October 10, 2004: The Debates: Will Someone Answer the Questions Asked?
OK. I am getting closer and closer to getting a full-course case of electioneering nausea. While I have made no bones about my dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration and what I believe has been its abuse of power, I will be honest, I am voting against Bush, and not so much for John Kerry. After watching two of the three debates, and the spinning talking heads creating fictions in front of my eyes, I have decided that American politics has become such a farce that the only people willing to run for President are those not qualified for the office. The first two debates just prove my point.
More often than not, the questions asked were not answered, or, we all know the answers given were outright lies or distortions. This is true for both George Bush and John Kerry. On demeanor, stature, thoughtfulness, and the ability to articulate some sort of message, Kerry wins. At least he looks like a President. Anyone who is comfortable with George Bush running our country after his performance after the first two debates, well, all I can say is there is a reason we have so few allies left in the world. He was impatient, inarticulate, and times behaved more like a frat brother during Greek week than President of the most powerful nation in the world. At one point in the second debate, it seemed like Bush was becoming completely unhinged, and was about to rush poor Charles Gibson. He did collect himself and regroup, but if I hear him say one more time you cannot lead if you even question his judgment, I think I will hail the ghost of Joseph McCarthy myself.
John Kerry is alright I guess, but he does not get me all excited. I would take Bill Clinton over him any day. I just think John Kerry tries too hard. He cannot leave well enough alone, let an answer be finished, everything has to end with a semicolon, not a period; . . . you get the idea. For the life of me, there are times I wanted to jump through my television screen while watching the debates, shake John Kerry and say “just answer the damn question.”
Just for laughs, and because I think this is what most voters would actually like to hear, I am going to take a few of the questions asked by my fellow Americans, and answer them the way I think they should have been answered by each candidate. Unfortunately, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that we will ever hear anything like this from either of these two candidates.
Q: Mr. President, yesterday in a statement you admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, but justified the invasion by stating, I quote, "He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction and could have passed this knowledge to our terrorist enemies." Do you sincerely believe this to be a reasonable justification for invasion when this statement applies to so many other countries, including North Korea?
A: You know what, sometimes, in hindsight, there are things you would have done differently. At the time we invaded Iraq, we believed that he had weapons of mass destruction, and further, was intent on not only using them, but on finding ways of transferring them to Al Qaeda. Our nation is at war, and I believed, at the time, Iraq was a clear and present danger. Had Saddam Hussein cooperated with the inspectors, and shown a willingness to prove this belief wrong, war could have been avoided. But, I was not willing to risk literally millions of American lives when the consensus was not only that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, but that Al Qaeda, which operated logistically within the same region as he, which also had prior contacts with this monster, was in search of such weapons.
Q: Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?
A: I cannot make such a promise. It would be irresponsible for me to promise you something not knowing what will happen in the next four year. Do I intend to increase taxes on families earning less than $200,000? No. On that you have my word. Can I promise you I will not? No I cannot do that. And here’s why.
This President has saddled our nation with a huge debt. And, someone has got to pay for it. We intend to pay for it by making government smarter, by closing corporate loop holes, by asking those who make the most to pay a little bit more. But, as President, I will not shift the burden for the choices I make as President onto my children, or onto my children’s children, as this President has. We are at war. There may come a time when we are all asked to sacrifice something more in order to win this war. I do not intend for that to happen, but I cannot promise you it will not. Now, I can already hear the names and labels ready to be thrown at me, but here’s the truth: If the time comes where we cannot pay the cost of fighting the war on terror and providing you with the services you need, the same services you receive today, than I believe that as President, I have a moral obligation to make sure that I do not pass that financial obligation onto someone else. I am not going to spend my countries money like a drunken sailor, and then leave the credit card bill for someone else to pay.
Q: Mr. President, my mother and sister traveled abroad this summer, and when they got back they talked to us about how shocked they were at the intensity of aggravation that other countries had with how we handled the Iraq situation
A: The American people elected me to do what I felt was in this country's best interests. While our long-term allies our important, in the shadow of 9-11, I could not mortgage our short-term safety in order mollify our allies, many of whom had been dealing with Iraq in violation of UN Sanctions. These countries were not the ones attacked by Osama bin Laden. And, these countries did not face the threat of an enemy searching for weapons of mass destruction to purchase and deploy. I did what I felt I had to in order to protect this nation. That is my first obligation. This is what I was elected to do. I understand that there is a lot of work to do to repair some of these relationships, and during my second term, I intend to extend my hand to the French, the Germans and the Russians in order to demonstrate that America is their friend, and that while we may have disagreed in the past, that we can work together to make a better future for all.
Q: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person.
A: First, I would say that I respect that person’s opinion, and the beliefs that underlie it. This country is divided on the issue of abortion. But, to me, abortion, at its core, is a personal issue. While I am personally opposed to it based upon my religious beliefs, I do not think it is appropriate for any President impose his religious beliefs on the rest of this nation. To do so would be to defeat the fundamental building block so cherished by our founding fathers: the separation of church and state. I would ban federal funding of late-term abortions in all instances except rape and when the life of the mother is at risk, and I would promote programs to limit both premarital sex and the number of abortions performed. But, it is not my place to impose my religious beliefs on this nation. Decisions such as these are between a woman, her family, and her God.
Now, I don’t even agree with the President’s position and I think I sounded more coherent than he did. And Kerry, well he just could not stop talking to save his life. All I hope is that whoever wins, wins by a large enough margin that we don’t have to go through the nightmare of 2000, and the divisive rhetoric that followed and continues to this day. Hell, even if Bush wins, I would rather he wins by 8 points than by 1. This county needs to look itself in the mirror and hold someone accountable for its politics. Based upon the first two Presidential debates, that someone is certainly not the candidates. They can’t even give us clear answers to the questions we ask them.