If I could ask our presidential candidates one question, it would be a big one. At the microphone, I would (try to) stand proudly and ask:
“Candidates…What top 3 Domestic policy issues would you change? What 3 foreign policy issues would you change? How would you pay for all these changes?”
You may have noticed, I didn’t ask about their religion. I didn’t ask about their sexuality. I didn’t ask how they made their money. I didn’t even ask about their favorite song. I’m sort of an issue-guy. I like ‘em. Issues have the potential to affect me, if they-re not doing so already. Maybe I’m too self-centered. Maybe I should care how many homosexuals are related to these candidates, but I don’t. I also believe, maybe erroneously, that most people are issue-people, too. They may not admit it. It’s easier to spew rhetoric someone else has been feeding us rather than actually think (and talk) for ourselves. But these are just conversations. Everyone still worries about the same issues- how do I pay-off that hospital bill?, if I lose my job, how do we pay the mortgage?, why is it so hot in here?, stuff like that. Unless we’ve already rhetorically talked ourselves into a decision, the issues will matter. When the microphones are gone and we find ourselves standing in the voting booth, it’s those kinds of questions that will haunt us the most.
My wife is angry with me again. “Before I met you, I didn’t care one bit about elections. You watch these debates and tell me how important it is, so I watch too. Now you’re tired of me talking about Hillary.. well it all your own fault! ” Technically, she’s right. She was perfectly content not giving a damn before, and I ruined it. And, I have nothing against Hillary Clinton. I am sick of hearing about her from my wife when she’s watching CNN (which is all the time). Although, watching these debates has actually been fun (or I’m now officially old). Well, except for debates that include FOX “News” or Wolf “What’s your favorite bird?” Blitzer, they’ve been interesting. My opinion so far:
Clinton: Driven, decisive. Leader in health-care reform. Has a former president with a great track record for a husband. Might be cold & calculating, though- almost to the point of making her husband want to sleep with other women (Whoops.. not supposed to talk about that). How do you think the last Iranian leader would feel about having his terms of surrender dictated to him by a female? Too cool.
Romney: Staunch Bushee, but just smart enough to know to stay away from an actual endorsement from Bush. His hair may run separately as independent. It’s polling well.
Obama: Sincere (to a fault), Politically inexperienced. Wife thinks he’s cute (my wife). Understands Muslim mind set from growing up with them. Might be helpful these days?
Edwards: Solid policies. Fighter. Isn’t black; Isn’t a woman; tradition on his side. Wife says he and his wife don’t match, and I’m starting to really dislike southern accents.
McCain: Tell it like it is (or, at least, used to). Smart, but past his prime. Should have been president 4 years ago. May be a bit to party-dependent (and a bit adviser-dependent) now. Still the best VP choice for any party.
Huckabee: Knowledgeable, for a priest. Analytical, for a presidential candidate.
Richardson: The only one who’s run a government before, and did it really well. Foreign policy experience pretty solid, too. Unfortunately, he looks Mexican, and most Americans are under the impression we’re actually at war with Mexico.
OK…So what? Does any of this hyper-analysis matter at all? Are we being fooled? Are we the ones doing the fooling? I’m unhappy with G.W. Bush for many reasons, but it is the release of our country’s greatest national secret that was the most unconscionable. Lil’ Dubyah let the genie out of the bottle. We now know the biggest secret of the office of the U.S. presidency…just about anyone can do the job. If you can successfully hold down a good office job (secretaries included), you probably could run the country.
I’m not saying you’d do it well, though. Very few are remembered as ‘great presidents’ and many of them were hated at the time, too. I’m just saying..you probably can do it.
Actual experience and character of the a particular candidate means so much less, now. The only real requirements seem to be the ability to function with minimal sleep. Other than that…smile, and don’t mumble. Policy is dictated by the party, not the president. And, unlike a prime-minister system, presidents don’t have to stand in front of the regional representatives and debate with them. Just read the script. Presidents may try to influence new initiatives, and individual representatives may spearhead new legislation, but the power of actual creation lies in the hands of the party heads. Party heads..heh, heh. Mmm…
And as for the decisions that no one else can make, there’s lots of support there too. A commander-in-chief with his finger on the button is surrounded by a myriad of advisers. From military heads, cabinet members, and everyone else in the office of the president, he (or she) is not without help. Not at all. And who puts most of these people in their offices? Yes, the party heads. With your party behind you, you can become anyone you want: smart, funny, or even absent. George W. spent 2 years on vacation and got reelected. Unprecedented.
If who you are doesn’t count, campaign promises seem to be made to be broken, and policy comes from the party and not the candidate, what the hell are primaries about? To make us feel good?
It’s possible that the silly questions are all we have left to judge a candidate on, but I refuse to participate. I will hold-on to my withered old issues, and wait to get my chance to elect my favorite party-head.
Now..how about some issues?……….
