the government to compete with private insurers and push down costs.
Some Senate Democrats reportedly are considering a proposal that would include a public option but would give states the right to opt out, which means the next governor might have to act.
During the debate, Deeds said a public option is not a priority and that he would consider opting out if that were a state alternative.
But after the debate, he said he is not ruling out a public option and said Virginia must consider alternatives to reduce costs and increase coverage.
"I think you have to leave all your options on the table," he told reporters. "I'm not convinced the public option is the only way we can reduce costs. It may be one way. It might not be the best way."
The debate -- the last of four -- was hosted by WSLS-TV of Roanoke and held before an invitation-only crowd of about 400 people on the campus of Roanoke College.
In his closing remarks, the state senator from Bath County said: "I'll make Virginia the best place for jobs, the best state for education, and the best state for you."
McDonnell, a former state attorney general, said he would promote jobs by fighting against tax increases and more government regulation.
Both men said they would promote efficiencies, but neither would name a program he would eliminate.
Deeds said McDonnell, as a member of the House of Delegates, did not introduce a single bill to create jobs. He said McDonnell, a social conservative who in 1989 wrote a graduate-school thesis suggesting that working women are detrimental to the family, has been more interested in promoting a social agenda.
Deeds said his campaign has emphasized the thesis because it shows McDonnell's priorities.
McDonnell said "values matter" but that he would not push a social agenda. McDonnell said he would promote adoptions and work to keep families involved in raising children. But he said he would not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.
As for creating jobs, McDonnell said he sponsored legislation to end the estate tax. He said the savings indirectly could lead to more jobs. Deeds voted against ending the estate tax, McDonnell noted.
The candidates also clashed over transportation, an issue both agreed is the most important facing the state. As in past debates, McDonnell held up a blank sheet of paper to signify his belief that Deeds has no plan.
Deeds has said that he is willing to sign off on a tax increase for transportation as long as it arises from a bipartisan consensus.
McDonnell opposes new taxes. His 12-point plan includes privatizing Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control stores, creating public-private partnerships and issuing bonds.
Deeds said all of McDonnell's proposals have been rejected in the past. So has raising taxes, McDonnell said.
Deeds said he would not support federal "cap-and-trade" legislation meant to fight global warming by cutting carbon emissions. In TV commercials, McDonnell has accused Deeds of backing the legislation.
Asked about the governors they would most like to emulate, Deeds named Democrats Gerald L. Baliles, L. Douglas Wilder, Mark R. Warner and Timothy M. Kaine. McDonnell named Wilder and Republican George Allen.
Contact Tyler Whitley at (804) 649-6780 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
All the rhetoric on health care doesn’t change the fact that Virginian’s simply don’t want McDonnell’s promise of a liquor store on every corner and a gun in every hand. Deeds is closing in on McDonnell because of these unpopular perspectives.
Virginians are learning where McDonnell’s campaign money comes from:
McDonnell supports privatization of Virginia’s liquor industry. As a result, he has received over a half million dollars from the alcohol beverage, hotel, and recreation industries with $215K alone from alcohol beverage distributors including $55K from Premium Distributors of Va LLC, $50 from the Va Beer Wholesalers Assn, $26K from Silver Eagle Distributors LP, and $25K from Associated Distributors/The Charmer Sunbelt Group.
See http://www.vpap.org/committees/profile/money_in_industry2/1581?sector=3
McDonnell also supports a loophole in gun registration that has allowed terrible tragedies in Virginia, most notably at Virginia Tech. The NRA has spent well over a half million dollars on advertising to promote McDonnell’s support for the gun regulation loophole.
Virginian’s don’t want McDonnell’s promise of a liquor store on every corner and a gun in every hand.
Add a .50 tax to every fast food order which exceeds 500 total calories. With the millions of those sold every day in America, that would help illuminate the issue, discourage the consumption a little, and toss billions of dollars into the kitty to finance health reform —found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
“we have so much common ground but because of our leaders we are divided and needlessly attacking each other and tearing this country apart because our political parties lead us into taking an all-or-nothing position on issues. “
PA, I’m glad that you’re opening up the dialogue. It is refreshing and soooo much more productive than the partisan bickering which seems to dominate most discussions around here.
The thing is, our leaders only have as much influence as we give them. When the electorate stop towing the party line and buying the “us vs. them” rhetoric, it will cease to have power. However, there are no shortage of people willing to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
My point: don’t blame the “leaders”. The solution lies with us, the people.
