If only all decisions would be so easy. If the debate between U.S. Rep. John W. Olver and challenger Matthew W. Kinnaman, held at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts Monday, is any indication the decision about who to vote for in the race for the 1st Congressional District will require little thought: the candidates couldn’t be more different. The question is, who are the voters.
Republican Matthew Kinnaman’s ideas fall well into his party’s right: he calls for less taxes for all and and less regulation and taxes for those who drive the economy, tighter post 9/11 security in the domestic sphere, and a ‘yes’ to Bush’s preemptive strike against Iraq.
Democrat John Olver calls for diligence in keeping our civil liberties, says tax cuts have disproportionately been given to the wealthiest segment of society and this is unwise and unfair, and preemptive war against Iraq is the not the answer for the U.S. because it means other countries can then do the same.
Kinnaman is excited about the possibility of being a Republican from Massachusetts because of his political sympathies with those in the White House; Olver said a Democratic majority is required to save Social Security and health care benefits.
Monday afternoon five local journalists asked questions, the two candidates answered and a small television studio audience listened. The debate will be broadcast on PCTC 5, Southern Berkshire CTSB, Williamstown Willinet Channel 17 and North Berkshire Channel 17. The broadcast schedule follows the article.
Each reporter asked one question, an extra few minutes at the end meant an extra question for reporter John Krol, who began and ended the round of questions.
Each candidate, alternating each time as first answerer, was given two minutes to answer the question; the other was given two minutes to respond; the first was then given more time followed by the second candidate again. The following summary comes primarily from the responses given in the first round of each question.
Question #1
John Krol of Berkshire Broadcasting asked: Congressman Olver was in the minority earlier this month in voting against the resolution allowing the Bush administration to use force against Iraq if necessary. With the track record of Saddam Hussein and in the atmosphere following Sept. 11, how would you have voted on that resolution and what is your stance on the issue with Iraq?
Kinnaman used the the image of Norman Rockwell to talk about the freedom from fear. When all is said and done, he said, we all want the same thing: freedom from fear ... safety and security. We cannot stop terrorism by waiting, he said, or by .engaging in wishful thinking. He said the the compassionate and humane thing to do is “to engage in immediate aggressive diplomacy ... use military force if necessary ... I would have voted to support the resolution.â€
Olver said that his decision to vote against President Bush’s call for preemptive force was “a matter strictly of conscience.†The President had proposed that we use unilateral preemptive war as a exercise of our foreign policy, he said, “which is an extremely dangerous thing to apply as an arm of your foreign policy.†It’s dangerous, he said, because “it invites any other country to do exactly the same thing.†That’s why we have a UN; It has saved us a lot of problems.
He said he voted against the resolution also because he was “worried that it would distract us from Al Quada and from the war on terrorism that was started by Al Quada.†Saddam Hussein is not directly related to Al Quada, he said. Our own CIA has said it’s Al Quada that is our biggest problem, and to distract us from that is, he said, bad policy.
Finally, Olver said, If we use that kind of unilateral war then it’s going to fuel a terrorist recruiting event all over the world.
Question #2
Martin Langeveld, Publisher of The Transcript, said to Olver that his opponent has criticized him for being in the extreme minority when voting on bills that pass with huge margins and would seem to most Americans to be critically necessary legislation. He said that, for example, Olver had been only one of four house members to vote against all three child safety laws that passed overwhelmingly, including the Sex Tourism Prohibition Act. Why?.
Olver: said: “My record on child safety is really quite strong.†He said he voted for Megan's Law which sets up a registry where sex offenders must go and register when released. He also supported Amy’s Law which takes money away from states that do not have harsh penalties against sex perdition and gives it to states that have harsh penalties. He said he also voted for the Three Strikes and You’re Out, which included 50 different felonies in it.
The three bills Langeveled mentioned, Olver said, were rather loosely, broadly drawn and because of that will not be taken up by the Senate. They include that consensual sex between two adults comes under the same wire tapping. “I don’t favor our being in the bedroom on consensual sex between consenting adults.†He said another group included in one of the bills involved penalizing teens. For example, a 19-year-old woman with a 15-year-old man would be subject to life imprisonment automatically under the Two Strikes provision. “I don’t think we should dealing with teenagers that harshly,†so I voted against those, he said.
Kinnaman said that although he and the Congressman both agree on child safety, they do not agree on what is common sense. He said that “no legislation is perfect,†but that these laws send a message to child predators.
