Obama debate questions
Well, since there is no evidence to suggest that Iran is any closer to getting a nuclear bomb, I would have to say "no." I think maybe a better question would be "since the people who keep insisting that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nukes are the same hacks who insisted the same thing about Iraq, why should we give any of them any smidgen of credibility?"
After insisting on a settlement freeze and showing more daylight between the United States and Israel, there are no bilateral talks ongoing, and the Palestinian Authority has gone to the United Nations for a unilateral declaration. So isn’t your approach to the peace process a failure? And why is it you haven’t cut off U.S. aid to the Fatah-Hamas government?
Well, since the main obstacle to any serious bilateral talks would seem to be the hawkish Bibi Netanyahu, I would have to say that it is his policy that is the failure. And I guess my reason for insisting on a settlement freeze would mainly be that when one country builds homes inside the borders of another country, that's not all that conducive to peace ever breaking out. Just like if your neighbor built a garage in your front yard, you might have some difficulty getting a;long with him. And I haven't cut off aid to the Hamas government because I don't like the idea of people starving to death just because they elected a government that you don't approve of.
Also, why shouldn't theer be daylight between the US and Israel. This may come as a shock to you, but the US and Israel are two completely separate countries! And our interests don't really overlap all that much.
After Sept. 11, 2001, there were no terrorist attacks on the United States, but during your administration there have been the jihad-inspired Fort Hood massacre and the killing of four Americans in Libya, so isn’t your anti-terror record worse than Bush’s?
Okay, why do you think that the Bush administration gets a mulligan for 9/11? Also, after 9/11, there were the anthrax letters, the El-Al shooting at LAX, the shoe bomber. . . But how could anyone's anti-terror record be worse than George W. Bush's? He was president on 9/11. He ignored repeated warnings about al Queda, he neglected to have NORAD scramble fighters when the planes were hijacked, and when the towers were hit, he was busy reading "My Pet Goat."
The Fort Hood massacre claimed 13 lives, the Libya attacks killed 4. How is that worse than 2,977 killed on 9/11?
Why do the Bushies think they can just re-write history to suit their narrative?
Then there is domestic policy. Here, aides should be preparing Obama for these sorts of queries:
Why is the recovery under your presidency worse than any other recovery since WWII?
Maybe because Republicans in the Senate have blocked every piece of legislation that might have strengthened the recovery?
You had big majorities in the Congress for the first two years, yet you did not pursue immigration reform, entitlement reform or tax reform. Why?
Maybe because none of those things really need "reforming?" I mean, the tax code certainly needs reforming, just not in the way that you righties think it does. The tax code needs to be reformed so that, for instance, unearned income like stock dividends, capitol gains, etc. are taxed at at least the same rate as income earned by the sweat of one's brow. But maybe spending a lot of time and effort reforming those things might have taken away from the reforming of health care which absolutely did not go far enough (single-payer) but is making a big positive difference in a lot of lives.
The public, by significant majorities, doesn’t like your health-care reform, Congressional Budget Office updates show it does not adhere to your promise not to add “one dime” to the deficit, and the CBO also reports that some 6 million Americans, including those making well below $200,000, will be hit by the statute’s tax, so why shouldn’t the statute be changed or repealed?
Because all those thing that you just said are lies? The public doesn't think they like "Obamacare," but when asked about the actual provisions in the law, like no more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, or letting parents keep their kids on their plan for a few more years, people respond very favorably. The "Obamacare" that they don't like is the fake one with the death panels and the aparatchiks in the doctor's office that you righties have made up. They like the real one. And the only people who will be "hit by the tax" are people who could afford to buy health insurance but choose not to. And fuck those people.
In 2010 you agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts when the economy was growing more than it is now. If tax hikes are anti-stimulative, why not extend the cuts again?
Yes, why not make the same mistake again? Because history has shown that tax-hikes are absolutely not anti-stimulative. Oh, sure, they could be, if you jacked up taxes on working stiffs by a large amount so that they had significantly less money to spend, but that's not what we're talking about here. You need only look back as far as the Clinton administration to see an example of tax hikes that definitely did not impede economic growth. Remember? Remember how well the economy was doing back in the '90's? Remember the "new economy?" Of course you do.
Any way, there's more to Rubin's bullshit post here, if you're interested. Suffice it to say that Jennifer Rubin provides a perfect example of the phenomenon of conservatives absolutely refusing to have an honest argument. If they want to talk about terror, they pretend that 9/11 doesn't count. If they want to talk about tax rates, they pretend that the tax cuts grow the economy, even while they complain that even though Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, the economy isn't growing. They either don't feel the cognitive dissonance or they just choose to ignore it. But they will never ever ever argue honestly, because they know they can never win that way.