Do you expect candidates, elected or appointed officials to directly answer questions posed to them?

[320 Years of History]

Call me crazy, but when I tune in to watch politicians talk, be it in a debate or on a news program, but hell yes I expect them to answer directly the question they are asked. Upon doing so, and doing so clearly and unequivocally, they can march down whatever path they want to discuss what they want or attack whom/what they want. Indeed, I happen to view politicians "wishy-washy" and non-answers as an indicator that they either:

• don't actually have an opinion and solution to a given problem
• have one, but are too "chicken shit" to share it
• have never considered the matter
• want to say what they want to say and don't really care whether what they want to discuss is what anyone wants to know

Regardless of which of those things is the reason, in all cases where a politician fails to directly answer the question posed to them, the candidate/elected official loses an integrity point with me.

In another thread, I saw the OP below, and it's what inspired me to create this thread.

GOP Voters Angrier Than Ever After Third GOP Presidential Primaries Debate

Why?

One member here used a phrase "Embrace the suck" and Dante only half-jokingly quoted it with the following...words of resignation and comfort for GOP voters.

No matter how much bravado and chest thumping the GOP voters on usmb and elsewhere are engaging in, one thing is incredibly clear: the GOP field is highly disappointing to it's voting bloc

I have to agree with you because, quite frankly, the lamentations I've heard and read re: "gotcha questions" strike me as little different than my kids decrying their professors asking them questions for which they hadn't studied/learned, though about, or prepared enough to have a good answer.

"I'm sorry, Dad. I did poorly on the exam because the questions were hard." I was a kid. I know kids will say stuff like that. Grown, ostensibly well informed and well educated men who should be able to handle themselves in a debate, who deign to ask us to elect them to lead us, should be able to come up with something cogent to say rather than blaming the moderator or network.

The fact of the matter is that some of the Republican debaters were asked questions they were unprepared to answer well. The pity is that they should have been more than able to answer those questions. Consider this one that was given to Mr. Rubio.

You’ve been a young man in a hurry ever since you won your first election in your 20s. You’ve had a big accomplishment in the Senate, an immigration bill providing a path to citizenship the conservatives in your party hate, and even you don’t support anymore. Now, you’re skipping more votes than any senator to run for president. Why not slow down, get a few more things done first or least finish what you start?​

I would ask what is hard to answer about that question? Indeed, the question was, IMO, an easy one; it essentially asks Mr. Rubio to tell us why he is the right man to be president in 2017. It asks him to tell voters how his 25 years in the political area makes him the most effective leader the American people could choose to lead them.

Some have cited the "young man in a hurry" preamble to the question as being the "gotcha" element. Really? That's a "gotcha" element? I suspect that any number of high school forensics competitors could (1) parried that description, (2) ignore it completely and still answer the question well, or (3) turn it into a positive and use it as an opening element to a well thought out response.

Mr. Rubio isn't a 20-something; he's a man in his mid forties. He should have been more than capable of saying something akin to:

"When I was a college student, I saw many of the problems and challenges that U.S. faced, the vast majority of which -- for example, Middle East unrest, climate change, and immigration -- exist today in much the same form as they did then and from that admittedly young age, I chose to thoroughly examine the issues. Consider the immigration issue. In the intervening 25 years, In I've acquired first hand experience with both sides of that issue and I have formed a solution approach that...."​

With that as an introduction, he had all manners of places to go, places that allowed him to articulate his positions on any number of issues.

But that, or some similarly sagacious reply that share his stance(s) and expressed his suitability for the office is not what Mr. Rubio offered. Instead of answering the question that he was asked, one that provided a fine opportunity to turn a negative into a positive and to present his own solutions and approaches to policy issues, He prattled about the state of the nation, saying essentially that "there're things wrong, and they need to be fixed." (The third Republican debate transcript, annotated)

Well, Duh! If that's all you had to share, Mr. Rubio, you could have ceded the time you were given for that question to someone else who may have been able to make good use of it.

Best Regards

 

[Arianrhod]

Pertinent questions, yes. "What do you think of Ms. Fiorina's hair?" no.

 

[DGS49]

The moderator should (1) ask pertinent questions, and (2) follow up with the candidate to either (a) demand that the question be addressed, or (b) point out to the audience that the question was not addressed or answered.

But, "tell us your biggest fault," is a bullshit question.

 

[depotoo]

I guess the same criteria doesn't apply to Hillary, does it?

 

[Grandma]

It depends on who's asking the questions, and the questions that are asked.

Imagine if you will a debate with every candidate from every party and the questions come from USMB's most extreme extremists, the lowest IQers, and troofers.

Imagine the same debate with the questions coming from the most intelligent and rational site members.

