As much as the Presidential Debate has value in that the challenger finally gets nationwide attention and the incumbent an opportunity to defend his record and beyond, it is far from enough when the format relies solely on a single moderator. Americans are being denied the reality show of penetrating, sometimes hostile questioning from a corps of respected print, TV reporters, and, yes, notable bloggers to test the candidates’ true qualities. No moderator should accept the tiresome campaign jargon as answers but insist on details and the conditions under which they might be improbable, if not impossible. Nor should debates come to a close when there are still incomplete answers dangling, though either candidate, if he has the effrontery, can walk off.
In addition, the town hall format should be more open by the screening of participants based not on “softness,” but on challenging inquiry that begs thoughtful replies from both sides. For instance:
Citizen: Why, Mr. Kerry, do you think a woman has the right to choose and why?
K: Because it is her constitutional right to the domain of privacy regarding her own body. Common sense will tell you that if the constitutional right explicitly said that you cannot choose, it would go against the spirit of individual freedom and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Ctz: Then, if that were the case that a woman had no choice, how do you justify your answer that in choosing a nominee for the Supreme Court it would be based on not interpreting the constitution to the extent of unraveling constitutional law?
K: Putting aside that I’m a gun-owner, but against AK-47s doesn’t mean that I would want to nullify the Second Amendment’s “right to arm” clause. It would be presumptuous of me to campaign against an amendment ratified by two-thirds of the states. As much as I would regret the denial of a woman’s right to choose, I would have to accept it as the law of the land, even though it had corrupted the spirit of the law. However, if the scenario had been a campaign to corrupt, as in the president’s support of the marriage ban that goes against the equal protection clause, I would vehemently oppose it.
Ctz: Mr. President, why do you deny the woman’s right to choose?
Pr: I deny that right because it is not simply “due process” of the woman since there is also the right of another human being, the baby, involved. If the woman feels she made a mistake, that’s too bad — she has to accept the consequence, which, by the way, is the sacred duty to bear life, and should be proud of herself.
Ctz: Do you think a young single woman, fearful and without support is ready to accept the consequences?
Pr: Her family, too, must accept the consequences and if not there are plenty of faith based adoptive agencies willing to care for her.
K: That is a tremendous strain to put upon a person who must bear to fruition and then give the child up — in most cases they don’t, thus the escalation of welfare and/or the end of planned parenthood in most cases, together with aggravating the population explosion.
Alas, this proposal will still be contingent on how extensive and honest the contestants are willing to be.
Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 14, 2004.
http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com