U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Republican opponent Tim Michels clashed over homeland security, the war in Iraq and the USA Patriot Act Friday in the first of six debates between the candidates running for U.S. Senate.
Michels, who is running on a platform stressing national security and the war on terror, ripped into Feingold for being the sole member of the Senate who did not support the Patriot Act.
\I think it's the reason we haven't had a terrorist attack in this country in three years,"" he said. In a previous interview with The Daily Cardinal, Michels also claimed the Patriot Act does not infringe upon civil liberties.
He said he will vote for the act's renewal if it comes to a yes or no vote. Eight al-Qaida cells have been broken up since it was passed, he said.
Feingold, however, accused Michels of never reading the act.
""I read that bill,"" he said, adding a federal court ruling earlier in the week supported his opinion that the act is flawed.
Feingold also indicated flaws in the United States' policy in Iraq. While he said he voted against the war, he said he supported spending money to protect American soldiers. He added Michels and the Bush administration have the wrong priorities and that Sept. 11, not Iraq, is what really matters in the war on terror.
""We are doing a lot of good in Iraq,"" Michels said, refuting his opponent's claims. ""If we can have democracy take hold in the Middle East, it'll be such a positive development for generations to come.""
The two candidates also clashed on jobs, with Feingold accusing Michels of supporting unfair trade and claiming he has a record of opposing agreements that are harmful to the job market.
Michels defended himself saying he does support free trade but also wants free trade agreements. ""I would have voted for them [at introduction],"" he said of such agreements. ""[Now] I want to fix them.""
According to UW-Madison political science Professor G. Donald Ferree, this debate was important for Michels' campaign because it serves to build up his stature from an unknown challenger to a valid opponent.
""Debates tend to work differently for challengers than incumbents,"" he said. ""One of the reasons that incumbents typically resist debates and challengers push for them is that they do help to establish ... a certain parody between them.""
-WisPolitics contributed to this report
