The Supreme Court

Anyone that has taken a little history in this country knows that the most powerful branch of the Government lies not with the Legislative (Congress) or Executive (President) branches, but with the Judicial Branch (the Supreme Court) . Whoever is President during a period in which Justices retire, however, does get the opportunity to appoint who shall fill the vacancy, as Supreme Court Justices aren't elected.

With the average age of the Supreme Court being so high, it is possible that as many as 4 Justices will retire during the term of the next elected President (only conservative Justice Clarence Thomas is under 65). This is particularly important since many of the crucial decisions that the current Court has made over the years have ended up in a 5-4 split. Among major 5-4 decisions are the following:

-Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) -which was related to abortion rights
-Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) -involving Partial Birth abortions
-Voucher Program for Parochial Schools (2002) -important to Church/State separation
-Federal protections against age discrimination -whether or not it applies to state workers
-The Americans with Disabilities Act
-The Violence Against Women Act
-Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) -the famed Affirmative Action case of last year

Probably the most telling or significant decision that the Court has made recently involved the last Presidential Election. The Supreme Court decided to halt the Florida Recount which sealed the Presidential victory for George W. Bush. What was the margin by which this decision was made you ask? 5-4, of course!

The 10 years that these 9 Justices have been together is the longest running uninterrupted term since 1823. Furthermore, President G. W. Bush is the 1st President since Jimmy Carter to not make an appointment during his 1st term. And I bet he's just itching to appoint one himself.

With all that being said, you better believe that this is an important Election topic. Especially since many potential cases and decisions loom (Guantanamo Bay, The Patriot Act, Immigrants Rights, Separation Between Church and State, Gay Rights, etc.).

Senator Kerry said, during one of the debates, that he'd use a "litmus" test to determine appointees to the bench should any retire during his term if he wins office. I'd suspect that his appointees would be on the very liberal side, considering Kerry's liberal Senate record. I'd also suspect that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (the legitimately moderate Judge) and liberal Justice John Paul Stevens (the oldest at 84) would retire should Kerry win.

President Bush has refuted the notion of using a "litmus" test to determine appointees, but we know that he favors Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas- staunch conservatives. All of Bush's appointees and recommendations in the lower courts have been extreme conservatives. As a result, there has been much filibustering in the Senate by Democrats, in turn blocking the appointment of many such Judges.

Bush used the race card in order to appoint a conservative Judge by nominating a strict conservative Hispanic to one of the lower courts (as a side note, I should mention that serving on lower courts is a stepping stone to the Supreme Court), knowing that Democrats have a strangle hold on minority interests. His efforts failed.

Bush did get a Federal Appeals bench nominee through when he bypassed the Senate confirmation process and appointed controversial US District Judge Charles Pickering. Pickering has had a past that includes opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which essentially allowed Blacks to vote), a law review article that he wrote that would justify the banning of interracial marriages, and opposition to abortion rights laws.

It is clear to me that which ever party wins the election wins the Court. The effects of which could last upwards of 40 years. I think the Republicans have a decided advantage since the oldest member of the Court is a liberal, whom I suspect may have to retire soon regardless of who's elected. Furthermore, I do believe that O'Connor, the voice of reason, shall retire too, especially since she is 1 of 3 Justices to have had cancer surgery in recent years. Her loss will be immense because it is she and Justice Anthony Kennedy that reason and decide virtually every close vote.

So, when you go to the polls on November 2nd, consider not only the man you vote for, but also the issues that concern you daily and what that man's stances on them are. Because this year, more than in recent elections, when we vote for President, we will also be voting for our laws as decided by these potential Supreme Court appointments.

-Maelstrom

For more information, check out these sites:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/18/SUPREMES.TMP

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/20/election.scotus/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/bush.pickering/

"The Issues" Blogs

For those of you out there who have read my blogs on a consistent basis, I'm sure that you're aware that I'm not particularly pleased with this year's Presidential Election race. My biggest problem is that the real issues that affect everyday life here on the homefront are rarely ever discussed, and some have had less air-time than Janet Jackson's breast during last year's Superbowl Halftime Show.

Since these issues aren't given any attention (but certainly affect our daily lives), people will go to the poles and vote ignorantly on November 2nd. It is my belief that it is worse for someone to go to the poles ignorant and vote, than for that same ignorant person to not vote at all. If you don't know what you are voting for and why it matters or is important, then you could be potentially hurting your ownself in ways that you aren't even aware of.

I must admit, in spite of the fact that I spend numerous hours each day exploring countless news stories, that I don't fully understand some of the political terminologies that I hear all of the time. I have only a partial understanding of what it means to "privatize Social Security," and I don't know that much about "Medicare and Health Care Premiums." Though I've followed Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan's monetary maneuvers for a decade, I don't fully understand the impact of cutting interests rates. So, despite my above average political knowledge (oh, I can toot my own horn on my own blog), there are still many aspects of the political scene that I don't understand.

My mother has engrained in me the notion that both Communication and Education are Key. With that in mind, I shall take it upon myself to further educate myself on these important issues, and then communicate the knowledge that I obtain to the readers here.

The format that I will use in disseminating this knowledge shall go as follows:
1. Introduce the Issue and Describe its History
2. Describe the Status of the Issue as it Stands Today
3. Describe the 2 Major Candidate's Stances on the Issue
4. Give My Opinion on the Candidate's Stances

Hopefully by using this format, you will be both educated as to what an issue is and how each Candidate's proposals on that issue will affect the direction of this country. I'll give my opinion just cuz this is my blog and I can do that (not that you have to agree or anything).

There are numerous issues out there that really matter, so I may not get to fully analyze all of them, but I'll get to as many as is possible. With that being said, let the learning begin!

-Maelstrom

To my DFWGF

Due to my frustration with the political scene here in the USA, I realize that many of my posts seem pretty angry. Well, I'd like to note that I'm not always an angry person and I do indeed have a softer side. Today, I will give you a glimpse into that softer side, before I begin my literary assault the Issues that should affect this year's Presidential Election.

For a few years now, the 3rd Saturday in October has been designated, by Hallmark as "Sweetest Day." I first became aware of this "Hallmark Holiday" while I was in High School. I have always found it quite interesting that a card company could implement the birth of an unofficial holiday, and have that holiday become legitimately prominent. Now that's influence!

Sweetest Day, in my best estimation, is merely a marketing ploy by Hallmark (and a darn good one) to increase sales and to maybe sell off leftover "Love Cards" just prior to the big holiday season. It serves as a makeshift Valentine's Day, if you will; a chance/reason to tell your significant other that you love them, exchange cards, boxes of chocolates and flowers, and to get laid!

Today, we've reached that 3rd Saturday, and I celebrate it legitimately for the first time since I became aware of it. In years past, on this day, the only significant lady in my life was my Mother, who happens to be a widow. So, I have (and will continue to) sent her cards and sometimes flowers on this day to let her know that she is yet loved and appreciated. However, this year there is someone else...

Yes, that's right, the turbulent storm of a man, known to you as Maelstrom, has a significant other. She's the seasoning on my fried chicken, the caramel in my Twix, the music in my head, and the sunshine in my day. She is the ubiquitous notion in everything that I do.

She keeps me focused, and makes sure that everything I do is up to par. She certainly reads everyone one of the blogs that I've posted here, and is my number one supporter. However, if she thinks what I've written isn't great (yes, even good isn't good enough for her), she wastes no time and spares no words letting me know about it.

She listens to, loves, and appreciates the music that I make (I play the Sax-haven't you read my profile?). Each word I write, not only here but elsewhere, she takes into account and understands the passion from whence each word comes. Every venture that I passionately pursue, she whole-heartedly supports.

She is surely one of the most caring and giving people I have ever met. All of her friends look to her for advice and support in times of need. She denies no one, and speaks to all with delicate concern. She yet maintains her humility and is incredibly meek.

She is a pleasure to be around. I enjoy her sense of humor and her bright, beaming smile. The world of music that we both enjoy is amazing, and she has introduced me to many other musical avenues that I also delight in.

From the crown of her head to the soles of her feet, I think she is beautiful. From her hair to her eyes to the amazing silhouette of her physical form below, all I can say is wow!

Though we are hundreds of miles away from each other, just the sound of her voice from her cell phone mouthpiece to my receiver comforts me.

