First Burr-Marshall debate: One is strong, the other hapless.

[struggle4progress]

... Marshall said the issues in Washington boil down to one thing, that Congress is so busying representing corporate interests (and taking their money) that it doesn't even see what's happening to working men and women, or to the environment. (See: Gulf Coast.) Is Washington overspending? Yes, it is, but the overspending is because of corporate subsidies, tax cuts for the rich and two wars. It's not because the unemployed are receiving jobless benefits.

Burr said the issues in Washington boil down to one thing, that Congress spends too much money. He said it repeatedly, but in an hour-long debate, he failed to mention a single area of spending that he would cut. He did, indirectly, defend his votes against providing extended unemployment benefits to those who lost their jobs because of the Great Recession — or as I would call, and Marshall should too, the Republican Recession ...

Marshall: Pro-stimulus, specifically in the form of jobless benefits and federal aid to the states to save teachers jobs and forestall Medicaid cuts. (The $500 million problem, that is.) Marshall nailed Burr on off-shore drilling (he's on the Energy Committee and has done nothing to address the cozy relationship of the oil companies to the Department of the Interior's non-regulating regulators, she said; but Burr has taken a whole lot of campaign money from the oil industry.)

Burr seemed stumped about the problem of off-shore drilling, stumped about whether there should be more or less regulation of Wall Street ("We just not smart enough to stop cheaters," he finally said after thinking about it awhile.) and stumped about whether there's a problem of too much special-interest money in politics. (Curbing big contributors, he said after a convoluted analysis of things, would result in more influence from the wealthy.) ...

http://www.indyweek.com/citizen/archives/2010/06/27/first-burr-marshall-debate-one-is-strong-the-other-hapless