How Should Hillary Act During First Debate?

Advisors are counseling Hillary Clinton to be firm but ladylike during the first presidential debate next Monday with Donald Trump. The public, they say, does not embrace a woman in attack mode.

I, on the other hand, would prefer if she looks to Margaret Thatcher as her debate model, not in policy but in demeanor and comportment. The Iron Lady of British politics confronted head-on those who would challenge her. It is time for Hillary to stand up to the vicious, insulting lies, innuendos, misstatements and falsehoods promulgated by Trump and his cohorts. Do so not in a belligerent way but in a detailed, controlled fashion of righteous indignation not just for herself but for the American people who have been hoodwinked by a carnival barker masquerading as a serious candidate for the presidency.

Hillary needs to show emotion to demonstrate how passionate she is to serve the American public and to defend them against the regressive, repressive policies Trump wants to impose. It is time to take the gloves off, time to expose Trump for the clueless, shiftless character he truly is.

Trump does not react well when confronted. He doesn’t react well to strength and criticism. It makes him fabricate the truth and lash out with insults, the type of behavior that makes him an unstable candidate to be president. 

So here’s a sample of what Clinton should say during the first debate: 

If there’s a question about the Clinton Foundation, she should say … “Mr. Trump has questioned the role of the Clinton Foundation. Here’s the truth. The Clinton Foundation has raised and allocated tens of millions of dollars to fund social welfare programs overseas. My husband and I have donated (put amount here) to the foundation. Meanwhile, since 2008 Donald Trump and his family have given zero dollars to the Trump Foundation. He has made a point of saying he is giving away lots of money but it is other people’s money. Moreover, the Trump Foundation has paid out more than a quarter of a million dollars to settle lawsuits against Trump companies and to buy two portraits of Donald Trump for Donald Trump properties, both actions that are illegal. Perhaps Crooked Donald would be an appropriate nickname.”

If there’s a question on taxes … “Donald Trump wants to overhaul the tax code. During the last eight years my husband and I have paid (put in actual amount here) in federal taxes. X percent of our annual income. During that same time we have no idea how much Donald Trump earned or paid in taxes because he has cowardly refused to release his taxes. Even though he is being audited the IRS has said he is not prevented from releasing his tax forms. We can only assume he has something to hide, such as his low tax rate, or his entanglements with Russian and Chinese investments that would make it impossible for him to objectively deal with these countries. Donald Trump wants to eliminate the estate tax. The estate tax affects only the wealthiest in our country. It’s another example of how Donald Trump wants to change the tax code so that he and his family and his billionaire and multi-millionaire friends and cronies can benefit while working people bear the burden of their greed."

If there’s a question on Iraq … “Donald Trump claims he was against the second Iraq war from the get-go. Not so. Donald Trump  was interviewed on The Howard Stern Show on September 11, 2002. When directly asked by Howard Stern if he was for the invasion of Iraq—before it occurred—Donald Trump said, “Yeah, I guess so.” Yet, the man who has said he would never lie to the American people continues to this day to lie about his support for the war. I regret my vote for the war, but Donald Trump is too cowardly to stand up for his actions.”

If there’s a question about how to defeat ISIS … “Donald Trump has advocated illegal activity by our military. He has specifically said our military should kill the families of terrorists. He has said we should torture suspected terrorists. He has said we should have taken Iraq’s oil. These are all violations of international law and our own code of military conduct.”

If there’s a question on child care … “Mr. Trump last week said he supports child care benefits for employees. Yet he does not provide that benefit to his own employees and had the chutzpah to claim he did so at his hotels when the truth is he provided child care benefits to his wealthy hotel guests but not to his own workers. He would have some credibility if he would be providing child care benefits to those already under his control but he doesn’t. His proposal is nothing more than a campaign come-on. He has no more interest in seeing it put into law than he has shown in his own companies. What’s more, a Republican controlled Congress would never pass such a benefit.”

If there’s a question on the environment … “Donald Trump went to Flint, Michigan, recently to provide comfort to the families affected by the polluted water. That was commendable, but let him explain how residents of Flint and the rest of the country would be safeguarded from similar incidents if he follows through on his plan to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency.”

If there’s a question on immigration … “Donald Trump’s signature theme has been he will build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. And that he is a great negotiator. Yet, when he met with the president of Mexico he was too weak to say during his press conference that the Mexican president told him Mexico would not pay for the wall.”