It's funny to sit here and think about me writing this today, knowing the events that have transpired in the last few days. Events that have undoubtedly put a limit on the length of time that me and my Damn Fine Woman have together, despite Love. It is certainly like a cruel page out of a very tragic romance novel; to Love someone and have them Love you back, but to never be able to realize the full depths of what that Love has to offer.

So is our situation. I believe it was Ernest Hemingway that aptly noted that "If two people are truly in love, then it cannot end happily." Though he was probably referring to death, that truth certainly applies to our situation. As a result, my heart and soul are bleeding a river of blood that I don't know will ever stop growing. And the worst part is that it seems they'll bleed it all alone.

To my DFWGF, I want you to know, whatever transpires in the coming days, that I will always cherish our relationship, and I do hope that we will continue to be best friends until the end of time. I thank you for everything that we've been able to share together. I will love you always... always!

I Love You,
Maelstrom

ps: Happy Sweetest Day

A New Cabinet Department

Each day, as I shuffle through various news outlets, I become more and more upset by what people cheer. Sound byte after sound byte, attack ad after attack ad, rally after rally, I am just amazed at how apparently apathetic Americans are. Well, at least I hope it's apathy, because if it is stupidity, then I'm even more worried for this country than ever before.

Even in watching the Presidential debates, each candidate said they are going to do or accomplish things that anyone with one "noodle" in their brain knows they can't do. Then the so-called spin doctors get ahold of every statement (either for or against their candidate), and turns them into a political battle cry. And here's the cardinal sin: Mindless, party-loyal imps march to the sound of that battle cry without every considering what is really implied by the statement, and certainly without doing any background checks of their own.

I am completely fed up with this behavior. I think there should be penalties for such ignorance, especially since the truth and correct information (in most instances) is out there. I feel like you should have at least 3 good (and accurately founded) reasons for supporting and/or voting for someone politically.

With that in mind, today I am proposing the creation of a new Cabinet Department: The Department of Reason and Common Sense!

This Department would feature me, Maelstrom, as a political referee. I would magically appear at all Presidential Campaign rallies (sometimes simultaneously), rightly confirm the accuracy of statements made by the Nominees, and dictate whether or not the audience can applaud/cheer/vote based on the correctness of those statements. Penalties for outrageous statements would be induced, and apologies would be mandatory.

To illustrate, a scene involving my single-minded Department (because I'd be the only member) might go something like this:

PRESIDENT BUSH: "If I knew the things that I know today (Fall 2004) about Iraq before we went to War with Iraq (Winter 2003), I still would've taken us into War!"

AUDIENCE: (applause, cheers)

MAELSTROM (Secretary of R & CS) : Tweeeeeeeet!!! (blows whistle). Everyone quiet! You too Mr. President. Now, he just said that if he knew that there were no WMD's, no imminent threat, and no connection to terror, he would still lead this country into an abysmal war. That is despite the fact that none of his original reasons for going to war have panned out and over 20,000 human lives have been lost due to an enormous miscalculation. Now if he (points to the President) wants to be silly, that's on him, but I cannot allow you to cheer such silliness. As a result, you shall all have your "cheering cards" revoked until he apologizes and makes 3 smart statements. Anyone who violates this rule will also lose their right to vote. Now, proceed Mr. President!

Another instance might happen to go down like this:

SENATOR KERRY: "Now, let me tell the American people, right into the camera (stares into camera), if you elect me as President, I will not raise taxes on the poor and middle class"

MAELSTROM (Secretary of R & CS) : Hold up!

TV AUDIENCE: Wait a minute!

MAELSTROM: Stop the debate! You, Senator, just said that in four years of your potential Presidency that you won't raise taxes on the lower 98% of the US population. Now, as sensible human beings, we KNOW that you can't deliver on that promise. You, sir, shall apologize and come up with a new, more legitimate plan! Furthermore, anyone that votes for you based on such an impossible commitment shall have their voter's registration card revoked. I know who you are (points at TV cameras), and I will find you. Now, Senator, you may continue!

Wouldn't that be great? The Candidates would actually be forced to speak the truth, and also forced to create legitimate plans and platforms to campaign on. It would also put an end to mindless, senseless party devotions. People would no longer be able to vote for a Candidate based on the the baseless and outrageously stupid statements that they often make, and citizens would no longer vote for a candidate based solely on political party affiliations.

