Final presidential debate last night. In a night of insipid questions (What have you learned from your wives?), Bob Shieffer's strangest question must have been his query about some Catholic bishops' claims that a vote for Kerry is immoral due to his position on abortion. It's a fair question in another context, but doesn't lend itself to the debate format. First of all, when a question references something so specific about only one candidate, how should the other guy spend his ninety seconds? The question set Bush up to comment on Kerry's faith and Catholic theology. Aloha, non sequitur. I'm reminded of Gwen Ifil's question to John Edwards about why Edwards ought to be a heartbeat away. When his rebuttal time came, Dick Cheney, rightly baffled, asked, "You want ME to answer a question about his qualifications?" The debate questions should all address issues.
CNN's Paul Begala mused about the one-sided nature of the question, and suggested that Shieffer ought to ask Bush what he thinks of the Pope's condemnation of the Iraq War. (If the media' so liberal, why didn't they pick up on the fact that the Pope unequivocally renounced the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a direct violation of just-war theory?) An interesting thought, though I think a better way to balance the query about the Bishops would have been to ask Bush why abortion is still legal in this country. The party that cares for the "culture of life" (Iraqi civilians nonwithstanding) controls all three branches of the federal government, and Roe v. Wade remains legal. All those single issue voters have got to feel disgruntled, no?
Bush completely sidestepped the question about whether he wants to overturn Roe. Shieffer's question was direct: "Would you like to overturn Roe v. Wade?" Bush's response: "What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges." I don't think that's what he was asking! If Bush is taking the moral high ground on this issue, why can't he answer the question directly? He wants to have it both ways. He throws pro-life republicans and democrats (including the aforementioned single-issue voters) a bone with the "litmus test" business and they fool themselves into believing they're placing a moral vote. Meanwhile, he also satisfies pro-choice republicans (like his mother, who in her memoir wrote: "abortion is a personal issue--between the mother, father, and doctor," and who praised the fact that pro-choice GOP-ers spoke at the GOP convention), who correctly surmise that whether Bush or Kerry end up in the White House, abortion will remain legal.
6 comments:
The conservative position on abortion (and many other psotions) isn't usually given to a thrity second answer. When I explained to my former boss that overturning Roe wouldn't make one more abortion illegal (right away), he was amazed, despite the fact that he was old enough to know better.
When people here 'repeal Roe' they automatically think: 'Make all abortions illegal'. The problem is that we've sacrificed much liberty in order to have abortion (and other policies) dictated on high from the supreme court. Were Roe to be overturned (which it should as a matter of it being bad law), then abortion would be a huge non-issue nationally, and probably locally as well; now we can't have that can we.
(BTW, I agree with your diagnosis of the debate questions, grade A stupid. But ever since the difficult Mike Dukakis question, both parties have taken an interest in completely castrating the presidential debate process).
Still, if he's concerned about establishing a "culture of life," why couldn't Bush give an unequivocal answer about whether he wishes to see Roe overturned?
If the press actually did it's job instead of being the lap dog for the left, he probably could give a completely honest answer. However, if he said that Roe should be overturned we all know what the NYT headline would be: BUSH WANTS TO BAN ABORTIONS AND SEND WOMEN TO JAIL!!!!!!!
Why bring that on yourself? One fight at a time. He's lucky to get just part of his message out on one topic. Trying to forcibly change the tone of discussion on a completely different topic, especially when the topic concerns the greatest sacrament of the left, would be at the height of being quixotic.
I'm glad that you recognize his answer is pure politics and pure strategizing. That's well and good--and to be expected. But if that's the case, he probably shouldn't claim to be taking the moral high ground.
...And if Bush can't stand up to the NYTimes, how will be stand up to Osama bin Laden?
(syntactic apologies to Dick Cheney)
It's less about 'standing up to' than it is about keeping the debate focused on the portion that you have a chance to address. It's the ol' "So when did you stop beating your wife" quandry. Someone else sets the terms of the debate, and he's stuck in that framework, trying to undo the framework will only serve to completely trash any progress he wants to make. It's completely different from voting against equipment for the troops because you're too much of a wuss to tell Mad How' why he's full of it.
Of course, we all realize that Kedward's vote for the war was the B.S. one. Screwing our troops over was the 'real' vote, so even I will concede that it's not a good comparison.
Post a Comment