Questions for the Candidates

What the contenders should really be asked

Read this article at FoxNews.com.

Comments

[ed]

Great questions, but your premise assumes the "moderators" are smarter than the candidates, when in fact they're all playing the same lowbrow game. Political debate in this country has suffered at the hands of both the candidates and the press. Indeed, I think the press is most to blame for not asking these kinds of questions, for not holding politicians' feet to the fire. Are they afraid or just not very well educated? Or perhaps they feel we the people cannot comprehend higher concepts of self-government? Have we given them any reason to think otherwise?

[isildur]

It seems as though the only real purpose to a debate question is to highlight some difference between the candidates. Your questions would never make it, because they'd put all the candidates into an equally uncomfortable position.

Which is to say, there really aren't any likely options in the Presidential field that aren't basically carbon copies of one another. They quibble on details, but on the larger issues of the limits of government power, they're all the same.

This is the place where I tsk, and quote the thing about 'democracy' and 'public purse'. People know what they want -- and what they don't want is uncomfortable questions about government largesse.

[Brandybuck]

If you don't know how your candidate would answer these questions, don't bother voting.

[CrackerBarrel]

Good questions from Balko, and a nice, biting comment from "ed" re the press. I've thought about many of those questions myself.

IMO, the likelihood of most of these questions getting asked is about the same as that of an open atheist becoming President.

As long as there are people like Balko around, though, there's a glimmer of hope.

How can the apparent minority of people like federalists / limited govt. types / libertarians do a better job of getting our views across to J. Q. Public?

CrackerBarrel

[JBinMO]

Those are good questions, unfortunatly canidates would just go straight to their talking points without answering them.

[J sub D]

Those are good questions, unfortunatly canidates would just go straight to their talking points without answering them.

And nobody at ABC, CBS, FOX et al, would call them out on it. Sheesh!

[Buddy]

isildur writes

"there really aren't any likely options in the Presidential field that aren't basically carbon copies of one another. They quibble on details, but on the larger issues of the limits of government power, they're all the same."

I suppose that you are writing Ron Paul off as not a "likely option"? Optimism , Isildur, optimism!

[J sub D]

I'll bet FOX won't allow you ask questions at, or moderate, a debate, Radley. You're obviously too dangerous. 😉

[Alan Vanneman]

Only a few of these questions would give any candidate a problem. Candidates love to be asked questions that let them talk about how much they hate Washington.

I don't understand why you omit DoD programs from your list of "cuttables." With its gigantic budget, DoD is the biggest waste of all. Refusing to challenge its sacred cow status shows a distinct lack of politicial courage.

[chancelikely]

Alan Vanneman:

DoD was left off as a 'given', as in, everyone would name it and only have four more to come up with.

[Radley Balko]

"I don't understand why you omit DoD programs from your list of "cuttables." With its gigantic budget, DoD is the biggest waste of all. Refusing to challenge its sacred cow status shows a distinct lack of politicial courage."

I omitted DoD only to increase the level of difficulty for Dem candidates. It'd be too easy for them say "I'd cut all no-bid contracts to Haliburton," or some such.

[TrickyVic]

Radley, I think you left out an important question.

Will you actually answer the question(s) I am about to ask?

[TrickyVic]

Or I should say

Do you promise to answer the questions?

[B]

The press would never make a habit of asking those kinds of questions of the candidates, for fear of losing access. And the candidates wouldn't really answer them anyway even if they did.

The 45 seconds or so of the last night's Dem "debate" that I watched, it seemed that Ms. Clinton had essentially made Tim Russert her bitch. He asked a question, she answered a completely different one, and utterly shut down his (feeble) attempts to point this out to her.

And Russert is probably one of the tougher interviewers/moderators out there...

[John-David]

Actually, the most important question I'd ask was left off of this list, but it would be more of a demand:

Please, on your campaign website, put up your short list of names for each cabinet position, as well as potential Supreme Court nominees and VP possibilities.

This will never happen, but it would give you far more insight into a candidates presidency than all the talking-point debate answers ever will.

[TLB]

I've posted extensively on the problems with the "debates" so far, including with the most recent one.

Looking forward, one way to make the debates better is outlined here: petitiononline.com/debateit

That could allow, for instance, someone from Reason to grill the various candidates. Shouldn't Reason get behind such a plan?

Another way is to take the questions at the link to campaign appearances and ask them yourself. Then, upload the responses to Youtube and promote them.

That way you aren't going to be waiting in vain for the MSM to ask those questions. Just go do it yourself.

And, for even better questions than the ones at the link, see mine. Those are actually based on specific statements and actions of the candidates.

If those are asked, and the responses are properly promoted, it would drive the candidate(s) down in popularity, and it would also help reveal the MSM for the hacks they are.

So, get out there and ask some questions.

[Lisa Simpson]

``Mr. Burns: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?''

[Mike Reason]

"I don't understand why you omit DoD programs from your list of "cuttables." With its gigantic budget, DoD is the biggest waste of all. Refusing to challenge its sacred cow status shows a distinct lack of politicial courage."

Yeah, who needs a standing military to defend us. It is not like their are any hostile governments or terrorist organizations out there. Next you'll tell us that there is a world outside of America instead of a black morass where dragons dwell.