I'm not sure I see why the second question really matters. Romney said he would not make it legal; isn't that the relevant political issue?
The reason the question was phrased the way it was, was so that if Romney said "no" they could spin it as inconsistent with his stance on keeping marijuana illegal, if he said "yes" they could spin it as Romney wanting to put doctors and cripples in prison, and if he said "I don't know" they could spin it as thoughtless and uninformed. And if he walked away they could spin it as him avoiding the question.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, this is the biggest problem I have with modern campaigning.
We have a citizen here with a personal question that strikes directly at the heart of one of Romney's policy decisions. And yet, in order to even get that question asked of a major candidate, this citizen had to ambush him and "force himself" on Romney's time.
Agreed.
quote:It's just as bad over on the Democratic side, of course; good luck getting Clinton or Edwards to answer a straight-up question that hasn't been carefully screened.
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: It looks like he was a complete douchebag, but it also looks like he was flustered, crowded, and cameras were rolling. The kid asked a very aggressively phrased question. Romney's choice may seem poorly thought out, but it may have seemed like the best possible choice to him at the time compared to committing to an answer one way or the other.
At least he didn't say "I don't support medical marijuana...for cripples and hippies."
I agree. The phrasing of the question smelled like the set-up it was. If the man asking the question had simply stated his case and asked for a response, I think Romney might have been able to make a reasoned argument. As it is, it's clear he's dealing with someone who is setting him up to look like a jerk. He's taken a hard line that is tenuous in the face of such a case, so I don't see why the guy had to go in with guns blazing. The camera guy was also jerky: "Are you going to ignore someone in a wheelchair?" That's insulting.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure I see why the second question really matters. Romney said he would not make it legal; isn't that the relevant political issue?
The reason the question was phrased the way it was, was so that if Romney said "no" they could spin it as inconsistent with his stance on keeping marijuana illegal, if he said "yes" they could spin it as Romney wanting to put doctors and cripples in prison, and if he said "I don't know" they could spin it as thoughtless and uninformed. And if he walked away they could spin it as him avoiding the question.
"They" don't need to spin it, he did avoid the question. And not only that, he was having a conversation with the man and he abruptly turned away and starting talking to the next person as if the guy wasn't even there.
It doesn't matter to me one bit whether it was a set up -- the question was asked, either answer it or acknowledge that you're not going to answer. If the answer is yes, then have the guts to say so.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think "I cannot support the use of medical marijuna but I will support research to find an alternative for people in your situation" would have been even better.
That would have been a fantastic answer.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: "They" don't need to spin it, he did avoid the question. And not only that, he was having a conversation with the man and he abruptly turned away and starting talking to the next person as if the guy wasn't even there.
It doesn't matter to me one bit whether it was a set up -- the question was asked, either answer it or acknowledge that you're not going to answer. If the answer is yes, then have the guts to say so.
I don't think it unacceptable to decline to answer set-up questions akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it unacceptable to decline to answer set-up questions akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
I don't know. I think that would be a legitimate question to ask were a candidate made "I support efforts to beat my wife and, if elected, I will beat my wife." a part of his platform.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that is not the type of question this was. He wants to keep marijuna illegal in all instances, so either he supports arresting people who use it on the advice of a physician or not. Possibly he wants to keep the law on the books but not prosecute. Some people do consider that an acceptable compromise (sort of a "don't ask, don't tell policy), perhaps he is one of them. If not, then maintaining his hard-line stance without acknowledging the consequences is weaselly, IMO. I could respect a firm "Yes, if you break the laws regarding drug use I would have you arrested." I do not respect holding a "no exceptions" stance and then pretending that the people negatively affected by it don't exist.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the statements Romney has already made make his position and his intended course of action clear. If you dislike his positions (as I do) then don't vote for him (like I won't). But everyone knows the answer to "Would you have me arrested?" They just want to make use of the political capital of making him say this, or of him avoid answering the question. There is no legitimate desire for an answer to a question here, only a desire to embarrass a candidate for a view.