Do you want ridiculous or sublime?

 

[the_human_being]

I at minimum expect them to tell the truth: Libya embassy email warned Clinton not to emphasize video

 

[320 Years of History]

The moderator should (1) ask pertinent questions, and (2) follow up with the candidate to either (a) demand that the question be addressed, or (b) point out to the audience that the question was not addressed or answered.

But, "tell us your biggest fault," is a bullshit question.

I agree with the first portion of your comment.

I don't think I have a problem with that question. It's one that, over the years, I've asked many individuals whom I've interviewed for jobs. I generally ask it for a variety of reasons:

• to see how a person thinks and whether or not hey can find a positive way to present a negative thing,
• whether they are honest with me and with themselves,
• whether they have some modicum of humility,
• as a preliminary way to get a rough sense of how they manage others' expectations, and
• whether they realize that, notwithstanding their success thus far, they realize that they still have things to learn.

I think any presidential candidate would realize that, having not held that office, there will be some learning they have to accomplish, be it with regard to details pertaining to the facts of a given topic, re: the political process and getting things done in Washington, managing huge organizations, etc.

The "what is your greatest shortcoming" question is yet another that provides scads of opportunity to show the mettle of one's character. Ducking it or providing non-answers to it merely shows a lack of depth. Furthermore, doing so intimates that one either hasn't fully considered the full nature and scope of the journey one which one is embarking and asking us, the American people, to take with one. It, to me, shows a lack of leadership ability (in people in the age group of presidential aspirants) and foreshadows that, quite frankly, I just as soon not be needed in someone running for president.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd love to see a candidate say, "that's a stupid question, and I'm not going to answer it - try one that is about the issues". If that gets them in trouble with some voters, fine, but I doubt it would annoy anyone who'd consider voting for them anyway.

The media wants to ask gotcha questions to create controversy and ratings; the "other party" wants gotcha questions asked of their opponents for political advantage. Those of us who are actually curious -- in other words, those of us who aren't obedient little partisan ideologues -- want to know what these people would do as President.
.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Depends on the question. Direct questions deserve direct answers.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'd love to see a candidate say, "that's a stupid question, and I'm not going to answer it - try one that is about the issues". If that gets them in trouble with some voters, fine, but I doubt it would annoy anyone who'd consider voting for them anyway.

The media wants to ask gotcha questions to create controversy and ratings; the "other party" wants gotcha questions asked of their opponents for political advantage. Those of us who are actually curious -- in other words, those of us who aren't obedient little partisan ideologues -- want to know what these people would do as President.
.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "gotcha" question.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd love to see a candidate say, "that's a stupid question, and I'm not going to answer it - try one that is about the issues". If that gets them in trouble with some voters, fine, but I doubt it would annoy anyone who'd consider voting for them anyway.

The media wants to ask gotcha questions to create controversy and ratings; the "other party" wants gotcha questions asked of their opponents for political advantage. Those of us who are actually curious -- in other words, those of us who aren't obedient little partisan ideologues -- want to know what these people would do as President.
.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "gotcha" question.

Semantics.

I want to know what these people would do as President, why they would do it, and why their ideas are better than those of anyone else.

Everything else is fluff.
.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Call me crazy, but when I tune in to watch politicians talk, be it in a debate or on a news program, but hell yes I expect them to answer directly the question they are asked. Upon doing so, and doing so clearly and unequivocally, they can march down whatever path they want to discuss what they want or attack whom/what they want. Indeed, I happen to view politicians "wishy-washy" and non-answers as an indicator that they either:

• don't actually have an opinion and solution to a given problem
• have one, but are too "chicken shit" to share it
• have never considered the matter
• want to say what they want to say and don't really care whether what they want to discuss is what anyone wants to know

Regardless of which of those things is the reason, in all cases where a politician fails to directly answer the question posed to them, the candidate/elected official loses an integrity point with me.

In another thread, I saw the OP below, and it's what inspired me to create this thread.

GOP Voters Angrier Than Ever After Third GOP Presidential Primaries Debate

Why?

One member here used a phrase "Embrace the suck" and Dante only half-jokingly quoted it with the following...words of resignation and comfort for GOP voters.

No matter how much bravado and chest thumping the GOP voters on usmb and elsewhere are engaging in, one thing is incredibly clear: the GOP field is highly disappointing to it's voting bloc

I have to agree with you because, quite frankly, the lamentations I've heard and read re: "gotcha questions" strike me as little different than my kids decrying their professors asking them questions for which they hadn't studied/learned, though about, or prepared enough to have a good answer.