Common sense, he said, just as with the war on terrorism and in all areas of security, includes “the notion of realism that the world is a dangerous place.†He agreed that “We’re not most concerned with the 15-year-old and 19-year-old,†that Olver referred to, but we are concerned, he said with such things as the Internet, which has introduced a terrible minefield of dangers. Imperfect as they are, he said, he would have voted for these laws.
Question #3
Judith Monachina, The Advocate asked: As your know, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act last October and Congressman John Olver voted against the final version of the bill. I’d like to know what you think of the USA Patriot Act, in terms of civil liberties, which many people think it compromises, and what you would have done.
Kinnaman said that he believes “Civil liberties are paramount.†He said that essentially we don’t have to worry about civil liberties since we have so many laws to protect them. He cited the Bill of Rights, the Miranda law, and others. “Our civil liberties are protected over and over and over again,†he said, but “we’re living in a different world now it seems than before Sept. 11.†Actually, it’s probably not really different, he said, but our perception of it is different. Kinnaman said that we need to give authorities and law enforcement more ways to apprehend the enemy.
USA Patriot Act is not perfect, Kinnaman said, “but the balance of the act is toward greater safety and security. I would have supported it.â€
Olver said in response that in the war on terrorism, “we have all known that we were going to have a contest between security that we wanted and the openness of the society.
He said he thinks we should maximize the security and at the same time minimize the loss of civil liberties and personal freedoms. Our civil liberties, personal freedoms and open society, he said, are the envy of the world. “If we loose them lightly, they are very difficult to regain, and maybe never regain.â€
The Patriot Act had some major changes in how we deal with law enforcement which he found troublesome, including more personal surveillance provisions — including our library cards, magazines we buy, etc. — and increases in wiretapping allowances, basic changes in search and seizure procedure,and indefinite detention, “which we’ve never used in this country, and a whole lot of other things ... I voted against these because it was far more than we needed to get the security that we needed.†In addition, he said, the law did not have two year sunset provision. He said he believes each new Congress should have the opportunity to start new with such a law.
Question#4
David Scribner, Editor of The Berkshire Eagle, asked about the economy. He said that Massachusetts is suffering from a downtown in the economy that will probably not turnaround soon. He asked “what have you done, what will you do, and what can a congressman do†to bring growth jobs, that is high tech cutting edge business to the Berkshires. He asked: What kind of marketplace focus do you see for the Berkshires and what can you do to assist it?
Olver responded by saying that he used the position on the Appropriations Committee to bring in grants and funds with the help of his economic development staff. He said they help individual businesses to find grants in the federal budgets, and he and they work with communities as well.
But, he said, the most important thing a Congress can do is make sure the education system is exceptionally good, our telecommunications systems are good, and also transportation infrastructure, which are so important to any economy. Tax cuts given by Republicans have been destructive, he said.
Kinnaman said he would make Massachusetts the most job friendly state in the nation. He said he would be a voice as a Republican in Congress in a Republican administration. He said he would be able to get attention from people who lead the agenda. Massachusetts needs this, he said. “This is one of the beauties of this election,†he said. A Republican congressman from Massachusetts could speak effectively.
He would eliminate some taxes, he said unlike his opponent he thinks “we’re all overtaxed.†If you tax less, the money will trickle into the economy. He said we need to ride more lightly on the backs of those who run the economy.
Question #5
Sarah Knowles, student editor of Beacon newspaper at MCLA, asked about higher education funding. She said that the past year has been really rough for state colleges and universities with a number of cuts really targeting them. She asked: What do they think of the future of public education given this situation?
Kinnaman said it’s all a matter of priorities not only at the state and federal level. As citizens of a rich nation, he said these choices should be quite simple. But first he said we must pay for what’s already been mandated. He said we need to work together at the state and federal levels, with leaders in education who probably understand the priorities better.
Olver responded by saying that public higher education was his previous life, as, professor of chemistry at UMASS, and he believes it’s “the greatest bargain we can provide for people.†The free education system in this country has provided opportunity for everybody for generations. Though it is a state issue, he said, he took the opportunity to go back to the tax cut. He said again the state tax cut has put us in the situation where we have to cut necessary health care services and education. At the federal level as well, where he disagrees with his opponent and says he doesn’t think the one percent of population with incomes over 500,000 is overtaxed. He said the cut to that one percent has resulted in a debt of 300 billion dollars and our debt is going to be paid for by our children. He said he “cannot believe that people in that income level should have gotten 36 percent of all the dollars that were given out. If we weren’t giving tax cuts in a very disproportionate way to the wealthiest, we’d have enough to do education and health care.â€
Question #6
John Krol asked about cable monopolies. He said that local governments have been grappling with the issue of dealing with cable television providers which are in effect becoming monopolies. What can the Congress to do be sure that the rates consumers pay are more reasonable and how can they generally protect consumers?
