![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My Fellow Americans
Oct. 19th, 2000 11:19 amForgive me for posting a political semi-rant after a religion semi-rant....
Here would be my questions to the two US Presidential candidates if a debate were being held in my living room:
Gov. Bush (Republican): There are credible allegations that you may have committed drug felonies in your youth. Whether or not the drug laws are just in the first place is for another debate, but the fact remains that the laws are currently on the books. Do you, in a general sense, believe that a person who has committed felonies can be credible as the top elected official of this country?
Veep Gore (Democrat): Over and over in the debates, you have shown an unwillingness to follow the debate rules, even though you personally agreed to them: you have delivered opening statements, you have addressed questions personally to your opponent, you have addressed questions directly to audience members, you have spoken out of turn. Even if your heart is in the right place, would you, as president, violate the rules and laws of office to get something you want accomplished? Do you feel the ofice of president is above the rule of some or any laws?
And, the bonus questions for the third (and fourth and fifth) party candidates:
Mr. Nader (Green): Hypothetical situation....Half of your policies are enacted. Polluting factories are shut down, oil refinaries are closed, and research into alternative power sources is begun in earnest (mostly with gvt funding). If, hypothetically, the US infrastructure cannot handle an instant turnaround, and instead allows skyrocketing fuel costs, unemployment, and inflation, which would be more important to you? Human families with jobs and a means to support themselves, or the spotted owl? And, as a followup, if the tax revenue hypothetically drops like a rock due to inflation and unemployment, which would you prefer: cutting funding to alternative power sources, raising taxes, or restoring some proscribed industries?
Mr. Buchanan (Reform, mark II): Your radio and TV ads favor using the US military to assist in border patrols, to 'Give America back to Americans'. Do you favor the use of deadly force in situations of blatant illegal immigration? Do you favor using the military in the role of police/border guards? Is immigration an issue of defense?
Mr. Brown (Libertarian): Your stance is, at times, one of constitutional idealism. Do you believe that the constitution covers every situation American society is currently faced with? How would you handle this hypothetical situation: Congress enacts a controversial law, which is later upheld by the Supreme Court. This law may limit certain rights granted by the Bill of Rights. However, it was enacted by Congress using powers granted by the constitution, and tested by Justice, as provided by the constitution. A potential constitutional paradox!
Here would be my questions to the two US Presidential candidates if a debate were being held in my living room:
Gov. Bush (Republican): There are credible allegations that you may have committed drug felonies in your youth. Whether or not the drug laws are just in the first place is for another debate, but the fact remains that the laws are currently on the books. Do you, in a general sense, believe that a person who has committed felonies can be credible as the top elected official of this country?
Veep Gore (Democrat): Over and over in the debates, you have shown an unwillingness to follow the debate rules, even though you personally agreed to them: you have delivered opening statements, you have addressed questions personally to your opponent, you have addressed questions directly to audience members, you have spoken out of turn. Even if your heart is in the right place, would you, as president, violate the rules and laws of office to get something you want accomplished? Do you feel the ofice of president is above the rule of some or any laws?
And, the bonus questions for the third (and fourth and fifth) party candidates:
Mr. Nader (Green): Hypothetical situation....Half of your policies are enacted. Polluting factories are shut down, oil refinaries are closed, and research into alternative power sources is begun in earnest (mostly with gvt funding). If, hypothetically, the US infrastructure cannot handle an instant turnaround, and instead allows skyrocketing fuel costs, unemployment, and inflation, which would be more important to you? Human families with jobs and a means to support themselves, or the spotted owl? And, as a followup, if the tax revenue hypothetically drops like a rock due to inflation and unemployment, which would you prefer: cutting funding to alternative power sources, raising taxes, or restoring some proscribed industries?
Mr. Buchanan (Reform, mark II): Your radio and TV ads favor using the US military to assist in border patrols, to 'Give America back to Americans'. Do you favor the use of deadly force in situations of blatant illegal immigration? Do you favor using the military in the role of police/border guards? Is immigration an issue of defense?
Mr. Brown (Libertarian): Your stance is, at times, one of constitutional idealism. Do you believe that the constitution covers every situation American society is currently faced with? How would you handle this hypothetical situation: Congress enacts a controversial law, which is later upheld by the Supreme Court. This law may limit certain rights granted by the Bill of Rights. However, it was enacted by Congress using powers granted by the constitution, and tested by Justice, as provided by the constitution. A potential constitutional paradox!
