Centerfield

When John Kerry first testified to the Senate, in 1971, he advocated leaving Vietnam, so as to achieve peace, rather than a continued fighting against communism. Because of increasing public pressure, the USA left SE Asia, and achieved peace, and allowed genocide. If the choice is only between leaving and staying -- peace with genocide or more fighting -- was it good that America left?

Was SE Asian communism evil enough to justify fighting it?

Please describe a time in your political career when you took direct political action (as opposed to a position) based on personal conviction that went strongly against public opinion.

Is the government going to keep its promise to provide the monthly benefits to people now aged 40-55 that it currently tells them it will provide? If no, how will these people make ends meet if they have been relying on social security being there? If yes, how will we pay for it?

What is philosophy about how the United States should conduct foreign policy? What are you plans for addressing the myriad of problems that we face in addition to Iraq?

What effect has American culture had on the rise of Islamic facism? And if you were to speak with the parents of Muslim children, how would you explain the balance between American liberties and their desire to raise their children and practice their religion without, what they believe to be, the corrupting influence of American culture?

Will you achieve greater international involvement with respect to the war in Iraq, and more broadly, the war on terror? If so, how will you specifically go about accomplishing that?

First, one of my biggest pet peeves is when people use a question to give their own opinion. This would be an opportunity to learn something, not score a meaningless point.

Anyway, I like bk's question. It would be fun to invert and ask:

Please describe a time in your political career when you took a position based on public opinion which went against your personal conviction?

I'm sure we'd never get a straight answer on that one, but all politicians have to answer to public opinion to some degree. Otherwise they wouldn't be politicians.

Since Todd took my #1 question as well..

"How should we deal with the proliferation of advanced millitary hardware, including NBC weaponry and delivery systems to potentialy unstable regiemes and non-state actors? What lessons, if any, can we draw from the current situation with North Korea? And how should we deal with our supposed allies who engage in such transactions (i.e. France building Iraq's nuclear breeder reactor in the 80's, Russias sale of MIG 29 fighter jets to the Sudan)."

In a way, I think this subsumes all other issues and clearly identifies the most frustrating part of this campaign year:

"Without referencing your opponent in any way, could you tell us why we should vote to elect you president?"

What Todd and Tutakai said.

(I know, that's two questions and thus cheating.)

All good questions, but seriously, doesn't anyone really want to know if Kerry gets botox treatments?

:)

Which rights are inalienable?

Re:current situation in Russia and China's new leadership. How will these new circumstances affect your foriegn policy decisions?

Who picks out your ties?

(Okay...you guys already picked the good questions and I didn't want to be left out)

: )

Do you believe that Israel has been successful or not in fighting terrorism?

Who picks out your ties?

ROFLMAO. And could you tell whoever it is that there are colors other than salmon available?

What kind of individuals will you be looking at when you are called upon to make nominations for vacancies in the Supreme Court and the US Court of Appeals?

I like Tutakai's, but it's so all-encompassing that it will lend itself to safe generalities. I want to pin these bozos down.

Here's my question: "It seems likely that Iran will have nuclear weapons before the end of the next presidential term. What (if anything) are you going to do about it?"