The argument came down to change versus experience at the first Primary Democratic Congressional Debate between Delegate to Congress Donna M. Christensen and challenger Stacey Plaskett on Tuesday night. The debate, held at the University of the Virgin Islands’ St. Croix campus, drew a large and often boisterous crowd.
Dr. Simon Jones-Hendrickson, the evening’s moderator, asked the two candidates questions on a wide range of issues, from global economics to the territory’s many potholes. As is the case with many primary debates, the candidates agreed on most issues, offering nearly identical platforms.
Both candidates voiced their support for raising the territory’s poverty line, eliminating the Medicaid cap, tightening security at the ports to disrupt gun smuggling, connecting the territory to Puerto Rico’s energy grid, and converting the V.I. Water and Power Authority over to liquid natural gas.
The true debate surrounded Christensen’s record. At every turn, Plaskett attempted to portray Christensen as an ineffective leader, asking why Christensen hasn’t achieved more during her 16 years in office. She pointed to lingering issues such as the Medicaid cap and the slow growth of businesses in the territory as proof that it is time to change leadership.
“We have mortgaged the Virgin Islands at this point,” Plaskett said. “We need to ask ourselves how we are going to get out of it.”
“Are we going to get out of it using the same people and the same ways?” Plaskett asked “Or are we going to come up with new and creative means to move ourselves in to the next level?”
Christensen defended herself, arguing that her record speaks for itself. She acknowledged that there were still challenges facing the territory, but she said that change comes slowly in Washington, D.C., and that during her administration she has made progress.
Using the Medicaid cap as an example, Christensen said that she will continue to pursue parity, but raising the cap from $4 million to $43 million was a major accomplishment for her administration.
Christensen went on to argue that her established connections with leaders in D.C. and her 16 years of seniority put her in a better position to affect change in Congress.
“The way to move forward is to use my seniority, to use knowledge, to use my relationships,” she said. “Use the respect I have gained from my colleagues to build a compact to move this community forward and through these difficult times.”
The candidates clashed on a handful of issues during the evening. Early in the debate, Plaskett was asked to address her switch from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party in late 2008.
Plaskett replied that she was drawn to the Democratic Party by the recent wave of younger voices coming to power in the organization. She said she had seen the party as an “old boys club” when she was younger, but now viewed the party as a place where new ideas could be heard.
Plaskett claimed that Christensen had been using the issue of her party affiliation to insinuate that Plaskett could not be trusted, but that was not the case.
“At least I’m up front about where I stand,” Plaskett said.
Christensen argued that it was a legitimate area of concern, claiming that Plaskett had referred to herself as a “Tea Party Democrat.”
This caused an outcry from Plaskett’s supporters, and Christensen quickly acknowledged that she had meant to say “Blue Dog Democrat,” referring to the moderate branch of the party.
Christensen argued this was little better, however, as the Blue Dogs frequently vote against President Obama’s agenda.
The candidates also argued extensively about a proposed measure that would allow the government to collect a rebate from the gasoline excise tax.
Christensen said she had explored the issue, but there was not sufficient congressional support for it to pass.
Plaskett attempted to portray this as a lack of fight on Christensen’s part, saying the congresswoman simply did not want to expend her “political capital” working on a tough issue. Plaskett said that if she was elected, she would introduce a bill regardless of its support and would possibly attempt to affect the change through an amendment to the Organic Act.
The debate ended with the candidates arguing over the proposed chief financial officer position, the issue on which they are the farthest apart.
Christensen has been a proponent of the position and pushed a bill to create the CFO through the House of Representatives this summer, despite opposition from the governor.
Plaskett is adamantly opposed to the creation of a territorial CFO, arguing that it is a step backwards for the Virgin Islands. She argued that it put too much power in the hands of the federal government, and that Christensen should have pursued a local solution first.
Christensen fired back, dismissing the concerns about federal intervention.
“I believe in greater self-governance,” she said. “The Virgin Islands can take care of itself.”
Christensen argued that the CFO bill was necessary because local politicians were not willing to pass the needed legislation to ensure financial accountability. She also said that ultimately the CFO position will instill greater faith in the stability of the V.I. government and allow for more federal funds to flow into the territory.
In closing, Plaskett renewed her call for change, telling those in the crowd to ask themselves “how long must we wait” for reform.
“Change needs to be at all levels of government,” she said. “Change is a part of life. It’s nothing to be afraid of.”
Christensen closed by asking the crowd to stay the course and send her back to Washington for another term.
“Change for change’s sake is not what we need today,” she said. “We need to have the foundation I have built through years of service.”
Sorry Stacy but you lost me with your comment,
“I believe in greater self-governance,” she said. “The Virgin Islands can take care of itself.”
Oh Yeah? We have all seen how well that has been working, so far.(NOT!)
Local solutions have not worked.
Giving the Feds more authority just might stop the cycle of waste, missappropriations, mismanagement, misspending and outright theft that constantly goes on here to the point none of us have any confidence in our elected or appointed leaders a/k/a the wolves in sheep’s clothing tho that is insulting to wolves.
I took the time to go to the debate and get a feel from both candidates instead of reading an article and using it to help make my desicion. Attorney Plaskett clearly took this debate hands down and I want her to represent the VI in Congress. Alana if you were at the debate you would see a much larger difference than what is portrayed in this article and you would have heard from attorney Plaskett herself stating many reasons why this CFO bill is not even a true CFO bill. The original CFO bill had the president of the united states picking the director and congress approving that person. This bill has the same local gang governor and legislature picking the director and we the people still have to pay for it. I know this bill is NOT the way for the virgin islands to move forward.