Political education would be at an all-time high. Political apathy would be at an all time low. This would snowball into positive points for Social and Economic Awareness in everyday life. Citizens of the United States would actually be choosing the "Best Man or Woman" for the job instead of voting for the lesser of two evils. Real debates on real issues would ensue. Voter turnout and voter IQ (on the issues and candidates) would be astoundingly high. And we might have what we've never had in this country: A True Democracy!

So if you're reading this and you're with me, let's start the petition today for the development of a Department of Reason and Common Sense! I'll start us off with the very first signature.

1. Maelstrom

The Final Round

The last of the 3 Presidential Debates has come to an end, and a very heated Presidential Election is just around the corner. I must say that I saw last night's debate as pretty boring and uninformative. And I must also be honest that I missed about thirty minutes of it (I saw the 1st 45 minutes and the last ten). I did catch much of the Post-Debate coverage and saw the results of many of the immediate polls.

From what I saw, the Debate looked pretty much like a draw, but I honestly felt like Bush had the edge. His defiance and insistence seemed to always trump Kerry's statistical approach. And despite the introduction of a few new angles (like the views on outsourcing and the Black demographic), the debate seemed to be a rehash of the last two.

Tactically, I think John Kerry made a serious mistake in his response to the Gay Marriage question. He brought up the Vice President's daughter, who happens to be a lesbian, in order to essentially say to the President that this issue is both a Republican and Democratic one and that the President's view was wrong. It was a purely strategical move because he could've made the same point without mentioning any names. Just out of common courtesy, you don't bring another man's family into such a public forum without permission. I don't think his misuse of Dick Cheney's daughter's situation will play out favorably for him in the coming days.

As for the President, I think he made a pretty insulting comment to the American public when asked about Outsourcing. The question that Bob Schieffer posed to the President asked, "What do you say to a person who lost their job as a result of outsourcing." The President responded by saying that he'd tell that person, here's some money and a chance for you to go get yourself an education. He said that he'd tell the person to attend a Community College and educate themselves so that they could be prepared for a competitive job market. I was SO taken aback at such a callous and insensitive remark. The implication here is that American citizens aren't academically capable of performing the jobs that are being outsourced. I'd like to remind the President that many of the people losing their jobs to Outsourcing have advanced College Degrees (not to be confused with Diploma's), and the sole reason for outsourcing is for the monetary benefits for companies and corporations. As in the words of Stephanie Tanner (Full House), Mr. President, "How Rude!!!"

All in all, I thought the debates were far better than anyone had anticipated. I also think the 3 moderators were outstanding. And in case you're wondering, yes i did see the Vice Presidential debate. I thought VP Dick Cheney beat Sen. John Edwards going away, but I didn't think any of what either said really mattered much. There was just a lot of mudslinging.

I do hope, as always, that people will continue to consider each point that has exited the Candidate's lips, seek the truth about those points, determine whether those points agree/disagree with their own personal views, and only then make a decision as to whom to vote for.

Finally, continue to log on here at "The Vortex" as the issues will each be individually addressed, as well as my own synopsis of each of the two major Candidates, while I will also introduce you to a myriad of 3rd Party Candidates and where they stand.

Godspeed!
-Maelstrom

Three Mistakes?

Two down and one to go.

Amazingly, I find myself enjoying these debates. I sit there at attention awaiting each new question and each fruitless response. I'm positive that my excitement is only so great because my expectations for both the debate format and the Presidential candidates was initially so low.

Anyways, Round 2 again went to Democratic Presidential Nominee, Senator John Kerry. His responses to each question were particularly candid, and he seemed more confident in each statement he made. He also, at times, seemed to boldly ridicule the President on a number of fronts, which gave him the look of a winner.

Despite Kerry's repeat strong showing, I must admit that the President also gave a quite convincing performance. If I actually believed the garbage that was coming out of his mouth, I might have declared him the victor. However, no matter how well the President presents any arguments in any of these debates, he has a very stinging handicap-a very poor Presidential record.

I'll expound on that point. Simply put, the President can't tell me the War in Iraq was necessary, well planned, and is going well when members in his own cabinet and own Political Party are saying things to the contrary (i.e. Donald Rumsfeld, Senator Lugar, Paul Bremer, et. al.), plus I watch the news. The President can't tout his record on Prescription Drugs when "United Statesians" have to pay up to 4 times as much for drugs that are made here in this country than our geographical neighbor to the north. Finally, the President can't spin this nations outlook on jobs when he will be the 1st President in 72 years to not create jobs on his watch. I'm not stupid, and I'm certainly not blinded by all of his political rhetoric. He has nothing positive to run on.