I know what his answer to the question is. I will judge him based on his policies in general, including this one. This video doesn't provide me with new information or change my view of Romney.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like criticizing politicians for providing dumb answers when caught off guard, but I wonder why Romney was caught off guard here. Medical marijuana is not a major issue, but it's prominent enough that I can't believe he's never given it enough thought to have a more reasonable response. He's obviously at least somewhat familiar with the issue, given his reference to "synthetic marijuana", so why did he play this so poorly?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: But that is not the type of question this was. He wants to keep marijuna illegal in all instances, so either he supports arresting people who use it on the advice of a physician or not. Possibly he wants to keep the law on the books but not prosecute. Some people do consider that an acceptable compromise (sort of a "don't ask, don't tell policy), perhaps he is one of them. If not, then maintaining his hard-line stance without acknowledging the consequences is weaselly, IMO. I could respect a firm "Yes, if you break the laws regarding drug use I would have you arrested." I do not respect holding a "no exceptions" stance and then pretending that the people negatively affected by it don't exist.
*nods
The young man's vulnerability to prosecution is an inevitable but unfortunate result that would stem from Romney's policy, unless Romney supported a DADT version (and whether he does is something I don't think he has addressed, although I'd like to see him directly address it).
Mind you, I don't think the young guy was polite or non-confrontational about how he asked the question. I'm not sure how he could have been, though, and still gotten an answer (see Tom's post above). The way he did it did not seem like it was likely to get a direct answer from Romney, but the lack of a direct answer is also an answer of sorts.
It makes me uncomfortable to see such confrontation, but I suspect the general avoidance of hard questions and necessary fallout makes me even more uncomfortable overall.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
What if someone was, say, holding a picture or, heaven forbid, a model of a six-months along fetus and confronted Obama in the same manner.
And the final question was the person waving the model of the baby in his face and asking, "Would you kill this child yourself?"
I kind of doubt that those who think that moving on was a churlish thing to do be as forgiving of the questioner and as condemning of the candidate in that scenario.
---
ETA: It is nice that the questioner wasn't tasered.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that waving anything is someone's face changes the situation a bit. If the questioner was just holding the picture and asked the question, then yes, I would feel exactly the same way about the candidate (whoever he or she was) ducking it.
And kat, at least in as far as your question is in response to my posts, you seem to be assuming things about where I stand on the issues of medical marijuna and late-term abortion that are not accurate.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: What if it were a different issue?
What if someone was, say, holding a picture or, heaven forbid, a model of a six-months along fetus and confronted Obama in the same manner.
And the final question was the person waving the model of the baby in his face and asking, "Would you kill this child yourself?"
I kind of doubt that those who think that moving on was a churlish thing to do be as forgiving of the questioner and as condemning of the candidate in that scenario.
---
ETA: It is nice that the questioner wasn't tasered.
I would expect (or at least hope for) Obama or whoever to respond directly. If he rudely avoided the question, I'd be just as critical.
edit: dkw makes a good point as well. There is a difference between waving a provocative picture in front of the politician and being the provocative epitome of the questioner's point.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The key difference is how close the questioner was to the candidate?
You said earlier that it seemed rude to walk away from the conversation - as if they were in a tete-a-tete instead of in a crowd with scores of other people and questions.
Not a picture - that's less effective than a physical presence. The questioner here did use the wheelchair as a sympathy ploy. For the equivalent, it would have to be a realistic looking model.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Obama performing a voluntary abortion procedure himself is a tenable option, although holding a "don't ask, don't tell"/disenforcement policy is a tenable option for Romney.
Obama isn't a medical provider; Romney is a politician who will make policy.
(I suspect that the analogy could be made stronger, though, if the analogy wasn't to Obama performing voluntary abortions but rather to holding certain positions. I also suspect the most appropriate response for Obama in that situation would be similar to those suggested for Romney here, such as dkw's example.
