To be cross-posted to Daily Kos and Progressive Electorate.

On March 1st, I attended the first Democratic Senate debate for Connecticut’s Senate seat.   Merrick Alpert, businessman from  the Mystic area squared off against Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Greenwich at the University of Hartford’s Lincoln Theater at the debate sponsored by the Hartford Courant and Fox 61.  I came away with better understanding of both and throughly impressed that one candidate spoke out for Medicare For All.

Before the debate, the make-up of the audience was an interesting contrast.  On Alpert’s side of the theater was a bunch of working class people dressed like normal people.  Blumenthal’s side was full of men and women in suits and had many of the AG’s office staff there.  In the interest of full disclosure, I sat next to Merrick’s brother and was surrounded by his family and talked to some of them about the differences between the two candidates.  I was told by one of the pro-Alpert supporters that knew Blumenthal that Blumenthal “stands for nothing” while Alpert always “says where he stands”.

The debate’s format was that a moderator asked the candidates questions.  There were three main topics that the moderator asked the candidates two questions on: the Economy, Health Care and Foreign Policy.  Each candidate had two minutes to respond and one minute for rebuttals.  The moderator was one of the Courant’s staff.

On the first question, which was about regulating the financial companies that caused the  Great recession, Blumenthal said that yes, he’d regulate the financial sector, and said that he had been calling for that for years and before we had the financial meltdown.  He also stated that “Everyone is saying Washington is broken and corrupt.   Washington is saying that Washington is broken and corrupt”.   He then cited his record of fighting against Big Tobacco, the pharmaceutical industry and Microsoft.  His priorities would be a new Consumer Protection Agency, registering of derivatives and other regulatory measures. Alpert in answering the question stated that he knows that he is a real underdog. He wants to be the contrast to incrementalism.   We then said that financial companies need to be fully regulated and not just at the margins.  He then said that we made a huge mistake in 1999 when the Glass-Staegal Act was repealed.  He would put back the Glass-Staegal Act and separate the investment banking sections and the commercial banking sections and he’d make sure they’d always be separate.   He also would break up the “Too Big To Fail” banks so this would never happen again.  Blumenthal then says that we have to regain control of the markets, empower the S.E.C(Securities and Exchanges Commission), and end bonus to companies like A.I.G.  He emphasized that he could get results.  Alpert then states he’d go further.  “We lost 10 Million jobs, we need to get those back”  He then said he’d invest in education, infrastructure and public-private partnerships.  He then said that “lawsuits won’t bring jobs”.  I don’t think that last statement was fair or meaningful, it was a cheap sound byte.  Alpert is right that boldness is needed to rein in financial companies and Blumenthal has a solid record of this.

The second question was what should government do to create jobs.   Alpert said government shouldn’t be on backs of small business.  He again stated that lawsuits won’t bring jobs, he then added that entrepreneurs would bring jobs.  He wants us to “stop overtaxing” businesses.  He then states that he has a bold new plan to invest in education especially vocational schools that give real job training, he also states that infrastructure needs to be invested in like High Speed Rail, and money towards public-private partnerships that did great things like the Erie Canal, the Human Genome Project, and the creation of the Internet.   He says he has a $1 Trillion plan to get the economy back on track.  Blumenthal then says that job creation is most important.  He would extend Unemployment benefits and brings up Bunning’s disgraceful hold on UI extension.  He then said tax credits and payroll exemptions would be what he’d pursue and aid through the Small Business Administration and then said that green jobs should be there too.  Wants to lower cost of business in Connecticut. He said that the state has the highest electrical rates in the country.   He would also end the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which he says is an enemy to Connecticut.  Alpert mentions that mitigation measures cost a lot.  And says that all Blumenthal has done for jobs is “20 years of lawsuits, 20 years of press conferences”.   Blumenthal then defends his suing, saying that lawsuits do bring jobs(which Simmons supporters later tweeted around and two Republican candidates have taken as a bumper sticker slogan for Blumenthal’s job creation plan).   He said that businesses welcome competition and an even playing field.  The he mentions his suits against pharmaceutical companies for misusing patents.  Other than the perhaps mistaken concern (I don’t live in Connecticut so CT residents can jump in and give me some background if small businesses are taxed too much)about taxing businesses too much, I’d say that Alpert has the better plan for job creation.  Blumenthal’s is too small and might be too prone to deregulation fever.  Also the Small Business Administration only serves 2 to 3 % of the small businesses in America, hardly something that helps Main Street.  I am also cuious about just what Blumenthal has done or is planning to do about the high electricity rates in the Nutmeg State.

The third question was on health care.  The question was how would the candidates reconcile the needs of the underinsured and the uninsured who need care versus the thousands that depend on their livelihood in the state from the insurance industry.  Alpert said he’d reconcile the two by telling the truth.  He said that there is “a fundamental right to health care”. It is also a matter of national survival he said. He would open Medicare  up for all.  He then pointed out that there would be a secondary market for insurers to still do business in, providing private plans that go beyond Medicare’s basic coverage.  These already exist for seniors and are called Medicare Supplemental Plans.   He also believes that it is our responsibility to provide health care coverage for all Americans.   Blumenthal then agreed that providing health care is “a moral obligation”.  He said that “good health care is good insurance coverage” (Michael Moore disagrees with him on that). He then said his most important job as AG isn’t suing Microsoft or arguing at the Supreme Court(SCOTUS) about protections against sex offenders, the thousands of cases from ordinary Connecticut citizens battling their insurance companies for treatment is his most meaningful work.  He would also prevent abuses in the health care system, eliminate paperwork, computerize medical records, and would pool people together for better coverage.  He believes in people freely joining purchasing pools for coverage.  He would also improve health care for veterans, and create a bill called “No Veterans Left Behind.”  Alpert points out that insurance rates have skyrocketed.  He said that Connecticut is the most expensive state to have health insurance.  He then shows the front page of the Hartford Courant to prove his point.   He then asks “how have lawsuits kept costs down?”, which was another dig at Blumenthal and not a statement for tort reform.    Blumenthal answers that he and consumer advocates have been “straitjacketed” in their ability to keep rates down.  He would try to get more authority for the sate of Connecticut to help control insurance rates.   Once again, Alpert is bold and more progressive on this.  Blumenthal is more “tinker at the edges” and legalistic.   I strongly urge a Blumenthal supporter to send Attorney General Blumenthal a copy of Sicko posthaste on the reasons why insurance coverage isn’t health care coverage.

The fourth question was on the costs of health care and each candidate was asked for three things they’d do to lower costs.  Blumenthal would 1. enforce antitrust laws against lawbreaker citing his lawsuits against Big Pharma for misusing patents.  2. He would repeal the anti-trust exemption on health insurers.  3. “Prevention” which he didn’t explain much. Alpert said he would 1. make Medicare For All available via a buy-in.  He said that single payer is the best way to reduce health care costs.  2. He would tax the so-called “Cadillac health care plans” of executives.  (I called his campaign office for more detail, I was told that I would receive specifics on the threshold he’d use for this in a few days).  He said that most politicians want to kick costs down the road.  3.  He pointed out that Insurance companies pumped $46 Million into the 2008 election cycle.   He would fight for publicly funded elections and for term limits.  Blumenthal in his best “cribbed from the OFA playbook” retort said that “incrementalism isn’t a dirty word”.  He then said that protecting workers on job sites would lower health care costs, citing a recent power plant tragedy in Connecticut that killed five and injured dozens.   He would change OSHA to make it better, and he believes that it must be able to properly protect workers.   Alpert then states that “incrementalism is a dirty word” and this is one major difference between the two.  He then again says that he has a $1 Trillon plan for job creation, and that we need single payer.  He concludes that incrementalism is our enemy.   Blumenthal’s silence on the public option is deafening, and again small measures and legalistic maneuvers.  Alpert is right that single payer is a great cost control measure.

Next came the foreign policy questions.  Fifth question was Do we need to rethink the War on Terror?   Blumenthal said that there is too much to say for just two minutes to do it justice.  He said that we need more than bumper sticker slogans and that he supports the President’s current plan in Afghanistan.  He said the War on Terror is necessary.  Alpert says that he served in Bosnia as part of the peacekeeping forces and that he saw the orphanages and the mass graves that were there back then.   He said that our path in Afghanistan is the wrong one.  “We borrow billions from China”, and he opined that we are supporting an ineffectual and corrupt Karzai government.   He cites illegal opium trade, illegal timber cutting and illegal land grabs as evidence that the Afghan government is corrupt.   He said that the containment strategy that worked with dealing with the USSR would work on fighting terrorism.   He suggested immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.   Blumenthal retorted that he relies on the good judgement of the military commanders on the ground there, and said that an immediate withdrawal would endanger our troops.   He said that the “temporary surge” in Afghanistan was necessary.   Alpert cited a statement that there are less than 100 active Al Queda operatives in Afghanistan.   He then said that the Army Manual that General Petraeus wrote states that we would need a ground force of 640,000 to have a chance in Afghanistan.   He then stated that combined with NATO we have approximately 140,000 troops on the ground. (I didn’t write down the exact figure he used, I am relying on memory for the 140 thousand).   “Not a path to victory”.   Since Alpert has combat experience and Blumenthal doesn’t, I’ll take Alpert’s expertise here.