"I'm sorry, Dad. I did poorly on the exam because the questions were hard." I was a kid. I know kids will say stuff like that. Grown, ostensibly well informed and well educated men who should be able to handle themselves in a debate, who deign to ask us to elect them to lead us, should be able to come up with something cogent to say rather than blaming the moderator or network.

The fact of the matter is that some of the Republican debaters were asked questions they were unprepared to answer well. The pity is that they should have been more than able to answer those questions. Consider this one that was given to Mr. Rubio.

You’ve been a young man in a hurry ever since you won your first election in your 20s. You’ve had a big accomplishment in the Senate, an immigration bill providing a path to citizenship the conservatives in your party hate, and even you don’t support anymore. Now, you’re skipping more votes than any senator to run for president. Why not slow down, get a few more things done first or least finish what you start?​

I would ask what is hard to answer about that question? Indeed, the question was, IMO, an easy one; it essentially asks Mr. Rubio to tell us why he is the right man to be president in 2017. It asks him to tell voters how his 25 years in the political area makes him the most effective leader the American people could choose to lead them.

Some have cited the "young man in a hurry" preamble to the question as being the "gotcha" element. Really? That's a "gotcha" element? I suspect that any number of high school forensics competitors could (1) parried that description, (2) ignore it completely and still answer the question well, or (3) turn it into a positive and use it as an opening element to a well thought out response.

Mr. Rubio isn't a 20-something; he's a man in his mid forties. He should have been more than capable of saying something akin to:

"When I was a college student, I saw many of the problems and challenges that U.S. faced, the vast majority of which -- for example, Middle East unrest, climate change, and immigration -- exist today in much the same form as they did then and from that admittedly young age, I chose to thoroughly examine the issues. Consider the immigration issue. In the intervening 25 years, In I've acquired first hand experience with both sides of that issue and I have formed a solution approach that...."​

With that as an introduction, he had all manners of places to go, places that allowed him to articulate his positions on any number of issues.

But that, or some similarly sagacious reply that share his stance(s) and expressed his suitability for the office is not what Mr. Rubio offered. Instead of answering the question that he was asked, one that provided a fine opportunity to turn a negative into a positive and to present his own solutions and approaches to policy issues, He prattled about the state of the nation, saying essentially that "there're things wrong, and they need to be fixed." (The third Republican debate transcript, annotated)

Well, Duh! If that's all you had to share, Mr. Rubio, you could have ceded the time you were given for that question to someone else who may have been able to make good use of it.

Best Regards

I WANT them to. Whether or not I actually EXPECT it depends entirely on the person being questioned.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd love to see a candidate say, "that's a stupid question, and I'm not going to answer it - try one that is about the issues". If that gets them in trouble with some voters, fine, but I doubt it would annoy anyone who'd consider voting for them anyway.

The media wants to ask gotcha questions to create controversy and ratings; the "other party" wants gotcha questions asked of their opponents for political advantage. Those of us who are actually curious -- in other words, those of us who aren't obedient little partisan ideologues -- want to know what these people would do as President.
.

That's actually pretty much what Ted Cruz said in the last debate.

 

[Arianrhod]

Call me crazy, but when I tune in to watch politicians talk, be it in a debate or on a news program, but hell yes I expect them to answer directly the question they are asked. Upon doing so, and doing so clearly and unequivocally, they can march down whatever path they want to discuss what they want or attack whom/what they want. Indeed, I happen to view politicians "wishy-washy" and non-answers as an indicator that they either:

• don't actually have an opinion and solution to a given problem
• have one, but are too "chicken shit" to share it
• have never considered the matter
• want to say what they want to say and don't really care whether what they want to discuss is what anyone wants to know

Regardless of which of those things is the reason, in all cases where a politician fails to directly answer the question posed to them, the candidate/elected official loses an integrity point with me.

In another thread, I saw the OP below, and it's what inspired me to create this thread.

GOP Voters Angrier Than Ever After Third GOP Presidential Primaries Debate

Why?

One member here used a phrase "Embrace the suck" and Dante only half-jokingly quoted it with the following...words of resignation and comfort for GOP voters.

No matter how much bravado and chest thumping the GOP voters on usmb and elsewhere are engaging in, one thing is incredibly clear: the GOP field is highly disappointing to it's voting bloc

I have to agree with you because, quite frankly, the lamentations I've heard and read re: "gotcha questions" strike me as little different than my kids decrying their professors asking them questions for which they hadn't studied/learned, though about, or prepared enough to have a good answer.

"I'm sorry, Dad. I did poorly on the exam because the questions were hard." I was a kid. I know kids will say stuff like that. Grown, ostensibly well informed and well educated men who should be able to handle themselves in a debate, who deign to ask us to elect them to lead us, should be able to come up with something cogent to say rather than blaming the moderator or network.