To be very honest—I am disgusted by all the commercials, and I am ready for Nov. 3 to be over with.
It is so disgusting that they use such harsh attacks. I can’t tell you how many times I hear my friends and others say “I am just voting for the lesser of the two evils.” So true, but so horrible! We need other “real” people, who know the real deal come in and run for an office!
Well said, Proud American. We must remember that no matter what party you associate with, we are Americans FIRST.
These seem like no brainers. I am reminded of Reagan’s opposition to seat belts.
Well to you they seem like no brainers, to me they don’t. But again that’s because of our position in the political spectrum. My point is that you and I can sit down together as citizens and come to agreements, whereas our leaders will vote in an all-or-nothing manner.
I have no problem with energy efficiency and gas efficiency, but I refuse to do it at the expense of what I’m looking for in those products, for example: I don’t want to turn a light on in a room 10 minutes before I want to go into that room so that the light bulb has time to warm up. I also don’t want 100 hp truck made out of plastic. But again, I think you and I could come to reasonable agreements. For instance: I mostly use my truck for commuting so I’m ok with a little less hp, and I have CFL’s all in my house as they don’t take that long to warm up. My examples were small, but I was using them to prove a point on a larger scale.
And to me what they are doing out in California with trying to ban big screen tv’s is just as absurd as Virginia banning a woman’s right to choose. I realize a baby and a television are completely different but the principle is the same: The government shouldn’t tell me what to do with my life, and that’s my point.
Sure JohnBottom, let’s seceed.
But that would mean no more Meidicare or Medicaid or SCHIP or funding for roads and hospitals. Everyone at Norfolk Naval Base, Fort Lee, Langly, Quantico, CIA Headquarters, the Pentagon and any other military installation would be out of a job. Our airports would have to close. We would have to establish a court system… bla bla bla. It’s an idiotic proposal.
It would mean complete economic collapse and 60% unemployment.
And you would do this just to protect the right of people to not have a choice of healthcare plans? What a drone.
“On a side note, I wish McDonnell was proposing succession. You and your liberal friends may need the Federal Government to tell you how to live your lives, but the majority of Virginians would be better served without the elitists in D.C. calling the shots.“
So John Bottom you support a womans right to choose? You don’t want the federal government telling her what to do with her body. You also support states right to allow gay marriage? Again you don’t want the pesky federal government telling you what to do.
“Democrats and Republicans BOTH try to regulate our behavior and lifestyle, they just do it in different ways. I wish we could agree on this and band together against both parties instead of rightfully accusing the other party, and blindly defending our own.“
I agree 100%. Both parties have good ideas, both parties have bad ideas. Republicans are for Tort reform, which I wish democrats would take a serious look at. Democrats are for closing the health insurance industries exemption from anti-trust laws which I think we need to take a serious look at. Lets try and keep the mass generalizations of either party to a minimum.
but instead are instruments of the lobby.
Exactly! I have debates with my liberal/democrat friends all the time and what I find is that as citizens, we have so much common ground but because of our leaders we are divided and needlessly attacking each other and tearing this country apart because our political parties lead us into taking an all-or-nothing position on issues. If our leaders listened to THE PEOPLE, we would make so much more progress and spend less time fighting each other.
ProudAmerican -
I will agree with you 100%. Government wants greater control in order to maintain the establishment, both parties. I 100% agree.
In this debate though, your examples seem a little small comparatively.
Nobody is going to ban big screens, but they can be more efficient. They aren’t trying to control what you buy so much as they are trying to control what suppliers make.
Nobody is going to ban trucks. Your F-150 is safe I assure you.
What’s wrong with banning incandescent bulbs? They last 1/50th as long and use 5 times the electricity and cause more fires. These seem like no brainers. I am reminded of Reagan’s opposition to seat belts. If you’ll recall, Ralph Nader proposed legislation mandating seatbelts on vehicles. Reagan opposed it as just more “nanny government.“ I guess he wanted to defend the right of every tax paying American to fly through the windsheild but in this case he was on the wrong side of history (but hey, he owed the auto manufacturers a favor).
To me your examples are not the same as controlling what a woman does with her body. Controlling who can marry. Controlling how we buy our healthcare and mandating monopolies for an industry that spends 35% of the money intended for your health and wellbeing on executive bonuses and corporate profits. From a partisan perspective, the issues I just mentioned are the republican’s entire agenda.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement