In last night’s debate, Mitt Romney stumbled and fell at the finish line when the words of his final answer served to reveal the truth in his heart. Clearly not answering the question asked, moderator John King tried to remind the Governor of the original question. Romney’s response was stunning, “You get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want.” (Video here)
As an activist, my weapons are my questions. For people seeking information from their government, questions are their most powerful tool. Questions like, “Where do you find authority for that in the Constitution?” “Isn’t piling up more debt without seeing the recovery dollars to pay it off throwing good money after bad?” and “How can the government justify its decision to force Americans to buy a product they don’t want?” The answers to those questions are, literally, everything!
Yet Governor Romney outed his commitment to offering up only the answers he wants you to hear regardless of how it relates to the question you asked. I’m not trying to play “Gotcha!” with a GOP Presidential candidate. I’m not twisting his words. How else am I to understand his comments?
Which is troubling. If, as the Governor says, it’s not the questions we ask that matter but the answers he provides, how can we trust anything he says – yesterday, today or tomorrow? How can we see him as anything but a politician of the “Don’t think for yourself! I’ll tell you what’s important!” variety?
Here’s a question for you, Governor. Why should I vote for a candidate like that?
Good Point, Muse! Questions are the Weapons which get to the Heart of the Beast
My recent post Purple Heart Wounded Warriors Meet NFL All-Stars
[...] people seeking information from their government, questions are their most powerful tool. — More. This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Debate, John King, Mitt Romney by Michael [...]
NO WONDER…I have decided to vote for Alfred E. Newman. Politics is a dirty game. And, getting dirtier all the time. It comes down to ~ who can you trust. He just lost mine.
The problem with all our candidates is their being in the position of having to answer questions rather than forcing the conversation to ideas for solutions to problems, problems even blamed on each other. Voters want, and deserve, specific explanations of what they will do to correct the situation rather than Party dogma.
No argument there, Stan. Which is why you so often see answers not directly related to questions.
A friend, who is supporting the Governor, suggested my response was ironic given that Speaker Newt and others also depart from the questions asked when responding. Which is a completely valid point, by the way.
My response to him was not to deny that other candidates also don't answer questions asked of them. It was to make the point that, when called on the practice, Governor Romney's response was quite different. He told us "Why?" he did so. His reasons for doing so seem to have nothing to do with wanting to get out more or different information. From my perspective, it seemed he was telling us that he was setting the agenda and it didn't matter what our concerns were.
Those are two very different explanations …
Well the fact is, he doesn't have to answer, and you will darn well like it. So says the RNC (Romney Nominating Committee).
"Why should I vote for a candidate like that?" Because in just a few weeks the RNC (Romney Nominating Committee) will resurrect Reagan and his 11th commandment and tell you to do anything else would be voting for four more years of Obama. If that's a good enough reason, that is.
I also get tired of the questions like, "Ken, Eric over here has called you a no-writin', yella, knuckle-dragger", how do you respond to that? I notice this has been used A LOT on the non-Romney candidates, followed up with a softball to Romney allowing him to be able to insult Obama with his answers rather than tear down the opponents, who waste their time answering insults and then the insulter getting a 30-sec rebuttal because they were named, etc.
I'll also add that many times these candidates are paper thin on their currently crafted campaign season beliefs. If you scratch too far below the surface and their practiced answers, you get a big, 'ol hole o' nothin'. Kind of like Rick Perry when he locked up and couldn't name those federal departments he so "genuinely" wanted to eliminate. It must be terrifying to get a question you don't already know the answer to and have to manufacture your conviction on the fly.