Friday, April 18, 2008

The Debate that we need to have, but won't.

A wide group of science advocates attempted to stage a presidential debate this week in Philadelphia. The subject would have been science and the manner by which science would be used to inform public policy in the administrations of a President Clinton, a President McCain or a President Obama. Since these three candidates for office would have had to deal with substantive matters, of course the all declined to participate.

One reaction ended up in the Wall Street Journal today, where I really did not expect it. The OpEd, penned by Nobel Laureates and Cal Tech faculty members David Baltimore and Ahmed Zewail. Baltimore is President Emeritus of Cal Tech.
Apparently the top contenders for our nation's highest elective office have better things to do than explain to the public their views on securing America's future.
Instead we have had we had Democrat Obama complaining about the lack of substance in the debate that did take place.
Last night we set a new record. It took us 45 minutes . . . before we heard about health care. Forty-five minutes before we heard about Iraq. Forty-five minutes before we heard about jobs. That's how Washington is.
I don't feel any sympathy for Obama. He had a choice. He could have accepted a debate that would have been focused on substance and he chose not to participate. That's how Washington is.

We are still waiting for the change that will happen.


Eclecticvibe said...

Now that we know the candidates stances on flag pins, I'm ready to make my choice. I'm voting Green.

Wes said...

Thank you, electicvibe. I could have said it myself, but I considered that the context of being on California Greening made it obvious.