If there’s a question on improving the economy … “Mr. Trump claims to be a great businessman. Yet his companies have filed for bankruptcy protection six times. He has claimed he never settles suits. Yet he has done so numerous times. His Trump University is under investigation in several states for fraud. In Florida his charitable foundation made a large contribution to the re-election campaign of the state attorney general within days of her decision not to join other state attorneys general in the investigation. Good business decision by Mr. Trump? I think it looks highly suspicious.”

If there’s a question on terrorism … “Mr. Trump is against our Constitution. He questions the very foundation of our legal system that you are innocent until proven guilty and that you are entitled to legal defense. He would deny Ahmad Khan Rahami, the alleged pressure cooker bomber, his legal right to an attorney. And he questions our civility in providing medical treatment to his wounds. Is that the type of society America wants to become? I think not.  I hope not. Mr. Trump wants to have a national stop-and-frisk policy even though a federal court ruled it unconstitutional.”

If there’s a question on gun control … “Donald Trump falsely claims I want to repeal the second amendment. No, I want to limit the proliferation of assault rifles. I want background checks on all gun purchasers. But tell us, Donald. What would be your words of comfort to the next families whose loved ones are gunned down with an AR-15 or similar type weapon? What would you have told the parents of Sandy Hook? Do you really want us to go back to the days of the Wild West when everyone carried around a revolver? Is that your idea of a civilized society? While citizens of the rest of the free world walk around without weapons you would have us turn into an armed camp.

If there’s a question on the federal budget … Mr. Trump claims to be fiscally conservative. Yet he wants to raise the Pentagon budget beyond what our military leaders want. He wants to build a wall. He wants to lower taxes, all actions that independent tax experts say would increase our national debt. But does Mr. Trump care? Apparently not as he says if he were president he would renegotiate our debt. He would single-handedly destroy the financial credibility of the United States. And that would be a legacy all of us, our children and our grandchildren would pay for for generations to come.”

Enough examples. 

The debate is billed as Trump vs. Clinton. But really it is between the values upon which America was built and a re-imagined America that would repress minorities and specific religions, would shun our immigrant heritage, would look to curtail the freedom of the press, the separation of church and state, and the right to vote without harassment,  and would question our national commitment to the good and welfare of all our citizens while rewarding the elite. 

Policy Questions for First Clinton-Trump Debate

The first Clinton-Trump presidential debate is September 26, a scant three weeks away. There are lots of gotcha questions that could be asked and I am sure the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC, is under extreme pressure to come up some of those on embarrassing topics such as Donald Trump’s attack on Mexicans and Hillary Clinton’s email server shenanigans. Let’s hope he doesn’t fall for the bait but rather chooses subjects that will illuminate the policy differences between the candidates. 

With that in mind, here are questions I would recommend to him, questions to be asked of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump so that they might provide substantive answers with limited opportunities to dodge with generalities or obfuscations or hyperbolic attacks on their opponent.

1. How specifically would you change the Affordable Care Act? Which provisions would you keep and which would you jettison?

2. Would you continue federal funding of Planned Parenthood and why?

3. Would you continue funding overseas programs that include birth control measures?

4. Would you continue federal support of stem cell research?

5. Do you support a woman’s right to choose? Should Roe v Wade be overturned, leaving to individual states to decide the right to an abortion? Should anyone who participates in an abortion, be they patient or medical professional, be subject to prosecution if abortion is declared illegal?

6. Should clergy be permitted to advocate politically from their pulpits?

7. Do you support or want to overturn the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court?

8. Do you favor a federal minimum wage and, if so, at what level?

9. Given the low interest rate on borrowings do you favor increasing the federal debt to fund infrastructure spending projects?

10. What test, if any, would you have in determining your response to any aggression against a NATO ally or against Japan, Korea or The Philippines?

11. Are there any government departments or agencies you would close down? Are there any new ones you would create?

12. What would happen to undocumented immigrants during your administration?

13. How would you restore confidence and good relations between the police and minority communities?

14. Should there be any limitations on the type of weapons ordinary citizens may possess, and, if so, how would you implement such restrictions?

15. What specific changes would you make to NAFTA and the proposed TPP?

16. What is America’s role during humanitarian crises in foreign lands? Under what circumstances would you engage our military during these crises? 

17. What is your position on American support, both financial and philosophical, for the United Nations?

18. Explain your position on the Iran nuclear deal and how your administration would handle relations with Iran?

19. Do you believe in global warming? Scientists have charted the rise in sea levels? What steps should we take, if any, to protect our shorelines?

