Excerpts from last night's debate

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

Related stories Senate candidates spar over war, ads in debate

Iraq

Question for Nethercutt: Will you stay in lock step with President Bush if you and he are elected? Or do you have a different exit strategy in mind?

Nethercutt: "I'll stay in lock step with the commitment to win the war on terror. This is a fight that we must take on, in my judgment. This is one venue in the continuing war on terror that is the most insidious challenge of our time — to win the war on terror.

"I've been to Iraq. Sen. Murray hasn't been to Iraq. She voted against the war, against taking on Saddam Hussein. So I think that was the wrong decision. I think my judgment was right. My goal is to make sure we stand up a government there, to give the people of Iraq a chance to be free."

Murray: "Well, Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant and we're all glad he's gone. But I voted against the resolution to go to war in Iraq because we did not have a clear mission, we didn't have a clear exit strategy, we were not honest with the American public about the costs — both in lives and in dollars.

"We're there now and the question is, what do we do now? Well, the most important thing we can do is make sure our troops have on the ground the equipment and supplies and support that they need ... .

"The second thing that we need to do is to reach out to other nations to get their support as well, because we cannot continue to endure the costs of this conflict."

Social Security

Both candidates were asked what should be done to make sure the nation's Social Security system remains solvent.

Murray: "Social Security is a promise from one generation to the next. It says that if you work hard in this country, that when you retire, you will not be living in poverty. ... And probably the biggest threat to the security of that system today is the $425 billion deficit that we are running today.
 
"My opponent just talked about tax cuts. I support targeted tax cuts that bring relief to middle-income families. But the massive tax cuts that he has supported — 50 percent of the money goes to people making over $1 million a year — comes right out of that Social Security trust fund. That means that seniors won't be able to count on that if we continue to raid that Social Security Trust Fund."

Nethercutt: "Huge difference of opinion between me and Sen. Murray on Social Security. In fact, the ads that she's running today are absolutely outrageous and false. She's saying that I want to privatize Social Security. My mother was so upset by the ad, she said, 'I'm going to go get my hair done and I'm going to do a television commercial to set the record straight.'

"It's a fact that Sen. Murray is trying to scare people on Social Security. Sen. Murray voted six times for higher taxes on Social Security recipients.

"Look, payroll taxes pay for Social Security. ... If you want to have payroll taxes, you want to have jobs. If you have jobs, you entrust the economy to the small-business economy, not increasing government spending. That's the wrong vote."

Stem-cell research

Nethercutt was asked whether he supports current federal restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research.

Nethercutt: "I support stem-cell research. Sen. Murray's got an ad out saying I oppose it. Had my dear daughter, who has diabetes, get on television to say that's not true. Sen. Murray is deceiving the public and that's unacceptable. So I support embryonic stem-cell research. ... I do not support it without restriction. I draw the line at cloning. I think it's wrong to clone human beings."

Murray: "Embryonic stem-cell research is an extremely important area of research that provides hope to thousands of families with Parkinson's disease, with multiple sclerosis, that scientists tell us holds tremendous potential. But they tell us that the policies that are in place today are prohibiting them from moving forward.

"Now, this is another area where what my opponent says here is different than what he does in Washington, D.C. Unless he's changed his position, in 1996, when he had the opportunity to vote for expanding stem-cell research, both in committee and on the floor of the Congress, he voted no."