BRUNSWICK, Maine — Chellie Pingree, a Democrat seeking her third term as Maine’s 1st District U.S. House representative, and her Republican challenger Jon Courtney both made their case Thursday that members of the next Congress will have to set aside partisan differences, foster better personal relationships and find common ground.
During their first debate Thursday night at Studzinski Recital Hall on the Bowdoin College campus, the two set that tone of cordiality. At one point in the hourlong debate, after the incumbent and her challenger agreed on energy policy, Pingree quipped that the pair had gotten off to a good start on a bipartisan agreement.
The debate drew about 40 people, an audience made up of a smattering of Bowdoin College students, local elected officials and the candidates’ family members, including Pingree’s husband, S. Donald Sussman.
Other than Courtney asking Pingree to name her favorite newspaper — Sussman is majority owner of Maine Today Media, which owns the Portland Press Herald — the debate lacked surprises.
In response to the first question from moderator Jennifer Rooks of MPBN, Pingree expressed support for increasing the minimum wage. Courtney, a four-term state senator from Springvale who serves as Senate majority leader, countered that raising the minimum wage would stifle job growth.
“I don’t believe now is the time to put any additional burdens on small business in Maine,” he said.
Courtney stuck to his campaign themes of leveling the playing field for Main Street, limiting government to allow small-business owners and workers to take advantage of opportunities and the need to fix a broken Congress.
He challenged Pingree on her membership in the progressive caucus and for her failure to vote for defense authorization bills.
Pingree pointed to intransigence by the Republican leaders in the U.S. House as the chief cause of gridlock. When Courtney chided her for touting her work on a farm bill that has yet to pass, she struck back by saying that Republican House leaders refuse to put the bill to a vote after it cleared the Senate and easily passed through the House agriculture committee with bipartisan support.
The candidates laid out their differences on Medicare and Social Security. Pingree criticized vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s plan to convert Medicare to a “voucher program” and past Republican consideration of privatizing Social Security, noting them as key differences between herself and Courtney.
While the two seemed pleasantly surprised by how much they agree on energy policy, Pingree and Courtney sparred politely on military spending and veterans services.
“If you’re going to support the troops, you have to support the defense appropriation,” Courtney said.
Pingree responded that she had made a promise to voters when first elected that she would not support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Voting against defense authorization bills for those wars fulfills that promise without doing harm to Maine defense contractors such as Bath Iron Works or to veterans.
“I always vote for veterans care, which is a different budget,” she said.
An exchange over the Citizens United Supreme Court decision demonstrated the candidates’ core difference on governance. Pingree spoke out strongly against the court’s decision that “corporations should have the same rights as individuals.” She said she’s working with colleagues in Congress to either advance a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision or otherwise change its impact on elections.
Drawing attention to Pingree’s use of the ActBlue political action committee to collect campaign contributions, Courtney replied that, “Every time we try to fix election laws, people on Main Street get hurt.”
During a “lightning round” in which the two offered short responses to Rooks’ questions on abortion, the use of drones for domestic surveillance and aspects of the Affordable Care Act, which Courtney would vote to repeal, a rare moment arose when Courtney said, “I support the president” on his Race to the Top education initiative after Pingree expressed “huge concerns” about it.
Otherwise, Courtney stayed true to his conservative principles and small-business advocacy, while Pingree adhered to a largely progressive agenda.
At the end of the debate, Pingree, who holds a large lead in fundraising and in all recent polls, thanked Courtney for maintaining a “positive spirit” during the campaign.
Courtney and Pingree are scheduled to debate Oct. 23 and Oct. 30 on Portland television stations.
Pngree is going to smach him to pieces at the polls on election day.
You are probably correct – unfortunately!
Pingree is quite nasty. About all she has going for her
Did you listen to the debate? They were both very positive and I was pleasantly surprised…
Courtney,countered that raising the minimum wage would stifle job growth.
“I don’t believe now is the time to put any additional burdens on small business in Maine,” he said.
He dosen’t want to tax them and he dosen’t want them to have the pay the help decent!
This Republican Theme ain’t to hard to fiquere out!
Keep the workers Poor, Uneducated , Ignorant and in three jobs so that they don’t have time to register to vote let alone vote!
Keep the Business Owner Rich, Affluent, Entitled and Taxless!!!!
