To be fair, it was a Dem audience. But, the reaction was not only dissaproval, but I think shock that Douglas cast off the question in the way that he did. He's a shmuck who needs to replaced.
 

"He's a shmuck who needs to replaced."

Yeah good luck with that
 

I liked the contrast between the two House candidates. Welch was clearly very well versed on all the issues brought up by the moderator and the audience, but he also seemed like a nice guy. Also, a bit off the subject, it's so disingenuous of Martha to act like she will have a choice of House Speakers to vote for. She will vote for Hastert. He will return his most faithful comrades to their chairmanships. It's a fact.
 

"Welch proposes an education agenda: no coverage."

I don't see anything resembling an "education agenda" on his website either.
 

"I don't see anything resembling an "education agenda" on his website either."

Try:

http://www.welchforcongress.com/educationplan

There's a link to this page right on Senator Welch's front page. Pretty easy to find when you take the blinders off.
 

"Pretty easy to find when you take the blinders off."

Wow, are all Welch supporters such knobs?

Your link is the wrong page by the way, all that one says is that he thinks education is really important. There's a different one linked from there that goes into all the swell things he'll not have the chance to do after he loses in November.
 

Here is a letter to the editor from the Welch camp. It runs in today's Times Argus. Will it be effective? Maybe. Its the only arguement the Welch folks have left to play - Welch is a wimp, but Martha is a Republican. I'm embarressed for Welch. Serious Lack of self respect. Here is the letter...
Rainville sounds good... at first

September 21, 2006

I was listening to a debate between Peter Welch and Martha Rainville today on the radio. My first impression was that Rainville came across as forceful and intelligent with canny ideas while Welch sounded kind of wimpy, tentative and surprisingly dependent on political clichés for such an experienced and successful politician.

Rainville sounded especially convincing when talking in her comfort zone about the military.

But when I listened more closely as the debate continued, and tried to cut through the rhetoric to the core issues, it was clear that a vote for Rainville, regardless of how dazzling she seemed, would just be another vote for the Republican ruling class in Washington.

After a while, Rainville was either espousing the good old Republican causes - lowering taxes, pro-business policies, military solutions to diplomatic problems - or saying silly things, such as that two of her first three legislative priorities if elected were 1) immigration, and 2) establishing an ethics commission to oversee Congress [how about one to scrutinize the White House where it's really needed?]. (Both Welch and Rainville agreed that electing a member of their own party as House Speaker was their first priority.)

Against this, Welch posited his choice of 1) balancing the budget, and 2) raising the minimum wage - much more fundamental problems that can be readily fixed by Congress.

Although wowed by Rainville initially, I came away realizing that a vote for her would only ensure business as usual in D.C. and two more years of King George's heavy hand.

Welch may not have the polish, but he certainly has the job experience and the right ideas. Being sent to Washington is a great responsibility and, of the two candidates for the U.S. House, it's apparent only Welch fully qualifies for this honor.

The same could be said for the Senate race where a rank political beginner is desperately trying to unseat the seasoned and experienced Bernie Sanders.

Like filling any job, my vote would definitely be for the more qualified candidate who has earned his position the hard way.

Marge Garfield

E. Calais