Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Heretic
Maybe if you exhibited some judgement... any judgment, instead of spouting off campaign headquarters issued talking point. Your predictability is dangerously close to that of Jr. apologists.
I blame candidates who don't learn to steer questions to toward issues voters really care about. Obama did an excellent job doing that. Hillary made a half-assed effort to evade and got nailed on it.
|
Horsefeathers! If they try to steer a question on one subject to another subject, then they are evading the question asked.
I agree with the Old Man here to a very large extent.
Just like we can't go back and not invade Iraq, we can't go back and not let these illegals that are here in.
We have to deal with the situation that we have, not the situation we'd like to have (a rummyism).
This is an incredibly complex issue.
Here's a thought. Congress puts a bill together that consumes hundreds of pages. They don't have time to read it, so they depend upon summaries prepared by people who know the bill.
Why can't we see those summaries? What we get is sound bite questions.
Where am I wrong when I say that a question that fails to explain the tiers of licenses in NY's proposal is unfair?
99% of the people listening to Russert's question would assume that NY is planning to give illegals the very same license everyone else gets. This meant that, within her 30 seconds, she had to define the proposal.
This led to a complex answer that most, apparently, couldn't follow.
Maybe I followed it, because it reflects my views. I DON'T KNOW IF I SUPPORT this proposal or not. I don't know if we'll know if it's a good idea or not until after it's being done and we see how it works.
I accept the fact that illegals are a problem, and I accept the fact that governors would try to address this problem. And that some trial and error may be involved in efforts to do so.