Search: Web        
powered by

These are blogs.


I once created a list called "Mean-Spirited and Petty Things That Would Be Funny to Do When I'm a Millionaire." Later on in my life, I figured I'd never be a millionaire, so I took that part off of the title. My name is Kevin Wilson. I'm from a small town called Townsend, Montana. I started a blog so I could write about Monday night's "24" episode and Buffalo Sabres hockey and call it legitimate journalism.


Hypothetical heretics

June 7th, 2007, 8:33 pm · Post a Comment · posted by Kevin Wilson

I’ll admit I didn’t watch much of the CNN presidential debates this past week, but a segment of what I did watch stood out.

As somebody who’s followed politics for years, I know the power of hypothetical questions. Michael Dukakis’ fate was sealed in 1988 when he said he wouldn’t want the death penalty in the circumstance somebody raped and murdered his wife. That helped George H.W. Bush get elected president, starting this country’s Bush/Clinton pseudo-monarchy that is in its 19th year (and could last 36 years if Hillary Clinton is elected for two terms and Jeb Bush follows up by doing the same thing).

It’s far from the last time I’ve seen hypothetical questions, many of which were launched during Sunday’s Democratic debate. Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates if they would take out Osama bin Laden if it meant killing several innocent civilians. Dennis Kucinich objected because it only promotes the assassination of U.S. leaders in the future, but most others said they would if it was 5-10 civilians and not 2,000-3,000 civilians killed.

Later, each candidate was asked how they would end genocide in Darfur. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he would pressure China to play a role due to the country’s huge economic influence there. If China didn’t join the effort, Richardson said, the U.S. should consider boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Only John Edwards applauded Richardson for the idea, while others bristled.

It’s impossible to tell how the Republicans would have answered the question (probably because Blitzer didn’t ask it during Tuesday’s Republican debate). Based on existing evidence, many of the best-qualified candidates for president have no problem killing innocent civilians to achieve political and security ends. Those same candidates do, however, have a problem with giving up sports to achieve political and security ends.

I’m not surprised, just disappointed.

p.s. I don’t think I’m conflating the issues of al Qaeda and Darfur. Since an Olympic boycott would prevent military action, I consider it a security measure for the U.S.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT