If they ask policy questions, the answers will likely be what they have regurgitated for the last year and in some cases 2years or longer. What do we gain? Will the winner be who makes the biggest gaffe? The most laughs garnered at the expense of another? Or should we ask for more? Would hard questions be unfair as they require thought? Finally should the questions be released prior to the debates so we don't get canned prepared comments which likely are not their real position.
Maybe:
What is the purpose of government? Is government a tool to achieve
your goals, or are there limits to what it can and should try to do? If the answer is create jobs, how does government create jobs?
Can you cut the size and cost of government without offending anyone or cutting programs that have popular support? Like SS or MEdicare, medicaid. The GOP talks about balancing the budget and reducing our ruinous $18.3 trillion national debt, but they seldom say how. Too often they simply pretend that you can balance the budget through economic growth or by trimming “fraud, waste, and abuse.” The Dem's are not interested in balancing a budget other than raising taxes however with every increase in taxes comes more spending.
Are you pro-business, pro-jobs, or pro-market? How does your position conflict with the other positions? Milton Friedman once said, “Business corporations in general are not defenders of free enterprise. On the contrary, they are one of the chief sources of danger.” If your pro business how are jobs affected as Business, when allowed follows the least cost route to profitability. Jobs sent overseas is a perfect example. Pro jobs has an impact on pro business as pro jobs impacts the free market as goods from overseas may be excluded or tariffed.
Should we have free trade agreements? NAFTA as well as Agreements with China have proven free trade agreements are not in the best interest of the middle class. Are the agreements in the best interest of the country?
How would you balance civil liberties with the War on Terror? There is always a tension between keeping us safe and respecting our liberties. Is NSA spying, the personal intrusive pat downs at airports while ignoring profiling acceptable? How should changes to the system be made to keep people safe while respecting our personal rights?
What is your concept of federalism? Should states be allowed to not enforce Federal Law? POT in Colorado for example. Should the Federal Government be allowed to ignore enforcement of laws? Illegal immigration is the poster child for ignoring a law. Should federal action override state decisions? Do states, in fact, have rights, or do they only have powers, while citizens have rights? Are there limits on what states can do? Are there limits on what the federal government can require states to do? Should the EPA or any regulatory agency be allowed to establish regulations, defacto law when they are not the law making body of our government? Should states have the right to establish laws that exclude them from EPA regulations or banking regulations as they are not laws written by our lawmakers? Should the IRS be able to interpret law, the ACA and
Should America have an open border as we have today? What's the impact to the American people? What's the impact to the American worker? Should there be a path to amnesty to those that have broken our laws? Should citizenship be given to children of illegals?
Is government the arbitrator, teacher or enforcer of moral values? Different people have different values? Should the government take a stand, isn't a minorities rights denied? Or should the government be neutral?
Can you cut the size and cost of government without offending anyone or cutting programs that have popular support? Like SS or MEdicare, medicaid. The GOP talks about balancing the budget and reducing our ruinous $18.3 trillion national debt, but they seldom say how. Too often they simply pretend that you can balance the budget through economic growth or by trimming “fraud, waste, and abuse.” The Dem's are not interested in balancing a budget other than raising taxes however with every increase in taxes comes more spending.
Are you pro-business, pro-jobs, or pro-market? How does your position conflict with the other positions? Milton Friedman once said, “Business corporations in general are not defenders of free enterprise. On the contrary, they are one of the chief sources of danger.” If your pro business how are jobs affected as Business, when allowed follows the least cost route to profitability. Jobs sent overseas is a perfect example. Pro jobs has an impact on pro business as pro jobs impacts the free market as goods from overseas may be excluded or tariffed.
Should we have free trade agreements? NAFTA as well as Agreements with China have proven free trade agreements are not in the best interest of the middle class. Are the agreements in the best interest of the country?
How would you balance civil liberties with the War on Terror? There is always a tension between keeping us safe and respecting our liberties. Is NSA spying, the personal intrusive pat downs at airports while ignoring profiling acceptable? How should changes to the system be made to keep people safe while respecting our personal rights?
What is your concept of federalism? Should states be allowed to not enforce Federal Law? POT in Colorado for example. Should the Federal Government be allowed to ignore enforcement of laws? Illegal immigration is the poster child for ignoring a law. Should federal action override state decisions? Do states, in fact, have rights, or do they only have powers, while citizens have rights? Are there limits on what states can do? Are there limits on what the federal government can require states to do? Should the EPA or any regulatory agency be allowed to establish regulations, defacto law when they are not the law making body of our government? Should states have the right to establish laws that exclude them from EPA regulations or banking regulations as they are not laws written by our lawmakers? Should the IRS be able to interpret law, the ACA and
Should America have an open border as we have today? What's the impact to the American people? What's the impact to the American worker? Should there be a path to amnesty to those that have broken our laws? Should citizenship be given to children of illegals?
There are so may meaningful questions that could be asked however we will get few questions that we don't already know the answers.
I expect the same old stuff from the majority of candidates. Hopefully, Trump will stir things up enough to make the debate interesting, instead of the usual deadly dull rigamarole. As a number of the candidates have begun spouting new-Trumpisms, it will be entertaining to see if he can out Trump them. The first question I would ask is: What makes you think that you are more qualified than all the other candidates?
ReplyDeleteThis just came down the wire: Donald Trump called for a "civil" conversation in Thursday's highly anticipated GOP debate, when he will share Fox News' stage with nine of his Republican peers. But despite the calls for an orderly event, Trump told Good Morning America he will fight back, if provoked.
ReplyDelete"Certainly I don't want to attack," he said. "If I'm attacked, I have to, you know, do something back, but I'd like it to be very civil." Trump, who is currently leading in polls of the GOP field, added that he's "honored" that two of his more vocal critics, Lindsey Graham and Rick Perry, won't be participating in the 9 p.m. main debate due to their polling numbers, as Fox only includes the top 10 candidates in their primetime event. —Jeva Lange
FOX NEWS?. From this I assume the debate is being carried and organized on a commercial channel. If I am correct, is there a perception of bias on the part of Fox? Is there also the possibility that Fox, being a commercial station looking for viewers, will somehow load the debate in order to foster the breathless populerism we in Australia hear so much about. Is there to be a moderator and is he a figure with sufficient public standing to be credible?. \While I am asking questions, can someone please provide a reference which circumvents the constitutional ban on a standing army? I have found plenty of references supporting Presidential powers as C in C but nothing to support the proliferation of armed forces ,particularly those stationed outside the borders of the US.
DeleteCheers from Aussie and thanks in anticipation.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/52/army-clause
DeleteCongress enacted the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), which prohibited the use of the military to aid civil authorities in enforcing the law or suppressing civil disturbances unless expressly ordered to do so by the President.
DeleteChris Wallace, moderator
DeleteBefore joining FNC, Wallace worked at ABC News for 14 years where he served as the senior correspondent for Primetime Thursday and a substitute host for Nightline. During his tenure with ABC News, Wallace hosted multiple groundbreaking investigations and received numerous awards for his work.
Prior to joining ABC News, Wallace was with NBC News where he served as the chief White House correspondent from 1982-1989. While at NBC, he covered the 1980, 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns as well as the Democratic and Republican conventions in those years. Wallace moderated Meet the Press from 1987-1988, making him the only person to have hosted two Sunday talk shows. He also anchored the Sunday edition of NBC Nightly News from 1982-1984 and 1986-1987. Wallace began his career with NBC at WNBC-TV (NBC 4) in New York in 1975.
Throughout his 50 years in broadcasting, Wallace has won every major broadcast news award for his reporting, including three Emmy Awards, the Dupont-Columbia Silver Baton, the Peabody Award, the Sol Taishoff Award for Broadcast Journalism, which was awarded to him by the National Press Foundation. Most recently, he received the 2013 Paul White Award for lifetime achievement and service to electronic journalism from the Radio Television Digital News Association. Wallace has been described as an "equal opportunity inquisitor" by The Boston Globe, "an aggressive journalist," "sharp edged" and "solid" by The Washington Post and "an equal-opportunity ravager" by The Miami Herald.
Wallace attended Harvard College.
A few weeks ago I was in my bank branch. While waiting in line I noticed a little book exchange that they had set up in the corner. One of the books to my surprise was one by Rachel Madlow titled ‘Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power’. While I only occasionally agree with much of her left driven political commentary, I have, from time to time found myself in agreement… At any rate I got the book and gave it a read.
DeleteWhile she dispenses her usual commentary and bias toward certain individuals, she presents a very clear picture of our military and surprisingly the admonishments of our founders and the constitutional constraints that were suppose to 1) make the decision to go to war a deeply personal decision and sacrifice shared by all citizens 2) insure that the congress made the considered decision on war rather than the decision of one man who, while being the Commander and Chief was not the controller of the financial enterprise required to sustain a military in a war effort.
She paints a pretty clear line of delegation, disregard for the constitution, broken laws and the continual and unchecked expansion of presidential powers from Vietnam to Afghanistan which have caused us to drift away from America's original ideals and become a nation weirdly at peace with perpetual war and a power structure, democrat or republican, that is increasingly comfortable with using the military. ‘ When you spend this much money training a military, it is a shame to let it sit idle’…
Grounding her factual arguments in the constitution was refreshing, although plenty of her thoughts (not military related) bear little alignment with the constitution or the admonishments of those who wrote it. She made that case that whether you were a constitutionalist of the left or the right this issue should garner everyone’s attention. I certainly don’t disagree with her on that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
DeleteLou and Mick.My very sincere thanks for the assistance. Yet another black hole of ignorance filled in. I must now plant some grass seeds on the soil and reap the harvest of knowledge. By far the most important plant we grow.
