Posted on 10/20/2006 2:18:37 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper
SAN ANTONIO — In a debate telecast statewide, Republican U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison repeated her call Thursday for the United States to maintain its commitment to stabilizing Iraq rather than "cutting and running because times are rough."
Hutchison, a senator for more than 13 years, also said she would not have voted for the United States to invade the country in 2003 if she'd known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky Democratic challenger says Texas needs fresh leadership.
Scott Lanier Jameson Libertarian says labeling enemies incites challenge.
Responding to a reporter's question, Hutchison said: "If I had known then what I know now about the weapons of mass destruction, which was a key reason I voted to go in there, I would not vote to go into Iraq the way we did.
"And I have to say I don't think the president would have asked for that vote either," Hutchison said, saying President Bush was "trying to make sure that America was not hit with another 9/11, with a weapon of mass destruction."
Democrat Barbara Ann Radnofsky seized on Hutchison's reflection, suggesting that Hutchison was among senators who failed to read intelligence information that would have illuminated the likelihood that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
"What a telling, telling comment from my colleague," said Radnofsky, who favors setting a timetable for taking U.S. troops out of Iraq.
Hutchison said it would be irresponsible to withdraw because Iraq has become "a terrorist breeding ground." Referring to Radnofsky, she added: "This is a very big point of difference between us."
The hourlong debate was historic from its start because this year marks the first time two women represent the major parties in a Texas U.S. Senate race. The pair met for the first time Thursday in the lobby of KLRN-TV, where the debate co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Texas was taped shortly before being broadcast statewide on public TV stations and C-SPAN.
The two were joined by Scott Lanier Jameson, 40, the Libertarian nominee who closed with a plea to voters to consider all Libertarian candidates.
Jameson expressed discomfort with the U.S. government labeling other nations such as Iran as enemies.
"It makes us sound like we're developing a checklist of who we're going to take on next," he said. "It's almost as if we're challenging them."
Hutchison, who has been the front-runner, fell into no outright gaffes in the nine-question event, with the only surprise being her hindsight on Iraq.
She and Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer making her first bid for elective office, vigorously spelled out differences they have aired during the campaign.
Radnofsky criticized Hutchison for voting to build what she dubbed an impractical 700-mile fence along stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border. She said that, unlike Hutchison, she favors revising a law creating a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens so the government can negotiate lower drug prices with manufacturers.
Hutchison defended an immigration proposal she has outlined with Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, that envisions the government establishing a more secure border before launching a system requiring illegal immigrants to leave the United States and apply at out-of-country centers for permission to return to work here. She called it a "starting point" toward compromise in Congress.
Jameson said that if a wall is going to be built, it should be around flood-prone New Orleans.
Hutchison, 63, filled the Senate seat long held by Lloyd Bentsen in 1993. She won election to her first full term a year later.
The former state treasurer and Texas House member has frequently said her dream is to serve as Texas governor, although she has passed up chances to run, including last year when she yielded to Gov. Rick Perry, who is seeking re-election next month.
Hutchison said last month that she decided to seek one more term only because of her seniority on the Appropriations Committee and within the Republican Party ranks.
"I've been able to do many things for Texas that would be hard to accomplish as a junior member," Hutchison said. "But this is certainly going to be my last term."
Hutchison conceded that she has backed off on a pledge in the early 1990s to serve no more than two terms, but said she still supports amending the Constitution to hold all senators to limits.
"I want to do what I think is best for Texas," she said.
Radnofsky, 50, left her partner position at Vinson & Elkins to campaign. Eclipsed by Hutchison in fundraising, she's tried to make up for the gulf by enlisting volunteers, having a frequently updated Web site and stressing a 40-page comparison of her positions on issues to what she considers Hutchison's poor record.
Radnofsky, who wore a purple blouse, said: "What this country needs for Texas is leadership that's new and fresh, that stands about 5-foot-9 and looks good in purple."
Okay, good point. I got to thinking today that if I were in a state where the Dem was ahead by a wide margin, I'd stick by the R just in case-- maybe the Dem's supporters will stay home because they think they've got it sewn up, maybe they'll feel their candidate is so far ahead, they think they can cast a protest vote(like me). I think it probably applies here, too. The Dems are banking on enough of us to get pissed and stay home. Too bad some of our candidates are making that easy.
No, first of all, I'm reconsidering my position. I would NEVER vote for Radnofsky, I considered voting for the Libertarian, but just look at his quotes. Who else is there to vote for. I may vote for KBH this time, but she will not get my vote in the primary for any future office she seeks unless she shapes up.
KBH has never been perfect in my opinion. Maybe 92% perfect, but that beats the crap out of the alternative.
I'm not sure I've ever heard of a candidate is who is 100% perfect. I guess that would be me, but I've never run for public office unless you count a student office at a university.
So, I've gotten over that. I vote for the best candidate on the ballot from the choice I'm given. It's a simple rule of thumb, but I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for a lousy candidate out of spite.
How about doing what's best for the country during a time of war, for starters....like STFU about "if I had known... blah, blah blah...." Just another self serving frikkin' U.S. senator.
Look at her voting record and then get back to us.
She's there every time.
I'm not frustrated with her voting record. I'm pissed because she's phrasing her answers in a debate in such a way that gives ammunition to her liberal opponent at a critical time. She needs to grow a set the size of the state she purportedly represents and quit worrying about how Texans may view her (new) stance on invading Iraq in order to gain (a few) votes. She also needs to do her homework on WMDs in Iraq and fight back accordingly.
I didn't see the debate, and I'll bet you didn't either.
A story about one line she made by the state's most liberal newspaper will not provide any context for the remark.
The Austin newspaper lives to kill Republicans with ink. It's their blood mission.
To judge Hutchison based on this story is to concede that the spin from a liberal newspaper is gospel.
I'm not willing to do that. I'm not sure why anyone here would.
Her answer should have been, "Yes, I would have voted the same way because we had every reason to believe that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD as did the previous administration and many of my democratic colleagues in the Senate. Saddam Hussein was aiding and training islamic terrorists. We simply couldn't take the chance to continue merely containing Saddam under a previous set of UN resolutions and sanctions that weren't working, hoping to somehow magically force a regime change in Iraq to allow for a more peaceful region. We couldn't allow for the likely prospect that Saddam would use his WMDs against his neighbors and Israel or use them against us via a terrorist proxy".
She took the John Kerry "I was for it before I was against it" waffle maneuver and applied that instead. Bottom line- she doesn't need to pander to Texans but that's the way she came across with her answer to that question.
The Austin newspaper lives to kill Republicans with ink. It's their blood mission.
No argument there. I hate that communist rag.
IU didn't even know KBH had a challenger. Go ahead and vote for her. SHe's a reliable vote. A back-bencher, but reliable.
So does that mean we nuke 'em when somebody gets their panties in a wad over something we say, do, want, ask for or demand? They must surely understand the idea of elections and representative government because that's exactly what they had before we went in to clean the place up. Of course, their electoral process and candidates left a bit to be desired but they do know how to cast a ballot.
Is this the best Texas can do?
I tend to believe my own eyes before even GWB.
This was found in Iraq. The story appeared here on FR in some detail. Also, there was quite a caravan of trucks and limousines headed for Syria in the 2-3 weeks before we went in.
I think GWB's statement was more political that factual.
That is waht I usually do. Unfortunately, thanks to Tom DeLay's "I'm running/not running" stunt, I have to vote for each candidate individually so I can write in Shelley Sekula Gibbs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.