So, given this handicap, the President did an incredibly remarkable job. I've never witnessed somebody do so well defending absolutely nothing!

Minus the issue of substance, the presentations put forth by both candidates was a virtual draw. What really put Kerry over the top, in my opinion, was how he addressed each question. He made it a point to note who asked the question, and to address them by name in his responses. He was even able to remember names of people who had asked previous questions. Furthermore, he didn't just reel off a response, he took into consideration the impetus behind each question, and then answered it accordingly. For instance, when Stem Cells and Abortion questions came up, he addressed the questions by noting that he understood the "humanity" and "morality" from whence such questions come. This made me to know that Kerry might actually critically consider the other side of the coin before making a major decision-something we have ZERO record of President Bush doing.

And then came the killer question to President Bush, "what are 3 mistakes that you have made as President." Keeping in line with his current policy of not assessing actions, identifying mistakes, and rectifying them, President Bush had no good response. He couldn't come up with 3 mistakes he'd made as President even though, as I mentioned before, many of his Cabinet members have pointed some out. In response, Kerry missed a key opportunity to point out the President's greatest flaw; his inability to admit any mistakes, no matter how obvious. He could have said something like, "There is the problem. When given the opportunity to admit he was wrong about anything, he can't do it!" In any case, I don't think this was a plus for Bush considering that he has multitudinous problems both domestically and internationally.

Finally, I'd like to give props to Charles Gibson, the moderator, for keeping the questions focused and direct. I am particularly glad that he did something that is virtually a lost art in journalism today: He asked the follow-up question. In other words, when a candidate gives an empty response, or a response that doesn't answer the question directly, he restated or redirected the question in order to get the kind of response (a direct answer) that the question warranted. At one point, he asked both candidates the same question twice because both danced around a direct answer in their initial responses. Kudos Chuck!

So now to the 3rd and final debate. I honestly don't think that the candidates have the capacity to get any deeper with any of the issues, but hopefully I'm wrong and something will be miraculously made light of tonight. I also hope that Bob Schieffer, tonight's moderator, will be as focused and candid as both Jim Lehrer and Charles Gibson were in the first two debates.

May the best loser win!

-Maelstrom

The Nobel Peace SurPrize?

All this week, the Nobel committee will be handing out the Nobel Prizes in various areas. Probably the most prestigious is the Nobel Peace Prize. In a world where war has seemingly taken over in every nook and cranny, I'm very curious to see who will come out the winner.

Though most and probably all recipients were well deserving of the award (Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi come to mind), we certainly know that treacherous people have been nominated for the Prize in the past, the most notable of whom was Adolf Hitler in 1938.

This year, both President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were nominated for the award. Now, I am in no way saying that the two are sinister people like Hitler was, then again I'm not saying they aren't. Only time shall tell. I will say that I think there is something strange about nominating people for a Peace Award when they decided to pre-empt and attack a country. They started a war that seems to have little, if any, positive virtue. Indeed, there are some parallels between what has taken place in the last three years, and with what took place between 1934 and 1938 when Hitler's nomination campaign began.

An enemy was identified (Jews then, Terrorists now), that seemed to cause a significant conflict in a specific region of the world (Germany then, the USA now). The leaders of those countries then expanded the scope of their "problem," and used that reasoning to further a personal goal.

Now I know that people will take issue with the last statement that I made, with respect to President Bush. But let's keep it real. The Iraq war was a complete and total farce. You don't go and attack a man who might be a threat (Saddam Hussein) when you already know who did harm you and continues to be a threat (Osama Bin Laden).

Furthermore, the notion that Hussein was funding terrorists and was intending to sell WMD's to terrorists (as Bush has insinuated and said) is SO silly. A dictator has power, often wants more power, and surely intends to maintain the power he/she already has. By giving WMD's to terrorists, there would be a shift in power from the dictator to the terrorists. That is completely counter-intuitive. Now it has become clear that none of the reasons for going to war were founded, and I think some people (not nearly as many as there should be) realize that we weren't told the truth about the reasons for the Iraq War.

