On Monday, there was a debate between all five of the Republican hopefuls in Maryland’s 2nd Congressional District at the Towson Public Library, moderated by yours truly. Below are links to the audio from the event and my thoughts on each of the five candidates.
Debate Audio:
Debate Audio Part 1
Debate Audio Part 2
Debate Audio Part 3
My Thoughts on the Candidates
Marcelo Cardarelli – I was very interested in hearing Dr. Cardarelli speak, and I was not disappointed. He had thorough responses to my questions and questions from the audience. Cardarelli impressed me with his wit and his personal story could resonate with voters in the general election.
Josh Dowlut – Dowlut had a very detailed platform, copies of which he handed out to the audience before the start of the debate. His responses to the questions were passionate, energetic, and detailed. They also were heterodox on certain issues, particularly illegal immigration where Dowlut and I generally don’t agree. His reference of Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future as “smoke and mirrors” won’t make him any fans among Ryan fans, which are many among the conservative grassroots – myself included.
Jimmy Mathis – Mathis was a good speaker. He passionately explained his answers on the issues defending conservative principles. His experience with television was obvious as he answered the questions from the crowd.
Troy Stouffer – Stouffer was a polished candidate with a straightforward style. His comments on the issues are in line with the conservative grassroots and would resonate among activists. He specifically mentioned his strong support for Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future and helped maintain the friendly atmosphere of the debate.
Francis Treadwell – Treadwell was soft spoken and had short his answers. He rarely used the full amount of time allotted, but still provided detailed substance in his responses. He had a good grasp on the issues, but was not very energetic.
Cross-posted to Old Line Elephant
Steve Maley
KnightsofMalta
RE: the Ryan plan
joshdowlut Friday, September 3rd at 8:18AM EST (link)Simply put, it would favor those whose money works for them at the expense of those who work for their money. It would create a society much like pre-revolutionary France where the top 3% paid no taxes and the burden was carried by everyone else.
From Wikidpedia’s causes of the French Revolution, see if any of this sound familiar: “The system also exempted the nobles and the clergy from taxes (with the exception of a modest quit-rent, an ad valorem tax on land). The tax burden, therefore, devolved to the peasants, wage-earners, and the professional and business classes.”
More detailed explanation of the Ryan plan here: http://candidateblogs.baltimoresun.com/josh-dowlut/2010/09/03/trickle-down-paul-ryan-smoke-and-mirrors/
Someone please explain to me how a tax cut for someone else helps me out more than a tax cut for myself?
-Josh Dowlut