WHAT IS THERE TO DEBATE?

WHAT IS THERE TO DEBATE?
INSIGHTMAG.COM ^ | SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 | JB WILLIAMS

Posted on 09/30/2004 7:30:46 AM PDT by CHARLITE

What Is There To Debate? Posted September 30, 2004 By J.B. Williams

Let's face it, Presidential debates rarely provide any real insight into the hearts and minds of the candidates. Debate rules and guidelines are designed so that handlers can script the appropriate responses in advance, the moderators are never moderates, and consequently, the American people would rather watch their favorite (scripted) realty TV show, which is far more real.

We seldom need a debate to know what any sitting President thinks. In Bush's case, does anyone really wonder where he stands on anything? Whether you agree with him or not, you know who he is and how he thinks. What can Bush say in a debate that will change how you feel about him?

As for John Kerry, what can we learn about him that his 20 years in the Senate hasn't already taught us? Despite DNC claims that we just don't know the man, the fact is, there are few men in America we know better.

We have known John Kerry for more than 30 years, since his anti-war, anti-America, and anti-fellow soldier grandstanding in 1971. We have known him since he shared a stage with Hanoi Jane. We know he's a war hero, in the eyes of the North Vietnamese, which is why he isn't a hero to at least 250 fellow veterans. And we have watched him become America's most liberal Senator over the last 20 years.

So what might John Kerry say in a debate that could change how people feel about his resume'? Seriously, in either case, does it really matter what they "say?" Particularly as they attempt to win votes? When their words are opposite their record, should we take their word?

Frankly, if voters are going to judge John Kerry based on anything he "says," they have a problem. At one time or another, he has "said" everything, taken every side of every issue, often shifting positions one minute to the next, from one extreme to the other. Which statement should we buy?

If we were interviewing a prospective employee who had a resume' (as both of these candidates do), no amount of verbal promises would out-weigh their previous job performance, especially if their previous performance is negative and opposite their verbal promises.

Then there are the voters, most of whom have already chosen their guy, few of whom would change no matter what either candidate might say in a debate.

This election in particular has shaped up as a very distinct contrast of ideologies. Bush is clearly a hawk when it comes to defending America's interests, somewhat compassionate on social issues though still a conservative at heart, willing to out spend liberals when duty calls, but otherwise in favor of the American people having control of their own resources and destiny.

John Kerry's resume' is that of a pure liberal, an anti-war dove from the Vietnam War era who spent more time fighting his own country and fellow soldiers than fighting Vietcong. His Senate voting record is available for the viewing, and it is as liberal as they come, anti-military, anti-national sovereignty and security, anti-business, and pro-UN.

Bush sees the UN as a corrupt toothless debating society capable of the oil for food scam. Kerry sees the UN as a one-world council that should govern America's global policies.

Bush sees the federal government as a stumbling block to the US economy, and Kerry sees it as a means of controlling the US economy, a tool for redistributing our nation's resources.

Bush sees Iraq as the central front in the war on terrorism because that's how he designed it. Kerry once saw it that way too, but now he sees it as an unrelated diversion from the war on terrorism.

Bush sees the American people as the backbone of America and the federal government as a ball and chain around their necks. Kerry sees the American people as helpless victims of evil capitalists and the federal government as the hope for all mankind.

All of this is already clear to anyone paying attention. Most people in America share one of these ideologies and have already chosen their candidate as a result.

The few undecided left in between would be well served to make their decision based on the two resumes, not on any of the campaign rhetoric or canned promises from either candidate.

The idea that the American people need to see these two candidates debate anything is laughable.

Now, we might enjoy seeing the two swap jabs, like watching the WWF. But at the end of the day, Presidential debates have become more like a bad Jerry Springer episode than an honest discussion about America's future. Like network news, it has become just one more tabloid event.

What is there to debate? We know both of these men very well. We know how they think, what they stand for based on their actions over an extended history. So why are we having even one, let alone three debates?

Tradition I suppose, an opportunity for moderators from the mainstream press to embarrass one or the other of the candidates, maybe both.

It's at best a dog and pony show the way debates are formatted today. So why bother?

If you don't already know who these two men are and what they stand for, you have no business voting for anyone, because you have not been paying attention.

If you think you are going to learn who they are in these upcoming debates, you are judging them on the wrong basis.

Both of them have extensive resumes, and both are readily available for the viewing. What they "say" is only a statement about what kind of salesmen they are. If you want to know what kind of men they are, study their resume'.....

J.B. Williams is a political columnist and his commentaries can be seen here JB Williams.com

email the author: jbw@jb-williams.com