Visit these links to each candidate's interview:

U.S. Senate: Greg Parke (below), Bernie Sanders, Richard Tarrant
U.S. House: Martha Rainville, Mark Shepard, Peter Welch
Governor: Jim Douglas, Scudder Parker
Lt. Governor: Marvin Malek, Brian Dubie, Matt Dunne, John Tracy

Candid Assessment -- Where the Candidates Stand on Our Issues

by Mary Elizabeth Fratini
with additional reporting by Carrie Chandler

 

U.S. Senate - Richard Tarrant

Anyone left in the state of Vermont who does not know about Rich Tarrant’s campaign for the U.S. Senate must be living off the grid, without television, Internet, or newspapers. The co-founder of IDX Corporation and former Saint Michael’s College star basketball player had contributed more than $4.25 million of his own money to the campaign by mid-July. Although running as a Republican and facing a primary challenge from former Air Force Lt. Colonel Greg Parke, Tarrant has used the freedom of a self-financed candidate to lob salvos at members of both parties for profligate congressional spending.

“We’ve got an $8.5 trillion debt and my grandkids are expected to pay that back and they don’t even vote. I think that is unacceptable,” Tarrant said in an interview at his Colchester campaign office. “We need people in Washington who have the guts to say no to some spending initiatives and put some discipline in the budget, and realize that eventually somebody has to pay the tab.”

Not a Knee-Jerk Kind of Guy

Tarrant has the assured demeanor of a successful businessman, including a preference for hard data, and disinterest in abstract, theoretical, or hypothetical questions. When asked if he believed the U.S. had participated in or condoned torture since 9/11, Tarrant said, “You’ve got to understand that citizens read the paper and make a knee jerk, ‘oh, I’m on this side’ or ‘I’m on that side’, and I don’t do that. I need to study facts, I need to study issues, I’d need to be there.”

He answered almost a dozen questions by asking for more specifics or saying he didn’t have enough information yet. Those questions included, in part:

Q: Can you comment on the FDA’s ongoing rulemaking process regarding access to Plan B over-the-counter by women over the age of 16?

I’m not opposed to contraception […] I’m not up to  date on it […] I’d have to know the pros and cons and understand the argument from both sides and I’m not read up on what the FDA is doing.

Q: Do you support continuing or increasing federal funding for abstinence-only sexual education?

It depends on what the program is. Can you be more specific? Are you talking a program that teaches contraception? I need more specifics.

Q: Do you support President Bush’s reinstatement of the global gag rule?
I need to see that language.

Q: Do you have any additional comments on President Bush’s use of presidential signing statements? Do you support Sen. Arlen Specter’s recently introduced legislation prohibiting them?

I’d have to look at each one individually, I couldn’t possibly, I mean, they are there for a reason […] I wouldn’t want to pick one side or the other, I think the concept is good.

Q: Do you support the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare? Should this doctrine be judged on our experience in Iraq?

I’d have to dig into it, but if North Korea launched a missile and they said it was a test, but we didn’t know, I’d say we pick that out of the air as soon as possible. […] I think preemptive has to be defined. […] Is Iraq preemptive if we really thought we were going to be attacked by them? Is North Korea preemptive if that missile takes off? Each situation is different. I don’t think you can say, no preemptives; then you are arguing forever whether a situation was preemptive or not.

Q: Would you support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act?

In general, I don’t believe in discrimination based on any sexual orientation, but I would have to look at it.

In response to a follow-up email several weeks later that included more information for his reference, Tarrant declined to comment further on any of the above questions. He did add, however, that, “in principle, I believe the Geneva Conventions are important and we need to think carefully before making any changes to the War Crimes Act.”

Gender and Choice

Tarrant also answers almost every inquiry into his political position on access to abortion by calling it settled law. “Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and as a U.S. Senator I’d support Roe v. Wade as the law of the land,” he said. “In general I am, like most people, probably most Americans, want[ing] to reduce abortions and I want to do so by parental notification, by adoptions, and by education. […] But the bottom line is that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and I would support it as a U.S. Senator.”

When asked if he supported more restrictive legislation, like the recently passed ban in South Dakota that will likely reach the Supreme Court, he said, “I would support whatever the Supreme Court comes up with. As a U.S. Senator, I would not have any say in it. Whichever way the Supreme Court goes would be the law of the land.”

Tarrant did add in an email response that he would support the Child Custody Protection Act, passed by Congress after our original interview, because “I believe parental notification is important.” However, he declined to support or sponsor a Federal Freedom of Choice Act, saying, “I don’t feel this legislation is necessary since the abortion question has already been settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

In regards to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and recently failed attempt to pass a federal marriage amendment, Tarrant said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I don’t believe the Constitution is intended to solve society’s problems, and therefore I would be against the introduction of an amendment.” When asked about Vermont’s civil unions and Massachusetts’ recent legalization of gay marriage, Tarrant said, “I think civil unions are fine, but I don’t think sexual preference should come into play there, just like it shouldn’t come into play in any other kind of discrimination. Meaning, that I think a brother and sister ought to be able to live together and have the same benefits, or two sisters, even though they are not having sex.”

