My Post Debate Questions

I watched both debates tonight, but most of my questions are for the Democrats. I think the Republicans just basically attacked Romney and shook their heads at Paul.

For Everyone: How will you pass your programs if the Democrats don't control Congress? Is it right that the Senate basically requires 60 votes to pass anything? If not what would you propose to be different? Hilary got it right calling Edwards on his example of the Patient Bill of Rights. If your "big accomplishment" didn't pass and didn't affect anyone, how big of an accomplishment is it? Charlie did good on calling Obama on his lobbying reform. It's not like lobbists aren't a factor now.

For the Democrats: How do you account for the Democratic congress' inability to pass legislation even amongst themselves (as opposed to being vetoed by Bush) about ending the war? Why was Chris Dodd the only Senator with a backbone on the FISA bill?

For Hillary: You mention that people want change from George Bush. Isn't it more than that? Don't you think people want change from gridlocked politics where nothing passes though Congress let alone anything difficult?

For Hillary: I call bullshit. I don't think you have 35 years experience in bringing change to the country. I think your experience is 7 years as a US Senator. I think before you were in the White House you were a (good) lawyer at a high priced firm. I don't think you brought change to health care in the 90s, I think you failed miserably at it. The other things about you I remember from this time were your hairstyles, Whitewater, Travelgate and Monicagate and the "vast right-wing conspiracy". I know most of that was muck, but I don't know of other accomplishments to offset it. I give you credit for supporting SCHIP. I think your speeches about human rights in China and women's rights in Afghanistan under the Taliban accomplished nothing.

For Everyone: Huckabee got it right that the health care system we have isn't about caring for health but for caring for disease. Doesn't improving health in the US involve changing the Farm Bill? Why does no one ever mention it?

For Richardson: Your resume is the best of the bunch, how do you explain your 4th place showing? Is your executive experience not effective at running a campaign?

For Edwards: I think your middle class parents worked hard and now their son is running for President of the United States. I don't know that that's a system as broken as you say.

For the Democrats: I think all your answers about cap and trade for greenhouse gases were bullshit. I think Al Gore understands how a carbon tax would work and thinks it would be effective. Saying it won't be and saying only mandates can for the 80% reduction is naive. And just how would that law be written? Everyone must reduce their emissions by 80%? How would that be measured for compliance? How will individuals know if they've reduced their emissions? Isn't a tax and using free market forces the most effective way governments have of making change? Isn't that why Gore is for it?

For Everyone: Do you think the Supreme Court is too political? Or has it always been? If so what if anything should be done about it? Is electing offsetting left wing justices a solution or more of the problem? Is limiting terms to say 18 years a solution? Wouldn't passing a constitutional amendment about abortion (one way or another) or codifying a right to privacy eliminate a huge litmus test on judges that's only been around for about 35 years?

For Everyone: What do you think is broken about our election processes? Electronic voting machines? Too long campaign cycles? Too much money involved? What would you do to fix it?

For Charlie Gibson: Why didn't you ask the Republicans about how the surge brought down violence and yet we've seen no political progress? Or about the environment?

I would have answered the question about the surge differently. The ABC piece is a perfect example of how the media lets the administration frame the debate. If you only measure American deaths, don't you think it would be even lower if there weren't any Americans there? Richardson got a lot right, the political process has not improved and that's the real measure. Sure adding troops would bring down violence, that only makes sense. What doesn't make immediate sense is that by removing troops the violence drops, that's what actually happened in Anbar province.