Tag: Presidential debate

Posted on

questions for the candidates – part 2

photo-1458419948946-19fb2cc296af

When the latest crude comments relevant to the 2016 Presidential campaigns arose on Friday, my heart sank; I detest disrespect to anyone. As I watched the media and social media response — and all the justifications for “no more civility necessary, dam*&$%^!!” — my heart sank even more. It’s as if even the most intelligent among us believe respect is not always necessary. Friends, I am not talking about respect for the candidates. I am talking about respect for one another. The Intramuralist will always advocate for such. We advocate for a civility in discussion that currently seems secondary to the “I’m-mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” attitude.

Hence, today, allowing passions and perspectives to cool down somewhat, we will continue our two part “Questions for the Candidates” post, as debate #2 is tonight. Remember: these questions are from a diverse, active group, a group that is concerned about this race, a group that no doubt is concerned about the latest revelations of behavior, but a group that is committed to civility and respect. Also, even with the crude comments and questions of spousal activity relevance, the below questions remain the things I’d rather know most.

First, questions targeted to individual candidates… To Hillary Clinton…

You have experience dealing with ministers of foreign countries. They and we have changed leadership and policies while ensuring agreements made by predecessors. What would you say to ease their minds and those of Americans at home concerning American commitment to our longstanding treaties should the Executive Branch change from Democrat to Republican?

Your husband was unfaithful. What did you say to or about the women Bill was involved with that was untrue?

Are you open to accepting members of the Republican Party in your cabinet? Will you picking the most qualified person over party loyalty?

To Donald Trump…

With world leaders concerned about your diplomacy changes, how would you ease their minds and Americans at home by explaining the “Trump Doctrine” in a clear and precise way?

If you are elected, will you appoint intelligent qualified women in your cabinet?

Over your lifetime, honestly, specifically, how has the way you’ve felt about women changed?

More questions now, for both…

Have you ever volunteered your time, not simply made an appearance for a photo op, more than once to help serve the needy? 

What has the American public misunderstood about you?

How do you plan to continue health care reform, and make health care truly affordable?

Should drug prices be regulated?

Do you believe deductibles on health insurance are ethical?

There seems complete freedom of expression in today’s society — marry whomever you want, worship whatever you want, use whatever bathroom you want — except for those with traditional values. How will you promote religious freedom for all Americans, not just the irreligious?

How do you manage the separation of church and state without diminishing the presence and value of either?

We now live in a society that terror organizations have successfully and continually made attacks all over the world. This is not just “an American” problem. As the possible leader of the free world, what will you say to those that continue to attack our way of life? To those that use their religion as a weapon of destruction…

With regard to terrorism, George W. Bush took the fight “over there,” and under Pres. Obama, the fight has come back “over here.” How will you keep us safe?

King Abdullah II of Jordan is fighting ISIL using outdated helicopters from the Vietnam era he purchased on EBay or wherever he can find them. He, along side his troops, drill using live ammunition they can ill afford. How will your administration go about increasing military aid to a trusted ally who alone, is fighting ISIL on a daily basis?

How can we trust Iran, a country which calls America “The Great Satan” and is committed to the extinction of Israel?

We have a military that is sending home soldiers who are fighting wars and conflicts in ways never seen before. They are watching their friends being blown up by IED’s; they are coming home without limbs and suffering with PTSD at record levels. And yet, VA’s across the country are unable to offer the needed help because of lack of funds, loose oversight, corruption and apathy. What will you do in your first 90 days to ensure that these soldiers are cared for upon their return, and what changes are you willing to make to guarantee these measures will be taken and continued?

Considering Va Tech, San Bernardino, Columbine, etc.— what is your plan to work across the aisle to propose and sign legislation to close gun show and internet loophole sales, a longer waiting period, as well as linkage to mental health concerns?

Will you help to get common sense gun laws in place?

What do you intend to do about the mental health crisis in this country?

How can you remove partisanship from debates over the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms?

Is unity in our country important to you, and what will you do to reach across the aisle to find common ground and get Congress functioning again?

Can you be the true leader of our county and not just the leader of your party?

If elected, what will you do to end hunger, alleviate poverty, and create opportunity in the United States and worldwide? (This question word-for-word is being pushed by a broad coalition of hunger-relief groups called “Vote to End Poverty.”)

Can you state how your policies are going to improve our country without attacking the other candidate?

