Posted on 10/05/2002 8:06:20 PM PDT by ozone1
Pingree's missing ideology
BY Sarason Liebler October 03, 2002
Chellie Pingree, challenger for the Senate seat held by Susan Collins, may not be willing to characterize her ideology with a succinct description, but her rapidfire declarations are nonetheless revealing. A few weeks ago, Ms. Pingree appeared before the editorial staff of Courier Publications and was impressive. She was sharp, primed to fire and proved she can get out more words per second than a 33 RPM record played at 78 speed. When questioned on her oft-mentioned ideology, though, Pingree reverted to "pol speak," letting us know that she was for Maine families, higher wages, cheap drugs and good (read "free") medical insurance. But when she railed against the Bush tax cut she offered, without prodding, that "a tax cut is an allocation, it is an expenditure."
I can only guess that instead of looking at tax money as our money she believes that once those in Washington get their hands on it, a politician is duty-bound to spend it - and then some. Just as Maine politicians did in Augusta when she was majority leader.
When questioned about the screams coming from the Collins campaign about false and misleading TV commercials paid for by soft money, primarily from the AFL/CIO, Pingree stated that she had no control over the advertisements but considered none to be misleading. When directly asked about the claim that Senator Collins voted against the Patients Bill of Rights she stood her ground again, yet, when I rechecked the Washington Post story I saw that the bill that was sponsored by senators McCain, Edwards and Kennedy was passed 59-36 on June 29, 2001, and Senator Collins, with eight other Republicans, voted for passage. After the editorial session, the candidate's aide forcefully reiterated that the Pingree campaign's claims were accurate and that Senator Collins had "rolled over" the editorial writers of many of the state's newspapers on the supposed inaccuracy of the ads. She reiterated that "they" had no control over the soft money anyway.
I pointed out that though the Dems had a strong candidate, they were way over the line with the ads and that if they had any brains they would call the soft money sponsors and pull them in. Pingree blurted out that they all ready had! (It is now weeks later and the Pingree campaign has still not come back with a reply to the Collins' charges, and the soft money attack ads continue.)
On Iraq, she took the position that a case for war had not yet been made, but then she slipped in one small phrase. She allowed that she was a cynic and mused as to why the administration was starting the debate "now." Were they trying to distract us? I asked for a clarification: did she really mean to say that the administration was trying to use Iraq to hide something? She stated that she does not try to read people's minds or intentions and fired back, asking if I believed the administration was trying to divert attention. I replied no and asked what she thought they might be trying to cover up. A helpful editor popped in and said "corporate accountability." Ms. Pingree beamed and nodded vigorously. The only thing missing was a high five. I have yet to see clarification of how she feels on the issue after the President's speech to the United Nations and after the President has received Democratic support.
Going back to the ideology question, Pingree stated that she does not vote as the pols told her to and that she does not vote strategically. I questioned whether that uncompromising stance was productive? Did she not think that strategic compromise and incremental tactical steps were worthwhile? Her answer was basically "no - but..." She stressed how she got people to work with her during her eight years in Augusta, but her real answer was she was a fighter and she would not compromise on "what she is" on her "ideology." But again, she did not define her oft-mentioned ideology.
So, where are we? We have two very bright candidates. One is clever, with very subtle and unthreatening moves and the other, with a tight smile and furrowed brow, longs to storm the barricades. Collins serves a broad constituency and gets along with Democrats and Republicans. Pingree states that she can, but her style in this campaign indicates otherwise.
In any event, the choice is clear. Collins claims to be, and is, a moderate Republican who moves forward and gets done what can be done. She drives the hard line right-wingers nuts. Good! Pingree's words and record are consistent and demonstrate that she frowns on our country's structure and desires to proceed to what she considers to be a more benevolent and leveling type of society. One with a governmental embrace akin to a boa constrictor. One that bears a strong resemblance to national socialism, a discredited "ism" that has been a demonstrated disaster for a number of defunct or stagnant societies.
I thought there wasn't a democrat they didn't like including connelly.
Pingree needs to be back into island exile, instead of being placed in a swamp.
I am glad I don't have to vote for collins this year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.