Some Advice For the Man From Texas

Dear George,

I found myself laughing a bit too much as I was watching your final debate. Although this certainly made the debate entertaining, a part of me does not think that politics should be quite so humorous. I just want to highlight some types of your statements.

Many of your statements are "fluffy." Early in the last debate you said, "It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people." I thought that it was time for our nation to come apart and to do what's wrong for the people. George, you spend too much time championing the obvious. Later you said, "Each of us must love our children with all our heart and all our soul." Thanks for the reminder. We all tend to forget about loving our children.

The second category, a favorite of yours, I shall label "nonsensical." In a confident voice, you said, "It's one thing about insurance, that's a Washington term." George, that's not proper English. In addition, I frequently use the term "insurance" in my kitchen and we live in New York.

You love to say, "I trust people. I don't trust the federal government." If you don't trust the federal government, why would you want to lead it? Later, in response to a question about military deployment, you remarked, "I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy." That's nice to know, George. That is the type of specificity that I am looking for in a president. Finally, when a lady asked about how you would deal with diversity, you said, "Quotas tend to pit one group of people against another. Quotas are bad for America." The Subway Series in New York has pitted Mets fans against Yankee fans. Is the Subway Series bad for America?

"Sly" is a good title for the third category. When discussing your tax plan, one of your favorite phrases is "I trust you with your own money." The implication of this statement is that Al does not trust me with my money. If that were the case, why would he let me have any of it? You also like to make references to how Al attacks you. The other night you said, "There's an old high school debating trick, which is to answer something and then attack your opponent at the end." Al is not attacking you, George; he is attacking your policy. This is why we have debates.

The fourth category is the "contradictory" category. When you make statements like, "One reason people are skeptical is because people don't answer the questions they've been asked," you should probably take the Fifth instead. Earlier in the debate, a 24-year-old woman asked you how your tax plan would affect her as a middle-class single woman with no dependents. Part of your response included, "It'll be a world of peace because we're going to have a clearer, clear-sighted foreign policy." You also hit on Medicare and education. These are important issues, but they don't have very much to do with this woman's tax statement. Perhaps you were trying to say that your plan wouldn't really help her.

The fifth category shall be called "illusory." You like saying, "It's an issue of principle, not politics." I guess that you intend to imply that you are a man of principle, a man of conviction, a man very different from that sleazy D.C. guru next to you. You went to Bob Jones University as a matter of principle, right? It would be absurd to think that you went there to win the Christian, conservative right-wing vote.

You also harp on how you are a uniter, not a divider. You seek to "set aside the partisan differences" and to "work together." Of course, your leadership skills and warm smile will cause Republicans and Democrats to hold hands and forget about partisan differences. You will single-handedly unite the Congress because that is what you did in Texas and Texas is a big state.

Later, when a man questioned the apparent pride that you felt when you spoke of putting "three white thugs" to death in Texas in the previous debate, you said, "I'm not proud of any record." Throughout your primary campaign, I vaguely remember you lauding the efficiency and success of the Texas criminal justice system. In fact, you said you were absolutely certain that no innocent person had been put to death. This seems to me like pride in a record. In addition, you smiled and snickered in the previous debate as you said that you were going to put the "three thugs" to death. I think that you insulted the intelligence of the man who asked you the question by responding as you did.

Finally, in every debate, you promise an America where "no child, not one child, is left behind." You may want to reconsider that promise. If you are elected, I think that I will be able to find one child who feels as if he or she has been left behind.

The last category, George, is the "unfunny" category. You may not realize it, but most of the time, when you are laughing, the rest of us are not. Perhaps Texas humor does not extend far beyond the state lines. Try to keep your humor to a minimum. You receive plenty of laughs without even trying.

I hope that this helps, George. Oh, one final note. You should probably stop saying, "Should I earn your confidence," because the public might start to ask themselves that same question. Best of luck.

--ROBERT J. SARANCHAK