I don’t see how either Sestak or Onorato can win if the one is (or both are) trailing by over 7 points.

I don’t think there are enough split-ticket voters and undecideds to overcome that. The consistent polling indicates their fates are tied together. The lack of a coordinated campaign makes it worse, since there will be duplication of effort.

Murphy’s big win in the debate has to have many in the Fitzpatrick camp feeling ulcers in their stomach. Murphy had a firm grasp on the issues while Fitzpatrick brought out the very talking points of GOP failure that led the U.S. To the largest recession since the Great Depression.

are you kidding? did you even watch debate? Murphy was talking about football and Paris Hilton more then the issues. He is a joke. Its not that Fitzpatrick is great. Murphy is a disgrace.

The Politico article stated that Fairchild would remain with Murphy until after the election.

McClatchy is just like Rasmussen…a neocon, racist, republican, warmonger, bigot organization. Everyone knows that Democrats have a 12 million voter registration edge. Sestak and Onorato will both win by 8 points.

DEBATE – Part I

Regarding the debate–attended by 600 people, evenly divided politically, it appeared–the theme that contrasted was Murphy focusing on Bush and Fitzpatrick focusing on Obama; Murphy attacked Fitzpatrick for allegedly supporting CAFTA while Fitzpatrick attacked Murphy for ignoring the Moral Imperative of Debt/Deficits.

The conversation was “clean” on both sides, and both took the event quite seriously (notwithstanding occasional interruptions from the crowd); on occasion, somewhat surprisingly, they deferred rebutting each other.

Ultimately, the issue of jobs/jobs/jobs threaded through most of the economics-dominated queries; 7/22 initial questions were (in)directly focused on domestic finances, contrasting with only 4 dealing with foreign policy and none addressing social issues.

[--to be continued--]

DEBATE – Part II

I had many reactions to what transpired, but the focus here must be upon the points made regarding the issue of greatest interest to the members of the synagogue, namely, the Middle East; the contrast was notable, albeit somewhat subtle.

Regarding the “two state solution,” Fitzpatrick noted how Hamas is poised to spoil any potential agreement between the Israelis and the PA…and he expressed strong opposition to both the imposition of a deadline and the fealty to preconditions; Murphy pivoted to the Iranian issue [vide infra].

Regarding Iran, both endorsed the possibility of military action, with Murphy noting that Israel should be able to defend herself, that economic sanctions (including Russia/China) are “working,” and that Iran must be prevented from getting Nukes (because “it’s impossible to put the genie back into the bottle”); Fitzpatrick offered no elaboration.

[--to be continued--]

DEBATE – Part III

Regarding Afghanistan, Fitzpatrick averred that failure is not an option and expressed strong opposition to the imposition of a time-line for withdrawal [quoting McCain: "We have the watch, they have the time"]; he also noted that McCrystal’s initial request for 80K troops had been halved, and then only 30K had been sent (with Hillary falsely claiming that NATO would provide the rest, despite the fact that they only ROTATED rather than AMPLIFIED the total).

Then, Murphy averred Bush had ignored Afghanistan, claiming the current approach is correct; he claimed the GOP had no right to complain because the problem had worsened during prior years.

Then Fitzpatrick averred he had publicly disagreed with Bush in 2006 (@ a national press conference); he again contrasted the success that occurred in Iraq because of the absence of a time-line with the imposition of this limit in Afghanistan.

Then Murphy averred the Afghanistan effort is not forgotten and, indeed, is going well; Obama has provided sufficient resources and has increased drone attacks.

[--to be continued--]

DEBATE – Part IV

Regarding the Military Budget, Murphy praised cuts by Gates, the new GI-Bill (which helps vets with education/housing), and pay-raises to the troops; Fitzpatrick condemned the generic overspending (noting how discretionary/debt payments threaten to overwhelm the budget), noting that the priority of the Federal Government should be to protect Americans against enemies foreign/domestic.

The key-point made by Fitzpatrick to which Murphy failed to respond was the quotation of a senior Administration Official (Mullen? Hillary?) that the debt is a national security concern.

This segued into the final question, which invited assessments of self-image; whereas Murphy cited his honesty, military service and abhorrence against outsourcing/free-trade (Colombia, Panama, South Korea), Fitzpatrick noted the failure of hope/change (with which Murphy was complicit for 2-4 years) and noted the inability of Murphy to ID any job he had saved (intimating the inability to ID any job that had been lost to Central America).

Ultimately, Murphy again tied Fitzpatrick to Bush, claiming that his opponent wishes the voters to experience amnesia; meanwhile, Fitzpatrick noted that Murphy voted 97.1% with Pelosi (thereby undermining any claim of independence) and had led America in the wrong direction.

[--to be continued--]

DEBATE – Part V

In many respects, the first half of the debate consisted of predictable talking-points; Fitzpatrick claimed Murphy/Obama wanted to “spend us out of debt,” whereas Murphy claimed Fitzpatrick/Bush wanted to support Wall St. over Main St.

Regarding the jobs-issue, Murphy again claimed he had saved/created 3K in Bucks County, while Fitzpatrick repeatedly asked him to ID how he had generated this figure; both claimed “people are hurting,” while Murphy praised the Stimulus and Fitzpatrick lamented the erosion of the Private Sector.

Indeed, while Murphy emphasized efforts to enhance manufacturing [not just service] by touting Green-Jobs, he repeatedly claimed Fitzpatrick had outsourced (via CAFTA, vide supra) and had failed to anticipate future problems; meanwhile, while Fitzpatrick emphasized the business-related uncertainty in three realms (taxation, regulation and healthcare benefits), he noted how he had created a Bucks County Enterprise Zone.

When queried regarding Bucks County, Murphy cited a satellite facility for Lockheed-Martin and Clean Energy in Newtown, while Murphy noted he had initiated the Lockheed-Martin effort and he decried expensive jobs programs that created few jobs.

Finally, when one drilled-down, one noted that Fitzpatrick attacked Murphy/Obama/Pelosi for the adjournment of Congress before a decision regarding tax-rates (including capital gains and the increase in the inheritance tax from 0% to 55%…which Murphy could only claim would not include family farms); meanwhile, Murphy attacked Fitzpatrick for having flipped on a vote (that he didn’t specify) which had cost Bucks County a group of jobs.

And, while Fitzpatrick noted the doubling of the unemployment rate (from 4.6% to almost 10%), he also noted how job-creators hate taxes, litigation and regulation; meanwhile, Murphy claimed Jones NY had lost jobs after passage of CAFTA (akin to NAFTA) due to a Fitzpatrick vote that broke a tie.

[--to be continued--]

Frank… when I hear the term Neocon, I immediately ignore the rest of what the individual has to say as it is a boogeyman word used by radicals on the right and left who have no substantive critique and throw out scare words.

DEBATE – Part VI

Regarding Globalization, Fitzpatrick noted that CAFTA had yielded trading surpluses, but that the corporate tax rate had to be slashed to remain competitive and that public tax-$$$ should not be used as corporate welfare, to subsidize private businesses (which only serves to benefit Foreign Countries…which then may lay-off PA-workers); Murphy claimed there was a large taxation loop-hole for exporters which had closed (unspecified and, thus, this point may not be as precise as might have been possible).

Regarding Housing, Murphy claimed Fitzpatrick had failed to institute regulation while serving on the Financial Services Committee (claiming he had supported government “getting out of the way” to allow Wall St. to “get away with murder”); Fitzpatrick noted that the new (Barney-Frank/Chris-Dodd) Community Regulation Act had failed to fix Fannie/Freddie (which cost $1.5B weekly), while imposing unnecessary regulations (who can borrow, who can lend, how much can be charged).

Regarding Debt, Murphy expressed support for the Balanced Budget Amendment and voted against two D-sponsored budgets (while touting efforts to rid Medicare of fraud); Fitzpatrick noted that the rapid-rise in deficits (from $200B to $1.6T) occurred on the D-watch (after they had been falling).

[--to be continued--]

DEBATE – Part VII

Regarding the Estate Tax (due to rise from 0% to 55%), Fitzpatrick expressed opposition (along with job-crushing income and capital gains taxes), tying them to enhanced unemployment; Murphy noted the exemption for the family-farm and condemned a tax-decrease for the upper-2% (including Paris Hilton) who can afford to save the government $750B, while promising this would be rectified during the lame-duck Congressional session.

Regarding Social Security, Fitzpatrick opposed privatization (despite Murphy’s claim to the contrary) and raiding the Trust Fund, while noting the need to maximize employment to enhance revenue for entitlements; Murphy noted this past year was the first that yielded payments that failed to have covered the COLA and expressed opposition to privatization and raising the retirement age.

Regarding Earmarks, Murphy endorsed transparency and had signed an affidavit affirming the lack of any relationship between donors and legislation, decrying Delay (because Fitzpatrick hadn’t supported stripping him of his positions, despite the fact that he was never convicted0; Fitzpatrick noted the D’s had doubled Earmarks, exposing multiple scandals (e.g., Rangel), while the ObamaCare legislation was laden with lobbyist-deals (in White House and in Congress) and Murphy had failed to comply with full-disclosure in 2007 (as requested by the Courrier Times/Intelligencer).

[--to be continued--]

DEBATE – Part VIII

Regarding ObamaCare, Fitzpatrick noted how this plan decreases benefits, hinders the ability to maintain current policy, increases costs, and increases insurance-premiums; he would “repeal it and replace it” with [inter alia] real interstate competition, portability and tort reform (which prompts doctors to order unnecessary tests and to retire early due to high med-mal premiums); he also noted that Murphy had dodged Town Meetings, lest he be forced to answer questions of his constituents and to explain why he had supported this legislation.