From Benghazi to bankruptcies, deleted emails and undisclosed tax returns, deceptive language and inflammatory language, what do you say to the many Americans who are disappointed with their choices in this campaign and can’t believe we can’t do better than the two of you?

Tonight is debate #2. Let’s see if any of the above questions are asked and answered. Let’s see if substance reigns over style. And let’s see if people can listen more than interrupt. That would be a gift to us all.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

questions for the candidates – part 1

Processed with VSCO with 4 preset
Processed with VSCO with 4 preset

There’s a debate going on; perhaps you’ve noticed. There’s actually more than one… there’s the debate over who should be President, the debate whether each/either has the necessary integrity, and then there are the actual, formal debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Due to the observations that substance seems secondary to style and objectivity seems scarce, I solicited the help of 10 likely voters, each persons for whom I have tremendous respect. They are a diverse group — in all demographics — including equally left, right, and somewhere in between. But they are each politically active and interested, committed to education and respect, and earnestly desiring of solution. I asked them what they’d like to ask the candidates. Here is Part 1…

One side is never all right; the other side is never all wrong. Tell me something the other side has right.

What do you believe are America’s top 2 strengths and top 2 weaknesses? How would you invest in America to improve in all of these areas?

Many people claim that they don’t have faith in either nominee. If elected, how would you unify the country so we can make progress both in our areas of strength and weakness?

In your professional life, have you ever faced a decision that was at odds with your religious beliefs, and if so, what was it and what was your decision?

Do you support term limits for members of Congress, and if so, how committed are you to fighting for that legislation during your first term? 

Do you think it is necessary to limit the amount of time a person can serve in elected government, and depending on your answer, why or why not?  What should the proper time frame be if your answer is “yes”?

Candidates and incumbents discuss how they are for campaign finance reform, and as soon as the election is over, it is ignored. What are you willing to pledge to do to ensure that real reform happens and that these changes are enforced?

Where do you stand with abolishing Citizens United and getting the money out of our political process?

Is reversing Citizens United v. FEC necessary to purify the election process and get rid of all the impurities of special interest? If not, please explain.

Based on recent traffic statistics are you willing to push for a nationwide ban on hand-held devices while operating a motor vehicle?

Do you believe that the cost of higher education is out of control, and what if anything do you plan to do about it?

Why is the interest rate on student loans higher than that of buying a home or a car?

With the decline in manufacturing jobs and good paying jobs for non-college bound high school graduates scarce, how are we creating livable wage jobs for that segment of society?

Please discuss our crumbling public school systems and what type of ideas you have to work with local and state officials to help stop the brain drain in our schools.

Do you believe that the current level of standardized testing in our public schools benefits the students?

Explain how bureaucrats in the Department of Education are more qualified to determine curriculum than the educators at the local level?

Do you think it is appropriate to use children that are not yours in campaign ads to vilify another candidate?

Do you feel it’s appropriate to vilify your opponent? Or is it a necessary evil? If the latter, please explain your justification for evil.

What would you do to improve very strained race relations in our communities?  What are three steps that can be taken to implement your idea?

How do you reconcile the concepts of black, blue, and all lives mattering? How do you lead wisely, making all groups feel valued and heard, violating no one’s civil rights?

Do you believe in reparations for slavery? Please specifically explain your answer.

Is white privilege real or really a partisan talking point?

How are your policies going to make life easier for the middle class?

How will you balance keeping us safe without becoming “Big Brother” and compromising our freedom and privacy?

How is it conscionable to leave our children $20 trillion in debt? What specifically are you going to do not only to get the federal budget under control, but to start paying down the debt?

There is quite a spirited debate concerning illegal immigrants and the rights and services that should be extended to them. With a national debt that is spiraled out of control, what are you willing to cut to offer those services and how is that going to affect those with legal citizenship? 

How is a plan to cut taxes not going to increase our national debt?

Social Security and Medicare have no prayer of being solvent after the tsunami of Baby Boomers hit retirement, yet any politician who even brings up trying to address this is immediately portrayed as trying to take away seniors’ benefits, to their political ruin. How can this problem be fixed in this political environment?

Are you politically brave enough to stop kicking the “reduce-the-debt” can further down the road?

Can you stop arguing about climate change? What is fact and what is not? What can we do that doesn’t burden us with increased debt?

Politicians used to campaign hard against each other, then govern together. Today, politicians are in constant campaign mode. If the other side has a good idea, it is automatically opposed, because we can’t allow them to get political points. How will you roll back the vitriol that is the current state of politics?

