Presidential Debates - What a Sham!
- posted by Elmo on 2000-10-17 00:00:00
Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen,
Welcome to another fun-filled edition of Elmo's Rant. I want to thank all of you in advance for taking the trouble to read my rant. At least I believe that you are all reading it, because no one has yet asked to be taken off the list. Still, I marvel at the lack of responses that I have gotten from taking such a bold initiative as this...
Ok, enough small talk. It's time to pull out the old soap box again. Did anyone else actually watch the Presidential Debates tonight? I did, and I must say I wasn't impressed. If I'd known how lame it was going to be, I would have watched "Dark Angel" instead--Jessica Alba is much prettier to look at than either of those two goons. But I watched it, and the thing I found most notable about the whole thing is that leading 3rd party candidate Ralph Nader was once again stopped at the door and told to get lost. Which is sad, because Nader would probably be better than either of those two. Or Harry Browne, or Pat Buchanan, or even Pat Paulson for that matter (for those who don't know, he was a comedian whose whole act was running for Pres every four years until his untimely death in 1996).
Anyway, forgive me for being cynical--ok, so I'm always cynical, but even more so when it comes to politics. But all either of these guys talked about was how they were going to spend the so-called budget surplus better than the other guy. First off, there is no such thing as a "budget surplus", because all of that money comes from taxpayers and what isn't needed should never be taken from them in the first place. I love it how the media came up with this Orwellian newspeak that a tax cut is some form of government "spending". Giving back what was never yours is hardly spending. But aside from that minute point, it is still sad that the best these career politicians could come up with was more ways to spend that money. Tax cuts aside, that money is still in no way a sure thing--those figures are based on a very optimistic projection that our economy will continue the boom that it has thus far enjoyed, but there are already signs that may be a pipe dream. Inflation is beginning to rear its ugly head, gasoline prices are ridiculous, tech stocks are plummeting, and there may be a war in the Middle East in our not-so-distant future. And if all that wasn't bad enough, President Clinton is trying to break the record for last-minute 'midnight' spending to be railroaded through Congress before the end of the session, so there may not be much surplus left anyway.
But other than that, it was interesting to watch as these two struggled to point out ways in which they differed, and to note in what ways they agreed. Here are some issues I took note of as I was watching, and how I stand on the same issues.
Capital Punishment:
Bush - his state of Texas leads the nation in executions
Gore - Also supports it as a deterrent to crime
Elmo - The deterrent factor is arguable, and beyond that, I think it is pretty barbaric. Ever see "The Green Mile"? I cried, which I don't often do watching movies. Even if innocent people are only executed 0.001% of the time, that is still too many. I used to be in favor of it, because it I thought that was the only way to insure that murderers are never released back into society. But now I think "Life With Out Parole" camps are a much better solution, provided the security is foolproof.
Gun Control:
Bush - Wants instant checks on private sales at gun shows, wants to raise the legal limit to buy handgun to 21, and wants mandatory trigger locks
Gore - Wants all that, plus most everything else that Handgun Control, Inc. wants. He claims, however, that none of it would infringe on hunters, sportsmen, or the like
Elmo - Both have totally missed the boat. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, it's about the unalienable right to self-defense. Would-be muggers and rapists aren't going to wait until you turn 21 to attack you, someone who has made threats on your life isn't going to wait 3-5 days until your waiting period is up, and no one is going to just stand there gawking while you struggle with those trigger locks. Let's be logical here: criminals who would use guns illegally wouldn't respect any of those laws anyway. Victim disarmament does not reduce violent crime, it increases it. More important than any of this however, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both made it abundantly clear in their writings that the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment was to insure that individual citizens are well armed, as a final defense against what our founders feared most--tyrannical government out of control. I could go on and on about the insanity of gun control, but that will be another rant for another day.
