The presidency is, and has been for some time, a committee. It is simply not possible for any one human being to juggle that many balls at once, alone.
In some ways this is obvious, as when the president chooses his cabinet--and, through his actions, demonstrates how much autonomy he intends them to have. It's less obvious with the small army of lesser appointments he's expected to make as he takes office.
Somewhere in between is his inner core of personal advisors and assistants. Some names are well-known, others aren't. Some job responsibilities are defined by law, many aren't. Their importance is far greater than their public recognition--and that relative anonymity is often what allows them to do their jobs.
That said, what purpose does a presidential "debate" serve? (I'm not sure I can call it a debate with a straight face: It was a joint press conference with only one reporter present.)
It places the candidate in a situation he'll never encounter once he's in office: Alone, without notes, without advisors, without advance knowledge of the questions being asked, without the option to ignore or refuse to answer any of them.
In such circumstances, are debates about specific policies, or the minutiae of day-to-day operations? Often, yes, but they shouldn't be. Can't be, really, although questions on the subjects are apparently irresistable, and the answers, or lack thereof, often provide the evening's most entertaining moments. One's opponent, and the media, delight in discovering a fact the candidate has forgotten or overlooked, an incorrect word substituted for a correct one, a needless repetition that hints that the speaker has forgotten what he meant to say.
Such debates should be about character. What kind of man is the candidate? What does he consider important? What are the principles that guide his decision-making?
In that way, Bush drove the debate. I know, it probably looked like Kerry was dominating (and I was disappointed in Bush's performance), but Kerry was
reacting only, bringing nothing new to the table. Even now, he has no plan: He can only say "Bush is wrong: I would have done everything differently."
Elect me: I'm not him. If he "won" the debate, he did so because he can repeat himself without appearing to--something Bush never learned how to do.
Winds of Change | John Kerry, Owen Wilson & Facing Reality
I'm sorry that America's choices across the aisle in the GOP are questionable. I agree that it sucks. I also agree that a Democratic Party that can be trusted to defend America is a critical component of eventual victory, and that the stakes for the long term are civilizational in scope.
I even understand the impetus to look at 2 candidates who offer less than the times demand, and see the stakes before us, and tell oneself that Kerry will have to do the right thing.
But you know what? He absolutely does not.
Look at Europe now, or look back into human history - illusion and passivity in the face of real threats is an option, and some leaders and states will take it.
One question: is Kerry one of those people? Simple question. Simple answer.
Yeah. "Global test." He has his chance to look like a statesman, and he almost made it (I was impressed, I'll say so), but then he made it clear that if the United States' interests conflict with the United Nations', he may not be on our side.
Suddenly, I realized that Kerry has been telling the absolute truth all along. "I have one consistent position", he's been saying, and he's right. He expressed it at Congressional hearings in 1971.
