I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Horrigan's characterization of my position on Iraq.

Contrary to Jim's assertion, I am not "in close agreement with the current administration's stand" on Iraq. Such a characterization succumbs to the unfortunate tendency to see this issue in terms of polarities.

The fact of the matter is that this administration has made what we used to call a "soup sandwich" out of our Iraq policy.

The administration has never provided an honest explanation for the failure of our pre-war intelligence capabilities.

It has never established a set of clear, measurable benchmarks for progress in rebuilding Iraq's physical, economic and political infrasatructure.

It has never shown a serious intererst in preventing contractor fraud and abuse.

It has shown a disturbing willingness to resort to torture as an instrument of policy.

It has failed to effectively engage the international community, repeatedly spurning overtures by foreign governments that have shown a willingness to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq.


I don't support an immediate withdrawal, but that hardly places me in the Bush camp. My view is the one espoused by Wesley Clark, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and most serious Democratic foreign policy experts. If we allow the debate to degenerate into a cartoonish "Out Now" versus "Stay the Course" shouting match, we will have failed the public.

The third Federal Dynamics group’s 1st District Congressional forum was held at the Portsmouth Women’s Club on Sunday, May 7th. Candidates Jim Craig, Shawn Mickelonis, Carol Shea-Porter, and Peter Sullivan participated. Absent candidate Gary Dodds was still recuperating from a recent automobile accident.

The forum’s format was quite constrictive, which affected its substance considerably. Only two minutes were allowed for opening and closing remarks and one minute for answers to questions posed during the forum. Not too surprisingly, in-depth statements were not the order of the day. Quick sound-bite comments seemed to prevail instead. On some issues, the candidates appeared to be stumbling over their ideas as they tried to cram as much as possible into their one minute answers. Consequently, the candidates’ styles of thinking emerged more clearly than their stands on the issues.

In that regard, Jim Craig framed many of his answers as if they were the result of a recent epiphany. (For example, he stated that he only began to think about the abortion issue about ten years ago, when his daughter came of age. One could not help but wonder where he had been in the twenty previous years or so, after the Roe vs. Wade decision was rendered!) Shawn Mickelonis referred frequently to his honesty, which he apparently believed could overcome any lack of experience and knowledge. Peter Sullivan showed an inclination to offer very specific legislative and executive actions to deal with many issues, no doubt reflecting his legal training and current legislative experience. Carol Shea-Porter weaved her answers around her experiences as a mother, military wife, and political activist.
Although their styles are all quite different, Carol Shea-Porter clearly has the edge. She has the best stage presence and charisma. Her statements reflect a real person whose views have been forged in some challenging situations during her lifetime. Given the high probability of another dirty tricks Bradley campaign, she seemed to possess the most inner strength to respond to such tactics in a positive, firm manner. Jim Craig comes across as an extremely nice, introspective, polite man—the perfect friend and neighbor. Unfortunately, those same personal traits suggest that he would be carved up into little pieces by the Bradley smear agents. Shawn Mickelonis appears to be a young man who should have gained considerably more maturity before running for a major political office. His somewhat vacuous statements offered no useful insights whatsoever as to how he thinks out an issue. Finally, as mentioned above, Peter Sullivan tended to break down his positions into little parts, coming dangerously close to being a policy wonk at times.

As for the issues, the candidates seemed to be in general agreement more often than not. They all agreed on the need for universal health care, cheap gasoline, alternate energy sources, fiscal responsibility, and other desirable social goals. Occasionally there were hints of nuanced disagreements that might have arisen if they had been given more time to speak.

Iraq was the only issue where a sharp difference arose, causing a fifty-fifty split. Carol Shea-Porter unambiguously favored a quick, total withdrawal of our troops, while Jim Craig favored setting a phased withdrawal timetable. In contrast, Shawn Mickelonis and Peter Sullivan both indicated that we should not consider withdrawing until the current state of chaos in Iraq is resolved, which appeared to leave them in close agreement with the current Republican Administration’s stand on that issue.

Another partial difference arose on the issue of abortion and a woman’s choice. Jim Craig, Shawn Mickelonis, and Carol Shea-Porter all espoused strong pro-choice positions. However, Peter Sullivan alluded to his moral disapproval of abortion, although he concluded his remarks with an opaque political statement that might have meant that he would not allow his moral view to interfere with his duties to his constituents.

From this observer’s standpoint, all of the candidates gave disappointing answers to two questions. The first involved their view on the desirability of initiating impeachment against President Bush. They seemed to confuse the possible end result of impeachment with the process of impeachment, by leaping to the conclusion that it would necessarily lead to a change in the presidency. They also felt a need for more evidence, which seemed an odd position for Democrats to take in these troubled times.

The second question requested them to describe their basic moral viewpoint on political issues. A most difficult question, to be sure, but none of them appeared to have thought about it before. They all said essentially that they would try to do what is right for their constituents, which was a comforting answer but hardly a description of their moral philosophies. Perhaps someone should raise a similar question again at future forums.

In general, all was cordial and good-natured. A few sparks flew from Peter Sullivan , once in response to a comment from the audience about abortion and another later in regard to a lack of response from Jim Craig, after Sullivan had challenged him to state his view on campaign finance reform. All of which suggested that perhaps Sullivan should be the first choice if a feisty candidate is desired.

As for judging the effectiveness of all the candidates, Jim Craig and Carol Shea-Porter appear to be the front runners, if this forum were typical of other campaign events. However, Peter Sullivan still has plenty of time to notch his campaign up a bit, perhaps by emphasizing principles more and policy details less. Shawn Mickelonis is doomed to go nowhere, unless he bones up on the issues better in a crash course soon. In the meantime, Gary Dodds has much catching up to do, if and when he returns to the Hustings.