Carney gets "Hack"ed in debate

Last night's debate no doubt consisted of a series of jabs and wild punches that would have made the venue seem more appropriate in an ECW cage. There was absolutely no respect between the two candidates, and both made it apparent that they were out for blood.

Chris Hackett somehow seemed to continually get under Carney's skin. Carney often seemed a more than just a little irritated while answering questions and providing rebuttles. I give credit to Carney for being to still stand up and throw a few good punches of his own, though.

I cannot and will not call the entire debate a complete slaughter of Carney, as Chris Carney did have his good moments and had many opportunities to throw a few punches. Carney won the arguments around earmarks and the overall political process. It wasn't his experience as a freshman Congressman, though. Don't forget that Chris Carney was a professor of political science at several good universities. Someone in Hackett's campaign must have forgotten to bring that up to him. As a result, Carney danced around Hackett when it came to these issues. Hackett's campaign should have prepped him better in these areas or advise him to stay away from them altogether.

Outside the arguments surrounding political processes and the attacks on Hackett's tax liens, Carney clearly was getting beaten down in this debate. Here's how:

Hackett clearly won the arguments stemming around economics. As an MBA, he has a clear understanding of textbook economics and its real world application. It should be no surprise to anyone that someone with these credentials could stand his/her own ground in this realm.

Hackett threw some strong punches that made Carney look like a liberal when Carney tried to defend himself, especially when exposing Carney's records on earmark spending. Even though Hackett didn't win the earmark argument, he did indeed paint a picture that Carney enjoys wasting our tax dollars in areas such as "a race horse farm in Kentucky" and "salmon fishermen in San Francisco" - Carney admitted in the debate that he will continue to vote yes on earmark spending. As a side note, Carney, if you like to throw around our tax dollars why didn't you throw some in your home district's way? Several million went to his home district in Iowa but not a penny went to the 10th CD of PA.

Carney's fatal mistake that the Hackett campaign should take advantage of and go aggressively on is that of how Carney thinks we should resolve the the social security crisis (that within 10 years there will be 3 working people for every person receiving social security). Carney clearly stated that "we should put people back to work." The Social Security issue above is a direct result of the retirement of baby boomers. Is he insisting that retired people go back to work and that baby boomers don't retire (or if retired go back to work) so that we can preserve social security? Way to go Carney!!!

Holy Shit. If I were running against Carney I would have been all over that statement last night and dig a 6 foot hole for the Carney campaign. Then, I'd follow up with aggressive advertising to put the nail in the coffin. For the 5 people that watched this debate, I hope that they decided to vote against Carney.