I could not make it to the debate but I watched the live stream on WTJX and I have to agree with you. Attorney Plaskett held her own and I watched with a completely objective view. The Delegate appeared flustered at times and was on the defensive regarding her record. I got annoyed when Delegate Christensen kept saying it was only her job to bring the funding and what was done with it afterwards was out of her control. While part of that may be true, when at a debate the last thing she should do is take a hands off apprroach to funding for capital projects.
I did want more details from Attorney Plaskett in terms of the status for the U.S. Virgin Islands in America. Re-open the Federal Grant Office, have various offices for the Delegate to Congress in markets where plenty of U.S. Virgin Islanders live in America i.e. NYC, Atlanta, Charlotte, Washington, D.C., and Miami. It’s time that we use our influence to get things done in Congress that can make a local impact in the U.S.V.I. For 16 years, the Delegate has been in office and she has accomplishments, but I wish she could be more aggressive in Congress. Scratch some backs, so our backs can get scracthed in return. Meet with your constituents regularly, not just during election time or Festival time. I think she realized she was officially put on notice last night. And BIG CONGRATULATIONS to the V.I. Action Group and the St. Croix Think Tank for making this happen…wonderful start to the election season!
Christensen is a wonderful person and I have always supported her in the past. She has demonstrated time and time again that she is a true asset to the VI and I am proud to call her my Delegate to Congress.
However, I do believe that we are in need of a new fighter and ‘go-getter’ with tact, poise, and methodology – Plaskett may be just what the doctor ordered. I say, give her a chance to show us what she is capable of. New wine for new wineskins. We need a dynamic new leader representing us in Congress.
Alana, I back you with this one… You’ve got a morally corrupt and extremely dysfunctional leadership base there… Where your leaders both elected, appointed or otherwise, refuse to effectively and efficiently use the monies set aside for the people of the U.S.V.I. and when they can’t find a way to steal it, they send back millions to the Feds while your roads, schools, hospitals and government owned buildings fall to disrepair… Where your public safety and justice system bully law-abiding citizens and baby the fiends that are holding the good people captive… What’s the Department of Consumer Affairs done lately to help with the years of constant pricing gouging taking place at your local supermarkets?!? Yes, let the Feds come, because the leaders of the U.S.V.I. don’t have one clue about leading in a positive and productive direction…
I completely understand the fustration, but I think we need to be REALISTIC. The FEDS are not coming! They are not going to step in unless civil war or a coup d’etat occurred would that bring the Feds. Please let us focus on electing the right people to office. Ask the tough questions and whole their feet to the fire. Stay informed and please do more than just attend the fish fries and drink rum and eat roti. Because when all that is said and done, we will have their policies to live and deal with. Just imagine if we had the amount of people you see at Jump Up or J’ouvert attend political campaign meetings and/or legislative meetings. THINGS WOULD GET DONE THEN!
I too, think it is time for a change which is why I was all for Plasket until the above mentioned comment.
Now, I shall wait and see what she may have to offer but not impressed at all by the comment as stated regarding keeping things local.
We have already seen how well that DOES NOT WORK for decades, now.
I’ve voted for Christiansen in the past but, truly, there was no real competition for her at the time.
It’s different now. Will just see how things shape up.
Additionally, as I recall when I e-mailed our present Delegates office to find out what was going on with our $6.9 MILLION Dollars noted by the Inspector General’s Audit,
no comment or return call or message was ever received.
People in voted into Office really need to be responsive to the people they are elected to SERVE! No response was ever received either from the Atty. General’s Office, white collar crime division’s head. Nor was anyone else that contacted these offices ever responded to. How’s that for serving the people?
Personally, I think we need a clean sweep but we also need to be careful to vote for ethical, honest, intelligent, hardworking people that will put the good of the people of the Virgin Islands before their own private and personal interests.
Having astute financial comprehension, knowing how to balance a budget and not having a criminal background or being on probation would also be a huge plus!
People just in it for the money need not apply!
The climate of division and mistrust in the U. S. Congress is at it’s worse ever, and it is therefore no place into which to send a party-switching, newcomer Delegate from our small, financially strapped Territory to go knocking on doors competing for limited Federal resources. What makes Atty. Plaskett think that as a recent Republican-turned-Democrat that she would enjoy the TRUST of either party, after such a fundamental flip-flop on loyalty and policy issues?
As a new Delegate to Congress, she would certainly find important doors closed to her, locally and nationally, since her former Republican pals would NOT be interested in helping this new Democrat fulfill her campaign promises to the Territory OR to her new-found love, the Democratic Party of the V. I.
Or perhaps Atty. Plaskett would become, like Sen. Lieberman was, a Democrat in name only while caucusing with the Obama-hating Repubs who are committed to the failure and defeat of all of Pres. Obama’s programs, no matter whom they are intended to benefit.
We have seen that even with experience and seniority it is very difficult and time-consuming to get legislation introduced or passed in the Congress in recent years. It would therefore be wiser to build on the proven successes and the firm and beneficial relationships built by Delegate Christensen than to entrust our hopes to a newcomer at this critical time. And we know for certain, as does President Obama AND Secretary Clinton, where Delegate Christensen’s loyalties lie.