News

"This is ground zero in the American political wars," Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Shribman wrote Saturday in his Globe essay U.S. hunting season, political style.

"The other day the campaign planes of Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain were both parked at Pittsburgh International Airport. It marked the beginning of hunting season, political style. Both candidates were here seeking their prey — undecided voters in a swing state — and both will be back," Mr. Shribman wrote.

"Their planes will also be parked many times on tarmacs in Cincinnati, Detroit, Des Moines, Manchester, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul and Albuquerque. But don't look to catch a glimpse of Air Obama or McCain Airways at LAX in Los Angeles or LaGuardia in New York — even though California and New York have about the same number of electoral votes as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota and New Mexico combined. In this close election, the big states almost don't matter.

"Now that the last balloon has fallen and the last flake of confetti has been swept from the convention floor, the American presidential race is on. But what remains to be determined is if it is a race to the centre—or to the fringes."

globeandmail.com is pleased that Mr. Shribman, executive editor of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was online to take questions from globeandmail.com readers about his essay and his views on the U.S. political process.

Your questions and Mr. Shribman's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

Mr. Shribman, a former Boston Globe assistant managing editor, columnist and Washington bureau chief, took over as executive editor of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2003.

He was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for journalism in 1995 for his coverage of Washington and the American political scene.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Estanislao Oziewicz, Foreign Editor, globeandmail.com: David, thank you for participating again, this time, after the convention orgies. We have a number of comments arising from your interesting essay. The first is from Duncan Morris, Salmon Arm, British Columbia.

Mr. Morris writes: Very thoughtful commentary, Mr. Shribman (who prophesied Hillary Clinton's defeat even as she won the rust belt). Dick Cheney has, once again, put the United States on a collision course with Russia. The Republican party may well find that the Republican 'pre-emptive strike' form of foreign diplomacy may not wash with the young electorate that Mr. Shribman speaks of. Youth can move the world, hopefully the world is hoping that they can move this election. Your thoughts, please.

Mr. Shribman: This is an interesting point — how younger voters view Russia or its predecessor the Soviet Union. Your average 20 year old — I have one of those in my house right now — has no memory of the USSR and almost no knowledge of its tyranny or its role in the Cold War. My guess is that these young voters are blocking this stuff out — it's a guess, remember — and that young voters may do what young voters always have done, which is to look more to the future than to the past.

Richard E. Gower, from Canada: Very perceptive piece. And if your theory is correct, it will be one of the first elections in modern history since the advent of television that changed the face of politics from a competition settled on serious issues to a popularity contest rife with trivial and irrelevant distraction, where the process is functioning like an actual democracy is supposed to.

Mr. Shribman: I do think that issues are very important in American politics right now, though my answer above may not give sufficient credit for that. Both of these candidates take pride in their stands on issues and in the quality of their thinking. It is a refreshing election in many ways.

Terry Johnson, from Canada: If I were an American I would be dismayed but I could probably put up with another four years of Republican ineptness and cronyism if it were not for one critical factor: the next president will likely appoint at least one, most likely two and, possibly, three justices to the Supreme Court. Based on their decisions since the appointment of justices Roberts and Alito, it is clear the court has moved to the right and, furthermore, has been a strong supporter for expanding the power of the Executive.

Despite what Republicans and the religious right believe, this was not the intention of the Founding Fathers. Clearly, their words and their musings support an equal balance among the Executive, the Legislatures and the Supreme Court. Only by keeping that balance could America stay strong and secure while at the same time ensuring that the rights of the Individual are protected. A court, stacked to broaden the powers of the president, could very prove to be the undoing of the United States and this has significant ramifications for the world and for us, their neighbour. Jean Jacques Rousseau said, "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." Due to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, the United States became a beacon and the first nation state to change that. Now it may be on an irreversible path - one that we should all fear given its enormous power. Do you have a similar fear?

Mr. Shribman: There is a legitimate and very serious debate about what exactly was the intention of the Founding Fathers. I think there is less agreement on the separation of powers, which you duly note, than on an equally important but not oft-noted aspect: Did the FFs think the Constitution ought to be regarded as a holy writ or would they have embraced a more supple interpretation that allows contemporary justices to extrapolate meaning from the document? That is a very important question.

As for Rousseau et al, I think in some ways this nation, so often recently regarded as conservative, is in fact classically liberal in that many of our debates are about the nature of freedom, not about whether we ought to have it or not. A referendum on the preamble to the Declaration of Independence would win 100-0 today.

Mr. Oziewicz, Foreign Editor, globeandmail.com: David, thanks again for talking part in this discussion. There will be many more, I'm sure, as the U.S. presidential race leads to Nov. 4 and beyond.