Monday, Sept. 20, 2004 | 10:55 a.m.
Just weeks after the primary, the two candidates in the 3rd Congressional District have started trading ads and, on Sunday, barbs.
Democrat Tom Gallagher levied a series of criticisms at freshman Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., at a debate at Congregation Ner Tamid that drew about 250 people. The criticisms included that Porter voted for -- and then against -- a $1,500 bonus for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I feel very strongly that once you send troops into combat you've got to support them," Gallagher said.
It was the first time Gallagher, a former gaming executive, faced off against the incumbent.
Porter said he didn't change his vote because the Republican leadership told him to, as Gallagher alleged.
Instead, Porter said, he studied the issue and realized that the money going toward troops would have been pulled from funds meant for important supplies such as protective vests and hydration equipment.
The $1,500 would have been "a one-time bonus for a select few members of the armed services," Porter said.
Porter said he has supported a total of $5,500 in pay increases for troops.
"I asked leadership for additional information, and I realized that we have a commitment for a $5,500 permanent pay increase not just a one-time bonus," he said.
Gallagher also received applause from some when he criticized the Bush administration's Medicare prescription drug bill, which Gallagher has called a "boondoggle" for drug companies.
The government cannot buy drugs in bulk, the program is confusing and it's difficult for Medicare to import drugs from Canada under the bill, Gallagher said.
Porter said he realizes there are problems with the bill, but it is "a good start." About 70,000 more Nevadans have drug coverage under the bill, he said.
"We can adjust it and improve upon it," said Porter, who added that Democrats are just trying to scare seniors about the bill.
What scares seniors, Gallagher said, is the bill Congress passed.
"It was a cave-in to the pharmaceutical industry, and it was wrong," he said.
While Gallagher put out a report showing that Porter voted with Republican party leadership 94 percent of the time in his two-year term, Porter said there are key cases when he diverged from party leadership, including on a bill that would have sent U.S. funds to help the Saudi Arabian army.
"I refused to fund Saudi Arabia's military against the wishes of the White House and leadership," he said.
Porter also said he has helped bring more than $12 million in federal dollars to the state's schools.
The debate comes in the midst of an advertising campaign from both camps. First Gallagher launched an ad criticizing Porter's vote on the $1,500 bonus.
But in a footnote at the bottom of the ad, Gallagher's campaign team cited a vote from 2002, before Porter was in Congress.
Gallagher spokeswoman Mara Gassmann said Gallagher's Washington, D.C.-based media consultant made the error, which she said was corrected in hours. The ad accurately portrayed Porter's position, but accidentally cited the wrong vote, she said.
"We messed up," Gassmann said. "It was a mistake."
Porter's campaign retorted with a harsh ad accusing Gallagher of lying about Porter's record, calling Gallagher "a political opportunist we can't trust or afford."
"He accuses Porter of casting a vote when he wasn't even there," said Porter's campaign consultant, Mike Slanker. "I don't know who you blame for that, other than it's a stupid mistake. It makes the whole ad untrue."
Porter has been mostly holding on to his $1.1 million in cash until recently, when he launched several ads. Gallagher has run ads almost continuously, trying to increase his name recognition.
Until recently the congressional district had more Republicans than Democrats. That has changed; there are now 141,939 Democrats and 139,240 Republicans, with 53,678 registered nonpartisan voters.
archive