Olver said It took 25 years to get major legislation passed, and it finally passed five years ago. Now it’s time to find out where the real wrinkles are, and it may be possible to put together a bipartisan coalition, especially in the rural areas which are most affected and don’t carry much weight in Congress.
Kinnaman said that the difficulties which plague the telecommunications industry come largely from over regulation, and lack of vision about the business and educational, economic and defense applications waiting to bust out of the band width revolution.
He said the key is to find a way to untangle the red tape that stands between you and big band width.
A bit of biographical information on the candidates, culled mostly from their websites:
Matt Kinnaman was born 1960 in Norwalk, Conn. and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy and Political Science at the University of Rhode Island in 1984.
He also earned a Master of Arts degree in Political Science at the University of Rhode Island in 1990.
Most recently, he has worked as Editorial Director for George Gilder's Telecosm Conference.
He also worked as an educator, as middle school teacher at the West Bay Christian Academy and in high school youth ministries in West Kingston Baptist Church, both in Rhode Island. He has worked as a youth camp program director, and director of development. He lives in Lee with his wife and two children.
Congressman John W. Olver has represented the 1st Congressional District — Berkshire, Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin, Worcester and Middlesex Counties — since a special election in 1991. Olver is now in his fifth term as an elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Rep. Olver is currently the only member from the Massachusetts delegation serving on the House Appropriations Committee. In January 1999, Olver was named Ranking Member on the Military Construction subcommittee of Appropriations. The legislative responsibility of the MilCon Subcommittee is to provide funding for all domestic and foreign military facilities, and to ensure adequate living and working conditions for our servicemen and women and their families. Olver also serves on the Appropriation's subcommittee of Transportation which includes funding jurisdiction for all surface transportation from highways to local roads, bridges, and transit systems; rail and air transportation; and, funding for U.S. Coast Guard operations.
Olver was elected to the Massachusetts State House in 1969 representing a section of Hampshire County. In 1973, he was elected to the Massachusetts State Senate where he served for 18 years representing portions of Franklin, Hampshire, Hampden, and Berkshire Counties. On June 4, 1991, Olver was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in a special election to complete the term of the late Rep. Silvio O. Conte.
Prior to his tenure in the Massachusetts State House, Olver was a chemistry professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Olver earned his B.A. from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, his M.A. from Tufts University, and his Ph.D. in chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Olver was born in 1936, in Honesdale, Pennsylvania, where he grew up on a farm with his brother and sister. Olver, and his wife Rose, a women's studies professor at Amherst College, have lived in Amherst since 1963. They have one daughter, Martha.
Congressional Debate on -air schedule
Pittsfield PCTC 5 — Thursday, Oct. 31 at 5 and 9 p.m. and Friday, Nov. 1 at 8 a.m.; Southern Berkshire CTSB — Tuesday, Oct. 29 at 9 p.m., Saturday, Nov. 2 at 10 a.m. (tentatively) and 10:30 p.m.; Williamstown Willinet Channel 17 — Sunday, Nov. 3 at 9:30 p.m., and Monday, Nov. 4 at 7:30 p.m.; North Berkshire Channel 17 — Thursday, Oct. 31 at 8 p.m., Friday, Nov. 1 at 9 p.m. and Sunday, Nov. 3 at 3 p.m.
If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.
Your Comments
iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.
No Comments
North Adams Double Murder Case Continued to March
By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
NORTH ADAMS, Mass. — The case of a city man charged with killing his parents was continued to March on Monday.
Darius Hazard, 44, was scheduled for a detention hearing on Monday in Northern Berkshire District Court.
Prior to the start of the court's business, the clerk announced that Hazard's case was continued to Monday, March 2.
Hazard is charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of arson in connection with the Nov. 24 fire that claimed the lives of Donald Hazard, 83, and Venture Hazard, 76.
Police say Hazard confessed to the killings and starting the fire and fled the Francis Street home where he lived with his parents.
Samuel Currence served his country in the Air Force with distinction, professionalism and unparalleled humility from 1962 to 1985, retiring as a technical sergeant. click for more
Many homeowners are showing their holiday spirit by decorating their houses. We asked for submissions so those in the community can check out these fanciful lights and decor when they're out.
click for more
