“Democrats: Always standing up for what they later realized they should have believed in.”
— Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
It’s time to talk politics and lose some readers. Speaking of which, I’m a registered Democrat, so you can stop reading now if you are an anti-Democrat or if you are pro-Bush to the point where you can’t hear criticism. The following refers to the second presidential debate Oct. 8. Enough of the preamble, let’s get down to brass tacks.
In a 90-second rebuttal to a question Sen. John Kerry D-Mass., was asked regarding abortion, President George W. Bush said, “This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America. I signed the partial-birth—the ban on partial-birth abortion. It’s a brutal practice. It’s one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban. I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He’s against them... These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America.”
In a 30-second follow up Kerry responded, “I’m against the partial-birth abortion, but you’ve got to have an exception for the life of the mother… Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I’m not going to require a 16-or-17 year-old kid who’s been raped by her father and who’s pregnant to have to notify her father…. And because they didn’t have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it. It’s never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.”
My objection isn’t with the issue of abortion, some people value the life of an unborn fetus more than a convicted murderer within our culture of life, and I can accept that. My umbrage comes from the floccinaucinihilipilification Bush showed for Kerry’s retort. After the senator’s reasonable reply, Bush retorted, “Well, it’s pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no? And he was given a chance to vote and he voted no… It’s clear for everybody to see.”
No, it’s not that simple. Kerry just said why it wasn’t that simple. In the Senate, people would vote against a “taking candy from children” ban if there was an “and” instead of an “or” at the bottom of page 24.
The presidency, I imagine, is all about navigating shades of gray. Rarely is there an instance where there is one absolute choice that is 100 percent right from both sides of the aisle. Like with Sept. 11. Clearly, attacking Iraq was in the best interest of the more than 3,000 Americans who senselessly and needlessly loss their lives. In most instances, however, seeing nuance is a necessity.
The second and most atrocious thing Bush said last Friday was in response to a question regarding who he would pick for the Supreme Court if a position were to open. He said, “Let me give you a couple of examples... of the kind of person I wouldn’t pick… [One] example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That’s a personal opinion. That’s not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we’re all—you know, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t speak to the equality of America.”
The Constitution says, “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence or any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”
Essentially the Constitution says that slavery is allowed because of personal property rights.
So I guess if you don’t care whether or not the President of the Untied States can see nuance or whether he knows the basics of the Dred Scott case or whether he knows the intricacies of the Constitution and the racist history of this country, then vote for George Bush. Maybe this isn’t important to many other people, but I would prefer to have an elitist president who knows the constitution in and out than a president who I could have a beer with, which I wouldn’t do anyway because I’m only 18.
Thaddeus Edwards II is a Trinity sophomore.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.