Vice Presidental Debate and the Absence of Candor

By Orion Daley

Dear Ms. Ifill:

Thank you for moderating the debate. I aways enjoy watching your PBS newshour show, and believe that a major milestone, thanks to you, was accomplished last night.

But I ask for your patience in the following as having some comments. I thank you also in advance for reading this sometime in the future when given the opportunity.

These comments are in terms of what I saw in the absence of candor. I am not referring to personality, but in regards to the substance of the responses; and in fact some of the questions. In terms of personalities, 'Amendment I' does imply the right of free expression, so will not ask for your time about this.

About the Economy: I question sincerely the lack of creative thinking in these candidates, as well as the sitting president and Congress. That is besides Paulson. Any financial firm pays taxes. I question as why was it not proposed to allow such i nstitutions to borrow against this in order to shore up their liquidity? In this manner, private enterprise can clean up its own mess with limited exposure to taxpayers.

In terms of the taxpayer, then government then can put competent focus on: layoffs and unemployment, loss of consumer credit, loss of retirement savings and value, increased foreclosures, and loss of home equity.

Consider further about credit practices in the United States and how the government affects commercial lending, and how this propels predatory lending practices such as sub prime mortgages..

As the IRS can set penalties and interest, as well as late fees, which all compound on each other, so do banks and credit lenders who follow this lead. Loan sharks follow the lead of predatory credit practices within a realm of even less regulation.


If the IRS served the U.S. Citizen in management of only taxes that were constitutional, made interest and payment plans which would be workable with the everyday U.S. Citizen, the U.S. Government can then place similar regulation on commercial lending practices. They could no longer be predatory.

The way I see it, fundamental change must to be from the top down by whom we have entrusted with leadership.

About Socially Divisive Issues. Upon taking office, executive management is to swear to protect the Constitution. This also includes of course Amendment I where that 'Right of Free Expression ' comes from.

When dealing with issues such as gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, they are not part of the job description for the U.S. President or Vice President. Further, in the sincere leadership for our nation that consists of such great diversity, the president cannot ignore, nor use these issues but deal with them in the most honest, sincere , and truthful manner or they can split or unite our nation.

Per Articles I and II: What is legislated into law must reflect the true representation of the people. Then it should be signed by the president.

I do see that the president is obligated though to contest decisions of the other two branches of government when and if signing a Bill would violate that oath to the Constitution.

Consider this In actual practice: Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states 'that there is to be no 'Religious Contest' for the Presidency'. Further, in Amendment I includes ' That Congress shall make no law about religion'.

Consider the persecution of the Mormons due to having the practice of multiple wives. Decisions of this nature are where the branches of government are to truly serve the people in their representation only.

Law cannot be decided by personal view or bias from the leadership of government. That is regardless who is at the helm. In other words, I might not agree with a religious practice, but when taking the oath of office, it must be upheld.

Foreign Policy and Iran: I have sent a letter regarding this already to Mr. Lehrer, but do wish to emphasize here the following considerations:

I welcome correction on this, but to my knowledge, Iran has not demonstrated out right aggression on other nations in the past 200 years of the history of the United States. My intent is not to compare this to the United States such as in the Spanish American War, Vietnam, or Iraq, but to put concern about Iran in a more accurate context.

I would further not question that they reach to other middle eastern nations, which I see as understandable, being that Muslims will reach out to Muslims as Christians to Christians, etc, but believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to shrewed of a man to make an out right threat to Israel. I welcome correction on this also, if in fact a video/news, or youtube link is sent where he actually states in his own words what others claim he says. At that point, I would be obliged to see him as just another character who accuses others as being evil doers'

Foreign Policy and Iraq: I have heard much about getting off of Foreign Oil, and little about " Production-Sharing Agreements Deal " that the US is trying to push on to the Iraqi government on behalf of the large oil companies.

I do not see it as a question of some arbitrary time line, or fight till we win ( what ever that is supposed to mean ) , or that there is any white flag that should be proposed. What I do see is that we should come up with the cost of American blood for Iraqi Oil as a metric.

About the Iraqi Government itself, if not all three nations of Iraq are to participate, I see that the Rice strategy of 'over take, control and restore' can only work with US military presence. About lessons learned, as much as Rumsfeld was out of his domain in having the Dept of Defense impose political policy for forming an Iraqi government, The State Dept is as well in conducting military operations.

With this in mind, I can only see that our leadership in the executive and legislative branches are disingenuous when saying dig in the US as it offers a smoke screen to the US Citizen while providing further business opportunity for the oil companies.

Foreign Policy and Afghanistan: When the US Congress declares war, it can only be when a mission statement and exit strategy are clearly defined by the Executive Branch.

This is necessary, as Congress in compliance with Article I in the US Constitution, is to be solely responsible for raising and supporting our military.

In this manner, the government has a basis for asking for the ultimate sacrifice from American families. It can not be a panacea, it cannot be protected from our news system, it cannot hide the costs. It must call for the commitment of our people who must be fully informed of the mission statement and the exit strategy.

I view that the Mission Statement and Exit Strategy are to be brought to the UN after the formal declaration of War as in assuming that working through the UN on options for peace were exhausted. The UN may, or may not join American forces. Regardless, our commitment is to remain when making a formal declaration of war.

In the event that a viable government cannot be established, or until, through the will of a surrendered people who have waged war on the United States, they are to become annexed. It then becomes our responsibility at what ever is the cost. This is what the American people must know a priori when we speak are actually speaking of manifest destiny.

Thanks again for reading this,

Presidential Candidate for 2008
for the Strategic Future of our nation
Author - The New Deal ISBN: 1419670948
Balanced Party http://unity2008.org
New York, NY, USA -