Tonight’s first presidential debate will be a carefully stage-managed event; much has been made of the 32-page Memorandum of Understanding agreed upon by the campaigns, with provisions requiring the candidates to shake hands and prohibiting them from moving from behind their podia or posing questions – or even directly addressing – their opponent (rhetorical questions will be allowed).
Among the things patricians George Bush and John Kerry share in common is they both studied debate at Yale. Mr. Bush, famous for his “gentleman’s C,” did not pursue the art beyond the classroom, but Mr. Kerry joined the debate team and is said to have been a legendary “strong persuader.” That goes a long way toward explaining why debate is no longer the spectator magnet it once was.
Coverage of tonight’s debate, and the three to follow, will spend too much time on who delivered the best line or whether each man seemed nervous under the lights. That’s a shame. When an incumbent executive runs for re-election, both the incumbent and the challenger run on the incumbent’s record. If you like what you’ve got, vote to re-elect; if not, vote to change.
This week, four years after giving two oil industry executives leeway to concoct secret energy strategies, the price of crude is over $50 a barrel for the first time in history. At the pump, Americans have been paying $2 a gallon since Memorial Day. To “help us out,” the Saudis have repeatedly increased the amount of oil they pump and sell. Economics 101 professors tell their students that the two ways to make money are 1) volume (number of units sold) and 2) margin (profit per unit).
Since Mr. Bush invaded Iraq 18 months ago, the Saudis have had the rare opportunity to sell the world huge volumes of oil, at the highest margin ever. These are the same Saudis with whom the Bush family has had a complex, decades-long relationship; the Saudis who were flown out of the U.S. by chartered plane during the post 9-11 air travel moratorium; the Saudis who are the subject of 28 blacked-out pages in the Congressional report on 9-11.
On Wednesday, Reuters news service ran an article titled: “Bush Seen With Debate Edge Over Kerry on Iraq, Terror.” Really? Why? Because Reuters and other media outlets can’t find a reporter to cut through the discipline of the White House communications staff?
On July 3, 2003, before the most recent 700 Americans deaths in Iraq, George Bush said, “There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring ’em on.” Mr. Bush, on the basis of bad information about non-existent weapons of mass destruction, without UN authorization, sent too few troops, with the wrong equipment to complete an almost impossible task and then dared the citizens of an occupied country to try and kill them. Sixteen months later, Reuters says Mr. Bush has an “edge” over Mr. Kerry on Iraq and terror.
Where’s Osama bin Laden? Al Quaeda’s influence stretches from the islands of the Western Pacific to the nations of Western Europe and probably North America. Mr. Bush’s plan for capturing Osama has been to coddle Pakistan’s dictator Pervez Musharraf, even though it’s been revealed that his Dr. Strangelove, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has sold nukes to Iran and North Korea – two-thirds of Mr. Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” How does that translate into an “edge” on fighting terror? I’ll admit, Mr. Kerry could make an impenetrable hash out of “See Spot run,” but he must be preferable to a president who panders to nuclear terrorists. Even Spot should have an “edge” over George Bush on fighting terrorism.
I could continue, but what’s the point? Torture, illegal imprisonment, undermining the UN, shredding relations with our most important allies, the Geneva Convention and the Constitution – after four years, it’s all too familiar. Tonight’s debate, and those that follow will give us a good idea whether our national tragedy will come to an end or if we’re facing four years worse than what we’ve already been through.
What’s To Debate?
Tonight’s first presidential debate will be a carefully stage-managed event; much has been made of the 32-page Memorandum of Understanding agreed upon by the campaigns, with provisions requiring the candidates to shake hands and prohibiting them from moving from behind their podia or posing questions – or even directly addressing – their opponent (rhetorical questions will be allowed).
Among the things patricians George Bush and John Kerry share in common is they both studied debate at Yale. Mr. Bush, famous for his “gentleman’s C,” did not pursue the art beyond the classroom, but Mr. Kerry joined the debate team and is said to have been a legendary “strong persuader.” That goes a long way toward explaining why debate is no longer the spectator magnet it once was.
Coverage of tonight’s debate, and the three to follow, will spend too much time on who delivered the best line or whether each man seemed nervous under the lights. That’s a shame. When an incumbent executive runs for re-election, both the incumbent and the challenger run on the incumbent’s record. If you like what you’ve got, vote to re-elect; if not, vote to change.
This week, four years after giving two oil industry executives leeway to concoct secret energy strategies, the price of crude is over $50 a barrel for the first time in history. At the pump, Americans have been paying $2 a gallon since Memorial Day. To “help us out,” the Saudis have repeatedly increased the amount of oil they pump and sell. Economics 101 professors tell their students that the two ways to make money are 1) volume (number of units sold) and 2) margin (profit per unit).
Since Mr. Bush invaded Iraq 18 months ago, the Saudis have had the rare opportunity to sell the world huge volumes of oil, at the highest margin ever. These are the same Saudis with whom the Bush family has had a complex, decades-long relationship; the Saudis who were flown out of the U.S. by chartered plane during the post 9-11 air travel moratorium; the Saudis who are the subject of 28 blacked-out pages in the Congressional report on 9-11.
On Wednesday, Reuters news service ran an article titled: “Bush Seen With Debate Edge Over Kerry on Iraq, Terror.” Really? Why? Because Reuters and other media outlets can’t find a reporter to cut through the discipline of the White House communications staff?
On July 3, 2003, before the most recent 700 Americans deaths in Iraq, George Bush said, “There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring ’em on.” Mr. Bush, on the basis of bad information about non-existent weapons of mass destruction, without UN authorization, sent too few troops, with the wrong equipment to complete an almost impossible task and then dared the citizens of an occupied country to try and kill them. Sixteen months later, Reuters says Mr. Bush has an “edge” over Mr. Kerry on Iraq and terror.
Where’s Osama bin Laden? Al Quaeda’s influence stretches from the islands of the Western Pacific to the nations of Western Europe and probably North America. Mr. Bush’s plan for capturing Osama has been to coddle Pakistan’s dictator Pervez Musharraf, even though it’s been revealed that his Dr. Strangelove, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has sold nukes to Iran and North Korea – two-thirds of Mr. Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” How does that translate into an “edge” on fighting terror? I’ll admit, Mr. Kerry could make an impenetrable hash out of “See Spot run,” but he must be preferable to a president who panders to nuclear terrorists. Even Spot should have an “edge” over George Bush on fighting terrorism.
I could continue, but what’s the point? Torture, illegal imprisonment, undermining the UN, shredding relations with our most important allies, the Geneva Convention and the Constitution – after four years, it’s all too familiar. Tonight’s debate, and those that follow will give us a good idea whether our national tragedy will come to an end or if we’re facing four years worse than what we’ve already been through.
(c) Mark Floegel, 2004