Vote a Full Democrat Ticket 2012 —–Give Maine Back to the Workers!
The problem with forcing a wage increase on the business owners is that it is extremely expensive, when the min. wage goes up, so do the taxes and expenses associated with it … this money comes out of the business’ account…. and if there is none left to pay insurance costs, energy costs, daily expenses, etc, then what good has it done?
If the worker has performed well and helped the business do well, then the obvious business reaction is to reward that worker with a raise or a better benefit package that business CAN AFFORD,… if you raise the expense burden on these small business owners, they will not hire workers,… it really is that simple,.. I know,.. I am in that position,.. I can not afford to hire a full time employee due to the expense now,… (never mind an increase)
Your take on the “Republican Theme” is just plain wrong. I have never heard a Republican candidate say the goal is to keep people Poor, Uneducated and Ignorant …,…,.. You did that….
HEY!
Give me a break!!!!
The only reason that I have ever Hired more Workers was because I couldn’t keep up with production to meet demand!
Expansion begins with demand not because of a “Net Increase” in Profit!
This Ain’t my first Rodeo and I feel insulted by anyone who trys to sell this Rotted Baloney!
Oh! So you are really a capitalist (although I bet an unsuccessful one!) Who would have known from your rhetoric?
An “increase in demand” is a promise of a “net increase” in profit – providing, of course that you hire more workers and increase production! Remove the promise of increased profit by increasing taxes or other expenses of business and there will be no “increase in production” thus no increase in jobs!
Think it through Dilbert!
I retired at 53!
LOL
Keep struggling!
Sorry to disappoint you Dilbert! But I am also retired and enjoying my collection of sports cars including two Ferrari’s, four BMW’s, a Lincoln Continental and a Corvette C6! And I (still) pay more tax than you probably made in your best year of employment. Plus my donations to the university from which I earned two degrees are approaching six figures!
The only struggle I am experiencing is trying to comprehend how some (like you) cannot see the damage that your “dear leader” has done to this country at home and abroad! However, watch out. The Jim Jones brand of cool aid is coming! Only the votes of rational citizens can prevent its administration – after November 6 of course!
Yes! Do that and watch the jobs move south to Massachusetts or west to New Hampshire!
Then who will employ those “Workers” who voted a “Full Democrat ticket (sic)?”
What? Wal-mart Move to Mass and New Hampshire?
It would be a long drive to get your “everyday discount” wouldn’t it?
No! I do all my shopping at Nieman Marcus in Dallas, Texas. Just like all Republicans – right?
In explaining his take on social security, Courtney’s contrasting it with an inherited bank account shows his fundamental lack of understanding in the nature of the system. He complained that a person’s social security financial benefit cannot be passed on to heirs as, say, a savings account can, and that is unfair because the beneficiary had paid into the system all those years and those payments amounts shouldn’t “go back to the government (I believe those were his words”). Social Security was never a savings account, an IRA, a vested pension plane or anything of the sort. It is a social insurance program whose members are taxed in order for benefits to be distributed. We all pay for other beneficiaries during our working lives. None of us has a retirement savings account, our own little pot of money in the Social Security system. That was not the intent in the first place. That a huge number of Americans have come to rely on it as their prime source of retirement income has much to do with the replacement of solid comprehensive retirement programs by requiring people to play the 401k table at the wall street casino, or leaving it all up to them by offering them nothing at all
I didn’t hear Pingree straighten him out on that score. Maybe she doesn’t understand it either.
Pingree is singing the current liberal, progressive theme song; “Let’s all get together and compromise” – and raise taxes, increase welfare, increase the deficit, increase the national debt and (above all) add to the number of voters that are dependent upon the federal government so we can continue the slide to full socialism. You know: like Greece, Spain, Italy and (soon) France!
Dysfunction? What dysfunction? Our government in WDC is functioning exactly like the framers of the constitution intended. When the government swings to far to the right or to the left (like now) built in checks put on the brakes. Thank God our founders were statesmen and thinkers – where are their counterparts now?
Sure Chellie; reverse the Citizen’s United ruling and silence the groups of citizens (such as the NRA who gives you an “F” rating and other such groups) so that incumbents don’t have to worry about such groups! Of course; this works even better if you have a billionaire spouse!
ROMNEY / RYAN 2012 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!