Ben Quayle and David Schweikert Take Part in Forum, Say Mostly the Same Things but Use Different Words
|Congressman Ben Quayle (left) and Congressman David Schweikert.|
Congressmen Ben Quayle and David Schweikert said mostly the same things yesterday, just using different ways to describe their thoughts.
To their defense, it wasn't billed as a debate, and it was held on the third floor of an assisted-living facility, and the questions came from the audience.
On the topics of defense spending, "Obamacare," achievements in office, and immigration, neither Congressman distinguished himself, unless you favor one's style of speaking over the other.
Neither Congressman believes in man-made global warming.
A question about Israel and Iran drew extremely similar answers from both freshman legislators replied as expected -- Israel's the greatest ally ever, and Iran's in trouble if it gets nuclear capabilities.
A question about what type of legislation they'd like to seen repealed drew answers that were even closer.
Both Congressmen rolled with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and they both went on to explain that they'd like to see some federal agencies bite the dust too.
That said, we were able to find a couple differences, albeit minor ones.
One question was from a concerned constituent about whether the National Security Agency is spying on citizens, reading every single person's emails and text messages, listening to every phone call, and monitoring any other communications.
Quayle made it pretty clear that's not happening. Schweikert, however, said he doesn't think so, and he "hope[s] not."
Yes, that's really how difficult it was to find differing opinions between the two.
The existence of "death panels" apparently is still a thing, as the question was something to the effect of whether the Independent Payment Advisory Board created under "Obamacare" really is a "death panel."
Schweikert went with it being "pretty darn close," and Quayle just bashed the advisory board without addressing the thought of it being a "death panel."
Again it was a forum, so they were just there to answer the questions, but we can't blame anyone who plans on voting for either one of them based on things that have nothing to do with the issues at hand.