But if Obama's position on voluntary abortion procedures at that stage of gestation were clear, the same justification would not hold in this case. I don't think Romney has clarified if he would actually support prosecution as vs. DADT/disenforcement, but maybe he has. (?))
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Would you arrest me and my doctors if I used marijuana?"
Romney isn't a police officer any more than Obama is a doctor. Their positions might legalize and sanction both actions, but neither would be doing it themselves.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Barak Obama a abortion performing medical provider? Or is his position that non-qualified people should be performing abortions?
If neither of these, how is that an equivilent situation?
---
edit:
quote:Romney isn't a police officer any more than Obama is a doctor. Their positions might legalize and sanction both actions, but neither would be doing it themselves.
I haven't actually watched the video. Does the questioner say something like "Would you personally arrest me?" I thought it was "Would you have me arrested?", which would be Mitt Romney acting in the role he is seeking, as opposed to playing unlicensed police officer.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, perhaps, a more analagous question re Obama and abortion might be, "would you let the person who did this go free?"
edit to clarify: because we are talking about the stance of politician's on the legality of certain actions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Would you arrest me and my doctors if I used marijuana?"
Romney isn't a police officer any more than Obama is a doctor. Their positions might legalize and sanction both actions, but neither would be doing it themselves.
I agree. I don't think this is a distinction significant enough to bother discussing, though. It's just not important.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think, perhaps, a more analagous question re Obama and abortion might be, "would you let the person who did this go free?"
edit to clarify: because we are talking about the stance of politician's on the legality of certain actions.
That works for me. And again, I would hope that Obama would respond appropriately. If he didn't, he would be just as subject to criticism as Romney is here.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, Romney had stopped and was having a conversation with the guy. It wasn’t a question shouted from the sidelines, and he wasn’t waving his wheelchair in Romney’s face. If you want to make it equivalent, have the questioner be a mother holding a 3 month premature baby and ask if he would have supported killing her the day before she was born. It’s a legitimate question for those who support late-term abortion, and yes, I think it would be rude for a candidate to stop and talk to that mother and then walk away without acknowledgment if she asked that question.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, in many situations, he and most other politicians won't respond appropriately to the tough questions. But that doesn't make it acceptable.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the question of "Would you kill this baby yourself?" merits a response. The person is clearly ranting. Asking a candidate to face the negative side of their stances, i.e. condemning people in wheelchairs to either pain or jail (and then pain) or having it so that people can legally kill the fetus/baby, seems perfectly legitimate to me.
---
Of course, it is also pertinent that Mitt Romney was, of his own choice, engaged in talking to this person and then broke it off by pretending that they didn't exist once they asked a tough question.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is dishonest to pretend that the question was intended to ask "Will you personally, yourself, arrest me?" as opposed to, "Will you have me arrested?"
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky, would you please consider stepping out of this one so that I can contiue my conversation with kat, which I am finding interesting, without the two of your long running issues de-railing it?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama took a huge hit with me when he had his name taken off the Michigan primary ballot. He caved to Howard Dean, which loses some respect points with me. I guess it doesn't matter if I like him or not though, I couldn't vote for him if I wanted to.
Edit to add: Okay, this looks like a non-sequitor now, because I posted before looking at the second page, but it's in response to what Tom said on the last page about Obama and not ducking hard questions.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Michigan (and I think Florida) moved its primary up and the central Democratic party doesn't like it, so they're saying that they won't count their delegates' votes and many of the major candidates pulled out of the race.
---
Myself, if PA moved up their primary and whichever party disallowed my primary vote, I'd likely not vote in the general either, or vote for the opposite candidate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Myself, if PA moved up their primary and whichever party disallowed my primary vote, I'd likely not vote in the general either, or vote for the opposite candidate.