20. Do we need to raise the age eligibility for Social Security and Medicare? Should we means-test for Social Security and Medicare benefits?

21. What guidelines would you impose on legal access to immigration?

22. Does the United States have any interests in helping solve the refugee problem from Africa and the Middle East?

23. How confident are you that the election will be a fair one, and do you have any evidence of past voter fraud that would lead you to believe the results would be rigged?

24. Are Americans better off today than they were when President Obama took office in January 2009?

25. To balance the budget and reduce the deficit, program cuts would have to be enacted and tax loopholes would have to be closed. Please provide specific areas that would be affected under your next budget?

26. What role would alternative energy programs play within your administration?

27. What is your position on equal pay for women?

28. Should Americans 18 and older be required to perform some form of public service, be it in the military or some other program that benefits us all, such as the WPA programs of the New Deal?

What We Want, What We Need

What we need and what we want in a president sometimes doesn’t mesh. We need someone reflective, not rash, who sets a strong policy course but who is willing to adapt to changing circumstances. What we want is someone bold, righteously aggressive, presidential in demeanor, a good talker.

What we don’t want is someone perceived as weak, someone we visualize waiting for the tumblers to fall into place in their brain before they spew out the answer they think we want to hear. We want sharp, quick command of facts (even if, in reality, we are given falsities or half-facts—it’s the appearance, unfortunately, that matters most to most of us). We don’t want a lot of ums, ahs, and aaaands. 

Which is to say, during tonight’s second presidential debate, actually less of a debate than a conversation with the American public, Barack Obama must show HE is THE president, that his command of the facts and themes of this election are at his fingertips and upon his tongue, that he will vigorously defend his administration, blasting away at misrepresentations and driving home the inconsistencies and warts of his challenger, Mitt Romney, a self-declared “extreme conservative” who has been campaigning of late as a moderate. 

Romney’s given ample ammunition for exposure—Obama must ignite those charges with the same conviction and steely resolve he demonstrated in ordering the assassinations of Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda operatives. Al-Qaeda wants to destroy Western civilization. It is not too extreme for a progressive to say conservatives want to destroy America as it is today and return it to a time when government did not provide a safety net for its citizens, a time when the quality and quantity of health care depended on the quantity of dollars in your pocketbook, when equality of opportunity rarely extended beyond rich white menfolk. 

Some might say I am being too extreme, that Republicans simply want to transfer government back down to the levels closest to the people, from federal to state to local municipalities. One need only look to the meningitis epidemic coursing through the country to see the danger inherent in placing trust in such a transfer. The compounding pharmacy that distributed the lethal doses of tainted serum was under state, not federal, supervision. Do we really want to shift environmental oversight of our air, land and waterways to the states? Immigration rights? Health care? Do we want a system where one’s protection is based on the wheel of fortune of which state one was born in? 

During last week’s vice presidential debate the candidates were asked how their Roman Catholic faith affected their public life, particularly as it pertained to the right to have an abortion. They both gave from-the-heart responses, but I was more touched by Joe Biden’s answer as it first voiced the Church’s central mission to help the less fortunate. Biden then expressed the theme enunciated by John F. Kennedy back in 1960 as he sought to be the nation’s first Catholic elected to national office, namely, that he would not impose his religious beliefs on those who did not share his faith.

I have no doubt Mitt Romney will try to project an image of moderation tonight. He’ll try to be an endearing, thoughtful, compassionate candidate whose only mission is to save America from a decline he sees as inevitable if Obama is re-elected. He’ll be smooth talking. He is, after all, versed in being a salesman, be it for his religion or for his former company, Bain Capital. Salesmen are smooth talkers. They’ll tell you what you want to hear (which isn’t always the truth). They’ll work hard to close the deal. 

We’ll see just how much Obama wants to keep his job by how well he does tonight. He doesn’t have to cop an in-your-face attitude toward Romney. He has to look engaged. He has to prime specifics about his accomplishments—saving the auto industry, getting a middle class tax cut as part of the economic stimulus bill, passing Obamacare, killing Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, restoring American prestige across the world, lowering unemployment, creating a positive environment for private sector jobs, protecting consumers, passing financial oversight regulations even as the stock market has doubled since he took office—while strongly contrasting Romney’s prior statements to the comforting, warm uncle positions Mitt will espouse tonight. Use Romney’s own words to, quoting Shakespeare, “hoist him with his own petard.”

