Why is it that the media (print-TV-radio) never seems to ask the hard questions of our politicians? There are two cliches that you can count on being used and the media never follows up with what should be asked.
1. The other side won't "compromise." The next question should be: "What did the other side propose and what did you offer for compromising?"
2. We need "comprehensive immigration reform." The next question should be: "What steps should the government take?"
Harold L. Gee
Mesa
sockratties posted at 11:00 am on Sun, Feb 19, 2012.
Good letter Mr. Gee.
Additional questions should be framed to prevent platitudes and clichés that make great sound-bites but have no substance. Ask “What will you do to solve this problem?,” “What measurable result do you expect from your actions?” and “Will you resign from office if you don’t succeed?”
JMJ posted at 3:28 pm on Sun, Feb 19, 2012.
What? Logic? That might work, so, trust me, it won't be tried!
Cerulean posted at 4:09 pm on Sun, Feb 19, 2012.
Harold, I like your suggestion. The candidates will have nothing of it.
In 1988 The League of Women Voters issued a press release, ‘League Refuses To “HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD” ‘. The release explains why the League will no longer, after ten years, sponsor presidential debates; saying, "It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions,". Neuman the leagues representative said, “ The campaigns' agreement was negotiated "behind closed doors" and was presented to the League as "a done deal," she said, its 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.” She goes on to iterate how campaigns control the questions, the audience, etc..
It is at this time that a Commission on Presidential Debates was established. Today, I am sure they do their best, however they are still constrained by the candidate’s rules.
http://www.lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud
http://www.debates.org/
Dale Whiting posted at 7:10 pm on Sun, Feb 19, 2012.
Comprehensive immigration reform has been implemented at least twice before. In exchange for getting tougher on illegal immigration, making the laws harder to circumvent, those who are already here illegally but otherwise have behaved themselves are given a path to citizenship, a path as hard as returning home to re-enter legally. There are variations on this theme. But it once was a Republican idea. Now that the Republicans have been taken over by neo-conservatives, it's not popular anymore.
Got it now?
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:18 am on Tue, Feb 21, 2012.
Dale: It's spelled "neoconservative", FYI.
VofReason posted at 12:54 pm on Tue, Feb 21, 2012.
Comprehensive Immigration reform. We all know that comes out of people's mouth when they mean open the gates and look the other way. And Dale, if it has been done twice before, I can tell you with confidence that we don't want any part of it again- 21 million illegals are proof of that. Oh I know I know, they are just here to work and they bring more to the economy then they take. If those remarks were true, many states budgets would be on the surplus side and there would be street corners full of day laborers who surely pay they own rent, food bill, heallthcare and the rest.