By Chelle Delaney: Quay County Sun
The presidential debates are getting so bad that the moderators are being criticized.
So what do the candidates do about it?
They ask for their children’s help. John Edwards, for example, has been bringing his two kids, Jack, 7, and Emma Claire, 9, on the campaign trail with him. But the kids aren’t as good at politics as their dad.
According to a New York Times story, young Jack didn’t want to be interviewed. He was involved in his iPod – until his father insisted, no disobedience in his White House.
Hillary Clinton even persuaded her daughter, Chelsea, 27, to accompany her campaigning in Iowa. Described as “press-shy,” Chelsea issued a statement: “I’m happy to be here.”
Chelsea’s presence was described as being a counter-attack to Oprah Winfrey’s campaigning with Barrack Obama and an attempt to “soften” her mother’s image.
Anyway, the presence of their children or, in the case of Obama, his wife, Michelle, is obviously an attempt by the candidates to power-up campaigns that haven’t been helped much by the so-called “debates.”
They are missing out. They have not brought their pets into the campaign. And that raises the question: Which of our presidential candidates is more pro-pet?
Neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidates have brought the situation up. Yet, it’s a question of some importance to almost two-thirds of the country’s households.
Those are the people who have and love their pets, their cats, their dogs. To those people their pets are important; they feel that their pets are members of the family.
But their concerns aren’t just about their own pets; they are concerned with the problems faced by other pet-owners and the problems faced by the pets themselves.
All across the country, these people have formed organizations to tackle various troubling problems homeless pets, feral cats and dogs, the rescue of individual breeds, justice for pets.
But they need to consolidate all those pro-pet organizations to form a new independent political party. The Pro-Pet Party.
Dealing with the war, immigration, health insurance, and the like are important, yes.
But our pets are right in two-thirds of the nation’s homes (the homes of two thirds of the nation’s voters).
Let us find out which candidate of which party is the most Pro-Pet, which of these many candidates really understands the needs of the nation’s pets and the nation’s (voting) pet owners.
Who should question these candidates? Should it be the head of the Humane Society of the United States? Or the head of The American Kennel Club?
It could be both. But, most important, the questions posed to the candidates should be the result of a competition between pet owners.
Let us challenge the nation’s pet owners to come up with the questions that will best challenge the candidates on the subject of pets.
We could call it the Pro-Pet Question Competition or PPQC.
The PPQC and the succeeding Pro-Pet debate would certainly produce results of great importance to the majority of the nation.
And, after the debate, we could publish a Pro-Pet Q&A. In it would be the questions the pet owners asked and the answers provided by the candidates.
And with the Q&A will be photos of each of the candidates … with his or her pet prominently in the picture … so we can decide that most important question: Which candidate’s pet should go to the White House, which of the candidates’ pets should be The First Pet of the Nation?
Chelle Delaney is associate publisher of the Quay County Sun. She can be reached by calling 461-1952 or by emailing: email@example.com