Meanwhile, Murphy claimed ObamaCare won’t add to the deficit (“as per an article in today’s newspaper”) and that this bill was preferable to the alternative (with insurers again in-charge); he touted its benefits (children covered under parents until age-26, no drop for pre-existing illnesses, closing Medicare donut-hole) without noting its costs (e.g., 3.8% real estate transfer tax). [n.b., later, Fitzpatrick concurred with covering pre-existing illnesses)]

Regarding ObamaCare, Fitzpatrick replied by noting that the donut-hole amounted to $250, contrasting with the cost that is upwards of $4T, emphasizing that PayGo is preferable because problems must be fixed affordably; Murphy replied by accusing Fitzpatrick of being a member of a party that “just says no,” comparing Clinton favorably with Bush.-’43 and claiming “I did it, while Fitzpatrick only talks about it.”

Regarding the cut in Medicare by $500B, Murphy claimed it had been strengthened and that those with fixed-incomes could depend upon it, even as it would yield “balance” within 14 years; Fitzpatrick noted its exorbitant cost, that it eliminated Medicare Advantage, and that it should never have been adopted without first having been read (recalling the infamous Pelosi-quote that its tenets would be discovered best following passage).

[--to be continued--]

DEBATE – Part IX

Regarding Education to generate jobs, Murphy would empower teachers (touting his experience teaching @ West Point and @ Bucks Co.), and opposed decreased funding for mandates in “No Child Left Behind”; Fitzpatrick would empower local school boards (touting his wife’s experience as a high-school science teacher), and opposed government mandates. [Fitzpatrick expressed the fear that, because the Federal Government doesn't "get out of the way," his daughter who is studying nursing will be unable to get a job.]

Regarding the Gulf Oil Spill and the need for energy independence, Fitzpatrick supported all potential efforts (including off-shore drilling, nuclear and Marcellus) and decried the elimination of the tax-cap on energy that is to occur in 2011; Murphy supported all potential efforts (including geothermal, wind and solar) and claimed Obama’s programs have yielded both construction of two new plants and approval of five others [without documenting this assertion].

Regarding Arizona’s Immigration Bill, Murphy claimed he was the only D who supported it (noting its impact on jobs), and he also claimed he supported E-Verify and National Guard troops on the border (without specifying how many); Fitzpatrick denied the charge he had endorsed funding sanctuary cities and claimed support for Federal Legislation comparable to Arizona law (while claiming Obama’s policies have generally failed).

[--to be continued--]

DEBATE – Part X

Regarding Lobbying-$$$ and the Citizens United SCOTUS case, Fitzpatrick proposed (and Murphy failed to accept) a $1M cap on expenditures (with remaining-$$$ being devoted to charity), claiming Murphy will spend millions from out-of-state donors; he challenged Murphy (while Murphy failed to concur) to include UNIONS within his claim that corporations should not be able to contribute to political campaigns.

Meanwhile, Murphy claimed this case was a travesty
because corporations are not “people” [despite the fact that they are viewed legally as "people" in many other contexts"]; regarding the aforementioned gambit, he demanded that Fitzpatrick return lobbying-$$$ from CAFTA-supporters “and then we’ll talk.”

Regarding Partisanship, Fitzpatrick advocated tenure/term-limits and challenged Murphy to adopt this posture as well; he noted he had been the 2nd most independent Congressman while serving.

Murphy advocated election of leaders such as himself who votes with the party only when it’s correct; he noted he had cosponsored legislation regarding Medicare (fraud, vide supra, with Brian Filbray) and with Rep. Garrett (corporate welfare, in North-NJ). [Fitzpatrick noted again the 97.1% concurrence with Pelosi, claiming "talk is cheap"; Murphy noted again he had voted to defund the anti-Arizona litigation.]

In closing, Murphy tied Fitzpatrick to Bush while Fitzpatrick tied Murphy to Obama; reflecting the tenor of the interaction, Fitzpatrick noted the 18% underemployment rate under Obama’s failed Stimulus and claimed that truth-in-advertising would mandate that Murphy tie himself to the D-party’s policies he had endorsed [having noted that he had been one of the first Pennsylvanians to support Obama over Hillary.]

[--30--]

This was composed in a disinterested style, as much as possible; balance was maintained, and fact-checking was not performed, although information was occasionally shuffled to maximize the efficiency (and to minimize redundancy).

IT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED if ANYTHING composed in this 10-part precis is CORRECTED if it is imprecise.

The most effective job creator is to lower Capital Gains Tax to zero to encourage saving and investment. Almost as helpful is to allow full deduction of all expenditures in they year paid, whether characterized as expense or capital and third to lower payroll tax for those earning under $50K. All three encourage work, saving and investment and support a Free Market for Free People.

Thanks Dr. Bob. Well done for those of us who could not be there.

Dan, I think you should sign Dr. Bob up to be a collumnist after such a thorough reporting job.

My motive was to provide the database for factcheckers, as well; this hyperlink has been widely-disseminated for that particular purpose (including to media-contacts).

Hey aajane,

Thank you so much for pointing out the error. It has been fixed, and a correction appended.

We always appreciate the help.

Thanks for reading.

Dan Hirschhorn

@ Skarloff

How many millions less will you make a year after healthcare reform is fully implemented? The gravy train is over for you pal. I hope you’ve been saving judiciously.

[@ TB: u have no idea....]