That doesn't sound very practical to me. More spiteful, really.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is it not practical? If they lost PA (or Michigan, etc.) as a consequence of their actions, I think it would have many practical effects - to wit, either coming to some accomodation with the states that are unhappy with the current primary scheduling or the death of the party.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They all also took a pledge not to campaign in any state that has a primary before February 5th, unless that state is South Carolina, Nevada, Iowa or New Hampshire.
Every major Democratic candidate except for Hillary has had their name taken off the ballot. And of course soon after that happened, Republicans came in and had a debate in Dearborn. Republicans will only dock the state half its votes, which still makes it worthwhile to campaign here, and don't think Michiganders will forget that when it comes time for the general election. I'm half tempted to vote Republican just to spite the Democrats. Why Democrats think they can piss on Florida and Michigan and still win the general election is beyond me. Democrats had a MAJOR chance to come in here and win votes after the Republicans had their debate. They kept talking about our "one-state recession," and blamed Gov. Granholm (which is beyond stupid for anyone who knows what she's done here) for most of it. Democrats could have set the facts straight and won a lot of votes to their side, and individual Democrats could have picked up some ground here.
And now that this has been announced, many of the major candidates have taken to bashing Michigan, or at least Detroit, pretty soundly in the news. I guess now that our votes don't matter, we can be national cannon fodder, hooray for democracy, where if you try to change the system, they take your voice and your vote away.
The whole situation disgusts me.
Edit to add: I agree with Squick. It IS practical. Why should we continue voting for a party that can easily sideline us without even having to discuss the issue we have? This is a hugely important election, but I refuse to be taken for granted, first of all, and I refuse to be ignored, even more. It's either that, or sit there and take it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying that if Obama was your primary vote, but he pulled out of PA, you wouldn't vote for him in the general election either, but for the opposite candidate as in like Guliani?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you are. That's one reason I said "if". I say it's not practical because this one issue seems rather minor compared to every other issue that divides along party lines. Not to mention that this quite possibly might guarantee Clinton's win in the primaries - Clinton, who did the right thing in your eyes. Flip the scenario. Would you vote for her over another Republican (not your first choice that removed his nomination) because of this?
posted
Err...I'm probably not voting Republican this Presidential election. From what I know right now, I'd likely vote Barak Obama (although, honestly, I may not with him going along with the disenfranchisement of millions of people) if he gets the nomination and 3rd party if not.
It seems minor to you that the central parties are disenfranchising people? That isn't a minor issue to me. Voting is supposed to be one of the major duties/priviledges of a citizen of a democracy. Taking that away because people aren't letting you force them into your unjust primary schedule doesn't seem like a minor thing to me.
---
edit: To me, when the central party gets too big for its britches, you slap them down. You don't roll over and take it.
If enough people actually viewed things this way, I think we'd have a very different and better political landscape.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that disenfranchising millions of voting citizens is minor in itself to me. It's just not as important as every other issue, collectively, that I could never bring myself to vote opposite my position. But I understand and respect your position.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand your position as well. I think it might be different for us because much of my central concerns are more with meta-issues rather than the issues themselves.
I'm pro-honesty, transparency, accountability, and a host of other things the lie pretty much outside the normal range of the political parties. These are more important to me than particular issues. I think this is even more true as the two parties are largely merging into one and that one doesn't seem to care much about what is good for the average person or what the average person wants.
Disenfranchizing voters, though to me a serious issue in and of itself, is really just the tip of the iceberg. The larger issue is that people need to get across to the parties that the parties are supposed to be there to serve the people, not the other way around.
It is also something that can be fixed in one election cycle, if people follow through. Heck, it could be fixed in this election if the people were clear and mostly unified in saying, "If you don't let us vote in the primaries, we will not vote in the general."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm happy to take this to a different thread if that makes sense."
I don't think that's necessary. We've already got a few conversations going on that are not directly related to my initial post.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The actual schedule or the separation of dates?
I don't know about the actual schedule (i.e. why certain states are always first, etc.) I know that the primary is spread out because the scheduling dates from a time when travel between the different states was much more difficult and time consuming than it is now.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