Stay tuned for more on Sunday… gun control, terrorism and more will be covered…

Respectfully… and with great respect and gratitude to our 10 diverse contributors…
AR

Posted on

debate numero uno

kennedy_nixon_debat_1960

The following are realtime observations from last night’s debate from only a semi-humble, current events observer (sarcasm heartily included). Note that there was zero watching of pundits or reading of polls prior to posting…

Hmmm… I wonder if it will be more style than substance or substance than style tonight. I’d prefer the substance would be elevated; however, style makes for better TV… Speaking of TV… Clinton has more debate experience; Trump has more television experience. My sense is both are of value tonight.

I wonder if there will be any classic, future-frequently repeated lines… Reagan’s “there you go again” to then Pres. Carter… Veep candidate Lloyd Bentsen’s “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” to Dan Quayle… Or what about those seemingly timeless gestures? … Bush 41 checking his wristwatch… Al Gore’s infamous sigh…

Ok, here we go… Wait… there is something else to watch if we get bored, correct? Has Monday Night Football started? Oh, the Saints are playing… I do love Drew Brees, you know…

Introductions, obligatory handshakes, etc. Struck for a moment by the first woman ever to be in this position… and for a total outsider to be in this position. What history. It should not be missed on us. Our bias should not get in the way. 

There she is. There he is. Virginia and Colorado are watching. Lots of incredibly close states. Personally, I think they both look great tonight. Lovin’ the red pant suit and the blue tie… (And yes, moderator Lester Holt has a great voice.)

“Why are you a better choice?” asks the moderator… Oh, please… no eye rolling by anyone… at least not this early in the debate. I actually believe in seriously considering you both. That doesn’t help.

‘I want to invest in you.’ Thank you, Hillary. ‘We have to expand new companies.’ Thanks, Donald. Safe early tag lines. 

Why are they already interrupting? Don’t they know that not interrupting is Manners 101?

This just in from a friend: “Instead of everybody saying they are going to move to Canada, why don’t those two move to Canada and let’s just start over?”

Back to the questions… (Can we turn on the game yet??)

They smile and smirk when insulted. He looks angry… she looks annoyed. Just what I want in the leader of the free world…

“Bureaucratic red tape”… now that’s an obstacle we can agree on…

Tax returns, health records, and emails. Yes, ALL should be released. Both of you. Quit trying to make your opponent look worse when you’re doing the same thing in a different area.

“There’s something he’s hiding.” …Don’t you both owe us answers? Transparency? From a limited perspective, isn’t there information that you both have no desire for us to see?

How will he be on foreign policy? How will she be on trade? Can we tell with certainty?

It’s about time that this country has someone running who has some “idea about money.” Please tell me that’s all who are currently running for President (… sniff, sniff…).

Race is a significant issue in our country. We agree. As one wise friend texts in: “let’s hear solution! — not just more promises.” My heart hurts for what’s happening in Chicago, what’s happened in Ferguson, Dallas, etc. Both of you also speak of respecting law enforcement. Thank you.

Should “bad people” have guns? Is it ok for “good people” to have them? Great questions.

“We do always have to make sure we keep people safe.” Yes. Another amen.

And yes… we ALL need to be MUCH STRONGER on terrorism than we have been… PLEASE.

“I agree with you.” Could you two say that a little more often? We are Americans, after all.

“I think maybe there’s a political reason why you can’t say it.” Isn’t that why both of you say half of the things you say? Isn’t that why so many of us sitting at home are deeply disappointed in our government? Why we have trouble trusting you?

Work with the faith and business communities… what a wonderful idea. Let’s use the resources provided, rather than continuing to fun government as the source of all charity.

People “are very very upset for what their politicians have told them and what their politicians have done.” Yep. Oooh… here come the zingers. By both. So presidential. Not.

On the “birther” controversy… they both (and their surrogates) have used this when politically expedient. Not the biggest issue.

Oh, the truth… I crave that. From both. Isn’t that the problem with these debates? The truth often seems secondary to political ploys, good-sounding sound bites, rhetoric, etc. 

“We’re making progress” against ISIS. I pray to God this is true. Yes, it needs to be a top priority.

“How would you prevent homegrown (terrorist) attacks?” Thank you, Lester. I want to hear specific, actionable policy on this — not good-sounding rhetoric.

“Knock the hell out of ISIS.” I don’t swear much, but that idea sounds really, really great to me.

The singular greatest threat is nuclear armament. Scary. I think you both might agree. That might be scary, too.

