Writing with faith, hope, and love
Express your letters to the Editor

At approximately 8:40 P.M., on the night of Oct 07, 04, two prominent politicians from opposite sides of the political spectrum squared off in an election centered debate in the William Pitt Union Assembly Room. The debate was sponsored by the Pitt Program Council, whose goal was to attract big-name speakers, which they did successfully.

Though from different backgrounds, both men came highly qualified. Speaking on behalf of the Left, was Governor Howard Dean; former State Representative, Lt. Governor, and Governor of the state of Vermont and former presidential candidate. Representing the Right was Dr. Ralph Reed; former chair of the Georgia Republican party, former national executive director of the College Republicans and the Christian Coalition, and senior advisor to the 2000 Bush Campaign.

Photo by Ramesh C. Reddy

The event attracted a primarily liberal standing room only student audience, most of whom had acquired tickets, but still a fair amount of whom were walk-ins. Other elder Pittsburghers and representatives from the city’s major television stations were also in attendance.

The event was structured as follows: There would be an introduction of the speakers by Gordon Mitchell, the event moderator. The speakers would then give 5 minute opening statements. The debate topics and questions would then be up to the wishes of the student audience, who could ask questions at two microphones stationed on opposite ends of the floor. The debate would then conclude with 5 minute concluding remarks by both men.

Dr. Reed opened his dialogue by stating that voters should primarily be concerned with National Security in the upcoming election. He supported Bush’s decision to go to war and said that not only was it a moral victory but that the world, not just the U.S., is safer with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He also criticized John Kerry for having a 30 year record of weakness in the national security sector, stating many examples of Kerry’s failings, such as him voting against increased funding for intelligence ( a bill even Ted Kennedy voted in favor of), and his widely documented “flip-flops.”

He said that even while as a leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee, John Kerry missed about 2/3 of the intelligence briefings/hearings. Dr. Reed stated that though Bush is not without flaws, he is strong in his convictions and his positions are unwavering, a necessity in the fight against the War on Terror.

Howard Dean, the obvious fan favorite, opened his speech with a statement of appreciation for his supporters during his run for the Democratic nomination for president, and for those who continue to show support. He jokingly admitted that he truly was and is the “Angry Candidate,” a sign of his passion. Dean then went on to say that this election is not just about security but credibility, about whether or not we can trust our president. He said that the President’s “deception by omission” is still deception, which is wrong, and misleads the public. Though admitting to having differences with Kerry, he explained that Kerry’s course for change, for multi-lateral international negotiations, and for the truth, is far superior to the plan of the incumbent’s.

The actual debating then began with the questions coming from the student audience. Questions were directed at either one or both speakers and included the evidence surrounding the war, the Patriot Act, the Bush tax cuts, the Kyoto treaty, Kerry’s voting record, and the general positions of Kerry and Bush.

One could probably assume the responses of the two men based upon the positions of their party, and for the most part, they did respond within party lines. One question elicited a somewhat surprising result. A student asked the speakers if they thought that voting for Ralph Nader was a waste of a vote. Dr. Reed replied that people should vote on their beliefs, but said that someone strong in their positions, like Bush, should be attractive for voters. Dean however, though also stating that voters should look within themselves when voting, declared that Nader is only on the ballot thanks to the financial support of “Bush Power Rangers.” He went on to say that this election is far too important to mess around, implying that voting for Nader would indeed be a waste.

Both men took their shots at each other and their respective parties. At one point, Dr. Reed interrupted the moderator taking particular offense to the “ignorance” of Dean in response to his comments on Max Cleland and Governor Barnes, both of Georgia. They “hit home” so to speak, because Reed, who is from and works out of Georgia actively worked with both of these men and was very familiar with their situations. Similarly, Reed also put Dean on the defensive, bringing out the qualities in Dean which made him the “Angry Presidential Candidate.” Dean even went so far as to say that he would disagree with Dr. Reed on almost every policy issue regarding the state of the union.

Though largely divisive, the candidates did agree on a few things. They agreed on the importance of national security, the environment and Bush’s actions immediately following September 11. Dean also conceded to Reed’s attacks that the Democratic Party is divided and loosely organized. Dean admitted that these problems are what he intended to rectify, and that the party focuses too much on swing voters. He said that the Democrats should go after their main voter base, and hit that base with one or very few issues that directly affect them, sparking a motivation to vote.

The debaters were then given 5 minutes to conclude the evening. Dr. Reed first summarized his remarks and proceeded to thank the University for hosting the event, and finished his speech with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King which said that all men can hold convictions in times of peace and tranquility, but it is those leaders who can continue to hold on to what they believe in turbulent and chaotic times that makes them truly great. Dean, who also summarized his comments, ended with a terse quote by the Republican President Ronald Reagan in which he asked America during his first campaign, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

The event was both compelling and intellectually stimulating. It is hard to say if there was a definitive “winner,” though based on the hooting and hollering of the crowd, it would seem that Dean won unanimously. Dr. Reed was seemingly better prepared as he rattled off dates, statistics, bills, and voting records like he was reading them from a document. Dean, who was much less detail orientated, displayed his oratorical strengths with confident declarations of his personal beliefs and support for Kerry.

The audience was for the most part respectful and reserved, with only a few boos directed at Dr. Reed. Although the atmosphere resembled that of the Democratic National Convention, both Democrats and Republicans alike (all 7 of us), indulged in a night of political entertainment, courtesy of Dr. Ralph Reed, Gov. Howard Dean, and the Pitt Program Council.

Express your view

OCTOBER 2004

Weather

Search this site or the web powered by FreeFind

Site search Web search

What's new each day in the Pittsburgh Standard!

Writing with faith, hope, and love Express your letters to the Editor

IMPRESSIONS

PHOTOGALLERY

HOTPRESSIONS

IMPRESSIONS

A patriotic war is just to protect people (1)

It is a matter of principle and ethics

EXPRESSIONS

Express your view

Writing with faith, hope, and love
Express your letters to the Editor