Political Frenzy

As I was checking out the presidential candidates stances on abortion today I asked myself ‘why?’

Abortion is the single most divisive issue in existence today. I saw a study once that said something like over 99% of people have an opinion on it. There is no other issue that anywhere near 99% of people have an opinion on. My question to you is: does a candidate’s stance on abortion affect your vote? If so, why?

Back in “simpler times” when there were no significant wars or acts of terrorism running rampid throughout the globe it seemed that abortion was the #1 issue.

For two reasons in this next election abortion will be close to a non-issue.

First: People only care about things that affect them. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the possibility of other wars and random acts of terrorism make us feel much more insecure than someone getting an abortion. Terrorists can come and kill us at any time, someone’s abortion cannot. It’s that simple.

Second: What can the president actually do? I personally don’t support abortion, but I would support a candidate who supports abortion. Ahhhh, I can hear you all screaming from here…calm down. Think about it, President Bush is as anti-abortion and conservative as they come, and he has appointed 3 Supreme Court justices during his administration. That sounds like a recipe for change, but abortion is still legal.

Another example of how much of a non-issue this has become is Republican presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani, who announced that he supports abortion before the primary election. In past years that would have been a political death sentence! Only conservatives vote in the Republican primary! But Guiliani remains on the top of the Republican polls. I highly doubt that he will drum up support from the very conservative voters who vote in the primaries. But the fact that he said that before the primary speaks volumes of how much this issue has changed.

People’s opinions on abortion will always be decisive and consistent, but Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.

This topic of experience has struck a chord with readers. Many of you have different views on what type of experience a president needs in order to be qualified for the job. Many have some valid points.

In an email one reader told me that foreign policy experience is a must for a would-be president. It is hard to disagree with this, it seems that when a president is criticized it is usually over foreign policy mistakes (cough, cough). When looking at the current candidates I see some very thin foreign policy experience.

Rudy Giuliani, who for some reason I want to like but I don’t, seems to act like he has foreign policy experience. It a recent magazine article Giuliani discussed how he would ‘deal with Iran,’ which seems a bit naive. Here is a guy who was a lawyer and a Mayor trying to say how he would deal with a hostile foreign nation. It is like a basketball player giving directions on how to perform open heart surgery.

I don’t like this, if Giuliani wants to give advice on how to deal with a trash strike I’m all ears. But when he discusses how the U.S. can deal with Iran, “…by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran’s military…,” I wonder where he gets his information.

It just sounds like he is regurgitating information from his aides. As a Mayor I can guarantee you that he never dealt with Iran. Don’t get me wrong Giuliani was a great Mayor. But being a Mayor, whether it is of New York City or of Smallville, does not qualify someone to be president. There are simply too many areas that a president deals with that are in foreign territory for a Mayor.