The sixth question was what actions would you take against Iran?   Alpert would move to hard sanctions. He agrees with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning Iran.   He also added that it would be quite difficult to do anything harsher than sanctions and thinks that sanctions could get Iran back to the table for negotiations.  Blumenthal agrees with sanctions and thinks that we need more diplomacy and military action should not be the first resort.   Alpert tells the audience that he traveled with Vice President Al Gore and met and married a Columbia citizen.  Then he asks Blumenthal what experience he has in foreign policy.   Blumenthal declined to answer him and said that he wants to answer the original question.   He said that “no one wants to use the military as the first resort”. (Except for John McCain of course and other teabaggers).   He would be mindful of the debts that our children would have to deal with, and asks why not delay putting another man on the moon(My sister whose livelihood depends on NASA would disagree).  After the debate, I contacted his campaign staff to follow-up on the Iran question.  I asked Merrick if he would be more vocally supportive of the opposition party in Iran.  His staff told me paraphrasing Merrick that absolutely yes he would be more vocal in his support for the opposition party in Iran(and he thought it was a good question).   He added that the people of Iran need to know that we do support their fight for freedom against the military dictatorship.  I was then told that we have to be careful though too.  If things get violent or the U.S acts against Iran with force, it would undermine the opposition and strengthen the military dictatorship by enabling it to crack down more on the forces who want freedom for Iran.  It is very tenuous I was told.

The seventh question was has the time come to normalize relations with Cuba.   Blumenthal said that now is the time to start.  He said that once the Castros are gone and the country becomes more democratic, then Cuba will be ready.   He stated that he would listen to the Cubans who live in Connecticut and said that he is the candidate that would listen.   Alpert then retorts “If ever you wanted to see an example of incrementalism as dangerous, that would be it”.   He said that we need to normalize with Cuba now.  He said that the embargo is a failed policy.  He has visited Latin America and those countries find our treatment of Cuba abhorrent.  He believes the policy to be an abysmal failure and state that Cubans are warm and friendly.  He thinks Americans need to go to Cuba.  Blumenthal then feebly tries to speak Spanish.  Then he says that we will eventually normalize relations with the country.  Alpert “I would vote for it tonight”.  He asks what are we afraid of?  That they’ll like us?  He said that even with the embargo and everything that’s happened, that Cubans like us.  I commend Alpert on taking a bold stand here.

The eighth and last question was on the Bush tax cuts.  Would they extend them or let them expire?  Alpert said that we ought to throw a party when the Bush tax cuts expire.  The audience loved this.   He then said that our veterans have been the only ones asked to sacrifice for the wars,  He said that taxes are one way that we can sacrifice to pay for these wars. Blumenthal thought that was offensive.  He said that he doesn’t favor war.  “Freedom isn’t free”.  He said that the Bush tax cuts should expire and  we need targeted tax cuts.

Then came the final statements.  Blumenthal told of his father who came to this country in 1935 to escape the Nazis and that his mother grew up on a farm and that his first job was shoveling manure.  He said that he learned that we have an obligation to give back.  Public service is a calling and he said that the race isn’t about him, it’s about the people and fighting for results.  Alpert said that he took an 117 mile walk across Connecticut to protest what was happening in Afghanistan.  He saw businesses with shuttered doors, bridges that were crumbling because no one was repairing them, and schools that had half of their class never graduating.  But he said he also saw hope.  He said ask the U.S Bobsled team, the New Orleans Saints or a once-unknown Senator named Barack Obama about being the underdog.  He said that America will embrace the underdog.  He said that he doesn’t want a McMahon(reference to Republican Linda McMahon) to buy the election, and that he is proud to be a part of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

From reading various online polls and seeing comments in the Courant and other sites, the majority thinks that Alpert won this first debate.  I saw the workings of a great progressive as perhaps the next Senator from Connecticut and I saw another establishment candidate that thinks his name recognition and lack of standing for anything bold is enough.   I will continue to keep a close eye on both candidates and I fully intend to ask the Blumenthal campaign how they plan to control electrical costs and I will ask both campaigns where their candidate stands on immediately repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and if they are willing to give the District of Columbia full representation in Congress.  I also will find out more specifics on Alpert’s plan with the excise tax.