Conclusion: Bush was up to something when HE decided to invade Iraq, and it had nothing to do with "fightin' terra!"

After the events that have played out this year (e.g. insurgency in Iraq, Abu Ghraib atrocities), I don't think that Bush or Blair (who were nominated in January) are serious contenders for the Nobel Peace Prize, but I can't help but wonder.

-Maelstrom

Round 1 goes to...

So, I admit it, I was wrong!

The 1st Presidential Debate turned out to be mildly informative after all. President Bush was as belligerent as usual, and Senator Kerry actually sounded like he wanted to win the election. From a media standpoint, I really enjoyed the coverage. Jim Lehrer did a remarkable job as moderator, and I loved how the news stations all violated rules from the 30 page debate agreement.

I guess I'll start by declaring a winner, because I hate when critics, news personnel, and campaign members either don't choose a winner or choose their candidate even when their candidate clearly lost.

John Kerry won round one. His comments were pointed and staccato. He pointed out serious flaws in Bush's reasons for attacking Iraq, he separated the War on Terror from the War in Iraq, he attempted to clear up his votes on Iraq, and he began to assuage the notion that he is a flip-flopper. He did, however, leave room for future Republican attacks by making a couple open ended and ambiguous statements. The most notable mis-step was when he mentioned a "global test." Bush keenly jumped on that comment, and I'm sure Kerry will be hearing about it until November 2nd.

As for Bush, he really didn't say anything different than he's been saying the whole campaign season. With Kerry being far less than amazing on the campaign trail, Bush has been able to get away with making the same comments throughout his quest for re-election. Thursday, as John Kerry pointed out, we heard "more of the same" from Bush.

The President recited his ubiquitous sound bites; you know, the ones about the 87 Billion dollars, inconsistency (changing positions)-and his number one hit-"mixed messages." I think that the American public finally realized that Bush is little more than a broken record at this point. If Kerry had a brain, this fact could have been exposed months ago. All Kerry had to do was take the time to actually say something worth listening to.

I also think Kerry did a good thing by pointing out that Bush hasn't exactly been consistent throughout his administration either. For instance, Kerry mentioned that Bush was at first against the development of the Department of Homeland Security, and then for it. He was against the creation of an Intelligence Czar (as recommended by the 9/11 Commission), then he was for it. And maybe the biggest Bush inconsistency was made clear when Kerry said that 35 to 40 other nations had a greater capability of creating Nuclear weapons than Iraq when we invaded Iraq.

Bush's confidence (and arrogance if you ask me) was as prevalent as ever. The very first question that he was asked was, "would electing Kerry mean we'd be attacked again?" Bush's response was, "I don't believe it'll happen (Kerry being elected)." I'll call that confidence. But some of his other comments were either arrogant, ignorant, or both. At one point Bush said that "I know how these people think (World Leaders)." And another time he said, "I just know how the world works." Both very arrogant and ignorant comments.

And as usual, some of Bush's comments were just dumb. To cite one example,

When asked "what were the miscalculations before the war," Bush responded, "we
had such a rapid victory."

I thought that references to protecting Israel were random and irrelevant by both men. I also think that it is interesting that they are so bent on protecting Israel. Why? I've got my thoughts on that, but I'll have to address them at another time.

In these debates, the candidates often get away with making statements that either taint the realities, or just are flat out false. For instance, Kerry mentioned $200 Billion dollars that has been put forth toward the Iraq war when only about $120 Billion has been disbursed. Bush said that over 100,000 Iraqis had been trained in order to keep the peace when Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi clearly stated, just a few days before the debate, that 50,000 had been trained. The message: Make sure you do a fact check after watching these debates.

Finally, I thought it was great that none of the news stations adhered to some of the provisions outlined in the debate agreement. Split screen views were given of both candidates while one spoke. There were also shots taken of the candidates from a rear angle. And, I enjoyed the fact that Lehrer allowed for a one minute discretionary time. All of these things opened the door for a more legitimate debate.

Even though neither candidate seemed to have a plan for Iraq, or the War on Terror (which is a point that is more of a blow to Kerry than to Bush), I found the debate to be way more enjoyable than the proposed format led me to expect.

-Maelstrom