{"id":21754,"date":"2010-09-21T08:08:38","date_gmt":"2010-09-21T14:08:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=21754"},"modified":"2010-09-22T08:05:27","modified_gmt":"2010-09-22T14:05:27","slug":"teaguepearce-debate-gets-contentious","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2010\/09\/teaguepearce-debate-gets-contentious\/","title":{"rendered":"Teague\/Pearce debate gets contentious"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Steve Pearce, left, and Harry Teague (Photos by Heath Haussamen)<\/p><\/div>\n

Listen to the full debate <\/strong>here<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

What was designed to be a sanitized question-and-answer session on border security on Monday was instead a contentious debate between Democratic U.S. Rep. Harry Teague<\/a> and Republican challenger Steve Pearce<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The hour-long radio program included note cards. There weren\u2019t supposed to be rebuttals. Candidates were simply supposed to answer a question they were asked related to border security, then move on to the next question.<\/p>\n

Didn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n

Teague started out with talking points he would repeat throughout the debate about how he has worked to secure the border by bringing more National Guard troops and Border Patrol agents there, \u201cwhereas Congressman Pearce, when he was a congressman didn\u2019t come to the border as often and he actually voted seven times against securing the border.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pearce didn\u2019t let that allegation stand.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe\u2019s welcome to his own opinions, but he\u2019s not welcome to his own facts,\u201d Pearce said, adding that he visited the border often during his six years in Congress and that funding for border security nearly doubled during his tenure. By contrast, he said, Teague voted to increase funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 35 percent but for the Border Patrol by only 3 percent.<\/p>\n

Pearce continued, saying Teague voted for cap and trade instead of securing the border, and said Teague\u2019s priority is to \u201csend jobs out of the country, not to the border.\u201d That, Pearce said, was why Teague insisted on a forum that would focus only on border security \u2013 he didn\u2019t want to talk about jobs.<\/p>\n

From there, things shifted to a back-and-forth, contentious debate, even though the moderator of the event on KRWG 90.7-FM<\/a> told the two he wanted to \u201cfocus on the future rather than the past.\u201d The moderator worked, with only marginal success, to get the candidates to answer the questions instead of addressing allegations made during the previous response from the other candidate.<\/p>\n

Teague isn\u2019t as skilled a public speaker or debater as Pearce, who wanted a debate on various issues, not the sanitized forum that was planned at Teague\u2019s insistence. It was Pearce who worked to shift the tone of the event to an actual debate, but Teague followed him into it.<\/p>\n

Teague\u2019s common attack link was to ask, \u201cWhich Congressman Pearce is the one that\u2019s campaigning \u2013 the one who says he will secure the border or that seven times he voted against it?\u201d<\/p>\n

Pearce countered by saying that what he voted against were proposed amendments to bills that were designed by Democrats to kill border security measures.<\/p>\n

\u201cSo he\u2019s creating facts here that are simply not true, and he\u2019s done that throughout the campaign, and I\u2019m not going to sit here and listen to it,\u201d Pearce said.<\/p>\n

Amnesty, Second Amendment<\/h3>\n

Pearce tried to reveal contrasts between the two \u2013 he said Teague supports amnesty while he does not, and he supports the Second Amendment, while Teague does not \u2013 but Teague rejected most of Pearce\u2019s claims about him.<\/p>\n

Teague does support a path to legalization for the undocumented immigrants already in the country that allows them to stay, but Teague said that isn\u2019t amnesty. It\u2019s the same argument that many Democrats and Republicans make \u2013 that allowing people to stay but requiring some penalty other than jail for coming here illegally isn\u2019t amnesty.<\/p>\n

Pearce said he wants to require those who are here illegally to return to their home country and get in the back of the line to come here legally.<\/p>\n

Asked about guns illegally entering Mexico from the United States, Pearce shifted to talking about the Second Amendment. He cited a 2000 newspaper article<\/a> in which Teague was quoted as saying he wouldn\u2019t mind turning in his guns.<\/p>\n

\u201cSince then he has said that if he knew he was running for Congress he wouldn\u2019t have said that, which tells you something about what his values are,\u201d Pearce said. He added that he supports a repeal of the assault weapons ban.<\/p>\n

Teague countered that there is \u201cno difference\u201d between the two on that issue.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do not need any infringement on our Second Amendment rights,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Do\u00f1a Ana County Wilderness<\/h3>\n