The First Debate

In a discussion between fellow presidential debate moderators aired today on CBS Sunday Morning, Jim Lehrer told Bob Schieffer he would consider a successful debate one in which the things “that matter most to the voters, to hell with the candidates, to hell with the moderators and to hell with the handlers, to hell with the pundits, but the things that the voters care most about have been discussed and have been discussed in a way that they can now understand what the differences are. That's what these debates are really all about.”

With that in mind, here are some questions I would like Lehrer to ask, this first debate Wednesday night being restricted to domestic issues. (I’d also like to see Lehrer challenge Barack Obama or Mitt Romney if either skirts around a question and simply delivers standard campaign pablum. Let’s get some real answers.) I figure the 90-minute debate will include 15 questions at most. Here are 16, just in case the debate runs a little long:

1. Are Americans better off today than we were when President Obama took office in January 2009?

2. What are your specific ideas for job creation? 

3. To balance the budget and reduce the deficit, program cuts would have to be enacted and tax loopholes would have to be closed. Please provide specific areas that would be affected under your next budget?

4. Would you accept a “grand bargain” of spending cuts tied to a slight tax increase?

5. Do you believe in global warming? Scientists have charted the rise in sea levels? What steps should we take, if any, to protect our shorelines?

6. What is your view of evolution? Do you believe Creationism should be an alternative taught in our schools? Do you believe dinosaurs and man lived at the same time?

7. Explain your evolved positions on same-sex marriage (Obama) and the right to an abortion (Romney)?

8. Do you support the Dream Act? How would you deal with our illegal immigrant population?

9. What are your views on government regulatory agencies? Would you do away with any and why specifically those agencies? 

10. Do we need to raise the age eligibility for Social Security and Medicare? Should we means-test for Social Security and Medicare benefits?

11. Is it government’s obligation to provide all Americans affordable health care as a right? What specific changes still need to be enacted to health care?  

12. What level of safety net protection is appropriate for government to provide the unemployed, school children, the impoverished?  

13. Do you see any danger in the disparity between the earnings of the average worker and that of corporate management?

14. Neither of you is a hunter. Explain your position on the right to possess assault rifles and super-sized bullet magazines, both of which are not necessary or used for hunting?

15. What is the proper balance, if indeed there is any need for balance, between a comprehensive energy policy and protection of our environment?

16. Are we better off with federal-administered programs or with programs pushed down to the individual states to administer?

Gee, that’s 16 questions and I didn’t ask about their plans to end the housing crisis, or how they feel about the effect super-PAC money has on the political process, or the need, if any, to provide more regulation on the financial industry, or what is the proper role of the federal government in education. 

Let’s hope we get some real answers to whatever questions Lehrer poses. Let’s hope the candidates aren’t merely posturing or engaging in a sound-bite-off. We have too much at stake.

A Call for Real Answers

As a former reporter and editor I retain a healthy skepticism for what politicians say. “Spin doctor” is a kind description of what most of them do. But my patience was truly lost this morning as I listened to NPR interview Florida congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who also happens to be the chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, and a short while latter heard two Democrats and two Republicans square off on CBS Face The Nation about the presidential election.

Asked directly why President Obama was not polling higher among married women and white women, Schultz responded with standard talking points about why he is good for women and why he should be re-elected. Challenged that she didn’t answer the question, the congresswoman insisted she did. The interview ended on that note, either because NPR determined its audience was being buffaloed or the segment ran out of time. I hope it was the former, as the media must start showing some muscle in its dealings with politicians. If they won’t answer the question, cut them off and don’t give them a free ride to poison the air with their obfuscations.

Which, unfortunately, is what happened on Face the Nation. The Republicans accused Obama of turning negative. Hello? What do they think happened the first three years of his presidency? Does the word “birther” kindle any memories? Does the voice of a GOP congressman screaming out “You lie” during the State of the Union address revive any memories? Have they forgotten how they refused to compromise, how they thwarted any attempt to gain a balanced approach to our nation’s fiscal problems, which, they have conveniently forgotten, are mainly due to George Bush’s two wars and his senior citizen prescription medical reimbursement plan. 

We have 93 more days before the election. Three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate. All in October. Maybe, if we’re lucky, the format will exact specific answers from each candidate. Maybe, again if we’re lucky, the moderator will show some respect for the American people and demand specific answers rather than platitudes, innuendos and gibberish. Oh, we should be so lucky.