The Individualist 11.26.07: Questions for the 08 Candidates

Posted by Joe Rivett on 11.26.2007

If we have stupid debates and ask stupid questions, then there is a chance we may have stupid candidates…

The one thing I really hate about the debates that I have seen is that the debates often don't ask questions that I would like to see asked. Here are some subjects that I see ignored by the media and thus ignored by America…

Putin – Are you concerned about the increasing fascist power that Putin is accumulating? Are you bothered by the fact that the state runs the media? Did you agree with Bush's decision to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Treaty? Do you see a purpose for NATO now that Communism does not exist in the Soviet Union? Would you want the Russians to join NATO? How do you plan to safeguard the many Russian nuclear missiles? How do we deal with a Iranian-Putin alliance? I just don't think Iran is half the threat that Putin can be and it would be nice to hear what our candidates think.

Darfur – Yes, we all know there is genocide. What I want to know is if any candidate is willing to commit casualties and American ground troops to help the situation. Is it America's responsibility to commit troops to all actions of genocide? Is the reason why we are doing nothing having anything to do with China's alliance with the Sudanese government? Maybe China is preventing America from doing anything because America owes it so much.

Dollar – What are the positives and negatives of a declining dollar? What would you do if anything to make the dollar more valuable? Do the deficits relate to the declining dollar? Has the decline of the dollar led to a better trade balance for America?

Drugs – Do you plan on changing how we fight the War on Drugs? Are we winning or losing? Do you support medical marijuana? Why are prescription drugs so expensive? Why are crack users prosecuted more than cocaine users and is race involved? Do you support the use of drug courts as an alternative to prison?

Here are some individual questions I have for the candidates:

Hillary Clinton – Name a position you have that most Americans disagree with?

Rudy Giuliani – How did you increase the adoption rate in NYC? Why have you never been to Iraq and why did you miss Iraq Study Group meetings if you claim to be the "keep us safe" president?

John Edwards – Why did you run such a cautious campaign in 04 and why are you running a more Leftist campaign in 08? Have you really changed your positions or are you just being an opportunist? How can we trust a trial lawyer to deal with frivolous lawsuits when your top donors are also lawyers?

Mitt Romney – What foreign policy experience do you have?

Barack Obama – You want to reform No Child Left Behind but don't say how. How would you reform NCLB?

John McCain – Since Roe vs. Wade will not end abortion, do you support the Federal Government banning abortion if it is overturned?

Dennis Kucinich – How come Ron Paul has raised more than you despite the fact that most of your positions are in line with the Party? How do you plan to overcome a filibuster in having a single payer insurance plan? How do you plan to have a full employment economy and still have business growth? Since most of your money comes from unions, does that influence your positions?

Mike Huckabee – Why did you try so hard to prevent a fifteen year old retarded girl from having an abortion with her step father as the father of the unborn child which also means she was raped? How important is Ric Flair's endorsement? Yes, that is no joke!

I just feel the questions are predictable and boring. Every debate centers on how the Democrats will solve the Iraq mess and how the Republicans will crush Iran. When we ask stupid questions, we allow stupid people to run for president. It is sad that none of the candidates seems to be caught off guard. The candidates are also rarely given the chance to explain why their policies would be better than their opponents. Other than Hillary takes special interest money, I can't see much of a difference between her and Obama.

The problem with the debates is that they are geared for television ratings. They are geared for the mass public. The problem with Democracy is that it involves everyone. I don't care about the Youtube debates. I don't want to hear what average people want to ask. Instead, I would rather have the candidates face a bunch of educated professors, philosophers and PhDs asking questions. This would be more intellectually honest than having Chris Matthews asking people to raise their hands if they don't believe in evolution.

The debates need to become more exclusionary. At first it makes sense to give everyone a chance. But do we really need to hear from Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Dennis Kucinich at this point? Maybe if we give our candidates more time they can receive deeper questions and give deeper answers.

In a perfect world to prevent stupid candidates, why not have accountability and standardized testing for them in order to participate in the debates?