Racial Quotas:
Bush - is against them, says they are divisive and have no place in America. He says he is for "affirmative access" over affirmative action
Gore - says he is against quotas, but is for affirmative action otherwise
Elmo - I actually agree on this one. I believe there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. All forms of racial discrimination are equally vile--be they anti-black, anti-white, anti-green, whatever. Racial quotas are nothing more than government enforced bigotry, plain and simple. California voters were absolutely right with Prop. 209 and their appellate court justices should be impeached for defying the direct will of the people.
The Death Tax (Inheritance Tax)
Bush - Wants to do away with the whole thing as an unfair double tax on the people
Gore - Claims that Bush's cut will mostly just help the 1% wealthiest people (a common rebuttal from him when it comes to tax cuts), and says his plan will do away with it for about 80% of the people
Elmo - Can't you Republicrats just compromise and cut 90% of it? Better than the 100% of it we now have to pay! Sheesh!
Overall, I'd say Gore technically won the debate with more precise answers to most of the questions. But issue-wise it's still a big toss up between the two. Here are a few more of today's most important issues and my opinion of who is on top on each. I've included 3rd party candidates in here because the mainstream media does not.
Abortion Harry Browne (Libertarian Party) (cites the 10th Amendment that it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and should be left up to the individual states to decide.)
Campaign Finance Ralph Nader (Green Party)
Civil Liberties Harry Browne (Libertarian Party)
Crime Reduction John Hagelin (Natural Law Party)
Economy Ralph Nader (Green Party)
Education John Hagelin (Natural Law Party)
Environment Al Gore (Democrat)
Foreign Policy Pat Buchanan (Reform Party)
Government Downsizing Harry Browne (Libertarian Party)
Gun Rights Howard Phillips (Constitution Party)
Health Care Al Gore (Democrat)
Military Readiness George W. Bush (Republican Party)
Privacy Harry Browne (Libertarian Party)
Social Security George W. Bush (Republican Party)
Tax Reduction Harry Browne (Libertarian Party)
Well, adding everything up and weighing it evenly, I'd say Harry Browne of the Libertarian party gets the most points, and therefore my vote. Especially when you consider that the issues aren't weighed evenly, and the ones he ranks highest in are related to privacy, personal freedom, cutting government waste, and lowering taxes--some of my biggest issues. But don't take my word for it. Go check out how they all stand on the issues yourselves. The only thing worse than not voting at all (and thereby waving any rights to complain about the jerk that gets elected) is to vote for the wrong person, because you didn't know how they stood on a key issue.
People often criticize me for voting independent, and tell me I'm "throwing away my vote". But if I vote for either of the two "major" candidates, I'd be voting for a lot of things I'm against, and thereby truly throwing away my vote. At least by voting Libertarian, I will be voting my conscious, and making a statement for what I believe--privacy and individual freedom. If everyone else who was sick of the same tired political crap would do likewise, we'd have a silent revolution over night.
I'm sure many of you have already decided how you're going to vote. That's cool--I just hope it isn't for the same lame reason as my grandmother--"I'm voting Democrat because I've always voted Democrat". I'd tell her that she might want to get out a little more often, because the platform has changed a bit since the days of FDR, but it wouldn't do any good. Not that I'm just knocking Democrats--the same goes for anyone who always blindly votes Republican. But for those of you who are still undecided, my advice to you is to get out there and get informed on the issues. Don't trust those establishment-only debates, because they left out over two-thirds of the major contenders. But go right to the source and read how they each stand on the issues, and decide for yourself.
Harry Browne (Libertarian)
Pat Buchanan (Reform)
George W. Bush (Republican)
Al Gore (Democrat)
John Hagelin (Natural Law)
Ralph Nader (Green)
Howard Philips (Constitution)
Many or most of you probably won't agree with me, but that is part of what makes America great. Dissention isn't what's killing our nation, it's apathy--a silent but deadly cancer that has polluted our environment, diminished our schools, corrupted our values, weakened our military, and eroded the Constitutional Rights we once took for granted. The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men (and women) to do nothing. So, the 5.5 trillion dollar question of the day is: Do you have what it takes to stand up and be counted, and make a difference before it's too late? Only you can answer that question.
Keep it real,
Elmo
Click here to return to the previous page.
|
 |