The candidates were asked about a pending bill in Congress that would create hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness in Do\u00f1a Ana County but has been delayed because Teague and others have expressed concerns<\/a> about border security in the proposed wilderness areas.<\/p>\n

Teague, despite insistence from the moderator that he answer the question, first talked about what he doesn\u2019t support: a bill Pearce introduced when he was in Congress<\/a> that Teague said would lead to selling public land to private interests.<\/p>\n

Then Teague said most agree that \u201cwe need to keep the Organ Mountains public\u201d but said there\u2019s other land in the bill that\u2019s close to the border, and he wants to be sure \u201cthat we don\u2019t do anything that encumbers our Border Patrol agents and law enforcement agents.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked to be clear \u2013 Was he saying that he doesn\u2019t currently support the bill? \u2013 Teague said: \u201cYeah, until we can be sure that there\u2019s not any hindrance\u201d to law enforcement, \u201cwe have to keep looking for ways to make that happen.\u201d<\/p>\n

Teague has made statements along those lines in the past, but this was the most definite in opposition to the bill in its current form.<\/p>\n

Pearce said he won\u2019t support \u201cany bill that keeps us from securing the border.\u201d No mechanized vehicles are allowed in wilderness areas, with some exceptions for law enforcement in emergencies.<\/p>\n

Arizona immigration law<\/h3>\n

The two candidates were also asked about Arizona\u2019s controversial immigration law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe federal government is abdicating its responsibility,\u201d Pearce said. \u201cThe Arizona government is simply doing something to try to protect its citizens.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI do believe that that\u2019s a step in the wrong direction, but I understand Arizona\u2019s right and wanting to protect its citizens,\u201d Teague said. \u201cI just don\u2019t think we should have a patchwork immigration system across the nation.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe United States Congress has been derelict for 10 years in doing this. We need one immigration policy that fits all 50 states,\u201d Teague said.<\/p>\n

Post-debate spin<\/h3>\n

There was a lot of spin in news releases following the debate.<\/p>\n

\u201cPearce wins border security debate with Teague,\u201d a news release from the Pearce campaign proclaimed.<\/p>\n

\u201cSteve Pearce was the decisive winner of today\u2019s KRWG debate with Harry Teague,\u201d the release stated. \u201cIn the hour long debate, Steve Pearce repeatedly showed command of a wide array of issues, from securing the border to creating jobs in New Mexico. Congressman Harry Teague repeatedly struggled to explain his positions that are out of touch with New Mexico\u2019s needs and priorities.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Democrats sent several releases following the debate. Teague\u2019s release focused more on border policy than it did the debate.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe difference is clear. In response to the escalating violence along our border, Harry is working with local residents and law enforcement to get necessary resources to the border,\u201d Teague Campaign Manager Dominic Gabello said. \u201cPearce, on the other hand, continues to take the more dangerous approach of putting partisan politics before the security of the people and communities of Southern New Mexico.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee hammered Pearce.<\/p>\n

\u201cHaving opposed billions in funding for border security during his tenure in Congress, it\u2019s no wonder that former Congressman Steve Pearce used every opportunity on the radio today to change the subject and deny his record,\u201d said the DCCC\u2019s Andy Stone. \u201cBut the more bluster Pearce offers on border security, the more southern New Mexicans can see right through this two-faced hypocrisy.\u201d<\/p>\n

The state Democratic Party also went on the attack.<\/p>\n

\u201cDuring today\u2019s debate, Congressman Pearce offered no new ideas for securing the border and ran from his record of failures by accusing Harry of supporting amnesty and by attacking Harry for not supporting the Secure Border Initiative<\/a> (SBInet),\u201d Democratic Party spokesman James Hallinan said. \u201cIn typical Washington Waffle fashion, Pearce conveniently failed to mention that he himself voted against the SBInet program in 2007.\u00a0When it comes to securing the border, even after six years of representing Southern New Mexico, Congressman Pearce still doesn\u2019t get it.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What was designed to be a sanitized question-and-answer session on border security on Monday was instead a contentious debate between Democratic U.S. Rep. Harry Teague and Republican challenger Steve Pearce.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,1],"tags":[108,140,116],"class_list":["post-21754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-and-analysis","category-uncategorized","tag-2010-election","tag-border-and-immigration","tag-washington"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21754","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21754"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21754\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}