Do you have any close friends who make less than $100,000 a year? If so, who?
|
| |
With
the debate-debate portion of the presidential campaign concluded -- George W. Bush retreated faster than a Texas tornado -- the contest is heading toward three conventional face-offs sponsored by the corporate-funded Commission on Presidential Debates.
Already melodramatic pundits are predicting these sessions will be Bush's best, if not only, chance to regain the edge he once held over Vice President Al Gore. It seems that the $100 million or so in campaign money he has raised is not quite enough to buy a presidential election; you also need to score well in the verbal shootouts.
But, too often, presidential debates become just another opportunity for candidates to echo the lines they have honed during two years of stump speeches. ("Glad you asked. My twenty-seven-point plan on that subject covers this....")
The Commission has not invited me to join the panel of questioners. Still, I've decided to draft a list of queries that might -- and I emphasize might -- force Gore and Bush out of their rhetorical boxes. Gore won the imaginary coin toss -- he's on a lucky streak these days -- so let's start with him.
- In your best-selling book, Earth in the Balance, you wrote, "we must take bold and unequivocal action: we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization." But you also noted, "I have become very impatient with my own tendency to put a finger to the political winds and proceed cautiously." Can you tell us three instances when you acted in such a fashion?
- During your acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, you vowed to fight the "powerful interests" on behalf of "the people." Why are so many of your intimates and campaign advisers employed as lobbyists and consultants for powerful corporate interests, including HMOs, the telecom industry, and Big Tobacco?
- Do you have any close friends -- and by that, I mean people with whom you socialize regularly -- who make less than $100,000 a year? If so, who are they?
- What accounts for the fact that nearly 20 percent of America's children live in poverty? Why has that figure barely changed in the past eight years?
- You have accepted $67 million in public financing for your presidential campaign. As you know, the theory behind the law that provides for this funding is that presidential candidates should receive taxpayer money during the general election so they do not have to engage in the never-pretty practice of fundraising. But the advent of so-called soft money has led to a loophole that permits presidential candidates, such as yourself and Governor Bush, to chase after top-dollar donations from corporations, millionaires and unions, even as they pocket public money. Before you launch into a speech about your position on campaign finance reform, please answer this question: Haven't both you and Governor Bush made an absolute mockery of the campaign finance system?
- Sticking with the subject of money-and-politics, you have bemoaned the current system. As someone who served sixteen years in the House and the Senate before becoming Vice President, you are in a position to convince the public of the corrosive influence of campaign contributions and the pressing need for reform. In all that time in government, did you ever witness an instance when political donations affected the actions of government officials within your own party? If so, name names.
- You are a supporter of the War on Drugs. But you also say that the Beatles -- who were quite notorious in their use of drugs -- are your favorite musical act. Is it hypocritical of you to celebrate music that was, in part, a product of the 1960s drug culture and then call for zero-tolerance regarding drug use? You even opposed medicinal marijuana after first saying you were not against it. Moreover, do you believe the music of the Beatles would have been better had John, Paul, George and Ringo not engaged in recreational drug use?
- Why is it that workers receive paid family leave and guaranteed paid vacation in Western European nations, but not in the United States?
- In retaliation for terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, President Clinton ordered the bombing of terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, which, he said, was engaged in the production of chemical weapons. It turned out that there was no solid proof this facility was manufacturing such weapons. Didn't the President lie to the public? Why shouldn't the attack on the Sudan plant be viewed as an unconstitutional and excessive use of presidential power?
|