I had decided not to watch the debate last night. In general, domestic policy either bores me to tears or makes me so mad I can’t see straight, and I had made the decision that, since I’ve already made up my mind for whom I’m voting, there wasn’t any point.

So, I watched Lost on ABC at 8, and at 9, I switched to… the debate. I missed Smallville. Curse this newfound politics addiction.

First question was a nice, slow pitch to Kerry: “Will our children be as safe as we were growing up?” Kerry’s answer sounded like a pandering adult talking to a kid who had picked up on some of his parent’s worries. Maybe that was my imagination, a product of Kerry’s attitude more than what he said (because I can’t remember what he said), but it didn’t sit well with me. Then again, Kerry could say that he was going to impose fines on the Fox Network unless they agreed to pay Joss Whedon to create more Firefly episodes, and even that wouldn’t sit well with me coming from him, so it’s probably just me.

Yes, this question was an easy one to Kerry (followed up by a much more difficult question to Bush, as I recall), but it was a good question, because it should have been broad enough that the candidates could almost have turned it into an opening statement on domestic policy (despite not having an ‘official’ opening statement). Neither candidate said what I wanted to hear them say:

“I hate to be the one to tell you this, but that safety that you’re talking about is, largely, the product of revisionist history. When we were growing up, there was a constant threat of war — nuclear war. Even when we truly did feel safe, September 10th, 2001, for instance, we weren’t. No one can ever promise you that your children will be safe. If they promise you that, they are either lying — excuse me, condescending — or they are a fool. I will do everything in my power to make sure you are as safe as possible. In addition to the steps we are taking to defend our country from outside attacks, I will do what is necessary to defend Americans from domestic dangers, as well.

“We will shore up the borders, not only by increasing border patrols, but by cracking down on those businesses who hire illegal immigrants. By cutting off the reason they come here, we will effectively slow the incoming traffic. If we stop the illegal immigrant traffic into our borders, it will make it more difficult for foreign terrorists to slip into our country undetected, because our border patrols wouldn’t be as distracted by other illegal entrants.

“I will do everything I can to promote gun safety. Instead of an ineffectual ‘ban’ on assault weapons, I support gun safety courses, teaching people how to respect the weapons, rather than fear them. As much as I respect the police and the work they do, they cannot be everywhere at once. I want people to have the ability to defend themselves if they should have a need to do so. I want them to have not only the weapons, but the knowledge of how to use those weapons. I truly wish that we could make America safe enough so that no individuals ever found themselves in situations where they needed to resort to violence for self defense, but we all know that won’t happen soon. In the real world, it is better for us to have weapons and the ability to use them correctly and not need them than to need them and not have them.

“In short, we can never be completely safe, but we can be safer. The key to that is the same at home as it is internationally. We must do what we can to defuse situations without violence, but when violence is unavoidable, we need to be ready. Neither a murderer in your home, nor a terrorist in our cities, is going to say, ‘Okay, I’ll come back when you’re ready. Just consider this a warning.’ We need to make sure we’re prepared before the situation comes up.”

That’s what I wanted them to say. Of course, I only know what would’ve pleased me, and I have the added advantage of having as much time as I wanted to prepare that response (and no time limit on what I said). My off-the-cuff reply wouldn’t have even gotten my support. Since politicians have to know how to please everyone (or at least a whole lot more than just the one person I’m trying to please), I would make a lousy politician.

Wow. That was quite the digression, wasn’t it? Just a few minor points I wanted to make (and would’ve made last night, except that the phone line I use for internet was out):

• Was it just me, or did Kerry’s answer to the Assault Weapon ‘Ban’ question make little sense? If the police officer had just busted some guy who had an AK-47, the ban wasn’t working! Whether Congress (and Bush) had extended it or not, that guy would have had his AK-47 anyway!! Given that, the only reason for a politician to support it is that they think it will garner votes. I’d rather my politicians focus on EFFECTIVE ways to make me safe than to waste time sucking up to gun control lobbyists… but, that’s just me.
• Kerry brought up Cheney’s daughter. Edwards did this in the VP debate, and I’m wondering why. It doesn’t help the Democrats to mention that the Republican VP has a lesbian daughter, so… why? Because it’ll hurt the Republican candidates? If this were an attack on policy, that’d be okay, but it seems manipulative. And I wonder what Cheney’s daughter thinks about this? If it were me, I’d be more than a little offended that the Democrats were doing this gratuitious namedropping. I mean, it’s not that they don’t name drop on every other question, but at least the other names they drop are people who chose a public life.
• Neither the faith question nor the women question at the end of the debate really adds much to the question “Which candidate would be a better President?”, but they did contribute to the question “Which candidate’s family would I invite to a cookout?”. The answer, of course, is neither, since I’m not big on new people, and prefer my cookouts to be quiet affairs with as few people as possible. If I had to invite one or the other, it’d be the Bush family hands down.

Finally, thanks to the wonders of modern technology (namely, my extra phone line, which seems to die every time the sky even looks like it might consider raining), I’ve actually written this post long before I could actually, you know, post it. Because of that, I can quote James Lileks on a more-or-less unrelated matter. See, if this blog were aspiring to be professional in any way, I would feel obligated to stay on topic, but since it’s not, I can quote something completely off topic, just because it amuses me. After all, it’s not like I fear losing readers.

“If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again,” Edwards said.

Of course it’s true in the sense that it’s sort of true, in the sense that it’s not entirely false, in the sense that it could possibly happen, in the sense that it probably won’t, which he knows. It plays well with those who think that the only way we can cure snapped spines is by applying those magical Federal Dollars, which are unlike any currency on earth – they make things more efficient, they turn negative lab results into positive ones, and they make everyone work faster. Wonderful things, those Federal Dollars. Rub enough on an injured spine and the patient actually feels sensation in his pinky toe.

Read the whole thing here.