Debate Coverage

Hey, did you guys know there was a debate last night? There was. The two candidates for vice-president squared off at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. One of the candidates made accusations about the record of the other one, then the other one responded and said those accusations were misleading. Then one candidate defended his performance in government and personal life, and the other defended his perfomance in personal and government life.

My personal take on this campaign is that none of these debates mean a damn thing. Honestly, how long has this campaign been going on? Four years, five, ten, thirty, since Robert Byrd was wearing the white robes of an organization that lynches black people? I don't know. What I do know is that it feels like forever, and by now we all pretty much know where the candidates stand and who we are going to vote for. People didn't tune into these first two debates because they wanted to be convinced one way or the other, they tuned in because they were cheering for one side or the other. In that sense it is just like sports--people are more interested when their team is playing.

And what do we know/have we learned from the campaign and the debates?

On the economy:

Though they have spent a ton of money, Bush and Cheney take the conservative stance that across the board tax cuts are the best way to generally improve the economy, and thus everything else. For them businesses are the engine of the economy, and too much government is a threat to economic freedom.

Kerry and Edwards take the liberal position that many big businesses (insurance companies, oil companies, Halliburton) are a threat to economic freedom and that government staffed by them can do better. So they want government programs or systems to address nearly every economic issue.

On the issue that really matters:

Kerry and Edwards see 9/11 as a crime, not an act of war. They want to go after those responsible for 9/11 (one branch of al Qaeda) and stop them from attacking the United States again by either killing them or arresting them. They believe that the best way to find and punish these criminals is by working with near universal support from the international community, and they think the international community also thinks the punishment for 9/11 should fit the criminal act.

Bush and Cheney see 9/11 as an act of war, not a crime. They want to go after those responsible for 9/11, but also the state sponsors of terrorism and the terrorist networks with potential and intent to strike the United States again. They define the threat much more broadly than their opponents (but, in what is my opinion, not broadly enough for most of the American people). They believe the best way to punish active terrorists and stop future terrorists is to take a multi-faceted war to the home region of radical Islamic terrorism, the Middle East. Afghansitan and Iraq represent the active military fronts; Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are being dealt with each with their own unique diplomatic efforts. Bush and Cheney are more than happy to work with allies who also see 9/11 as an act of war, and they think the threat is too grave and imminent for them to spend the time to try to convince everyone else to come along.

There you have it. Both sides have merit. You decide.