Senator Kerry...

September 25, 2006 7:34 PM

Tomorrow I will able to ask Senator John F. Kerry ONE question on C-SPAN. What should it be and why? Make this good people.
posted by jne1813 to Society & Culture (56 answers total)

How do we get out of Iraq?
posted by paulsc at 7:38 PM on September 25, 2006

Too broad, he can answer anything he wants with that:

"What more could the Democratic Party be doing to secure the elections in the face of the nasty GOP fall?"

To me they are doing nothing and hoping the GOP destroys itself. They should not be just a party that is in constant GOP shadows and only wins when the fail. If you can get to the heart of that it would be great.
posted by geoff. at 7:42 PM on September 25, 2006

Why should Repblicans vote Democrat?
posted by furtive at 7:43 PM on September 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

Response by poster: Here's one I have in mind. Thoughts?

Senator Kerry, do you truly believe from a strategic point of view, that is in the best interest of the democratic party for a democrat to win the 2008 election given the war in Iraq, record deficits and the increasing danger of terror attacks due to this administration nearly irreparable means of governing?
posted by jne1813 at 7:46 PM on September 25, 2006

Why didn't you make way for other candidates who stood a better chance of winning in the 2004 race?
posted by arimathea at 7:49 PM on September 25, 2006

What can democrats do, from his experience, to get the upper hand in terms of media representation in a red vs. blue election?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 7:56 PM on September 25, 2006

Why didn't you seem to care about the voter fraud in Ohio? Were you blackmailed into otpressing the issue by vpotus?
posted by wfc123 at 7:56 PM on September 25, 2006

"Are you willing to publically back declassifying the April National Intelligence Estimate?"

This would put pressure on both the senator and the administration to release the report to the public. This is the leaked classified report that states the Iraq War is worsening the terrorism threat. The administration has, of course, down played this and tried to cover it up. There's a big push to get our representitives to release the report. If you think so also, this would be a pretty damned good time to do it.
posted by icosahedral at 7:57 PM on September 25, 2006 [6 favorites]

Why did you give up so readily after the election, when results from several states (including Ohio) were apparently adjusted in favor of your opponent?

Why did you not stand up to the swiftboater conservative hit job run by a smirking GOP?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:58 PM on September 25, 2006

Sorry - the report itself isn't leaked, but details of it has been.
posted by icosahedral at 8:00 PM on September 25, 2006

Senator Kerry - in the 2004 election you promised "every vote would count and every vote would be counted." In retrospect, shouldn't you have stayed in Columbus, OH for a few days after the election to train a spotlight on the election process in Ohio, and the country, rather than conceding immediately?
posted by tristeza at 8:03 PM on September 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

Why can't Democrats effectively defend themselves, the way Republicans have done since the 1994 elections?
posted by quintno at 8:03 PM on September 25, 2006

Senator Kerry - you've said the Bush administration has a "Katrina foreign policy." With recent intelligence reports that suggest that the potential for terrorism has gotten worse since the war in Iraq, will more Democrats join you in calling Bush's foreign policy a "Katrina foreign policy."
posted by tristeza at 8:07 PM on September 25, 2006

"Here's one I have in mind. Thoughts?"

Kerry is a skilled public speaker, and no matter how clever your question, he's going to deliver a talking point message you'd expect of a centrist senior Democrat, in the run up to the mid-term election. So my advice, and suggestion, after some years working in the broadcast business, is to keep it dead simple, and direct, jne1813.

The problem I see with your question is that he can't say he believes it would be best for the Democrats to lose in '08, and remain a credible Democratic leader. So, your question kind of answers itself. I think it would be more interesting if you simplified it, to something like "After George W. Bush, is the Presidency still worth winning?" That's an open ended opinion question, but one that is philosophical in character, and I bet you'd get him off talking points, and spinning out a "Boston Brahmin's" view of the worth of the Presidency. Classic Kerry, maybe quotable, I bet.
posted by paulsc at 8:07 PM on September 25, 2006 [3 favorites]

The best questions are extremely short. Long questions give the target time to prepare an answer, and they give him the chance to answer only the part of the question that he likes the best.

So if you can, ask a question which requires no setup.

"Will George Bush attack Iran?"

This one unfortunately does:

"In January 2001, the Congressional Black Caucus, having heard much evidence of vote fraud in the 2000 elections, tried to challenge the results. You refused to support them in the joint session of Congress, and as a result of your lack of support, George Bush was certified the winner of the 2000 election. Why did you refuse to support them?"
posted by jellicle at 8:13 PM on September 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

Sorry for the derail, but leaking an NIE at the Congressional level is a terrible idea. Doing so would undermine the only reason the administration let Congress even see anything approaching an honest intelligence assessment (unlike, say, the first NIE on Iraq, which was widely leaked) which is, in turn, the only reason you know it even exists. NIEs are a critical part of the defense planning process, and after having NIEs so terribly hijacked once, the last thing we need is an effort to appropriate them for another (if in your mind more noble) political purpose.
posted by ChasFile at 8:13 PM on September 25, 2006

jne1813:
do you truly believe from a strategic point of view, that is in the best interest of the democratic party for a democrat to win the 2008 election given the war in Iraq, record deficits and the increasing danger of terror attacks due to this administration nearly irreparable means of governing?

