These questions should ALL be asked at a debate
You have to wonder why questions like this aren't asked during debates? Is it because they're not sexy? Because there's an unwritten rule forbidding such questions?
I don't know, but I think that it's truly sad that they aren't asked these types of questions. A couple in particular that jumped out at me.
What federal crimes will you instruct the Justice Department to make a priority during your administration?
Name five things you think are none of the federal government's business.
Do you believe the U.S. military should be deployed for humanitarian missions?
Would you support a sunset provision requiring Congress to revisit and re-pass each law after five years?
Do think presidents should be term limited? What about members of Congress? If you didn't give the same answer to each question, what's the difference?
Do you think an atheist could be president? Do you think an atheist should be? Assuming you generally agreed with an atheist on more issues than the alternative candidates in a given election, would you vote for one?
These questions are almost entirely objective and not leading. Out of the context of the article, it is not clear what the "right" answer to these questions is and that present a perfect opportunity for candidates to distinguish themselves (and a greatly reduced opportunity to pander). Maybe somebody will read this and pass it along to someone who is actually in a position to get these questions to a moderator. Maybe not.
3 Comments:
Without being asked, Ron Paul actually discusses many of these issues in his speeches because they are important to him and many people that support him, or that come to support him because he speaks about such issues.
By the way, he raised $5.1 million in the third quarter. Not bad considering he doesn't take money from corporate interests (they have nothing to gain from a Paul presidency) and that he has been labeled as a "long shot, dark horse, second tier candidate."
If you are inclined to consider Dr. Paul for the Republican nomination, and you are not registered as a Republican, find out if your state has secretly altered the time frame in which you are able to change your party affiliation for it to count for Primary purposes. New York did exactly that, so Sheryl and I have until 10/12/07 to chage to Republican for the 2/5/08 primary despite previous regulation only requiring 25 days advance registration changes. I think people in the GOP are getting worried that Ron Paul's supporters, many of whom are independents, Democrats, and Libertarians are going to change history.
Did you watch the Morgan State University Minority Issues Republican debate on PBS a couple weeks ago? It was great. Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain all skipped it while the other Republicans all showed up. They even had empty podiums for the "front-runners" to highlight the fact that they would rather meet a few folks at an IHOP in Sacramento (Romney) than debate on issues that matter to real people. The questions were good, the moderator (Tavis Smiley) was on top of things and even challenged Duncan Hunter to answer the question when he pandered, and every question was aksed and answered by every candidate. Best debate I've ever seen. I think the front-runners would have not known what to do with themselves to be honest.
Just a quick addendum to Nick's original post. You might also want to check the "openess" of the primaries where you live. For example, while knowing that some places, like Virgina have an open primary letting you nominate in any one primary, living in California I thought I lived in a closed primary state.
Turns out California has a 'quasi closed primary' or 'modified' or something. Basically each party can decide if they will allow unaffiliated voters to request a ballot for their party. In 2008 for example, the Democratic party allowed anybody to vote in their primaries, while the Republicans kept it to just Republican. 2004, in contrast they both allowed. Not sure about other years.
Brett
Post a Comment
<< Home