The Debates
and the Presidency
All the presidential debates, and especially the third presidential debate held on October 17 in St. Louis, spoke volumes to me about the type of president both nominees will make. They both clearly demonstrated, I believe unintentionally, what we can expect from them as president, in a way that the spin masters cannot disguise.
My three teenage children and I discussed the debate the morning after. All three children commented on the fact that Al Gore kept breaking the rules of the debate, in this debate even more than in the first one. Why? Only a few possibilities exist. He didn’t know the rules; he is not able to control himself; or he had some over-riding reason for breaking the rules. The kids discarded the first possibility right away, and after reflection also discarded the second, because he controlled himself just fine in the second debate. They could only conclude that he had some over-riding reason for breaking the rules.
Of course -- he is trying to win the presidency, and he is behind in the polls. He obviously thought that if he came across as commanding, by setting himself above the rules, that he could turn public opinion in his favor. So I asked the kids, “Well, if breaking the rules will get you the presidency, then why didn’t the Governor consistently break the rules? At one point, as a matter of fact, when the Vice President started asking him questions directly, he turned to the moderator and appealed to the rules.”
They said, “Because he doesn’t believe in breaking the rules.” Now this was a profound observation. The Governor even mentioned in his closing statements that when he swears on the Bible to uphold the laws of the land, he will do that. But, can we know who will uphold the laws of the land? They both promise they will. Will they?
Jesus made a very simple statement when he walked the earth: “He who is faithful in what is least, is fathful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least, is unjust also in much.” (Luke 16:10) The Democrats must believe this saying to be true, otherwise they wouldn’t be misrepresenting the Governor’s record in Texas. They are trying to make the connection in the minds of voters that their version of what the Governor did in Texas, on a smaller scale, is what he will do for the whole country, on a larger scale.
My teens came to the conclusion that the Governor is the one that will in fact uphold the laws of the land, because he upheld the rules of the debate. He was faithful in a small thing, therefore he will be faithful in a large thing. The Vice President, on the other hand, had no qualms about suspending the rules of the debate for political expediency, so he would have no qualms about suspending the laws of the land for political expediency. He was unjust in a small thing, and therefore will be unjust in a big thing.
I’m sure that neither the Governor nor the Vice President intended to consciously project that look into their presidencies last night, but the message was undeniably loud and clear, nonetheless.
Christine Miller