Ooooh… looks like the gloves might have just come off. Again — by both — so not presidential.

Done. Sheewwww. Sigh. This is exhausting. Can someone finally turn on the game?

You mean we weren’t watching one?

Oh, wait… one more thought… Drew Brees. I love him. How’s he doing tonight? Is he free in November?

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

debating the football

Here comes the game again…  the lights are on… the stage is set… this should be interesting… the game of the night… the game of the month…

 

What will the refs be like?  … silent?  … deferring?  … biased?  Let’s hope not.  Replacement moderators just don’t seem all that effective.

 

Ah, blue for one team — red for the other.  Wait — there’s also some pink in there.  It is still October, National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  The Intramuralist so appreciates how those on center stage still bring attention to someone other than self.

 

Ok, wait… here come the ground rules…  (Mr. Ref, they don’t listen to the rules; haven’t you noticed?  Haven’t you seen all that fighting at the bottom of the pile — all that scrapping and punching and grappling when the mics aren’t on?)

 

There went the coin flip.  The incumbent will go first.  (Nice posture, by the way, gentlemen… although too many stare downs on the line already… kind of creepy… what are they looking at — each other’s helmet?  … tie?)

 

Hmmm… the teams’ staring continues.  Strategists must have said, “You need to look right at the other team.”  Oooh… strategists must have also said, “Don’t look so mad,” but that one’s a little harder.

 

Keep your game face on!  Intimidate them!  But be sure to look confident and strong.

 

“I am strong,” the sigh seemed to say.

 

(Golly, that pronoun “I” came off a little strong there.)

 

Personal foul!  You can’t say that on television!  The world is watching.

 

Lining up again.  Next play.  Next question.  Here we go.

 

They are fighting… they are actually fighting!  Throw the flag!  Throw the flag!!

 

Ooops… there went the flag.  But once again, of course, the teams disagree on who the foul should be on.  They even disagree on what the foul should be about.

 

Unsportsmanlike conduct!  Yes, the whistle blows again.

 

Yikes, he was offsides there.  (Funny how they always deny it.)

 

Quit grabbing!  That’s holding!!

 

15 more yards… or was that seconds?  It’s hard to discern sometimes.

 

I, me, my, myself.

We hear that a lot in this format.  I’m stunned, in fact, at how much these leaders refer to themselves and their plethora of accomplishments.  Hmmm… I would think leadership equates to a little more humility.

 

Geepers… that sure seemed like an illegal block.  Then again, that can only be employed by the moder- – I mean, referee… that is, if the ref gets too involved.

 

A call for leadership… yes, I like that… responsible, ethical, knowledgeable, transparent, courageous, consistent, non-political…  humble, too… oh, wait… they aren’t that good at that.

 

Ah, invoking the name of those who’ve gone before us — those “Hall of Famers,” so-to-speak.  We can almost see the names on the back of the jerseys… J. Kennedy… R. Reagan… yes… invoke those names; it makes us feel better.  They also employ the names they believe will make us think lesser of the other team — or maybe that they’re a little weaker, less effective somehow…  J. Carter… G. Bush  (p.s. I can’t put of their other choice words in print).

 

Hey, teams, have you made any mistakes?  Can you admit it?  What personal fouls will you acknowledge you committed?

 

Are you kidding?!  We only acknowledge fouls that are visible and proven!

 

And that, my friends, is what’s wrong with Monday Night Football… I mean, the presidential debate… I mean, football…

 

Sometimes it’s hard to tell…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

oh! the places you’ll go

(With all due respect to Dr. Seuss, Big Bird, Green Eggs, Ham, the Muppets, etc.)

 

Congratulations!  Today is your day.

You’re off to Great Places!  You’re off and away!

 

You have brains in your head.  You have feet in your shoes.

You can steer yourself, any direction you choose.

You’re on your own.  And you know what you know.

And YOU are the guy who’ll decide where to go.

 

Oh, yes, we’re off to great places.

As some would argue, “There’s no position that’s greater.”

For you see you’ve been chosen

To be the next debate moderator.

 

You’ll look at the topics.  Look ’em over with care.

About some you will say, “I don’t choose to go there.”

With your head full of brains and your shoes full of feet,

You’re too smart to go down any not-so-good street.

 

And you may not find any, you’ll want to go down.

In that case, of course, you’ll head straight out of town.

 

Like Lehrer and Raddatz and CNN’s Candy,

Each who was slammed for being something less than dandy.