All he is going to say is "Yes, of course the democrats should be elected because they can do a better job of leading us out of this predicament!"

The biggest problem I see with the Democratic Party of reccent years is that most of what they say is simply blasting the Republicans. I want to see them actually doing something proactive for a change. I'm not sure how to put that into a question ...
posted by sophist at 8:13 PM on September 25, 2006

Why did you refuse to support them?

A: Had I supported them, Gore wins and then Lieberman problem wins and then I probably never get to run, myself. Next?
posted by ChasFile at 8:14 PM on September 25, 2006

Senator Kerry - you've been more outspoken since the 2004 election than you were during it - how are you counseling Democratic candidates to internalize the lessons of 2004 and confront their Republican opponents more directly and more sharply?
posted by tristeza at 8:15 PM on September 25, 2006

"Senator, you made a valiant compaign for the presidency, but ultimately fell just short of victory. From the historical perspective, since you failed the people of America, who could've beaten 'W' in '04?"
posted by iurodivii at 8:16 PM on September 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

I like paulsc's
posted by edgeways at 8:16 PM on September 25, 2006

Is Hillary beatable? Since you are clearly running, how do you plan to defeat her?
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:17 PM on September 25, 2006

"After George W. Bush, is the Presidency still worth winning?"

That is great. It is interesting and meaningful, yet odd enough that it will give him pause, and force him to actually think.

When is it going to be on?
posted by Rock Steady at 8:18 PM on September 25, 2006

My choice would be....

Why has the Democratic party has resigned its responsibility to act as vocal critics of the current administration, only to just attempt to find its voice when needed to win an election?
posted by Kickstart70 at 8:21 PM on September 25, 2006

You could ask him "Will you agree to publish your daily official work schedule on the Internet, within 24 hours of the end of every work day?" and get $1000 if he says yes.
posted by scottreynen at 8:32 PM on September 25, 2006

paulsc wrote: After George W. Bush, is the Presidency still worth winning?

Great question.
posted by ryanrs at 8:34 PM on September 25, 2006

Why did you let us all down John?

or

Why couldn't you have inspired your troops, in the name of the ends justifying the means, to play as dirty as the Republicans?


or

What are the secrets, that you know and have been told never to tell, that when told, will embarrass the GOP's leading lights out of power forever, to send them into the dark, bottomless pit from whence they came?

I'm sorry, these are wet dreams. But oh to have some truth serum and JK and a network feed.......
posted by lalochezia at 8:42 PM on September 25, 2006

Senator Kerry, as a decorated soldier, can you give us some reasons why interrogation by torture is a bad policy?

Senator Kerry, why should Americans in their 20s care about voting in the mid-term elections?
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:42 PM on September 25, 2006

Oh come on... "Is the presidency worth winning?" You can practically write the answer ahead of time. "Yes... still the world's only superpower... our responsibility to be a beacon of hope to the world... blah blah fucking blah."

Ask him a direct question with a yes or no answer that he can't spin into a talking point.

I'd go with scottyreynan's question: "Senator Kerry, will you agree to publish your daily itinerary on a public website?"

I want to know who Senators are meeting with. Who's paying for lunch, if you will.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:55 PM on September 25, 2006

No matter what, you're not going to get any new or interesting information out of Kerry. From a practical basis, I'd guess that your best chance of doing something patriotic through this is to try to get the dems another vote or two in November. To that end, you might just want to ask a complete softball question that lets Kerry seem likable. Something like, "Senator Kerry, between the war, our long term budget problems, stagnant wages and rising competition from India and China, there's been a lot of news in recent years to make Americans pessimistic about the country's long term future. Can you give me some reasons to believe that the country's best days are still ahead?" Spouting some patriotic nonsense might tug at some silly GOP moderate's heartstrings and make him more sympathetic to the Dems.
posted by gsteff at 9:13 PM on September 25, 2006

When is this gonna air? I want to watch for it.
posted by hodyoaten at 9:13 PM on September 25, 2006

Senator, you were the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, largely because you were considered the Democrat most likely to win. At the end of the 2004 Presidential race, you had 10 to 15 million dollars left over, unspent. Despite many questions about the legitimacy of the vote in Ohio and the Democratic voters forced to stand in line for hours to vote, you conceded the race the morning after Election Day.

