September 22, 2006

Hare, Zinga go toe to toe

In a healthy development, a debate held between congressional candidates Phil Hare and Andrea Zinga was held earlier this week in Champaign.

And in another fortunate development, Public TV station WQPT will broadcast the debate tonight (Fri.) at 9:00 p.m. according to media reports.

WQPT also plans to rebroadcast the debate again two weeks later Friday October 6th, again at 9:00 p.m.

WQPT is at channel 10 on the Medicom Cable system.

Should be interesting, to say the least.


At 9/22/2006 9:34 PM, Anonymous havinfun said...

I am watching the debate as I type this. I need to do something to keep myself from throwing something through the TV.

These two people are the most incompetent candidates in the country.

The biggest need in this District is jobs and economic development - and the first thing that they say that they'll do if elected,

Zinga - 'deal with gas prices'
Hare - 'deal with prescription drug issue'

Come on, important issues both, but both become far less significant if we can see some economic growth in this district. Both of these candidates don't have a clue on how to assist in this area.

We all lose regardless of the outcome.

Zinga and Hare were the best we could do? Shame on us!

At 9/22/2006 10:13 PM, Anonymous Luz Bunkensprat said...

It was a smooth transition to Monty Python's Flying Circus which came on right afterwards. I wasn't sure where one left off and the other began.

At 9/22/2006 10:36 PM, Blogger demgorilla said...

Wow, Phil Hare showed that his 20 years dealing with Congress gives him a huge edge. He actually had personality. He actually had values. He actually had substance.
She was uncomfortable and painfully keeping to the GOP talking points.

I say bring on the debates. Phil Hare is a solid winner in these.
And I watched these debates with a bunch of doctors and dentists and all of them said Hare won.

At 9/23/2006 7:51 AM, Anonymous havinfun said...

Hare did seem more comfortable and showed more of a personality than I expected. He did a nice job of conveying that he has a personality.

Unfortunately, although Hare indeed seems comfortable with the process and issues, based on his years working for Lane, he seems quite unable to produce - in a District that needs an active Congressman to produce.

Zinga on the other hand showed, as 'demgorilla' indicated, nothing more than a desire to get out her specific talking points. She still has not understood that in this District she needs to attract Democrat voters. How could the Republican voters put her in the race again - she just does not get it.

Looks like we will get Hare, solid constituent services (again) - and little else.

At 9/23/2006 2:32 PM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Ok Havinfun--- I will take Solid constituent service any day over a witch like Zinga.

She is a totally racist nasty person bent on her own self promotion and not to serve the people....gag me. Zinga insults the process.

Hare for Congress - definately the more qualified candidate hands down. I watched the debate too and was not surprised that Phil Hare beat her on every issue as Zinga hasn't a clue what is going on outside her own backyard in Coal Valley.

At 9/24/2006 9:00 PM, Blogger Craig said...

Did anyone else watch this debate? Did Zinga say that "old people don't understand." Man for being an anchor she is really bad at watching what she says.

At 9/24/2006 10:10 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Apparently at least two people saw it. Unfortunately, I missed it. I think I had to dust off the top of the fridge or something.

Those who missed this historic event will have to mark their calendars for Oct. 6 at 9 p.m. on WQPT when it will reportedly be rebroadcast.

That is, unless they change their schedule around, which is always possible.

At 9/25/2006 7:36 AM, Anonymous havinfun said...

I am no Zinga fan, I do think that she is meanspirited and, well, a flake.

However, to suggest that she is racist is just silly. She said that Middle-Eastern men need to be watched more carefully than others at airports.

As a traveler, this just makes sense and is reasonable. Anyone who thinks differently is either not one who travels, or just too concerned with PC.

Racist, doubtful. Unqualified, certainly.

At 9/25/2006 8:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is nice to see that Zinga has a racist friend in Havinfun.

At 9/25/2006 6:29 PM, Anonymous havinfun said...

anonymous, why is stating the fact that middle-eastern men, who by the way, make up 99.98% of Al-Queda, should be watched at airports - racism?

It is stating a documented fact and suggesting a manner in which to protect the Americans that are traveling. Nothing more, nothing less.

For you to suggest that this is racism seems very silly (at best).

At 9/25/2006 7:26 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

This debate on whether profiling mid-eastern "looking" people is racist or not is kind of missing the point.

What it is is stupid and ineffectual.

If you think for one moment that those who have mid-eastern features or dress are somehow given a pass, you're goofy.

If you think they're not already subject to many times the scrutiny that anyone else gets, ask one sometime.

And profiling based on appearance is both ineffective, simple-minded, and dumb.

First of all, there's no more likelihood that a terror attack will involve "terrorist looking" people than not.

Secondly, while we're singling out people who happen to be of Arabian descent, we're taking attention away from everyone else.

Thirdly, as I've asked before, just what does a terrorist look like? And just what does a Muslim look like?

They're both stupid and unanswerable questions, and therefore show the folly of making it a policy to "profile" based on... who knows? Someone's idea of what a terrorist looks like?

And if we're going to base our security on who the terrorists happened to be on 9-11, since nearly all of them were Saudi Arabians, why did Bush allow private jets across the country to fly dozens of Saudi's out of the country in the days following 9-11, even while all other aircraft were grounded?

Shouldn't we stop and instensively question and search all visitors from Saudi Arabia based on your logic?

Or should we focus on white upper class Americans like the kid they captured with al Queda in Afghanistan?

The idea is silly, and whats worse, encourages simplistic thinking that leads to further discrimination against Arabian and Muslim citizens who are hard-working, American born, and utterly innocent parties.

At 9/25/2006 10:39 PM, Blogger tiz said...

Yes, we should profile based on race at airports. That would have caught the Shoe Bomber, Richard Reid (Jamaican) and other alleged terrorists like José Padilla (Puerto Rican) from getting into the air.

The day we start zeroing in on Americans of Arabian descent is the day Al Queda starts recruiting lower-class, pissed off Americans. There's a whole bunch from New Orleans (that are having their voting rights toyed with as we speak with the ID act) that would be fertile ground for this sort of thing.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home