In less than two weeks, students at the University and across the Fifth District will cast their votes to decide their congressional representative. The nominees include incumbent Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello, Republican Sen. Robert Hurt and independent Tea Party candidate Jeff Clark. Although the prevailing political rhetoric is what one would expect in a heated midterm election, students should look beyond the Republican rhetoric when they enter the voting booth . As President Obama recently remarked, the Republican strategy banks on voter amnesia to score big wins at the polls this year. Students, as they did in 2008, can make a difference by voting for a candidate who understands the issues ranging from the economy to health care and presents a substantive re-election platform. This criteria overwhelms Hurt's empty, baseless promises - assurances we hear from candidates year after year. The distinction is clear: Perriello is the best choice on Election Day.
Although a recent Cavalier Daily News article covered a debate in Roanoke last week ("Fifth district debates begin," Oct. 14), the coverage marginalized or omitted some key statements from the discussion. Students should know Hurt admitted that he had not read the healthcare legislation passed in March, yet he vocally advocates its repeal. If Hurt has not read the bill, does he know it keeps young adults on their parents' coverage until age 26? Does he know it ends denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions? By pushing for a repeal without knowing the specific contents of the legislation, it seems as if Hurt wants to reopen the "doughnut hole" gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors. Does Hurt actually support repealing dramatic investments in preventative care? We cannot know; he has not read the legislation. Hurt is playing politics with health care and livelihood, and we deserve better. We do not know if the Republican challenger truly supports or opposes these measures because he blindly supports the repeal of the legislation.
When the recent debate turned to the budget, Hurt was clear in his condemnation of Perriello's big-spending liberal agenda. Hurt, while pledging support for a balanced budget and an end earmarks, failed to name a single area in which he would cut funding if elected. When pressed again by the WSLS-TV moderator during the debate, Hurt could not cite a single program he would cut. It was clear Hurt was wanted to avoid alienating any single constituency. Perriello noted he would reduce spending on costly corn subsidies for ethanol production and in defense spending. Throughout the discussion, Perriello supported and presented real solutions that cannot be characterized by the same dogma that Hurt and others across party lines have advocated for decades. Our country cannot continue down a path without leaders willing to make tough decisions, as exemplified by Hurt's refusal to name one place to begin cutting the budget. Perriello voted in favor of healthcare reform and the federal stimulus bill because he knew they were the right things to do even if politically unpopular, and he has not backed down from those truths.
Our challenges demand real leadership - not thinly-veiled partisanship - to address the myriad obstacles awaiting the next Congress. Perriello has consistently supported real solutions, whereas Hurt has consistently lacked substance. There is too much at stake and too many distinctions. It is obvious that the nation's economy nearly collapsed after close to a decade of Republican domination in Washington because the GOP's policies failed. Republicans failed to promote economic growth in 2000 after approving the most dramatic tax cut for wealthy individuals in generations. They failed to maintain a competitive edge over China, India and other growing powers by cutting or failing to enforce regulations. So what do Hurt, the Tea Party and Republicans in Congress have to offer? More of the same. More deregulation and more tax cuts for the wealthy. They have no new solutions, philosophies or paradigms in their platforms to tackle the nation's challenges.
Whether our energy sector is dominated by dirty coal and oil imported from Saudi Arabia or by clean, renewable energy sources will be decided Nov. 2. Whether we believe health care is something that should be accessible to all, rather than just the wealthy, will be decided that day. Whether we want to create a world conducive to equality, opportunity and progress, or to revert back to the agenda of the Bush administration is the real question on the ballot. And if students want to keep that door to progress and change open and be represented by a candidate who presents substance over slogans, Perriello is the obvious choice.
Rex Young's column appears biweekly Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at r.young@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 12 hours agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | YesterdayUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
