Check for web archive captures
Bipartisan Concurrence
By lindamuralidharan on 2016-09-23 23:07:30
I frequently read the columns of right wing people such as George Will, Cal Thomas and others. I would say this left leaning
person agrees with most of them as much as five percent of the time, and in the case of George Will 10-15 % of the time. I
sort of think of him as a fellow WASP soul mate who just remained in sheltered circumstances and comfortable old hat
bubbles longer than I think is wise. But occasionally I agree with him completely on a given point. Now it is Cal Thomas
who has my attention. In his column this week in my local paper he poses questions that truly ought to be asked of both
presidential candidates who will be debating on TV this coming Monday. I just don't think I could possibly have expressed
the need any better, and I agree with nearly everything in his column. Well, a few caveats. I would have used a little different
language in some cases. A fetus is not actually an individual human life but given the varied concepts Americans hold it is
good that Trump address the issue for people who do imagine that. Also, I would probably like to hear some slightly
different answers than Thomas might hope for but that is not so important as the fact he raised the subject matter.
=—
a on oe eS ae I'll give a few
examples. Thomas would like to ask Donald Trump: "You were pro-choice, you said, until you heard about a baby that was
going to be aborted but wasn't." You called the child a "total superstar". Do you have a utilitarian view of life....that a baby is
only valuable if it grows up to be a superstar...or is every life valuable?" In a similar vein, Thomas would like to ask Hillary
Clinton, [You said you would have a , "bunch of litmus tests" for Supreme Court nominees including requiring a potential
nominee to have a commitment to preserving a woman's right to an abortion. Would you overlook a qualified candidate
because they oppose abortion?] I am not totally sure what answer Thomas is looking for although I do believe he stands for
the abolition of abortion whether it is the honest position of every abortion ought to be illegal or the hypocritical position
that abortions are bad except in cases of rape or incest. My own preference would be that my ideal candidate answer like
this: I would consider all truly qualified candidates who have experience and demonstrated integrity. If one or more are
personally opposed to abortion I would still consider the appointment because a truly qualified person would be analytical
enough to put personal views away and vote for what the Constitution says will provide maximum opportunity for the
pursuit of happiness by the people of the nation. Whatever that might be. [caption id="attachment_8863" align="alignleft"
_ is |
widh="(00_ === New York State
————
capitol in Albany[/caption] An additional key question for Clinton goes like this: "You appear to have an interventionist
foreign policy record. What is your standard for sending American troops into battle, especially in the Middle East where
nothing ever seems to get resolved.?" Thomas would then add a "follow up" question as follows: In one of your emails you
praise Sidney Blumenthal's son, Max, for his virulent anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments, favoring the dismantling of the
State of Israel. Since Israel's enemies have vowed to destroy the only democracy in the Middle East and one of the United
States few allies in the region, would you, as president, support the Jewish state or demand it give up more land to the
Palestinians when the land it has already relinquished has brought it no closer to peace?"
So....as the currently popular
expression has it...so. “of course I do not accept the phrasing or vocabulary of Thomas' preferred question. I include the
question because the subject matter itself needs to be aired honestly by courageous politicians and others. (It would be nice
to have a courageous president.) I don't know the precise quote referenced. I do know that many who point to faults in the
actions and strategies of the Zionist oriented government of Israel are accused of being anti-Semitic. Or, in some cases,
"self-loathing" Jews. The Israeli government does not represent all Jews anymore than an illegal drug user who is African
American and steals to support her habit represents all African Americans. Furthermore, the "giving" of territory which was
not theirs to give means little in the course of events and if it were a helpful solution it would have been "shared" in the form
of a viable, second state that would be Palestinian run. And sadly but true, sometimes justice is even more important than
peace...at least in the short run. We did experience a most horrendous civil war before American slaves were given a
significant measure of justice. And finally, on this topic, the rhetoric from Iran has no specific aggression policy behind it. I
am really sick of having to go over this again and again. There are various factions in Iran as there are here. Some are far
more hard line than others. However, none are stupid. Israel has nuclear weapons and the US as an ally. It would be suicidal
for Iran to do anything more than continue trying to shore up Palestinians and those factors that would give Iran a fair shake
against majority Sunni influence in the region. I dislike many of Iran's habits...both domestic and foreign...but they are not
an existential threat to us or to Israel. [caption id="attachment_8865" align="aligncenter" width="594"]
== Naval Academy Cadets...will
they be used wisely? [/caption] My preferred presidential candidate would be willing and able to explain what is wrong with
the questions and to further explain how Israel violates international law and has implemented a number of repressive
policies against its own citizens, mainly those who are Arab. He or she would say it is an oxymoron to call a state "Jewish"
and "democratic" in the same breath. A democratic society gives equal weight to all ethnic groups and religious preferences.
Maybe the word "quasi-democratic" would work for some countries that are theocratically oriented but do hold legitimate
elections. A foreign policy question for Trump posed by Thomas follows. "Many voters are worried about your praise for
Russian president Vladimir Putin, who routinely behaves like the KGB agent he once was. He has invaded and occupied
territories, censored the news, and been accused of murdering his opposition. Why do you admire his leadership? Should
you become president, what do you think your public admiration of Putin will accomplish that will be in America's
interests?" And then Thomas would ask a follow up question. "Under what circumstances would you use military force
against Russia or against our enemies in the Middle East?" (Caveat again. I personally do not believe we have any enemy
"country". I do not believe there is any country planning an attack on the territorial integrity of the United States even
though we certainly are in significant verbal and policy conflict with quite a number of countries around the globe. The
nature of such disagreements and conflicts vary somewhat according to differing political factions within our own country.
But it is important to understand presidential candidates' degree of willingness to use of military force.) Thomas has a few
other key questions not listed here. I myself might had a few more such as: In the light of so many police involved
killings...often of unarmed men from the black community....what do you believe an executive at the national level could do
to change some of the overly militaristic and machismo like cultures of so many local police forces and what can be done to
increase the ability of law enforcement to use deescalation tactics along with better understanding of how to handle volatile
situations with folks who have brain injuries, symptoms of mental illness or are high on a mood altering substance? Long
ago I was trained to handle a person on PCP very differently from a person who is drunk, perhaps manic, or just plain
belligerent in the heat of the moment. [caption id="attachment_8867" align="alignleft" width="600"]
Many presidents in the Oval
Swearing in of House of Representatives[/caption] Forever our politics have
evaded some good debate and followed various inflammatory and jingoistic trends. In recent decades we have also used TV
to promote choices of candidates based more on image than on substance. We can begin to reverse some of these trends if
citizens care enough and hold both candidates, elected officials, pundits and the media accountable.
