"This is a great moment for democracy," Mr. Manger said of the public turnout, in a two-minute opening statement, in which he promised, if elected, to decrease government regulation of small businesses and stimulate economic growth without raising taxes. "We pay too much and are getting too little, and I will do better," he said.
Mr. Bishop, in his opening statement, led off with a list of his public service priorities, which included the environment and education, as well as the concerns of senior citizens, war veterans and other constituents.
"I've brought back $65 million in federal earmarks to this district," he said, adding his hope that he would be reelected and allowed to continue working to benefit the Southampton community that he grew up in.
The candidates answered some 20 questions during the event sponsored by The Southampton Press and hosted by the library, ranging from issues such as affordable housing and local land preservation to more nationwide concerns, such as the war in Iraq, homeland security and the federal deficit.
The candidates agreed on a number of points, including the need to provide better care for veterans, encourage affordable housing and support stem cell research. Both candidates also said that they would seek to stimulate economic growth and decrease the federal government's wasteful spending to decrease the nation's deficit.
"We are in the midst of the greatest fiscal meltdown in the history of our nation," Mr. Bishop said, blaming Republican policies. "There is waste, fraud and abuse in Washington."
Mr. Bishop criticized President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax breaks—which included tax cuts and reductions of taxes on capital gains and dividends—saying that the initiatives favor the upper class. "We need to provide relief to people who really do need relief," the congressman said, noting that he supports "targeted tax cuts" such as a middle class tax break and child tax credit. "I will not give tax cuts to people who don't need them," he said.
Although Mr. Manger agreed that the government must "cut back on wasteful spending," he defended the recent tax cuts. "The tax cuts are having an effect on improving the economy," he said.
On the topic of health insurance, both candidates said they were in favor of the Small Business Health Care Act of 2003, proposed legislation that would permit small-business owners to join together when buying health insurance coverage for employees, allowing for group leverage to negotiate better rates.
Mr. Manger criticized the congressman for voting against the Associated Health Plan, a bill that would have resulted in health insurance coverage for some 600,000 uninsured people. The measure has been approved by the House of Representatives but not yet by the Senate.
"When this vote came up in the House, my opponent voted no, and I think that was a mistake," Mr. Manger said.
Mr. Bishop defended his vote, saying that the proposed bill was a "bad plan" that would have done more harm than good. The bill, he said, would have resulted in inferior coverage for more than four million workers whose employers would have traded down to less expensive health insurance plans.
"It's a no-brainer for me," Mr. Bishop said, noting that, given the opportunity, he would again vote to "protect four million, even if it means not helping 600,000 ... There is a better alternative out there," he added.
In a discussion of Social Security, both Mr. Bishop and Mr. Manger said they oppose President Bush's plan to "privatize" or take the Social Security funds out of the public system.
"The president's idea is a terrible idea," said Mr. Bishop, noting that the state of the national Social Security fund is not as dire as it has been presented in the past. "The Social Security fund is solvent until about 2042."
Mr. Bishop accused his opponent of supporting privatization, saying that Mr. Manger has stated that he would support the removal of funds so long as they were not put into high-risk investments. Mr. Manger said his plan was different from the president's.
"That, folks, is privatization," Mr. Bishop shot back. "I don't know what's more troubling, that my opponent supports privatization or that he's running for Congress and doesn't know what privatization is. As long as you take it out of the system, you are privatizing."
The candidates also spoke about exorbitant oil prices. Both called for conservation and said they would seek creative solutions to decrease the demand for oil.
According to Mr. Bishop, the United States uses 25 percent of the world's oil and would not be able to meet that demand by increasing production in American refineries.
"We are not going to be able to drill our way out of this problem … until we get more serious about conservation," he said.
"We must look to other sources," Mr. Manger agreed, noting that he hopes to bring hydrogen cell research to Brookhaven National Lab, a move that he said would yield oil alternatives as well as additional jobs.
The candidates also addressed the influx of immigrants, and both stated the need to more closely guard U.S. borders.
"It's a homeland security issue," said Mr. Manger. "We must do everything we can to secure our borders."
Mr. Manger also said he would seek to have existing immigrants documented so that they would be paying into the system, but was not specific on how he would propose doing so.
According to Mr. Bishop, some 8,000 immigrants cross into the United States each day.
"We must close our borders," he said, adding that immigrants who currently reside here must be treated in a "humane fashion" that would take them "up out of the shadows. ... These are human beings after all," he said.
Both candidates voiced their opposition to the proposal by the Shinnecock Indian Nation to construct a gaming facility in Southampton Town.
"I am adamantly opposed to it," Mr. Manger said, citing the potential environmental harm and traffic congestion that a casino could cause.
Describing the issue as a "difficult dilemma," Mr. Bishop said that while he believes the Nation is entitled to certain rights, he would not endorse the casino project and believes the government should find a way to "de-link" federal recognition of Native American nations from casino gaming.
"I believe that gaming on eastern Long Island will forever change the quality of life [here]," he said. "I am opposed to it."
The debate later turned more personal in a discussion of the so-called "attack ads" sponsored by Mr. Manger and the Republican National Congressional Committee that allege that Mr. Bishop was responsible for the economic downfall of Southampton College, an institution that Mr. Manger described as an "integral component" of the local economy.
"I think my opponent should be ashamed for … exploiting [the college] for partisan political benefit," Mr. Bishop said, in response to the ads, which he said were inaccurate.
Mr. Manger defended his decision to remind voters that Mr. Bishop was provost of the college in the years that led up to its impending closure. "For 16 years, he was CEO of Southampton College," Mr. Manger said. "There must be responsibility taken for running up a $55 million deficit."
Mr. Bishop said the issue is far more complex than the public understands, adding that he believed his former role at the college was irrelevant to the congressional election. "I'm done discussing Southampton College," he said. "We're running for Congress."
But Mr. Manger argued that Mr. Bishop's term at the college was indeed relevant, and stated that, in many elections, it is common practice to evaluate a candidate's professional record prior to seeking office.
The debate ended with a final appeal from both candidates.
"The choice between the two of us could not be clearer," Mr. Manger concluded.
"Serving in Congress has been the greatest honor of my life," Mr. Bishop said. "I ask for your continued support."