SharedThought

Just a few notes from last night’s debate. The debate was heated, not very surprisingly. I was actually a bit disappointed in both candidates. Several times, their answers did not really relate to the audience member’s questions, but instead were reiterations of past comments. However, there were some comments made by Senator Kerry that underscored his suitability to occupy the highest office in the land. The statements were taken directly from the transcript of the debates, found at this link.

Q: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

A: (John Kerry in rebuttal) I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you are reading their decision, their opinion, you can’t tell if it’s written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you’re reading a good judicial decision.

A few years ago when he came to office, the president said – these are his words – “What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts.”

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 of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation.
And I have to make that judgment.
Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don’t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can’t afford it otherwise.
That’s why I think it’s important. That’s why I think it’s important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

In my opinion, Senator Kerry’s answer, regarding the Supreme Court, outlines exactly what we should expect from our judicial system-impartiality, non-partisanship, and lack of bias. It expresses one facet of his vision for a better America. Again, idealist Chris talking. But can we not, at the very least, aspire to that ideal? President Bush, on the other hand, is more concerned that we think and behave in his ideological form. The law and the Constitution take second chair.

With regard to the abortion question, I was caught off-guard by his answer. I don’t think he could have framed his response better. His view is absolutely, unequivocally correct. The President’s obligation is to see the law of the land, as laid out in the Constitution, applied fairly and equitably, not to impose a law according to rigid ideological restrictions not shared by all US citizens.

There may be arguments over who won or lost last night, but the American people, and our way of life, will be the true winners in January when John Kerry restores the integrity and perspective due the office of the Presidency.

I have this theory about terrorists and the policy of fighting them “over there”, so we don’t have to fight them here. In this theory, I compare terrorists to mold. Here’s how it goes.

Many people have mold problems in their houses, boats, or whatever. There are a couple ways to look at the problem. You can go out and purchase mold killing chemicals, and drying agents, and then go around and kill all the mold you see; at the base of walls, the floor, behind the toilet, under the rug, etc.; and treat the surface with the drying agents to slow down the spread of mold.

The flaw in this logic is, you haven’t done anything to identify the source(s), or taken the steps necessary to prevent the recurrence of the problem. Without this research, you are merely treating the symptom of a greater problem. The mold does not spring out of a vacuum-there are conditions which are conducive to its growth. Absent the elimination or mediation of the source of the mold, it keeps coming back over and over.

All you end up doing is killing the mold when it becomes visible. Get it?

Once the identification of the probable or proximate cause is made, then the logical course would be to formulate a strategy to remedy the situation. In the case of mold, once you find the source of moisture, the case is usually solved. You fix the leak, you dry the area, the mold dies out on its own.

We may choose to kill the terrorists when and where we find them, and continue to kill them whenever and wherever they appear. However, there is no possible way to kill them all if the conditions which produced them in the first place remain extant. There will always be another terrorist produced to take the place of the last one killed.

The way to achieve true progress in the greater fight is to first identify the source of the problem. Is it economic? Is it philosophical? Is it due to ecumenical threat? Other external stimuli? i.e. U.S. foreign policy? Or?

In the case of terrorism, what is the true reason for the hate of which we are the object? Do the homework, the “hard work”, to understand and identify the real motivation for this hate, and you are a long way toward solving the problem. As they say in a certain twelve-step program, first you have to admit you have a problem.

In the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, et al, President Bush has yet to admit that we are part of the problem, not just victims. The hard work has yet to be done. We need to have vision-first, to see the proper course, and then, the conviction to take it. The prosecution of war to express your point of view is not vision; it is direct evidence of failure of vision.

Again, to paraphrase that certain program:

grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference

Real courage does not come while wielding a gun. I have always kept hope for wisdom in our current leadership, but continue to suffer from disappointment. It is for this reason, above all else, we need to remove President Bush and his administration from power.

With the next debate looming on the horizon, I just had a thought about the economy that comes from a different perspective than any I have heard thus far.

The voting population just seems to be entirely disconnected from the fact that the burgeoning national debt has an impact on them.

Perhaps if it were expressed that Mr. Bush has taken out an interest-only home loan and equity credit line, it would register.

If they were to understand that at some time you really do have to pay principal on the loan, that you can’t run the deficits ever-increasingly, that it can’t be interest-only forever, then people would understand that the tax-cuts are not actually cuts, only rubber checks written by the government on an overdrawn account.

The balloon payment is coming due, and who is going to pay then?

