posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:43 PM
This year has been, sadly, more of the same, when it comes to asking questions of the candidates (presidential and vice presidential). I watch
interviews, debates and speeches and it is so incredibly frustrating; I am left feeling cheated and talked-down-to.
Are we, as a country, really happy with the way candidates choose to/are forced to answer questions? How is it, that every interviewer and debate
monitor has nothing of substance to ask? If an actual issue is raised, why do we accept the deflection or convoluted mish-mash of catch phrase
and surface skimming?
It is pathetic. It is insulting. And it is frightening.
"Great debate skills" should not be the accepted and proliferated response when any candidate manages to successfully avoid even the softball
questions. The candidates don't get all the blame though; the professional news media shares equally in the shame.
When a candidate avoids the question or changes the issue completely, then they should call them on it. Force them to answer the question or move on
to the next one. Show all the questions they refuse to/can not answer.
If all interviews/debates were done in this manner, then maybe we, as a country, would learn something and make an educated choice for once.
After you ask about foreign policy, ask questions that actually matter. Fine, start with a softball intro into the topic, but don't allow
catch-phrase politics to be the answer to the issue. Continue with it, ask specific questions that actually matter.
Here's one for you:
Syria is controlled by a government which is, arguably, more ‘radical’ than Iran; they sit on tons of oil; have an incredibly expensive and
expansive natural gas system...and yet we are helping them, very much so, with their nuclear ambitions...why is that?
Why do you continue to address the "Iranian Threat", but talk of Syria is disturbingly absent?
What would you do differently?
I am not a journalist and I do not interview for a living, but I think that it is a question that everyone would appreciate an answer to. It is a
situation which brings to light several contradictions in our nation’s current, observable, policy towards Iran. Yet, questions like this are never
asked of the candidates. We allow them to rehash stump speeches and call it a substantive answer; we allow the media to be ‘ok’ and to run with
this type of soft question/no answer politics.
And here may be the real problem: We are the real problem.
Those running for office and the media are happy with spewing flavor-of-the-week rhetoric, but we are happy enough to allow it. We eat it up,
we share in their manufactured rage and we truly believe we know what’s going on.
Is the American public so ignorant, so...stupid...as to not only allow, but to embrace this phony system? Those who are politically active are more
then happy to talk your ear off about rumors of 'he-said, she-said' or how the media is too hard on their candidate, but bring up an actual issue
and they run like you just shot a rifle into the air...
…they refuse to listen and seem to genuinely not give a #.
There may be a system of media which is set up to keep us ignorant...but if a 20-something stoner can figure it out, what the hell is keeping the rest
out you in silent consent?
[edit on 10/3/0808 by spines]
[edit on 10/3/0808 by spines]