Jim was too silent; Martha deferring;

And Crowley on Libyan ambiguity was for some reason confirming.

 

It’s opener there in the wide open air.

Out there things can happen and frequently do

to people who think they’s so brainy as you.

And when things start to happen, don’t worry.  Don’t stew.

Just go right along.  You’ll start happening, too.

 

But when they talk over their allotted time, as they’ll so obviously do

Please have the guts to tell them to be quiet.  And shoo.

 

Oh, it disturbs me how this system has evolved

Too much money, attack ads — and individual responsibility absolved.

The candidates come in with their pre-determined thoughts

Avoiding the questions, like no always-ethical leader ought.

 

Do they really, truly not comprehend our questions?

Or did their campaign simply have better talking point suggestions?

 

Why do they ramble and talk over time?

Why does no one keep them in line?

 

Yet each partisan camp will declare them the winner

While subtly inferring their opponent is some merciless sinner.

 

Geepers.  Geepers.  Watch out, friend.

To this game of spin there will be no end.

 

Can you believe this election is a bit of a game?

And the partisan camps, they are to blame?

They are divisive and rude — with straight-forward answers too late.

Don’t even get me started on all they exaggerate.

 

Can you believe the winner will our country then direct?

Even though he can’t treat his opponent with respect?

 

But as for this debate, when each finds victory still in doubt,

They’ll shudder and shift…  “It was the moderator!” they’ll shout.

 

OH!

THE PLACES YOU’LL GO!

 

Yes, to some place greater…

Hopefully, hopefully…

If you’re not the moderator.

 

Respectfully… always… with a little tongue in cheek…

AR

Posted on

yes means yes

So how do we do it?  How do we ensure that our ‘yes’ means ‘yes’ and our ‘no’ means ‘no’?

 

“And don’t say anything you don’t mean. This counsel is embedded deep in our traditions. You only make things worse when you lay down a smoke screen of pious talk, saying, ‘I’ll pray for you,’ and never doing it, or saying, ‘God be with you,’ and not meaning it. You don’t make your words true by embellishing them… Just say ‘yes’ and ‘no.’  When you manipulate words to get your own way, you go wrong.”

 

Why do we have such a hard time telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

 

Or perhaps better said:  why are we so tempted to distort the details?

 

Wouldn’t we have more respect for the person who leveled with us — who didn’t attempt to manipulate the facts and therefore manipulate the impressions we possess?

 

As most of us are aware, last week was the first presidential candidate debate.  It was watched by an approximate 60 million people.  It has also been widely reported that Gov. Romney exhibited a clear, superior performance; in fact, according to Gallup, Mitt Romney won the debate by a jaw-dropping 52-point margin — the most resounding margin since the independent polling company began tracking debates 20 years ago.

 

Now let’s be clear, friends; there is no reason for Romney surrogates or supporters to initiate any attempt at a victory dance.  This was the first of three presidential debates and one vice presidential sound off.  This is also only one of many aspects and incidents that influence the eventual outcome.

 

And yet…

 

Instead of acknowledging Romney’s clear, better debate performance, several Obama surrogates and supporters attempted to steer the conversation elsewhere; they attempted to distort the details.

 

From Obama spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter…

“I sometimes wondered if we even needed a moderator because we had Mitt Romney.”  [… blaming the moderator…]

 

From senior advisor, David Plouffe…

“He [John Kerry, Obama’s debate preparer] couldn’t keep his pupil in the seat… We thought being an older, white rich guy, him and Mitt Romney would have a lot in common. We didn’t take into account that John married money, twice, and Mitt earned his through capitalistic thievery.”  [… blaming the debate coach…]

 

 

Campaign advisor, David Axelrod, blamed Romney.

Filmmaker, Michael Moore, also blamed John Kerry.

David Letterman blamed George W. Bush (with yes, his tongue semi-in-cheek).

 

But the most obvious distorter?

 

Former Vice-President Al Gore…

“I’m going to say something controversial here.  Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today, just a few hours before the debate started.  Romney did his debate prep in Denver.  When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust. I don’t know…”

 

Yes, Al Gore blamed the altitude.

 

Friends, while many of the undecided were undoubtedly influenced, most of us won’t be voting for one candidate or the other solely based on last week’s debate performance.  But note to all:  please have the decency to be honest — to let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ — to refrain from distorting the details in order to serve your own purpose.  “When you manipulate words to get your own way, you go wrong.”  That was obvious after last week’s debate.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR