Lively Battle For GOP Nomination In 2nd Congressional District | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: The author of this post is Dan Way, who is an associate editor for the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.

Sitting U.S. Reps. Ellmers, Holding cite differences in record; outsider Brannon did not respond to interview requests


    RALEIGH - Incumbent U.S. Reps. Renee Ellmers and George Holding share many core beliefs about what ails America, and offer similar solutions for some of those ills. But they are highlighting their differences in the 2nd Congressional District Republican primary on June 7 in which they will face off with challenger Greg Brannon, a Cary obstetrician.

    Holding currently represents the 13th District, but after a federal court in February ordered new congressional maps, he was drawn out of that district, and chose to compete against Ellmers for her 2nd District seat.

    Both gave lengthy phone interviews to Carolina Journal. Brannon did not respond to several requests for an interview. His campaign site can be found here.

    Holding said he has been "a consistent conservative voice and vote" during his two terms in Congress.

    "Renee Ellmers talks about all the special interests, and all the Washington insiders in Washington she says that control me," he said. But those include the American Conservative Union, Heritage Foundation, Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity, and FreedomWorks, generally considered conservative organizations seeking limited government.

    "I am running on my record. I have been in office for almost six full years, I have seven pieces of legislation that have become law, and I have another 10 ... that have passed the House, and that's despite Barack Obama in the presidency," Ellmers said.

    "I am about being for something rather than against. I always find my way to vote yes using my conservative principles, using the Constitution as my guide," she said.

    A hot-button issue for both candidates is abortion.

    "You have to back up your talk with votes, and I do, and that's why I've got the endorsement of a lot of conservative organizations out there on the life issue as well," including National Right to Life Committee, North Carolina Values Coalition, and the Susan B. Anthony List, Holding said.

    "The National Right to Life said, 'No member of Congress in recent times has done more to undermine the pro-life movement than Renee Ellmers, and the reason for that is she doesn't back up what she says that she believes in,'" Holding said.

    Ellmers said it was "the height of hypocrisy and bad taste" for pro-life special interest leaders to endorse Holding when she has a 100 percent voting record on pro-life issues, and that they "want to make an example out of me" for opposing "very toxic" language those groups helped to insert in a bill that would have banned abortions after the 20th week of a pregnancy, when a fetus is capable of feeling pain.

    She said House leaders listened to those special interests rather than rank-and-file lawmakers in drafting the bill, which required proof that a "legitimate rape" had occurred for a rape exception to be used to the 20-week ban. Ultimately that language was removed, making the legislation stronger, Ellmers said.

    Both candidates call for reforming immigration laws.

    Ellmers said she is "very disappointed in our House Republican leadership" for not fixing a "broken immigration system." She blamed the leaders for not allowing a floor vote on "an outstanding bill" to secure the borders, which she called the first priority in stopping illegal immigration. To deal with those now here illegally, the GOP must "put forward some kind of plan of action so that we know who these individuals are, and we can deal with them appropriately."

    "A touchstone for me in the whole debate is that if you break the law you can never have the fruit of your illegal activity, which is citizenship. So if you break the law to come here you can never become a citizen," Holding said.

    Ellmers was one of seven Republicans to vote against a GOP plan to defund President Obama's executive amnesty orders, he said, and the only Republican to vote against an amendment to the bill "to prioritize the deportation of illegal aliens who had committed sexual crimes, sexual predators."

    Holding and Ellmers both say overregulation from the Obama administration is hurting the economy at home, and high corporate taxes are putting the U.S. at a global competitive disadvantage.

    "It's a generational time for comprehensive tax reform," and abolishing the IRS altogether is "not far-fetched if you can simplify the [tax] code," Holding said. "I introduced a bill last week that I've been working on for over a year which would take criminal investigation agents out of the IRS, and leave them in the Treasury Department in their own bureau" to put a vital buffer between the politically appointed bureaucrats running the agency and criminal investigators.

    "We had tax reform legislation for quite some time, and for whatever reason our Republican leadership just hasn't chosen to move forward with it," Ellmers said. "I think when you're talking about things like tax reform you have to have the political courage to just bite the bullet and put it out there, and I think if they would have done that a long time ago we would have been feeling a lot less frustration from the American people."

    Holding and Ellmers both support repealing Obamacare, and cite its collapse nationally through the failing health care exchanges, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars lost by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina and other insurance companies offering Obamacare plans.

    "For me, a critical part is to put the patient in charge of the checkbook. That's what's lacking under Obamacare, and that's what's lacking under a lot of insurance systems," Holding said, so cost-conscious decisions aren't being made. Health care savings accounts are good to give the insured "skin in the game," and hospital and medical network costs are too opaque, he said.

    "I think the goal in the House is prior to the convention to roll out the outline of an alternative" in the hope it would be debated in the presidential race, Holding said.

    Ellmers said the Obamacare replacement plan must be "sound policy that's patient-centered, and actually empowers families to do right by their families, and work with physicians on good health care." Insurance companies should be allowed to compete regionally and nationally, she said.

    "Yet again our leadership has backed away from actually showing the American people what an actual replacement plan is," said Ellmers, who has been a member of the Republican Study Committee that has drafted a replacement plan, but can't get traction to propel it to legislative consideration.

    Bringing health care costs down should include tort reform so doctors don't have to practice expensive, often unnecessary medicine to avoid lawsuits, and the 21st Century Cures Act should be passed, Ellmers said. The act would streamline federal research funding, speed the Food and Drug Administration's approval process for new vaccines, and focus on diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and Alzheimer's. She voted for the act. "My colleague George Holding voted no."

    Holding said he opposed the act because it made the funding an entitlement. He supports the research, but said funding should be cut elsewhere in the budget to pay for research, rather than create another mandatory funding program.

    Ellmers and Holding both say Obama's foreign policy has been disastrous, allowing for the rise of China and ISIS, the resurgence of Russian aggression, a bad Iranian nuclear deal, and distrust among our allies that they have U.S. support if needed.

    "You've got to fund the military, and again my colleague, Mr. Holding, he voted no on funding our military," Ellmers said. "If we say that we're not going to fund them at the level that is necessary how does that send a message of strength so that we can fight those threats?"

    Holding said he has visited with King Abdullah in Jordan, Kurdish Peshmerga fighters in northern Iraq, and the Latvian defense minister to understand what foreign policy tactics would work best, none of which the Obama administration is embracing.

    He countered Ellmers' contention that he voted against military spending, saying Obama vetoed a House bill that would increase military spending and then, as part of a larger spending bill, the president insisted on linking the military spending increase to a $40 billion boost in domestic spending. Holding said he voted no because Obama's preferred measure expanded nonmilitary spending by so much.
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Is U.S. Education Worth $675 Billion? Carolina Journal, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics Adding Curve to the Flat Tax

HbAD0

 
Back to Top