Originally posted by: Looney
What did he do wrong?
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Looney
What did he do wrong?
His left wing liberal bias was all too evident.
It is nice to see that you lump the Democrats in there.Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why is that a bad thing? If someone is going to be running for President, shouldn't the people in the other party get to find out where they stand on issues that are important to them also?Originally posted by: Budmantom
His left wing liberal bias was all too evident.Originally posted by: Looney
What did he do wrong?
Or should they just get softballs lobbed at them all campaign long so that they can pander (read bullsh1t) to their base and hope that they did a fair enough job to get more of their voters to the polls?
How do you expect to bridge the gap between left and right if you don't have to answer to one of them?
And for the record, the dems were childish and unjustified in pulling out of the Fox debate. They should have been jumping at the chance to get on that network and try to open up the eyes and minds of the "faithful" to an alternative to the lip service that they are and have been getting from those on the right.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Looney
What did he do wrong?
His left wing liberal bias was all too evident.
Why is that a bad thing? If someone is going to be running for President, shouldn't the people in the other party get to find out where they stand on issues that are important to them also?
Or should they just get softballs lobbed at them all campaign long so that they can pander (read bullsh1t) to their base and hope that they did a fair enough job to get more of their voters to the polls?
How do you expect to bridge the gap between left and right if you don't have to answer to one of them?
And for the record, the dems were childish and unjustified in pulling out of the Fox debate. They should have been jumping at the chance to get on that network and try to open up the eyes and minds of the "faithful" to an alternative to the lip service that they are and have been getting from those on the right.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is nice to see that you lump the Democrats in there.Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why is that a bad thing? If someone is going to be running for President, shouldn't the people in the other party get to find out where they stand on issues that are important to them also?Originally posted by: Budmantom
His left wing liberal bias was all too evident.Originally posted by: Looney
What did he do wrong?
Or should they just get softballs lobbed at them all campaign long so that they can pander (read bullsh1t) to their base and hope that they did a fair enough job to get more of their voters to the polls?
How do you expect to bridge the gap between left and right if you don't have to answer to one of them?
And for the record, the dems were childish and unjustified in pulling out of the Fox debate. They should have been jumping at the chance to get on that network and try to open up the eyes and minds of the "faithful" to an alternative to the lip service that they are and have been getting from those on the right.
But this is the Republican debate and maybe he should focus on issues that concern Republicans, with perhaps a few general questions thrown in.
Imagine if the Democrats had a debate and Brit Hume started asking them questions like ?why do you oppose school choice?? ?Why do you support partial birth abortion when there is virtually no medial need for the procedure?? ?Affirmative action in college admissions often results in minority students being picked over white students solely on the basis of their skin color, some call this reverse discrimination. Do you agree with that assessment?? etc etc
The left would go nuts if this happened.
What could the Clinton administration had done differently to prevent 9-11?Originally posted by: Budmantom
How about another question like "What could have Clinton done to pevent the war in Iraq?"
Or "Hillary since you are so opposed to the war that you voted for why didn't you read the
National Intelligence Estimate?"
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What could the Clinton administration had done differently to prevent 9-11?Originally posted by: Budmantom
How about another question like "What could have Clinton done to pevent the war in Iraq?"
Or "Hillary since you are so opposed to the war that you voted for why didn't you read the
National Intelligence Estimate?"
I would have stumped harder for Gore to help him win his home state and negate the impact of FloridaOriginally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What could the Clinton administration had done differently to prevent 9-11?Originally posted by: Budmantom
How about another question like "What could have Clinton done to pevent the war in Iraq?"
Or "Hillary since you are so opposed to the war that you voted for why didn't you read the
National Intelligence Estimate?"
I think that that would be a fair question.
I would answer it by saying:
...I would have not let W take office in Jan. of 01.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What could the Clinton administration had done differently to prevent 9-11?Originally posted by: Budmantom
How about another question like "What could have Clinton done to pevent the war in Iraq?"
Or "Hillary since you are so opposed to the war that you voted for why didn't you read the
National Intelligence Estimate?"
Will Blitzer ask GOP candidates comparable questions on Iraq, budget?
Summary: Media Matters offers questions for CNN's Wolf Blitzer to ask Republican presidential candidates in the hope that candidates from both parties will be held to the same standard regarding the Iraq war and other topics.
During the June 3 Democratic presidential debate, moderator and CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) about their May 24 votes against the Iraq war supplemental funding bill, adding that they have been accused "of playing politics with the lives of the troops." As Media Matters for America has documented, the media have employed differing standards in covering recent Democratic and Republican votes on Iraq war funding bills -- for instance, NBC and the Associated Press quoted Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attacking Clinton and Obama for their May 24 votes but ignored McCain's own vote against an earlier version of the bill. Drawing from the questions Blitzer has already asked the Democrats, Media Matters for America offers the following comparable questions for Blitzer to ask the GOP candidates.
Iraq funding
During the June 3 debate, Blitzer asked Clinton: "Senator Clinton, you've voted in favor of every funding for the U.S. troops since the start of the war until now. And some are accusing and some others of playing politics with the lives of the troops. What is your response?" Blitzer then asked Obama: "Senator Obama, you did the same thing. Since you came in to the Senate you voted for the funding for the troops for this war until now. What's your answer?"
Blitzer was referring to Clinton's and Obama's May 24 votes against the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act. McCain attacked Clinton and Obama in a May 25 statement, claiming they "embrace[d] the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan." ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported on his blog on May 25 that McCain called Clinton's and Obama's votes "the height of irresponsibility." On March 29, however, McCain and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), another Republican presidential contender, voted against an earlier Iraq supplemental that was ultimately vetoed by President Bush.
Given Blitzer's questions to Clinton and Obama and the widespread media attention McCain's statements garnered, Media Matters suggests the following question for Blitzer to pose to McCain:
"Sen. McCain -- on May 25 you said Sens. Clinton and Obama 'embrace[d] the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan,' in response to their votes against the Iraq war supplemental. You told ABC News they were 'the height of irresponsibility.' You and Sen. Brownback, however, also voted against an Iraq supplemental on March 29. Does that mean you and he 'embrace[d] the policy of surrender,' as you claimed Sens. Clinton and Obama did? Were your votes 'the height of irresponsibility'?"
National Intelligence Estimate
During the June 3 debate, Blitzer asked Clinton: "[D]o you regret voting to authorize the president to use force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq without actually reading the National Intelligence Estimate, the classified document laying out the best U.S. intelligence at that time?" Blitzer followed up on the question, asking Clinton: "So let me just be precise; that the question was, do you regret not reading the National Intelligence Estimate?" Blitzer also asked the same question of former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC): "Senator Edwards, you didn't read that National Intelligence Estimate either. Do you regret that?" As Media Matters has noted, the NIE, which was made available to all members of Congress before the 2002 vote to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, contained dissenting views from U.S. intelligence agencies regarding the existence of Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction programs.
On the May 29 edition of CNN Newsroom, correspondent Mary Snow reported that McCain was also among the 94 senators who did not read the full NIE:
SNOW: A spokeswoman for a Republican Senator John McCain says, "Senator McCain was briefed on the NIE numerous times and read the Executive Summary."
Given Blitzer's questions to Clinton and Edwards, and the fact that his own network reported that McCain acknowledged not reading the NIE, Media Matters suggests the following question:
"Sen. McCain -- you have acknowledged that you did not read the National Intelligence Estimate prior to voting to allow the president to use force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Do you regret not reading the National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize a war?"
Spending
During the June 3 debate, Blitzer asked the Democratic candidates several questions regarding the costs of their healthcare proposals, and how they will be paid. In response to Clinton's statement that "we have to lower costs, improve quality and cover everybody," Blitzer asked: "And -- and Senator Clinton, you can do that without raising taxes?" Blitzer asked New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson if he could implement "universal health care without raising taxes."
During the May 3 Republican debate, moderator and MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked for each candidate "to mention a tax you'd like to cut, in addition to the Bush tax cuts, keeping them in effect." Each candidate offered a tax they would cut or eliminate, in addition to extending Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in effect.
Assuming that Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would expire in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office forecast a $172 billion federal budget deficit for 2007, and continued deficits until at least 2012. However, the CBO found that the deficits will go on longer and be far greater should the tax cuts be extended and if "lawmakers continued to provide relief from the" alternative minimum tax (AMT). According to the CBO: "Combined, those policy changes -- and associated debt-service costs -- would produce a deficit of $328 billion (1.9 percent of GDP) in 2012 and a cumulative deficit over the 2008-2017 period of $4.2 trillion (2.4 percent of GDP)." This scenario was envisioned by McCain, who said in response to Matthews' question that the AMT has "got to be repealed," and by Giuliani, who said the AMT "has to be reduced."
Media Matters therefore suggests the following question for Blitzer to ask the candidates:
You've all indicated that, as president, you would cut taxes in addition to keeping President Bush's tax cuts in effect. How do you plan to pay for these tax cuts, keeping in mind that the Congressional Budget Office projects over $4 trillion in deficits from 2008 to 2017, should the president's tax cuts be extended and the alternative minimum tax reduced?
Former presidents*
"If you are elected president, how, if at all, would you use former President George W. Bush in your administration?"
?S.S.M.
* This question added at the suggestion of reader "leftwithatwist," who noted that, during the June 3 debate, Blitzer asked the Democratic candidates a variant of this question: "f you are elected president, how, if at all, would you use former President Bill Clinton in your administration?"
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is nice to see that you lump the Democrats in there.Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why is that a bad thing? If someone is going to be running for President, shouldn't the people in the other party get to find out where they stand on issues that are important to them also?Originally posted by: Budmantom
His left wing liberal bias was all too evident.Originally posted by: Looney
What did he do wrong?
Or should they just get softballs lobbed at them all campaign long so that they can pander (read bullsh1t) to their base and hope that they did a fair enough job to get more of their voters to the polls?
How do you expect to bridge the gap between left and right if you don't have to answer to one of them?
And for the record, the dems were childish and unjustified in pulling out of the Fox debate. They should have been jumping at the chance to get on that network and try to open up the eyes and minds of the "faithful" to an alternative to the lip service that they are and have been getting from those on the right.
But this is the Republican debate and maybe he should focus on issues that concern Republicans, with perhaps a few general questions thrown in.
Imagine if the Democrats had a debate and Brit Hume started asking them questions like ?why do you oppose school choice?? ?Why do you support partial birth abortion when there is virtually no medial need for the procedure?? ?Affirmative action in college admissions often results in minority students being picked over white students solely on the basis of their skin color, some call this reverse discrimination. Do you agree with that assessment?? etc etc
The left would go nuts if this happened.
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Looney
What did he do wrong?
His left wing liberal bias was all too evident.
What could the Clinton administration had done differently to prevent 9-11?