GOP’s debate held on June 13, 2011

True confession:

I did not watch the GOP’s presidential candidates’ televised/streamed debate on June 13. Only just now, I finished watching it on YouTube.

The winner of the debate:

Hands down, the winner of the debate was the moderator – John King of CNN. NOTE: Because John had so much speaking time, viewers were actually treated to the equivalent of eight (not seven) “candidates.”

The loser of the debate:

The American voting public.

What I would have liked to have seen:

The microphone cut off from a candidate who went over the time limit when answering a question. If a candidate were to have persisted for more than 10 seconds after that, I’d like to see a trap door open under the offender’s feet dropping him/her immediately from view. Bottom line? If they don’t know enough when to shut up, how the hell can they run the country?

Issues that were not addressed:

A broad range of issues was broached with varying degrees of satisfactory response. However, several questions were not asked at all or were only hinted at:

·       Should the Federal Reserve System be abolished, as Ron Paul has suggested for years?

·       Will personal income taxes “have to" be raised?

·       Isn’t it about time for a radical overhaul of the entire US taxing system?

·       How much of a cut should the Pentagon have to endure in the upcoming era of leaner and meaner budget appropriations?

·       How should we go about revamping our legal system, which is ferociously backlogged and is too expensive to allow the average citizen easy access?

·       What would you do to reign in the ever-expanding power of the presidency?

·       Should the government be allowed to default on its debt, which will surely occur if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling?

·       Since the Two Party System has proven to be our leading threat to national security, what would you suggest that would help elect Independent candidates to Congress?

·       How can we make government more accountable to the people?

·       How can we reduce the cost of campaigning for the presidency?

Polar opposite approaches to the debate:

This piece of entertainment – for that’s what it really was – felt an awful lot like speed dating. The pace was fast and furious – and the format couldn’t (like speed dating itself) really give anyone a chance to get to know these candidates. [NOTE: We will continue to pay a dear price for insisting on such a superficial exposure to our next President.]

The polar opposite approach? Each candidate could have equally divided the 120 minutes of air time, to enable each to speak without interruption for 17 minutes. That wouldn’t, however, have allowed for any questions from the audience or any follow-up questions from a moderator.

An in-between approach? I would have preferred that each candidate be allowed to speak without interruption for seven minutes without any role for a moderator except to cut off the microphone should any speaker violate his time limit. Oh, and to regulate the questioning as follows:

·       The moderator would read aloud one question, submitted in advance, from each candidate to another candidate randomly chosen with two conditions: (1) that every candidate has a chance to answer a question and (2) that no candidate is allowed to answer his own question.

·       The moderator would read aloud one question from the audience to each candidate. The questions would have been submitted in writing in advance, addressed to a particular candidate, put into a “hat” with that candidate’s name on it, and read aloud by the moderator after having been picked at random out of this “hat.”

If I had been there:

If I had been allowed to share that stage, I could have really shaken things up. Especially under a format allowing each candidate seven minutes of uninterrupted speaking time. I would have been able to tell a national audience:

·       I am the only candidate running for this office who has ever published his campaign promises in the form of a written contract. One of its promises: I would forfeit my office if I were to violate any of these promises.

·       Within 90 days of my inauguration, I would remove all US military from Iraq and Afghanistan – regardless of the conditions on the ground.

·       I would order all US military out of Europe, shutting down our bases there.

·       I would immediately void US diplomatic recognition of Israel, while granting it to Palestine.

·       I would refuse to sign any bill allowing for foreign aid to Israel and Egypt.

·       I would refuse to sign any bill into law until Congress passes an 18% cap on personal credit card interest rates and passes a Single Payer Universal Health Care law.

·       I would only appoint federal judges to five year terms by refusing to nominate them in the first place if they didn’t sign a contract stating they would resign after five years on the bench.

·       I would introduce a lawsuit to stop the unconstitutional Senate practice of the filibuster.

End comment:

What I’m proposing above is only a small part of my overall program. But remember: This is what I would be able to say in a speech lasting only seven minutes.

The only way I could have participated with the other candidates were if I were seeking the GOP nomination for the Presidency. Which of course I’m not – in fact, I am an Independent. But that alone would not stop me from trying to be nominated as a Republican – not even as I would simultaneously try for the Democratic nomination, while announcing to one and all that I am indeed an Independent.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractor’s Party

“I am not merely an advocate of Change we can believe in (Obama’s first slogan) or Change we need (Obama’s slogan, revised in late 2008). I represent Change you can rely on…I was tempted to say, Change you can take to the bank, but a lot of people don’t like banks too much any more.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com