The fact of the matter is that some of the Republican debaters were asked questions they were unprepared to answer well. The pity is that they should have been more than able to answer those questions. Consider this one that was given to Mr. Rubio.

You’ve been a young man in a hurry ever since you won your first election in your 20s. You’ve had a big accomplishment in the Senate, an immigration bill providing a path to citizenship the conservatives in your party hate, and even you don’t support anymore. Now, you’re skipping more votes than any senator to run for president. Why not slow down, get a few more things done first or least finish what you start?​

I would ask what is hard to answer about that question? Indeed, the question was, IMO, an easy one; it essentially asks Mr. Rubio to tell us why he is the right man to be president in 2017. It asks him to tell voters how his 25 years in the political area makes him the most effective leader the American people could choose to lead them.

Some have cited the "young man in a hurry" preamble to the question as being the "gotcha" element. Really? That's a "gotcha" element? I suspect that any number of high school forensics competitors could (1) parried that description, (2) ignore it completely and still answer the question well, or (3) turn it into a positive and use it as an opening element to a well thought out response.

Mr. Rubio isn't a 20-something; he's a man in his mid forties. He should have been more than capable of saying something akin to:

"When I was a college student, I saw many of the problems and challenges that U.S. faced, the vast majority of which -- for example, Middle East unrest, climate change, and immigration -- exist today in much the same form as they did then and from that admittedly young age, I chose to thoroughly examine the issues. Consider the immigration issue. In the intervening 25 years, In I've acquired first hand experience with both sides of that issue and I have formed a solution approach that...."​

With that as an introduction, he had all manners of places to go, places that allowed him to articulate his positions on any number of issues.

But that, or some similarly sagacious reply that share his stance(s) and expressed his suitability for the office is not what Mr. Rubio offered. Instead of answering the question that he was asked, one that provided a fine opportunity to turn a negative into a positive and to present his own solutions and approaches to policy issues, He prattled about the state of the nation, saying essentially that "there're things wrong, and they need to be fixed." (The third Republican debate transcript, annotated)

Well, Duh! If that's all you had to share, Mr. Rubio, you could have ceded the time you were given for that question to someone else who may have been able to make good use of it.

Best Regards

I WANT them to. Whether or not I actually EXPECT it depends entirely on the person being questioned.

I agree. So then it comes down to "What questions would you want answered?"

 

[320 Years of History]

I guess the same criteria doesn't apply to Hillary, does it?

Within us lie the causes for what happens to us.
-- Kenneth Wydro, Think on Your Feet: The Art of Thinking and Speaking Under Pressure

I have the same expectations and criteria for all presidential hopefuls. I may have missed something, but I don't recall the RNC, DNC or any prior presidential candidates griping about the difficulty or "gotcha" nature of questions.

To the RNC chairman and GOP hopefuls, I can only say, "Grow up. Life's hard. President of United States is a hard job. The so-called "gotcha" questions posed in the debate were cakewalks compared to the questions and choices one must make upon assuming the Presidency." Truly, if they can't maturely handle tough debate questions, why should I think any of them are ready, qualified to actually be president and lead me and the rest of the free world?

My OP of this thread picked on Mr. Rubio specifically, but equally vacuous answers to similarly unspecific, open ended questions were given by the other debaters. For example,:

• Mr. Bush doltishly bothered to actually comment on fantasy football rather than adroitly seizing on the word "gambling" and using that word as a metaphoric foil to convert the question in to his opportunity to discuss the need to, say, do "whatever he thinks U.S. should do" so as not to gamble away our kids' futures with ever increasing deficits, or risking America's security by trying to negotiate with Iran, or any number of other things.
• Mr. Trump, who casts more personal aspersions than a drill sergeant, sure didn't care for his campaign being likened to a "comic book" saga. This even as he is quick to call others stupid or incompetent based, seeing as he's not yet really issued any sound, substantive arguments about the merit of his intents, based on the fact that they have a different solution approach than he. Really, Mr. Trump? You claim that I'm stupid because I happen to think you're wrong? Okay....

It's one thing to call the question irrelevant, but, at presidential debate level, to get an ostensibly irrelevant question and answer it with puerility is, IMO, proof that one isn't ready to be president. One may have a good idea here or there, but overall, that one has shown that one cannot think quickly and well on one's feet, in the dynamism that is the foreign and domestic arena in which presidents play, a president must, not only have good ideas and sound initial, well deliberated plans, but s/he must also deftly respond to unanticipated realities. The questions posed in the last GOP debate presented the opportunity for them to show their ability to do just that, and by and large, all of them failed.

Before you can lead others, you must first overcome the conflict between what you really are and what you have been taught to be.
-- 320 Years of History