The companion issue is mortgaging our country, through the sale of bonds to finance our debt, to other nations. The real danger of current policy is ceding control of our capital markets and national economy to our creditor nations.

Who do we want to be in control of our money and future? Japan? Europe? Russia? Singapore? France? Canada? China? Saudi Arabia? (Saudi Arabia? Conspiracy theorists take note here)

President Bush has not protected the United States’ economy for the future generations. Instead, he has pandered to the rich and special interests, and bought the votes of the common man with his tiny “tax-cut” checks. He has sold us out.

People should realize that these checks are really only a loan of their own money, that we are all only currently paying the interest on that loan, and, as we all know, the payback is always going to be at least double the loan amount.

The clock is ticking, and we don’t have much time to rein in the profligate deficit spending of this administration. Just say NO!

I wake this morning to the fresh chance for John Kerry to assume the Oval Office in January. He was a clear winner in last night’s debate. Oh, the spinmeisters from the Republican side are all claiming victory today, but if you watched, as I did, no honest person could make that assertion.
Mr. Bush appeared flustered, angry, perturbed, confused, and mildly delusional in his continual repetition of his thirty minutes of prepared material. I say thirty minutes because, after the first half-hour, regardless of the question, his subsequent answers were mere paraphrases of his answers of the first half-hour. He was, and has been during the entire compaign, a broken record. His answers expressed no plan for our future, and no admission, explanation or justification for the mistakes of the past. Regardless of the question, Mr. Bush merely twisted his first few sentences of his answer until he got around to repeating the party line ideological dogma time after time. Is this the type of leader we want and need? What is his plan for future success in Iraq? As Mr. Kerry stated last night, the Bush plan is as follows: “More of the same”. Which means: each month, increasing casualties; each day, declaration that we are making good progress, “no worries”. Mr. Bush’s rebuttals were weak and meandering, many having nothing at all to do with Mr. Kerry’s comments, and some bordered on irrational and completely non sequitur. His body language was not that of a confident man. Several times he looked like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming car, with the grim realization of his fate. Just imagine W going into a summit conference, or treaty negotiation with the level of preparation and attitude we observed last night. Is it any wonder Mr. Bush cannot get any cooperation from our recalcitrant allies? Webster’s defines negotiate as, “to deal or bargain”; bargain as, “an agreement between parties settling what each shall give and take or perform and receive in a transaction”. This president does not give, he does not settle. He demands, and he takes. It is his way or the highway. And he again made that very clear last night. He is unwilling to admit ANY error in judgment. Once faced with that error, he then further compounds the mistake by his utter failure to adjust. He is closed to new ideas, and the concept of compromise. They say he practiced for six months for this debate. Did it show? I think not. I say he deserves a vacation, say, starting January 21, 2005? I’d give him a C-minus. A poor performance for a prospective commander-in-chief, let alone an incumbent.
By contrast, Mr. Kerry’s answers were clear and to the point. He actually answered the questions put forth. There was no waffling or “flip-flopping”. (Gawd, I hate that term. It sounds like some juvenile schoolyard taunt, which it is) He described how he would do things diferently, by engaging our allies and initiating dialogue with those who oppose us. He didn’t take armed force off the table. He simply considers it the very last option, not the only one. He knows war is evidence of the failure of imagination, and unprovoked war a weapon of choice not necessity. Mr. Bush’s Freudian slip last night was that Iraq attacked the United States. After being caught by Mr. Kerry in that lie, he retorted that of course he knew it was Bin Laden that attacked us. I’m not so sure. Mr. Kerry’s rebuttals were also clear, cogent, and germane to the questions. He was confident and at ease in this environment.
I think this debate was very telling in delineating their styles. Mr. Kerry exhibited the statesmanlike stature and ability that we deserve in a leader. He is deliberate. Since when did that become a liability? He is intelligent. Since when was that a drawback for a leader? He does change his mind. You would prefer a leader who ignores his staff, military leaders, and intelligence estimates to one who flies by the seat of his pants? Based on his immense international experience? Remember, W had only left the United States once in his life prior to becoming the President. No wonder the lack of global understanding. He only knows politics Texas-style. Mr. Kerry brings a level of tact, acumen, and perspective that is sorely lacking in our present Commander-in-Chief, and I think he showed that last night. Overall, I give him an A-.
I am a Democrat, and proud of it. I care about people, and the future of the world. Mr. Bush is a threat to that future.