A Pilgrim’s Digression

As the candidates for President of the United States prepare to go onstage for their first live Presidential debate, there is one question I am hoping the moderator will ask of President George W. Bush.

“Mr. President, why do you contend that we are safer today than four years ago?” I do not believe the President can give a satisfactory answer to that question. Any answer will be an opening for Kerry to contrast the President’s reality with that in which the rest of us live.

“In the reality in which I and every other American lives,” Kerry might say, “Americans are killed every day in Iraq, and the situation in that country grows ever more tenuous.” The President could answer, “These Americans killed are soldiers,” as if there is some metaphysical or qualitative difference between an American in uniform who dies in the dust of Iraq and an American civilian who dies in the collapse of a skyscraper.

“Better we fight them over there than over here,” the President responds. To which Kerry can respond, “It’s not an either/or proposition, Sir. Nothing about the war in Iraq precludes an attack on American soil, as you yourself acknowledge by constantly raising the terror threat level.”

So why are we safer today than four years ago, Mr. President? He may answer, “Over 75% of the Al Qaeda leadership have been killed or captured since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan.”

To which Kerry can respond, “But that remaining 25% is Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri. Not only that, but every day brings new terror alerts from this administration. We are supposed to feel safer, but still be afraid enough to vote Republican, according to the President. President Bush is using the threat of terrorism for political gain.”

Why does the President contend that we are safer today than four years ago? What incontrovertible evidence does he have of this? This is the question President Bush cannot answer honestly. I believe it will not be a question asked of him tonight.

As the hour draws near, I am increasingly feeling a bit nervous about how Kerry will do tonight. All the pressure to perform is on Kerry. Bush has only to show up and not commit a terrible gaffe. Kerry, on the other hand, must channel the ghost of John Kennedy and put on a show such as we have never witnessed in the annals of political history. Need I say that Kerry will not rise to meet the expectations so many hold? Who could ever meet those expectations?

The rules of the debate further handicap Kerry. I am not sure I understand why the Kerry camp agreed to these restrictions, except that Bush only agreed to three debates if Kerry agreed to restrictions meant to keep him from dominating the debate.

The time limits on the candidates’ answers are aimed directly at Kerry. Kerry is known to dominate by sheer volume of words. In these debates, he (and Bush, too) will be held to 90 seconds of response time. Candidates will not be able to move from the podium. Neither candidate can interrupt the other or direct a question at his opponent; rhetorical questions are, of course, allowed, and I expect Kerry at least to take full advantage of that. No direct interchange is allowed, however, which (pardon me if I am wrong) is what a real debate is all about. Back and forth of ideas? Dialogue? God forbid, argument?

So the rules seem to favor Bush. However, looking at it from another angle, the Kerry campaign did agree to these rules, so Kerry must not be too worried. Also, the time limit may actually help Kerry keep his ideas concise and to the point. The rules against addressing one’s opponent directly, or moving from behind the podium, or making faces, or sighing, should assist Kerry in avoiding any of Al Gore’s painful mistakes of 2000. I see the logic in these rules, from Kerry’s point of view. Yet there is still a part of me that misses the good old days of four years ago, when there was always a chance of some random, unexpected surprise. If I were Kerry, I think I would have put my money on an open, more spontaneous debate, and thus I would have taken my chances that the dreadful surprise of the evening would come from Bush’s mouth. However, that is neither here nor there. The fight is on. Let’s watch.