|
So now we know that Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter will be running against Frank Guinta for Congress from the 1st Congressional District. There are big issues at stake.
Republicans have run on small government for generations, but the current version of Frank Guinta and his band of tea partiers goes a lot further. Pick any issue. It's hard to imagine a position further to the right than Frank's.
Here's Frank on Social Security in Rochester in May:
"Let's not forget that Social Security is something the government created. And now we're trying to have a government solution to a problem government created. Government's the problem here, ladies and gentlemen. When Social Security was created, we didn't have the wealth of private sector solution for lifetime savings that you do today. We have to honor the obligations that have been made to those who are reliant on the federal government - older generations. But future generations should seek different private sector solutions and have personal responsibility start to lead the way. My kids are 6 and 5. They shouldn't know what Social Security is!"
So there it is. Frank Guinta, the former insurance agent, thinks Social Security should be replaced with private insurance. Carol Shea-Porter says that, in spite of what you hear, Social Security is basically healthy and relatively minor tweaks are needed to ensure the long term financial health of the system.
On a woman's right to choose, Frank was equally certain up in Laconia: his position is that a woman has no right to choose - no exceptions, under any circumstances, from day one, even when her life is at stake. This is an extreme position, but it looks to me indicative of all of Frank's positions.
He castigated Sean Mahoney for not wanting to deport undocumented immigrants. Who would actually think that, as a practical matter, it's actually possible to do that? What kind of country would set out to deport 5 percent of its population? But these kinds of concerns about actually governing are not Frank's concerns. He knows what he thinks.
I've attended a bunch of his events and started to realize that he doesn't actually know stuff - he's mainly got opinions. He wants the United States to pull out of the UN, but at a town hall meeting in August, he didn't know that the United States was the largest (by far) financial supporter of the UN. So, without really understanding the implications of his position, he's proposing to do away with the UN. At his Exeter town hall, he was against health care reform, but couldn't answer questions about health insurance coverage for New Hampshire citizens. If you try to engage him in a discussion about Social Security, you just get the bit about his kids.
He's certain of his positions, but beyond that doesn't seem to know what's going on. But - and this is the worrisome part - he's willing to say anything. The kerfuffle about where he got $355,000 to put into his campaign ($110,000 in the last few days) is a good example. He might just be someone who doesn't pay much attention to detail and forgot to report those assets when he should have. But when questions arose, his campaign said the money came from stocks he sold. Then Frank said the money came from the forgotten bank accounts. He won't release the account records, so it's hard to tell what's going on. Maybe that will get straightened out now that he's made it through the primary.
The picture that emerges to me is of someone loyal to his rhetorical positions and willing to say whatever it takes to prop them up.
Across-the-board spending cuts. Tax cuts. Get rid of the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. All these are totemic positions in the rhetorical world of tea parties and don't-tread-on-me flags. Which is fine. But the notion of a New Hampshire congressman who has great confidence in these positions but doesn't know what's going on - that's scary.
|