Cheers from Aussie
TS,
DeleteThank you for mentioning that book. I thought it was an excellent read and you sum up one of the salient points very well, we have become almost completely at peace with the idea of being perpetually at war. She seems disliked by many who are right of center, which is fair enough, but on this issue, I feel that she is one of the few on the left who continually challenges this notion. She rails on Reagan a lot in that book, but as someone who was in the military in the late 80's to early 90's, I feel like that was an important historical period where we embarked on a path of drift. I commend you for being able to state you find some level of agreement with a person like Maddow.
I dunno but let the clown show begin.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it will be as entertaining as the leftist melodrama.
DeleteI don't anticipate being entertained by the Democrat's debates. On the other hand the Republican debate tonight should be highly entertaining. It is projected to draw the largest audience ever recorded for a political debate. The second string debate will probably be a dud since no "colorful characters" are participating. Stay tuned....
DeleteLou,
ReplyDeleteThis was an excellent post. I think that we have to accept that what we will get is based partly on the reality that the audience will be kind of stupid and not capable of nuance. Your question about pro business, pro trade or pro jobs is an excellent question. To me, it seems impossible to be for all three, but that is a nuanced question and as we have seen, there is little room for nuance in primaries.
Now that such a major hype has been built up, I am starting to think it likely will be anticlimactic. The path of least resistance will likely be to quote Reagan a lot, highlight how Obama has ruined America and preach that we can eat cake every day and still lose weight. Questions like the ones you pose here should be part of any debate, but they are probably a little too in-depth for a primary.
It should be about 90 minutes long and about trying to out-bombast Trump.
ReplyDeleteI hope I'm wrong.
That was my first thought. But the more I think about it, Trump seems to be this year's model of the fuck you vote. He appeals to that seething with anger crowd who believes that life is truly as simple as their favorite pundit tells them it is. Trump has been mocked, parodied and worshipped for a lot of his adult life. He is not going to lose his support probably ever from the base he has captured. It would be funny if instead of attacking him, the rest of the crowd just kind of ignored him and went with a strategy of trying to not give the audience the car crash with fatalities scene they are looking for. I don't know, I keep having a gut feeling that this will not be that big of deal.
DeleteMy dad's theory is that Trump is a Clinton plant sent to tank the Pubs, after all, he has a pretty well documented history of being a Clinton supporter. Idk if I buy that, but it's a fun theory to blog about.
DeleteThis election cycle is a really good opportunity for the Pubs to win the White House. As much as it irks the right, I think the SCOTUS really the Pub candidates a favor by removing the ACA and Gay Marriage as election issues that they were previously required to be frothing at the mouth about during primary season. Also, Obama is out so they don't have to constantly talk about how he's the worst thing to happen to America since the Brits invaded in 1812. I hope they're free to lead, to outline a vision for the future with some new ideas.
To Lou's question, I don't think much of substance will be asked of the candidates in the early debates. Not until there's 2 or 3 left standing. Until then expect stuff like, "What's your favorite NFL team?"
hey pfunky.
DeleteHeard that same thing. Bill C was suppose to be pushing Trump to run and when he didn't get the nomination, run as an independent ton help Hilly win.
A bit far fetched but this is 2015 with everyone but Ronald Reagan and Pat Paulsen running.
There is so much they could talk about however they same old questions with the standard talking points from each talking head.
Lou and Pfunky.
DeleteDonald Trump as a plant?. From what I have seen, this would be like trying to herd cats. The man is so egocentric he would never stay within the boundary set by the puppet masters. Somehow I think perhaps Trump is simply a gaseous envelope with a large pocket book. Prick the Thumper and the explosion will blow all the Repubs out of the water. Those with the most to worry about are perhaps the genuine Repubs who actually do care for the position of POTUS.One thing not yet admitted by any of the candidates; the successful runner at the next election will have the worst job in the world. Would any of us want to take it on?.Can HRC be beaten.
Cheers from Aussie
Oh, I agree with ya, King. My dad thinks it was Trump's idea. The man is nobody's patsy.
DeleteHilly is her own worst enemy. Who ever is running her campaign and advising her is an idiot.
DeleteInteresting take, Lou. How would you advise Hillary?
DeleteIf Hillary has done no wrong regarding the server issue, why not release all the emails, turn the server over to the Republicons and then she can move on.
DeleteWhy drag this fiasco on forever?
Hillary ignores the media and refuses to address issues at any time. Maybe it's time to end the seclusion and exclusion of the media and begin a dialog.
Being a politician and then running your campaign via polls has it's problems. Maybe it's time to hear what she thinks not what the polls say.
How many times can Hillary change her stance before people really notice? It will kill her in the debates that will come this fall.
Become a real person, which may not be possible for Hillary.
And the content? The questions? What colors your socks today or will they ask meaningful questions?
ReplyDelete