Of all the questions floating around, the one I’d most like answered is way Kerry voted against Gulf War I. Perhaps he has explained himself somewhere and I’m not aware of it, but the only reason I can think of is “pure partisan politics”. Does anyone know of a cite where Kerry has addressed this? If not, I sure hope it comes out in the debates.
Cute as a button you are.
Relevant is such a different word than fair.
I’d prefer that the only questions asked of our pols were relevant, meaningful and useful all rolled into one. But, until Pollyana becomes our new Overlord I’ll just have to settle for dissapointment on this count.
These appear to be run of the mill hack questions. Sure, they’re fair. Fair as in within the rules. Sure, they’re relevant as in relevant to readers of NRO.
I think that most of them fail my meaningful and useful tests though.
Well, for me it was a question; suppose I should have just phrased it better. I’m glad to see there are some people who are into politics enough to give intelligent answers. Thanks to all of you were intelligent enough to give intelligent answers.
You’re entirely welcome!
(oh, you mean him too?..)
The day Bush is willing to sit down to an unscripted interview and answer elucidator’s questions, I’ll call it legitimate to ask Kerry the OP’s “Have you stopped beating your wife?” style questions.
Listen, I’m sorry about the buttocks thing! I was only quoting Monty Python.
The National Review was founded almost fifty years ago by my favorite Conservative, Bill Buckley. It is not only in the Conservatives’ pockets, it was born there and remains in those very, very deep pockets indeed. The National Review is the standard-bearer for intelligent Conservativism. (Not to be confused with the oxymoronic wise Conservatism.)
{quote]They are giving John both barrels. What uif they turned these same (or similar questions) in Bush?
[/quote]
If they turned the very same questions on Bush, he would probably make a joke and then say that he was very serious about his responsibilities as President. Then he would talk about how well things are going in Iraq and how the economy has turned a corner. Then he would mention faith. tax breaks, marriage and Laura and make another joke before waving goodbye. It would never occur to him that the questions didn’t actually apply in his situation.
Relevent to his running for President? Some of them are. Some of them are a real stretch. Others are questions I wouldn’t mind answers to myself. Most of them are just loaded bunk.
But I actually would like for Candidate Kerry to answer all of the questions. They should be put to him one at a time and he should be allowed all the time that he requires to respond to these questions without interruption on a live broadcast.
Then Candidate Bush should be required to answer a similar set of no-holes-barred questions under an identical situation. (elucidator has a good start.**
Not only am I interested in the answers, but I am also interested in how the two candidates behave when they must account for their decisions.
It would be good to have additional questions for both of them – ones that they don’t know about ahead of time.
Interestingly enough, Bill Buckley recently said that if he had it to do over again that he would NOT have supported the invasion of Iraq
.
I saw him speak once when I was a teenager.
He arrived about two hours late and hadn’t combed the back of his hair (front was perfect mind you).
Great talk w/ a q&A afterward.
Ahhh. Wasted on the young it was.
I add deep and insightful thoughts when responding to deep and insightful posts from others. Which is why you’ll never have to fear getting an insightful response to one of your posts…
Well, now, looky here. Seems as good a place to post this as any, maybe beat SimonX to it…
By way of the esteemed Josh Marshall, of Talking Points Memo, without which no citizen can hope to be informed…
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Ben Barnes, the former Speaker of the House in Texas, the guy who got President Bush into the Texas Air National Guard.
“…Let’s talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush and I know them both. And I’m not name dropping to say I know ‘em both. I got a young man named George W. Bush in the National Guard when I was Lt. Gov. of Texas and I’m not necessarily proud of that. But I did it. And I got a lot of other people into the National Guard because I thought that was what people should do, when you’re in office you helped a lot of rich people…I’m very sorry about that and I’m very ashamed and I apologize to you as voters of Texas…”
I’m sorry, Mr. President, sorry to interrupt. You were talking about honor and integrity. Do go on.
Don’t forget this bookend comment, from the same site, www.talkingpointsmemo.com, from Bush himself.
Does he believe that? Does he believe anyone else will?
Let me see if I’ve got this straight. His reluctance at killing members of the United States Senate made him the model of restraint, and we are to dismiss his negotiations with North Vietnamese communists in Paris as merely reasonable and intelligent? Regardless of one’s opinon on wars in Southeast Asia, Kerry was a political opportunist from the start, and it’s starting to bite him in the ass.
And not to forget his plan to appoint Jane Fonda as Commissar for the Department of Defenselessness!
Listen, amigo, such people existed, I know, I actually talked to them. People who would look you right in the eye and insist that the Black Panthers/Weather Underground Popular Front could mount a revolution with sporting rifles and pistols. They were a joke! People like me, we adopted thier phraseology in good humor and affectionate contempt. “See ya later, Fred, Peace! And don’t forget to Smash the State!”
“Listen to the middle, persuade the middle, move the middle” is the axiom of agonizingly slow progress, but it seems to be the only one that works. God help us, but that’s it.
Kerry recognized this when many of the more radical elements of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War did not. They felt betrayed, and reviled him accordingly. Hell, you think the Freepers call Kerry names, you should have heard these guys!
Jeez, from where I’m standing, I coulda sworn that BUSH was a political opportunist from the start, and it’s starting to bite him in the ass.
The people who believe stuff like “The terrorists hate us for our freedoms” will. I doubt Bush buys his own shit, however.
I doubt it too.
I’m sure he has a White House lackey to run to the pusher and buy dope for him, however.
One of the perks of the job, I guess.
That’s fair enough. Has anyone actually asked John Kerry those question?
You need to take a few steps back so you can see the big picture clearer. They’re both opportunists whose asses will probably be bitten for it. Who’ll have the most teethmarks to show for it remains to be seen.
I say they ask both of them (oh, and Nader so he thinks people care) whatever they think “needs” an answer. It’s not going to change many minds this close to the election since short of one of them being discovered to eat babies their votes are all but cast now, but it might make for entertaining soundbites. Are there really any undecided voters to sway with biased and pointed questions who’ll actually be voting in November? At this point “undecided” sounds a lot like “I’m not actually going to vote, but if I say I’m undecided you won’t lecture me about shirking civic duties and tell me how many people died so I could vote.”
National Review Online: we’ve now become everything we ever claimed to hate about elitist liberals.