Doc's Talk: Debate Questions That Schieffer Should Ask

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Debate Questions That Schieffer Should Ask

Brian Fitzpatrick
Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Should women be drafted or serve in combat? Should English be the nation’s official language? Should judges interpret laws according to the Constitution or contemporary values? Should there be any restrictions on abortion? Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right of individual citizens to own guns? Should marriage law be defined by the courts or by legislatures?

These are some of the questions that have not yet been raised in the presidential debates and which could prove helpful in revealing the candidates’ character and worldviews. Presidents often have greater influence on social policy and cultural values than they have on economic policy, so Obama’s and McCain’s positions on moral issues matter.

Their character matters as well. How do they respond under pressure? Will they stick by their principles at the risk of alienating some voters, or will they fudge their answers? As CMI determined in our recent special report, “Character” the Most Important Issue in the Presidential Primary Debates, the questions that reveal the most about character are those that put candidates on the spot. The most useful questions, the “hardballs,” bring up sensitive policy issues or force candidates to address unflattering background information.

The responsibility for teasing out the candidates’ values and character in Wednesday’s concluding presidential debate falls on debate moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS. Given the Face the Nation host’s biased performance during the campaign thus far, the prospect of Schieffer asking the questions is hardly reassuring.

Reporting on the “Palin bounce” in the polls following the GOP convention in September, Schieffer said GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is McCain’s “Geritol.” Schieffer was only warming up.

During Face the Nation on Sunday, Oct. 6, Schieffer described the McCain campaign as “down and dirty.” He called Palin an “attack dog” for saying Obama “palled around with terrorists.” Schieffer even hurled the nastiest insult in the liberal media lexicon, comparing McCain/Palin to Nixon/Agnew. He’s made no comparable criticism of the Obama campaign.

Two days later, during Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, reporter Jeff Glor delivered a “news report” charging the McCain campaign with mudslinging. Anchor Harry Smith then asked Schieffer about the “rancorous tone of this campaign.” Schieffer replied not by balancing Glor’s one-sided diatribe, but by piling on: “…[C]learly the McCain campaign has made a conscious decision to go after Obama. They want to change the subject from the economy. They’re going to go after Obama’s character and somehow try to paint him as different than other people.”

Schieffer’s pro-Obama tilt is obvious, but his record doesn’t necessarily predict how he will perform during the upcoming debate. The domestic policy discussion is the best setting for personal values to rise to the surface. Will Schieffer raise thorny questions like abortion, unsavory associations, and doubts about patriotism, even if the answers threaten to “paint Obama as different than other people?”

We expect that throwing hardballs, especially at Obama, will be difficult for Schieffer, so as a courtesy we’re suggesting some questions he ought to ask the candidates.

Abortion: Sen. McCain, you describe yourself as pro-life. Sen. Obama, you describe yourself as pro-choice, but during this campaign you have suggested you would like to reduce the number of abortions. Do you both agree that one of the best ways to reduce the number of abortions, at least among young girls, is to require parental notification? Do you believe parents should have the right to decide whether their minor daughters can have abortions? Also, do you believe infants that survive botched abortions should automatically receive emergency medical attention?

Background: Sen. McCain, you spent your young adult years in the Navy. Sen. Obama, you were a “community organizer” working for progressive organizations in Chicago. How did your youthful job responsibilities prepare you to be President?

Dubious Associates: Sen. McCain, you received thousands of dollars in contributions from convicted banker Charles Keating. Sen. Obama, you received thousands of dollars in contributions from convicted political wheeler-dealer Tony Rezko. Could you both explain the nature of your relationships with these men?

Education: Do you believe that parents should have a choice in where they send their children to schools, via tax credits or vouchers? Should the schools be allowed to teach grade school kids to accept homosexuality by using textbooks such as Heather Has Two Mommies? Should parents be required to opt in their children to such classes?

Freedom of Speech: Do you support or oppose re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine?

Guns: Do you agree with the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms? What will you do to uphold the Supreme Court’s decision?

Immigration: Should America reassert control of the borders in order to prevent illegal immigration? Should illegal immigrants be permitted to receive welfare or unemployment benefits? Should Congress declare English to be the official language, and require America to conduct all government business in English?

Judiciary: The Connecticut Supreme Court just ordered the state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do courts have the authority to redefine marriage, or should contentious social issues be decided by the people, through their legislatures? Will you appoint judges who will uphold the original intent of the Constitution, or judges who believe the document should be interpreted according to contemporary values?

Military readiness: Do you support overturning the 1993 law barring military service by homosexuals? Do you favor having women sign up for Selective Service? Do you favor sending women into combat?

Patriotism: The United States is currently the most powerful nation on the planet. Do you believe America’s preeminence has been good or bad for the rest of the world? Do you believe America should preserve its status as the world’s leader?

Religious Liberty: A group of pastors recently defied the IRS by preaching about politics in their pulpits, challenging a rule inserted into the IRS code in 1953. Should churches be permitted to preach about elections and candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status?

Same-Sex Marriage: Do you support or oppose Proposition 8, the ballot measure that would enshrine in California’s Constitution the traditional understanding of marriage as one man and one woman? Do you support the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for all federal purposes and allows states to define their own policies, or would you like it reversed?

Voter Fraud: Given the widespread incidence of irregularities in voter registration this year, and warning of likely fraud in swing states like Ohio, would you agree that voters should be required to present photo ID at the polls?

The media have given short shrift to social issues during this presidential campaign, so the public remains woefully ignorant about the candidates’ stands on these crucial issues. Let’s hope Bob Schieffer doesn’t waste his golden opportunity to fill in the gaps.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk