I agree . . . Pretty much attack mode from the TV commercials.

But I thought McGinty had a mild "you're no Jack Kennedy" moment when she paused and responded to Toomey's attack that she was anti-police. She confidently reminded him that her father was a cop and every day he went off to work with the family not knowing if he'd come home safely.

Toomey 'pivoting' on his stance on global warming was laughable . . . An obvious desperate attempt garner votes from people that have forgotten his voting record and numerous statements denying humans affecting climate change.

I agree that the attack on McGinty's claim about being the first to go to college is, overall, pretty weak.

But you have to wonder why she would have made up something that was so easily fact-checkable.

One thing I remember vividly about the debate, is that even though BOTH wandered off topic, McGinty usually wound up actually answering after some initial wandering off topic by usually saying "And to answer your question". Toomey wandered off topic many times and had to even be reminded by the moderator that he had not actually answered the question. 

 

tennyson wrote:

One thing I remember vividly about the debate, is that even though BOTH wandered off topic, McGinty usually wound up actually answering after some initial wandering off topic by usually saying "And to answer your question". Toomey wandered off topic many times and had to even be reminded by the moderator that he had not actually answered the question. 

 

 
If you write or e-mail Toomey with specific questions on a topic and provide your point of view as a constituent, and you are lucky enough to get a response, that response will be in the same vein. First, he will instruct you on the subject, next he will provide you with a background of the great strides he has made on the subject, and lastly he will thank you for your input and pledge to give your concerns his utmost attention. The letter is a standard, pat, preconceived, partisan position letter on a subject similar to your original correspondence about a specific piece of legislation. There will be no definitive answers nor will any of your stated concerns be directly addressed. I know . . . I just received an 'answer' from him in the mail this morning.

It is also apparent to me that, the closer we get to Election Day, the more likely it is that you will receive an answer from him . . . more likely from his staff. Over the previous years, your chances of getting a response from his office were very low. So, from my perspective, he is aware that his position is on shakey grounds, and he is making it a priority to make it appear as though he's paying attention to his constituents' concerns. After the election, win or lose, I'm pretty sure he'll slink back into his Tommy mode (that deaf, dumb, and blind kid The Who introduced us to) and not listen or speak to anybody let alone actually read your letter or e-mail. His major concern has been fund raising and cozying up to benefactors . . . The heck with those annoying constituents that think he represents them in D.C.