Candid Assessment -- Where the Candidates Stand on Our Issues

by Mary Elizabeth Fratini
with additional reporting by Carrie Chandler

 

U.S. Senate - Martha Rainville

Most Vermonters know Martha Rainville from her nearly ten years as adjutant general of the Vermont National Guard. This Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives has drawn heavily on that reputation and relationship since early in the campaign.

Sounding themes of integrity, independence and cooperation, Rainville highlighted the bipartisan support she received from the Vermont Legislature in five elections to lead the Guard. “I think that with the times we are in, it is important, and will be important, for our state to have someone within the party system who can work to build consensus, while still speaking out for Vermont,” she said during an interview at “the Bunker,” as her campaign headquarters in Williston are known.

National Security

Rainville’s emphasis on, and perceived expertise in, matters of national security is both expected and understandable. She has said repeatedly that she does not see a need to reinstate the draft, and she has pushed for greater cooperation between the National Guard and the armed forces, including support for Senator Patrick Leahy’s recent efforts to give the head of the National Guard a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“We must maintain that connection between the military and our civilians, it is crucial to support for any mission our nation undertakes,” Rainville said. “It also provides a counterbalance, a check, to any administration or Congress embarking on a use of the military without full involvement of the citizens.”

She has consistently supported both the decision to invade Iraq and the doctrine of preemptive warfare. “I think the fundamental role of a government is to provide security for its citizens. I’m saying it should be extremely rare, but the ability to preemptively stop an enemy from harming our country is a requirement that has to stay on the table,” she said.

Rainville has also stated that she does not believe the doctrine should be judged solely on our current experience in Iraq. “I think you have to be careful that you don’t let one moment in history change a very fundamental tool, or opportunity for a country to defend itself,” she said. “The debate is still ongoing about the decision in Iraq and we can’t let that debate influence the abilities of the future administrations or future Congress.”
Regarding the conduct of the federal government and military during the “war on terror,” Rainville was both confident in her support and cautious in her qualifications. She categorically condemned the use of torture, but when asked if she believed that the U.S. had participated in or condoned torture since 9/11, she said that all she knew was in the newspapers and was not personally aware of any such instances.

“I think we, as a country, need to always be sure that our actions are beyond reproach,” she added. “We are an example for many others and we are fighting against those who devalue life and whose use of torture is well documented.”

On the continued existence of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Rainville was more insistent that the media coverage did not accurately reflect the reality of the situation. “I think that Guantanamo is something that has been used by human rights groups, by many people, as a sort of lightning rod,” she said. “I did not visit, [but] I know people [who] have been stationed there, I’ve seen the press, and I think in this instance we need to separate out agendas from what is really happening on the ground.”

The U.S.’s qualified use, and in some cases disregard, of the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of war prisoners gained prominence with the recent Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which ruled that the Bush Administration had overstepped its bounds in attempting to set up military tribunals and specifically cited violations of Article Three of the Conventions.

Several leading Republicans, who are also veterans, have stated their support for abiding by the Geneva Conventions, including Senators John McCain (AZ), John Warner (VA), and Lindsey Graham (SC). Rainville, however, is more circumspect in her position. “I think we need to abide by the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, which is a fair and humane treatment of people. There’s no excuse for not doing that, regardless of where they come from,” she said. “But I think we need to be careful, as we enter a new era [where] the threat is coming from very amorphous terror groups, that we don’t, by instituting the Geneva Conventions itself, put ourselves at a disadvantage.”

Reproductive Rights, Sexuality, Civil Rights

At first glance, abortion and sexual education seem the issues that put Rainville most at odds with her national party. “I believe that the government does not have – should not have – the right to step in and make a woman’s decision for her,” she said. “It is not an anti-abortion or pro-abortion stance; it is, to me, a fundamental right that women have to make that decision.”

Rainville is pragmatic in her stance on the increasing use of federal funds for abstinence education. “Whether you are talking abstinence or other programs you need to find out what the results are and measure if the money has actually achieved what it was supposed to. I don’t oppose necessarily funding for programs based on abstinence, but we also have to look at good health education [programs] in our schools that are objective and straightforward on the issue,” she said.

“When you are talking young people, information is power, and information is life, and we need to give [them] straightforward information about how to take care of themselves and how to protect themselves.”

She also opposes the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal money to pay for abortions. Vermont is one of only 15 states that allow Medicaid reimbursements for the procedure. “I think the states have the right to make their own laws regarding the use of state and Medicaid money,” Rainville said. “But when it comes to federal funds, I think the law should be the guide and we shouldn’t discriminate between low-income women and women who can go to private physicians.”

However, Rainville also supports a ban on “partial-birth abortions” – a non-medical term encompassing several procedures available during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy – except when the life of the mother is at stake. She also supports parental notification for women under the age of 16, despite opposition by the medical community and lack of similar restrictions on other reproductive-related services and situations (see sidebar page 39).

Rainville declined to comment directly on the recently passed Child Custody Protection Act, which makes it a felony for anyone other than a parent or legal guardian to accompany a minor across state lines to access abortion services in many circumstances, saying that, “if a parental notification law exists in a state, it must be abided by.”

On issues of sexual discrimination, Rainville’s positions are split in a way that reflects her support of a limited federal government. For example, Rainville believes it is time to revisit the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. “We need to update and transform some of our personnel policies just like we have our corps structure and strategies,” she said. “As a general, what was most important to me was the commitment and dedication and skill and professionalism that a soldier or airman brought to their jobs. Their sexual orientation, regardless of what it is, should never have an impact on their job.”

She also opposes a federal marriage amendment, but remains supportive of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states. “I don’t see the need for a constitutional amendment on marriage. I think it is an issue best left to the states and states are dealing with it,” she said. When asked if she supported Vermont following Massachusetts in legalizing gay marriage, Rainville declined to answer yes or no, saying instead, “I support equal protection under the law for all Americans. Civil unions have worked in Vermont and I support them.”

Health Care

In running to replace Congressman Bernie Sanders, a longtime, stalwart proponent of state-based universal healthcare, Rainville likewise believes that health care should not be dependent on one’s employment status – but otherwise takes a decidedly different tack.
“The government will have a role to play in that, but there is an individual responsibility, also […] to make healthy choices, to improve their own health, to take responsibility for their health status,” she said. “I also think the government needs to look at fully funding Medicare. Before we talk about expanding our system, let’s look at funding what we have already taken responsibility for.”

Rainville believes we need to be cautious and not repeat others’ mistakes in the name of health care reform. “We need to learn the lessons that Canada has learned, the United Kingdom and others, about national healthcare. I think it is particularly dangerous if you have [already] bought into a government-run, tax-based healthcare system,” she said. “The most important thing is that we work on universal access to health care and affordability. That’s the role of the government, I feel, to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.”

Party Politics

The other main plank of Rainville’s early campaigning, was restoring “integrity” to Congress. She said she supports a stronger lobbying reform and calls political corruption a topic that “disgusts a lot of people, including me.”

“I don’t think legislators need to accept gifts from lobbying groups, I don’t think they need to accept travel,” she said.

A watered-down reform bill died this past session, however, so Rainville risks a head-to-head confrontation as a freshman congresswoman on this issue with a leadership that has a reputation for dealing harshly with dissenters from the party line. When pressed on how effective she could really be in that situation, Rainville remained confident. “I think the more that we elect Republicans who have differing opinions, the faster we will change that,” she said. “I think that if you are going to change the system, you change it more effectively by working within that system.”

Regarding the increasingly controversial use of presidential signing statements by President Bush, Rainville called on Congress to correct the imbalance of power. “Our government was set up with three branches to counterbalance each other and it’s time for that pendulum to swing back a little bit,” she said. “You have an executive branch that for six years has really tried to strengthen itself and its authority. Congress needs to do the same thing and be responsible, through its committees and members, for making decisions and being involved.”

Conclusion

Whether her party label will be an asset or liability remains unclear. Rainville is quick to cite it as a strength. The real quandary is this: although Rainville’s public statements are sometimes at odds with the Republican Party line, without a legislative track record, how can voters be sure her positions will survive the well-documented arm-twisting tactics of the existing House leadership, particularly on issues like abortion, environmental protection, energy security, and civil liberties?

Rainville insists that this election is about Vermont and should be based on the individual candidates rather than partisan politics. But with the line between majority and minority party status in the House (and its accompanying power to set committee assignments and legislative agendas) holding at a mere 15 seats, it is impossible to force considerations of national politics out of this race. Rainville is asking that we replace an Independent democratic socialist with an independent Republican, and there’s a wide gap between those capital letters.

Back to Top

print this page | go back