Â Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing Â :: Topic review - 12th District candidates Holt and Bateman hold debate at Rider

Guest

Well, Alan is a change since Holt has been there a while so it's a double benefit for us.

Guest

At the state level, I'll vote for candidates who support Cranbury. At the national level, I'll vote for a change.

Guest

On Cranbury Day Alan Bateman came and spent time speaking with residents. While he's running for Congress, I believe we need to elect people that are concerned about our town and pay attention to us. The only time I saw Rush Holt in town was to dedicate the post office in Todd Beamer's memory.

I want to avoid a Wayne DeAngelo scenario, so I'm voting for Alan.

Guest

I agree with some of Holt's votes and strongly disagree with others. But what I find most offensive is Bateman's claim that to not blindly vote in favor of all of Bush's open-ended ideas about the war is the same as "not supporting the troops."

Supporting the troops doesn't mean blindly, dumbly supporting whatever, wherever and under any terms a given president sets out, indefinitely. Supporting the troops means being thoughtful about how their deployed and for how long. It is more patriotic and supportive for the troops to question the Presidents plans than to automatically rubber stamp them.

Bush is the unpatriotic one and the one not supporting the troops by playing games with them, risking their funding by being stubborn about the terms under which they are funded. Sounds like Holt was doing the right thing here. The fact that Bateman would through one of those moronic "not supporting the troops" claims makes me not want to vote for him.

Guest

I met Alan Bateman and was impressed with him and I agree with his views. With the dismal performance of the current Congress, which includes Rush Holt, I will be voting for Bateman.

For everyone whose mantra is "change" I suggest you vote in new blood for Congress and don't just vote yes to the incumbents.

Guest

Sorry, but if we went back to the pre-bush level, my tax rate would rise even though I'm far under 250K. Obama doesn't even want that, but Holt does which is scary. Anytime a tax rises, it is a tax raise regardless of what the past is. If my taxes go up even $500 then it's $500 I don't have to save or to spend.

The 1,000 is only 500 for singles and does nothing for those that itemize. It's only relevant and that amount for married couples with basically no deductions. Most people have a mortgage or other expense that when combined with the property taxes in NJ.

Some interesting votes and info on Holt.

- NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.
NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries.
NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding.
NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China
NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees.
NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.
NO on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
NO on restricting frivolous lawsuits.
NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties.
NO on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits.
NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
NO on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
NO on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
NO on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
NO on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
NO on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)
YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 23% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record
Rated 40% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation.
Rated 50% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues.
Rated 93% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)

Princeton Packet

12th District candidates Holt and Bateman hold debate at Rider
Friday, October 24, 2008 7:12 AM EDT
By Lauren Otis, Staff Writer

LAWRENCE — U.S. Representative Rush Holt (D-12) and Republican challenger Alan Bateman differed over taxes, the conduct of the current Democratically-controlled Congress and how best to withdraw American troops from Iraq, but often appeared more in agreement than disagreement at a debate yesterday on the campus of Rider University.

The 12th District encompasses Princeton, West Windsor, Plainsboro, Lawrence, Hopewell and Pennington, among other municipalities. The debate was moderated by Ben Dworkin, director of Rider’s Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics, and held at the Bart Luedeke Center auditorium at Rider.

Noting that Rep. Holt supported the repeal of President George W. Bush’s temporary 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, Mr. Bateman said he supported memorializing the cuts permanently.

”I don’t know families who can afford that much more money coming out of their paychecks,” said Mr. Bateman, who is deputy mayor of Holmdel Township.

”Clearly there is a difference in our philosophy. I believe individuals should keep more of what they earn,” said Mr. Bateman. He said he also supported lowering capital gains and business taxes, noting “government can’t be looking at businesses as an ATM machine.”
”It is entirely wrong to call this a tax increase,” Rep. Holt said of not making the 2001 and 2003 cuts permanent. He said President Bush’s tax cuts penalized the middle class rather than helped them and not making the cuts permanent “is removing the unwise economic and fiscal policies of the Bush administration. You saw what it has brought us, it has brought us economic devastation, not prosperity.”

Rep. Holt agreed that over the tax issue he and Mr. Bateman were philosophically divided. The issue was “whether we can do it all on our own or not,” he said, noting that Mr. Batemen seemed to be supporting every individual taking their paycheck and doing everything from financial services regulation to road maintenance “on our own.” Citing infrastructure maintenance and improvements as one example, Rep. Holt said “there are things we can do better as a country than we can do separately. That takes revenue.”

Rep. Holt cited as one of his proudest accomplishments this year the enactment of a federal tax deduction for individuals of up to $1,000 for property-tax payments.

In Iraq, Rep. Holt said the withdrawal of U.S. troops must begin immediately. “Political and economic stability cannot and will not be accomplished at the end of a bayonet,” and will not come to Iraq as long as there is a continued American military presence there, he said.

The fact that the Bush administration gave no good justification for its invasion of Iraq in the first place, and then changed its justifications over time, only adds to the damage of prolonging its presence in the country, Rep. Holt said. The sooner troops are withdrawn “the sooner Iraq will be stable and our standing in the world will improve,” he said.

”I would like to see the troops out of there as soon as possible,” said Mr. Bateman, who noted, however, “I don’t agree with setting a drop dead date (for troop withdrawals), I think our enemies would just wait for that date and swoop in.”

Mr. Bateman criticized Congress and Rep. Holt for withholding funding for U.S. troops in Iraq.

Responding, Rep. Holt said, “I not only take issue with it, I bristle at this claim, that we want to defund the troops. We were refusing to fund an open-ended war,” he said, noting that funding for troops, and programs for returning soldiers have significantly increased since the Democrats took over Congress in 2006.

.......................

http://www.packetonline.com/articles/2008/10/24/the_princeton_packet/news/doc4901087c0bd50543491792.txt