The U.S. House District 1 candidates debate the war in Iraq and U.S. tax policy.

01:00 AM EDT on Saturday, October 16, 2004

BY KATHERINE GREGG
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -- In his first TV debate with his Republican rival, U.S. Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy yesterday publicly apologized for telling a crowd of young Democrats in Washington a year ago that the Bush tax cuts primarily helped wealthy people like himself, and "I have never worked a [bleeping] day in my life."

"Listen Dave, I don't disagree with you. What I said was wrong. I am embarassed by it. I shouldn't have done it,' the five-term Democratic incumbent told his two-time GOP challenger David W. Rogers during the taping of a special Channel 12 (WPRI) Newsmakers that will air for the first time at 7:30 tonight.

"It was a poor way of trying to illustrate that the Bush tax cuts, I thought, were misguided, that wealthy families like my own benefited extraordinarily while working families were not seeing the same benefits," Kennedy said.

But Rogers also found himself on the defensive on the day after the state Democratic Party chairman called on the Federal Elections Commission to investigate the $72,000 in personal income that Rogers has derived from "renting" his donor mailing lists.

"We have done nothing wrong. This is a stunt, a baseless charge by . . . the Democratic Party chair," said Rogers, "to try and derail our campaign."

For the remainder of the 30-minute exchange, the two 1st District congressional candidates tussled with each other -- and sometimes a questioner -- over the Iraq war, who in the country benefited most from the Bush tax cuts, how much congressional pork Kennedy has brought to Rhode Island, and who is positionned to do more for Rhode Island: a five-term Democrat with a seat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, or a former Navy SEAL who belongs to the party that controls Congress.

In his closing statement, Rogers said: "My opponent has demonstrated a partisan knack for being on the far side of a lot of issues, and I don't think that has done very well for Rhode Island."

Paraphrasing the famous question that Ronald Reagan posed to Jimmy Carter during a presidential debate 24 years ago, Rogers said of Kennedy: "In his 10 years in Congress, the question I like to ask voters is: are we better off now than we were then? Is the price of prescription drugs higher now than it was when he came into office? Is the economy stronger now than it was when he came into office?"

In his own turn, Kennedy said: "As Mr. Rogers points out, I am in the minority and the Republicans won't let me pass prescription drug for all." But, "I have worked extraordinarily hard on behalf of the 1st District. I think my record speaks for itself and the millions of dollars I've brought back to this state."

But Rogers questioned whether Kennedy was losing his touch in light of a 2002 news article in which Kennedy took credit for winning $120 million for Rhode Island that year, and a more recent one in which he took credit for snaring $162 million "over the past four fiscal years" for schools, bridges and the like.

"You just have to do the math," Rogers suggested. "You had a couple of bad years. I mean, by your own account, your numbers are down."

Later, Kennedy campaign manager Sean Richardson said the $120 million was a one-year number that included defense and military construction appropriations to Rhode Island; the four-year number didn't.

He acknowledged the $162 million in non-defense discretionary money for which Kennedy takes credit see-sawed from $20 million in 2001 to $46 million in 2002 to $52 million in 2003 and to $44 million in the federal budget year that just ended.

In response to questions about Iraq, Kennedy, who was one of only 81 Democrats who supported the resolution authorizing the war, said: "Let's not make any mistake about it, this was ultimately about weapons of mass destruction. I felt deceived by this administration." Rogers also faulted the Bush administration for hanging its argument for the war on finding weapons of mass destruction, and telegraphing the invasion months in advance. "They left themselves wide open to this criticism," he said.

But Rogers took issue with a question from one of the two panelists, Providence Journal reporter Scott MacKay, who asked him: "What's your plan now? We're there. What do [we do] to extricate ourselves with honor or face-saving?"

Rogers said: "The nature of your question sort of belies, I think, what you think about this . . . You are saying save face with honor, extricate ourselves. That statement says get out any way you can. What we have to do is win. That is our only option here. We have to provide some sort of stable government in Iraq."

One of the more spirited moments of the debate was prompted by a question about the rationale for cutting taxes in a time of war, in a way that some partisans say has "exempted" the wealthy from paying their fair share of the costs for the war, while the government runs up deficits.

Rogers started to answer: "I would disagree with your premise . . . the tax cut was for everyone."

But Kennedy interjected: "Two-thirds of the tax cut goes to the top 1 percent."

Rogers replied, "Whenever we have this discussion, it typically becomes a class-warfare argument, and I think that's misplaced." MacKay jumped in: "No, we're in a real shooting war."

Rogers said his own middle-class family, with a ranch house in Portsmouth, had benefited from the tax cut, but the purpose of the tax cut was "to stimulate an economy" that was slipping into a recession when President Bush took office. "The worst thing you could possibly do is take money out of people's pockets at that time. We'd be in a devastating recession."

Kennedy said, "It's a difference of philosophy. I think we ought to have a demand-side [economy] where working families, by having more money in their pockets, can drive the economy because they are able to pay for more . . . You're for a supply-side, tax-cut economy, where you give all the money to the wealthiest, let them put it in the bank and hope that they're going to create jobs."

To which Rogers said: "I think you mischaracterize my position on this because, again, I have a front-row seat to being a working family here. I am the head of one . . . I do see what the tax cut has done for my family . . . it might not look like a lot of money to you, but it looks like a lot of money to me."

After tonight's airing, the debate, hosted by veteran newsman Jack White, will be broadcast again at 6:30 a.m. Sunday on Channel 12, and at 10 a.m. on Channel 64 (FOX).