You can “support Israel” and still favor a Palestinian state. In fact, some of us believe that is the best way to support Israel. But yes, some voters won’t like any answer to that question. I assume that’s true of Republican voters too.
Probably not for the past ten years or so 
Thanks for my laugh of the day, BTW.
Don’t underestimate the number of people, even in Israel, who think that supporting Israel requires opposing Netanyahu, too. It isn’t a partisan divide, either.
So far in this election answering these questions honestly without waffling is working pretty well.
THe Palestine issue is complicated to resolve, but the path to peace is not complicated at all: two states, living side by side, in peace.
Where a candidate can get into trouble is in choosing sides. The US has historically been more on Israel’s side, and the public is more on Israel’s side. So you have to subtly appear to be more pro-Israel in rhetoric without going too overboard. Which is an issue tailor made for a professional politician who can give a scripted answer, and why sometimes those types of questions can be unfair to honest, less polished candidates.
That’s an indirect way of saying unprepared. And it isn’t unfair all, just revealing.
If you’re going to a job interview, you *have *to have answers ready for all the standard questions. That’s especially true if the job is the Presidency.
Yeah, but should the answers be scripted in such a way as to avoid taking a firm position? Is the ability to avoid taking a firm position a useful quality as President?
If all questions are answered honestly on every issue, a good portion of your base will be strongly disagreeing with you on a number of issues. Being a bullshitter “prepares” you to run for President, but says nothing about your ability to actually be President. And the media and voters should not be rewarding polished candidates for not saying anything of interest.
It’s startling that you even ask. Of course it is.
Bullshitting is a basic requirement of the job.
Are they there to entertain you?
They are there to answer questions about what their policies will be as President. Not lie about them.
Maybe from the point of view of the journalist, but from the point of view of the candidate, they are there to maximize their chance of winning the election. A candidate’s job is to win the election. A President’s job is to be President. That might suck, but that’s the way it is.
Which is why the media should reward candidates who give straight answers and punish candidates who don’t. They have the ability and their interests are served by punishing the candidates who won’t give them what they want.
You have a cite for Sanders supporting expansion of migrant visa programs? That seems to be counter to what I’ve seen.
This is a good example though, because Sanders is clear on what he’s in favor of and what he isn’t as far as immigration. Which means he’s at a disadvantage vs. candidates who take positions that are uniformly pro or anti-immigration down the line. His position is based on what he thinks is best for America, rather than catering to specific voting constituencies. Which means that Sanders would make a better President in this regard, but a worse candidate, because practically no voters who care about immigration are going to like his views.
My error. At least he isn’t into forced deportation.
Yes he is. All candidates are. If you stop forced deportations, that’s known as open borders, which Sanders is vehemently against.
The media’s job is to make money for their parent company, for the most part. Betting on that the media will do what the media should do is generally unwise.
“What is your proposal for reducing the national debt? Let’s limit your response to just Medicare, military spending, and Social Security, since those are among the largest expenditures. Specifics, please.”
I think it wouldn’t be a major problem for a Republican candidate. From what I can see, it’s the left that’s split on this issue. The right is pretty firmly pro-Israel.
It’s not the media’s job to decide which candidates deserve punishments or rewards. The media’s job is to report what the candidates are saying and then let the voters decide who deserves to get elected.
If politicians waffle, it’s because we vote for wafflers.
Because only an “adult” can understand the awesome benefits of a flat tax? Because it takes an “adult” to understand that a 2% tax hike on the income of a low-income worker who needs all of it to pay for the essentials of life is morally and functionally exactly the same as a 2% hike on a billionaire’s income who would otherwise use it to buy sun hats for his race horses? :rolleyes: