More Help for Lester Holt: A New Set of Questions for the First Clinton-Trump Debate

Less than a week until the first presidential debate. The pressure must be excruciating on … Lester Holt of NBC News, the first moderator. Two weeks ago I suggested questions Holt should ask both candidates. 

They were almost exclusively designed to elicit differences between Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s policy positions. It wouldn’t necessarily make for good television, but it would be educational (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2016/09/policy-questions-for-first-clinton.html).

But TV, if anything, is about ratings and keeping an audience engaged. So here’s a different list of questions I believe Holt should ask of them individually and sometimes together (you’ll notice I have more questions for Trump because, in my humble opinion, he has more explaining to do). 

Trump and Clinton:  What is the greatest threat facing the United States?

T: What information changed your mind about President Obama’s birth in the United States? When did this information reach you?

C: What made you think the public did not have a right to know about your recent pneumonia?

T: Why do you feel the public does not have the right to see your tax returns as all presidential candidates, and many seeking lower offices and judicial positions, have released them over the last four decades?

T: You have called Hillary Clinton crooked. Can you point to any examples of crooked behavior?

T: You have called for paid family leave. Do you already provide it in your own companies, and if not, why not? Also, you have promised paid family leave but Republicans in Congress have not supported such a measure. How can the public expect you to fulfill that promise?

C: If Republicans maintain control of one or both houses of Congress how will you be able to get your platform passed?

C: Why should the American public trust you when time and again you have not been totally forthcoming when explaining your email server and your recent illness?

T: You have called Secretary Clinton “lyin’ Hillary,” yet time and again independent fact checkers have labeled more of your statements as untrue by a wide margin even though you have promised never to lie to the American public. Why should they believe you?

T: Almost all reputable scientists believe sea levels are rising due to climate change. Your property, Mar-a-Lago, sits on the beach in Palm Beach, Fla. Do you believe in the forecasts by the scientists and if not what evidence have you to the contrary? 

C and T: What can be done to stop sleeper cell terrorists, many of whom would be natural or naturalized citizens, from attacking Americans on our homeland? 

T: You have said “to the victor go the spoils,” that we should have taken Iraqi oil and left troops in Iraq to guard the oil wells and that to combat terrorism we should torture suspects and kill the families of terrorists, all violations of international law. Is that the standard you want to set for the United States?

C: The Clinton Foundation accepted donations from foreign governments and citizens. Why should we believe you have not been influenced or would not be influenced by such funding?

T: Why do you believe right wing and racist fringe organizations have expressed support for your campaign?

T: Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than American citizens. What would you do to reduce crime in America?

C: What went wrong in Iraq, Libya and Syria under your watch as secretary of state and why should we believe you would handle future crises differently and better?

T: You have said your response to threats against NATO allies would be dependent on their financial support of our troops. Is that a prudent plan in dealing with Russia?

C: Time and again you advocate a cautious, measured response to events and the status quo in government. Yet the American public appears interested in decisive leadership that would break up the status quo, which you seem reluctant to provide. Why should they expect you to be an agent of change?

T and C: Which three presidents or world leaders, living or dead, do you admire and why?

T: Our greatest economic gains over the last 40 years occurred under Democratic administrations that advocated and passed higher taxes on the wealthy, while lower taxes under Republican administrations did not produce the promised gains for the middle and working classes. Please explain why your tax strategy would reverse this reality?

C: As a senator you voted for the Iraq war. As secretary of state you advocated involvement in Libya and Syria. What is your standard for military intervention by the United States?

T: You recently said if Irani planes or boats interfere with our ships we should shoot them. Are you willing to risk a war over such provocations?

T and C: Almost all of our domestic terror attacks have been perpetrated by lone wolves. Is there any way to prevent such attacks?

C and T: How would you change the Affordable Care Act? Would you reduce or eliminate benefits that the ACA  provided?

C: Do you endorse a path to legalization for illegal immigrants? Would they earn the right to vote?

T: Clarify your position on who and when deportations of illegal immigrants would occur. What is your position on dreamers, the children of undocumented aliens who were brought here as children?

C: A Clinton administration to many would seem to be a continuation of the Obama administration. What would be different?

T and C: After you are sworn in what executive actions would you take within your first week in office?

The President and I Went to Costco Today

President Obama spent part of his day-after-State-of-the-Union-speech in a Costco store. So did I. I was shopping for food and general merchandise. The president was shopping for public approval for his pitch to hike the minimum wage and close the opportunity gap in America. But in a more distant, more important, sense, he was shopping for votes to secure his legacy.

Though he outlined half a dozen areas where he said he would take executive action if Congress did not act as he wished, 2014 will be remembered more for the impact the president will have on the elections next November than anything else.

Simply put, Obama must electioneer hard and long for Democratic Senate and House candidates to avoid facing Republican majorities during the last two years of his second term. If he fails, he will become the “veto president” as Republicans try over and over to undo any and all of the progressive legislation passed in the last five years, especially the Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as Obamacare. He also must support state candidates so more “blue” governors and state representatives and senators are elected.

Obama is surprisingly aloof for a politician who has achieved the highest office in the land. He does not mix well with his former peers. His disinterest in hitting the hustings in 2010 led to a GOP majority in the House and, more disastrously, to Republican victories in many state legislatures and governorships. In turn, that led to realignment of many congressional and state districts into safe, gerrymandered Republican territories, safe, that is, until the next census in 2020 mandates a new reapportionment of legislative seats. 

It might be impossible for Democrats to retake control of Congress until 2022. Keeping their majority in the Senate, therefore, becomes a priority, for Obama and any Democrat who hopes to inherit his chair in the Oval Office in 2017. So Hillary, Andrew, Joe and anyone else who has White House aspirations, now’s the time to really crave the type of chicken served at all those political dinners across the country. 

Aside from being aloof, Obama has also shown a tendency to have limited concentration on any one key issue, with the possible exception of sending drones or Navy Seal teams to excise terrorists. But if he is to be believed, that his presidency will be judged by how well he manages to place the country on a journey toward economic equality, he, and Michele, must hit the road, together and separately, to stump for Democrats. For it’s his legacy that is at stake.

From NIMBY to NOMBa and More

Beyond NIMBY: Americans can be very generous, selfless in their determination to help the less fortunate. Look at all the volunteers who helped clean up after the tornadoes in the Midwest, or Tropical Storm Lee in the East. But try putting a solid waste transfer center in their neighborhood, or a drug rehabilitation center, or a cell tower, and they turn very protective of their home turf, a condition summed up in the acronym NIMBY, not in my back yard.

Today’s NIMBY fight centers on the financial health of the country. Almost everyone agrees cuts must be made in spending programs, while tax loopholes or credits must be closed to raise more revenues. Trouble is, no one who benefits is eager to give up any program or tax advantage in the national interest. In other words, any relief to the country’s debt and budget crisis should come Not On My Back (NOMBa).

NOMBa defenders come from both parties. Normally, Democrats favor higher taxes for energy companies. But Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) has expressed opposition to President Obama’s plan to hike taxes on oil companies. They have, in the past, greased her campaigns with significant contributions.

The Postal Service has indicated a need to close a gaping deficit by, among other measures, eliminating Saturday deliveries. But rural state politicians are aghast at such a prospect.

Shared sacrifice...doing the patriotic thing...compromise. Words and concepts no longer part of the modern day politician’s lexicon, nor part of his or her NOMBa constituency's.


Child Pat-Down: Seems the Transportation Safety Administration is ready to relax rules requiring ultra-scrutiny, including pat-downs, of young children awaiting flights.

Ah, the innocence of youth is finally being recognized by the bureaucrats. Only, I find it all rather discomforting. Sure, there might be the occasional inappropriate pat-down or diaper check. No one would argue with the need to rid the system of these aberrations.

But remember, people, we’re dealing with the mindset of terrorists, evil men and women who are willing to blow up themselves and their loved ones to advance their cause. The TSA and Homeland Security are always countering the last known terrorist plot. As reprehensible as it might appear to us, hiding an explosive in little Johnny’s clothing, or in grandma’s clothing, is not beyond their capacity, especially as we have now opened the door ever so slightly to such possibilities.


Dirty Fingers: Actually, my fingers are a lot cleaner these days. Except this morning, when I chose to read parts of The NY Times in print, rather than on my iTouch.

Some 20 years ago I complained to The Times about the ink that transferred from its paper to my fingertips each day. It got so bad I would periodically stop reading the paper to give my fingers time to shed the stained skin that refused all attempts to cleanse it from “all the news that’s fit to print” on my digits. The Times said it was no worse than other papers, not a very heartening response. I apparently wasn’t the only one who suffered, as advertisements appeared in several publications promoting gloves to wear while reading The Times.

Reading the paper on an electronic device is cleaner, but I’m still an old-fashioned type of guy. I like the “feel” of newsprint in my hand, just not on my hand.


A Final 9/11 Thought: Among the more poignant, and heart-wrenching, 9/11 remembrances were the scenes recounting final telephone calls from victims trapped on the top floors of the Twin Towers. They made me contemplate: Is it better to be reached by your loved one for a final goodbye, or is it preferable to receive a voice mail message that can be kept for eternity?

I don’t have an answer. I hope never to face such a technology-driven Sophie’s Choice.