Tired of seeing your elected officials spinning the issues? Demand Question Time

What a good idea!

---

by: tbaxfer @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 16:07:37 PM CST

Small Reforms

can make a world of difference.

It's much harder to demonize someone when they're present, prepared, and taking your questions.

Perhaps this might contribute to actual--Dare I say it? Yes, yes, I dare!--PROGRESS.

---

by: jdblue82 @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 17:05:32 PM CST

Where this would end up...

Well, first there would have to be a Commission on Presidential Question Time, to discuss matters of format, decorum, protocol....  Then, of course, there's the matter of getting agreement from both sides. And in most situations, one side or the other is going to have a strong incentive NOT to cooperate. (After the shellacking they got this time around, does anyone expect the GOP to allow cameras ever again, even if they DO invite Obama back?)

It wouldn't have to be hugely complicated. The GOP could ask the president back. When the GOP has the White House back (and sooner or later, they will), the Democrats can invite the President over. But in practice, one side or the other will determine it's not in their interest to cooperate, and an excuse not to can always be found. And given the inherent unpredictability of the format, I fully expect both sides to quietly collude in seeing to it that the idea goes nowhere.

Yes, the British have had this for decades, and yes, sometimes it's an excuse for grandstanding, oneliners that are hilarious but never address the actual question, and all the rest. But it's also an exercise in accountability, which is precisely why I don't expect it to be adopted anytime soon. I would love to be proven wrong on this, and if events demonstrate I'm just being a cynical old coot, I'll happily cop to it.

---

by: KCProgramr @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:54:34 PM CST

That suggestion is as pertinent and relevant as anything taught in Civics 101 - that is to say, not at all.

Politicians are practiced liars.  

"I'm a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans."

Contrast that lie with the facts. Obama wanted the bigot vote and began with a bigot named Donnie McClurkin and ended with an ewually rancid bigot named Rick Warren. He got a big share of the bigot vote.  

He continues the occupation of Iraq and he and Clinton do nothing to stop the mass murder of our GLBT brothers and sisters by US trained and armed police, militias and military forces.  

He bickers with the Democratic (sic) Congressional misleadership about who should take the lead in passing ENDA and repealing DOMA. They blame each other and Barney blames us.  

As it becomes clear that the AfPak war's going to be a long drawn out affair with heavy causalities he's calling for an end to DADT to get more cannon fodder.

He surrounds himself with bigots and apparently pays attention to them. He continued and enlarged the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and put it under the control Joshua Dubois, an ordained Pentecostal bigot who task it is to use federal largesse to bribe pulpit pimps. He refuses to dismiss Leah Daughtry, an anti-choice anti-LGBT ordained Pentecostal minister who runs the DNC or her titular boss, a bigot named Tim Kaine. After attacking and dismissing Jeremiah Wright for his nationalist and progressive approach he appointed his own board spirit advisors, two of whom  also advised Bush on how to be a bigot.  

The Obama administration always defends Clinton's DOMA against legal challenges saying that LGBT partnerships are akin to incest and pedophilia. He continues to stridently oppose same sex marriage and some GLBT 'leaders' agree with him to the extent that they oppose the fight to defend or extend SSM rights. They say that we can't win on SSM, forgetting that it was Obama who torpedoed the fight against Prop 8 with "gawd's in the mix".

If you ask him, or any other Democrat or Republican leader, about their bigotry they'll just lie.

What's the point?  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 20:48:07 PM CST

Parliament vs. Legislature

I think the problem with this suggestion is that the Brits have a parliament, and we don't. If I'm not mistaken, the British PM is elected by the majority party in the Parliament, and thus answers to the parliament, so they have every right to call him in to answer questions. In the US the powers are separate; the president isn't elected by the legislative branch, but by (representatives of) the citizenry.  

---

by: drkmtbc @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 08:14:16 AM CST

I like this idea

but considering that we have a legislature as opposed to a parliament, I think this should be done on a quarterly basis
(March, June, September, December). This is a good way that Obama can, in small part, fulfill his promise to make government more transparent.

Now I am not saying that every President should do it or that Congress should pass a law for a mandatory question time (would that be constitutional?). But this is one of the more innovative ideas of the Obama Administration and it works well for him, as it can work for future Presidents and even Congressional leaders.

---

by: kevinchi @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 08:28:43 AM CST

This WAS John McCain's idea

I will regularly brief the American people on the progress our policies have made and the setbacks we have encountered. When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them. I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the Prime Minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons.

I wouldn't even be surprised if McCain suggested this to Obama on the QT.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com...

---

by: kevinchi @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 08:38:49 AM CST

This is a fantastic idea

and one that I've supporter for a long time....but I don't think it would ever happen. The GOP has every incentive to ensure that it never happens. The only way they would support this is if they knew the questions in advance.

The fact is that Obama's session worked because the GOP started buying into their own hype that the man is a "teleprompter genius" and that their talking points about him and his policies were correct. They momentarily forgot that the man is a Constitutional scholar and a teacher....thus well versed in dealing with BS.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 12:35:42 PM CST

I think that with the HOC Question Time

some (but not all) of the questions are submitted to 10 Downing Street in advance.

Speaking of the GOP, I wonder what John McCain thinks about this. Someone should ask him.

---

by: kevinchi @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 12:44:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]