I'm no big fan of him, but Pat Buchanan does on occassion come out with a few good articles that we all should ponder from time to time. In his most recent article, Buchanan feels that any debate between Kerry and Bush will leave people without a true option on issues that matter the most to them. On most issues, Buchanan argues that both men are virtual clones.



Buchanan went on to highlight differences over taxes and who should be nominated to the highest court in the land. At the same time, he qualifies that difference by stating that both men are essentially for big government.

I'm not certain where I stand on this, but I do have to admit that the men do have a lot in common. I do agree with Pat Buchanan however, that third party candidates who are on the ballot in all fifty states should be on the podium at the debates. I feel that it is a shame that they are not and I think a good jostling about ideas and free-spirited debate would actually do wonders for the crowd that all too often, has been put to sleep during debates.

Questions for debate:

1.)Are Americans specatators(i.e.-people with little option and little power) in this election?

2.)Are the differences between Bush and Kerry that nominal? How would you argue this to Pat's face?

3.)What guidelines should third party candidates meet in order to be included in the presidential debates?


4.)If Bush declines to debate Kerry or if they decline to have third party candidates with them, how would that affect your viewpoint of them?

1.)Are Americans specatators(i.e.-people with little option and little power) in this election?

No, I do not believe that Americans are spectators in this election. If anything the candidates are a product of the general will of the country. The areas where Bush and Kerry hold very similar view points are in the area of foreign policy and the stance on terror.

Americans want a candidate that will come out strong on terror and keeping America safe. If either Bush or Kerry held a platform where they stated we would be moving towards isolation, etc they wouldn't stand a chance in November.

2.)Are the differences between Bush and Kerry that nominal? How would you argue this to Pat's face?

I think that Buchanan is dead wrong here. Bush and Kerry may have the same strategic goals to a certain extent, but they differ greatly as far as philosophy and tactical goals go. So while they are both interested in fighting the war on terror they are proposing to do it in different ways.

For example, Bush believes America is safer today because of the Patriot Act and he wants to not only extend the provisions of this act, but pass the Patriot Act II. The Patriot Act violates civil liberties in the name of expediency. Case in point, the Jose Padilla case -- An American citizen declared an "enemy combatant" and has had his rights stripped away and is being held indefinitely. 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution ring a bell?

Kerry on the other hand is against many provisions of the Patriot Act and seeks to abolish them. He believes it is possible to accomplish the same goal while still adhering to the civil rights we all hold so dear.

There are many such comparisons for foreign policy that can be made without getting into the specific details (which change daily) of our situation.

On Domestic and Social Issues Bush and Kerry are worlds apart. Bush has the religious right agenda in mind in a lot of his policy decisions including his stance on scientific endeavors, homosexual unions and enforcing moral codes upon the country. Kerry either takes opposite or neutral positions on these issues.

3.)What guidelines should third party candidates meet in order to be included in the presidential debates?

It seems to me that there should only be two requirements:
- The candidate must be on the ballot in all 50 states.
- The candidate must raise X dollars by Y date for their campaign.

Otherwise it seems to me that including them would be a waste of time because we couldn't take them seriously as far as the election goes.

4.)If Bush declines to debate Kerry or if they decline to have third party candidates with them, how would that affect your viewpoint of them?

If Bush declines to debate Kerry? Seems to me that will speak volumes about his confidence he is doing the right thing for America.

If Bush and/or Kerry decline to debate a third-party candidate? I'd say see #3. And realistically you really couldn't have more than a 3 way debate or it would just get too hard to manage in my opinion. There would have to be far more debates than are generally scheduled if you had more than 2 candidates.