As for LGBT servicemen and women and the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, Tarrant was undecided. “I’ve been thinking about that, but I don’t have an answer at the moment. I’ve been going back and forth on that and want to understand what the brass, if you will, [what] their arguments [are] in terms of morale. I haven’t got a clear picture of that and I want to understand what their arguments are, that’s all I can say right now.”

Congressional Spending

Tarrant is far more comfortable talking about balancing the federal budget, primarily through unspecified spending cuts. “The real important thing is the process. For any budget, whether it is your home budget, business budget, or the U.S. government, you need to put priorities,” he said. “You need discipline, and in the case of business or government, you need leadership and leadership is about saying no and, candidly, my administration, the Republican administration, has not learned how to say no to anything.”

One idea he is especially interested in is sunset legislation requiring Congress to periodically re-approve all federal agencies. “There’s too many agencies, for example there’s 15 different federal agencies that do labor training and that’s nuts,” he said. “They are building up little fiefdoms, but do we need this? Do we need 15 agencies to train laborers, to train the workforce?”

Tarrant believes that the reduction in the tax rate for the top margin of earners (from 39 to 36 percent) should be repealed, but supports continuing the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. “They were tax rate cuts, and that is very, very important because the dollars are now in the till,” he said, noting that the two years since the tax rate cuts went into effect have been the largest tax receipt years in history. “There were no tax cuts, there were tax increases,” he said. “Flat out, the taxes went up. The rich went up way more than the rest, way more, and even the Congressional Budget Office – not that the liberal press would ever admit this – said that the budget deficit has dropped down to $300 billion because of the huge increase in tax receipts.”

Health Care

Tarrant draws heavily on his experience founding and growing IDX into a multi-million dollar company in the health care industry as a reason for voter confidence. “That’s an industry I spent 35 years in and I think I understand it pretty well; it’s clearly the most important domestic issue facing us in this country,” he said.

His plan for health care includes allowing the uninsured to opt into Medicare, paying premiums according to their needs. “I believe everyone needs to have insurance coverage. It’s the right thing to do and it’s also the economical thing to do because insurance impacts behavior,” he explained. “You want to incent people to get in and get screened and get physicals and so forth early on so that we can detect diseases and treat them early because the real expense is in chronic care.”

Tarrant does not think that health care can be addressed on the state level by bills like the recently passed Health Care Affordability Act. “It’s creating a new bureaucracy to cover another 25,000 [people] and it does virtually nothing to reduce the cost of health care,” he said. In the absence of federal reforms, Tarrant believes that states should not act on health care. “Get the hell away, they are making it worse. If all 50 states change every two years, it’s a nightmare,” he said.

Energy and Globalization

Tarrant splits his stance on governmental regulations on the issues of energy and globalization. He said, “Science has shown that global warming is a real problem for our planet. Global warming is not a partisan political issue. This is a serious problem that will impact future generations and we must all work together to find a solution.” He supports Senator Jeffords’ recently introduced global warming bill.

Tarrant also supports increasing miles per gallon standards through federal regulations and investing in technology to lower emissions, produce hydrogen cars, and create other eco-friendly business products. However, he also said, “I don’t think the federal government should be putting [up] money and incentives. I don’t believe in investment tax credits, I don’t believe in energy tax credits. I think these companies, or companies in general, will be driven by the market.”

Tarrant’s faith in a global free market versus Bernie Sanders’ lifelong commitment to democratic socialism is perhaps the clearest distinction between any two candidates in any race this year. Tarrant has called globalization inevitable, in part because, “the Internet just dominates communications and is starting to dominate trade. You buy and sell more things on the Internet these days than we ever would have imagined.”

“Any of the protectionist kinds of thinkers like my opponent can’t just go and cut that fiber optic cable. It would not be practical for him to swim down that far,” Tarrant said with a laugh. “Not only is globalization inevitable, but I believe that world trade fosters world peace. […] I’m a big proponent of the American economy and American understanding of how you make free trade work. We helped Russia convert from a socialist country to capitalism and I think we can help a lot of countries with their economy at a lot less cost than war.”

Conclusion

Tarrant ended our interview by saying, “The reason I think I would be a better senator, is I’d be thoughtful. I want to know both sides of every issue. […] I’m not going down there to preach to the Senate or bang on tables when I don’t get my way. […] That is the primary difference between myself and my opponent.” And while his inclination for evidence is admirable, and likely essential for successful business deals, Tarrant’s discomfort with holding an opinion on a topic without hard data is disconcerting in a senatorial candidate who could conceivably be asked to weigh in on abstract and theoretical issues with very real consequences, like the definition of torture and war crimes, the balance between a free press and national security, and the limits of a Roe v. Wade-defined right to privacy.