If you plan to run for the Democratic nomination in 2008, how can you convince Democratic primary voters and the American public that this time you'll have the plan and the will and the tenacity to win?
posted by orthogonality at 9:14 PM on September 25, 2006

"... I want to know who Senators are meeting with. Who's paying for lunch, if you will."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:55 PM EST on September 25 [+fave] [!]

He's a committee member of Foreign Relations, which is notably a non-public agenda item. Good luck with that Punch Clock thing... Wanna 'nother suggestion?
posted by paulsc at 9:21 PM on September 25, 2006

Response by poster: How about this:



Senator Kerry, in President Clinton's 2000 state of the union address, he said, "…the state of the union is stronger than it has ever been." Now, 6 years later, the opposite might hold true. My question is this, given the sorry state of the nation vis-à-vis the seemingly perpetual war in Iraq, massive debts and a looming budget crisis: Strategically speaking, is it in the best interest of a Democratic candidate to win in 2008?
posted by jne1813 at 9:26 PM on September 25, 2006

According to CSPAN's Schedule, this is going to be a distance learning forum with students from the University of Denver, Pace University in New York City, and George Mason University.

3:30pm - CSPAN-3. Be there, or be square.
posted by icosahedral at 9:26 PM on September 25, 2006

(3:30PM EDT.)
posted by icosahedral at 9:28 PM on September 25, 2006

What will it take for politicians to be real people again?

Will you lead the way, pause, and tell me what you think, think-think, at night when you're falling asleep and debriefing the day, pundits be damned?
posted by whimsicalnymph at 9:42 PM on September 25, 2006

Similar to the Iran question by jellicle, but more directed at Kerry's own actions, how about something like:

"What will you do if President Bush attempts to get authorization to attack Iran or attacks Iran without authorization from Congress?"

or maybe more direct:

"Will you support an attack on Iran as is being considered?"

I.e. attempt to make him say he would or wouldn't support an attack on Iran. Kerry probably doesn't know if Bush will try to attack Iran, but he probably does have some idea how he will respond.
posted by R343L at 9:54 PM on September 25, 2006

orthogonality writes "If you plan to run for the Democratic nomination in 2008, how can you convince Democratic primary voters and the American public that this time you'll have the plan and the will and the tenacity to win?"

That's how I'd phrase it for jne1813 to ask. This is how I'd phrase it if I were asking:

Senator, in 2004 I gave up my rent-controlled apartment, put alll my stuff in storage, and lugged my personal computer to Ohio to volunteer for a month at the Ohio Coordinated Campaign. Because Secretary of State Ken Blackwell refused to allow voters at the wrong polling place to cast provisonal ballots, I spent a large part of that time putting together databses of voters and their correct polling places, laboriously converting them from Board of Election data. I did this in part because the campaign's official vendor's database, rented at considerable cost, hadn't been updated with the voter's new polling places.

Although I spent 12 and 16 and 18 hours days working on it, in the time we had, we could put together correct polling places only for Ohio's 10 most populous counties. On Election Day, phone banks at the Coordinated Campign headquarters and in those ten counties used those databses to direct perhaps thousands of voters to the correct polling place so they could cast their vote for you.

For a small small fraction of the 10 or 15 million dollars you had left over after the election, we could have put together the correct polling locations for all 88 Ohio counties -- and for Florida. But we didn't have the manpower or the machines to do that. I put together the databases; another volunteer telecommunting Alabama put togther the custom look-up software. We were both hard at it up to the night before Election Day.

Another volunteer owned a GIS mapping firm (later sold to Microsoft). He brought a brand new laptop for himself and another to give to anyone who needed it. He spent hours on the hone with programmers at his firm, in order to print up precinct walk maps for Election Day, in full color and as or more detailled than Google maps, and contributed thousands out of his own pocket to the State party to pay for them to be printed and distributed.

Six months prior, he'd gone to the DNC and offered to do that for every Democratic precinct in the nation. The DNC turned him down. For a small portion of the 10 or 15 million you had left over, we could have done that across the country.

Two other volunteers from other GIS firms helped us. One of them had traveled from Alabama and, in begween generating maps, he slept on the Coordinated Campaign floor or in his truck, because he couldn't afford a hotel. For a miniscule fraction of the 10 or 15 million you had left over, we could have gotten him a hotel room, or better yet, a faster computer.

The other, despite his mutiple ailments drove down from Boston. His Republican friends in the GIS industry confided in him that the Republicans far out-classed us in mapping technology and technology in general. But it was we who had 10 or 15 milion unpent at the end of the race.

So many of came and volunterred and gave all we could. None of us wanted to be paid, Senator. All we wanted was for you to win. To win for us. But for a few thousand dollars for faster computers, for printers, for more manpower -- dollars left unspent -- we could have done so much more.


Senator, you were the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, largely because you were considered the Democrat most likely to win. At the end of the 2004 Presidential race, you had 10 to 15 million dollars left over, unspent. Despite many questions about the legitimacy of the vote in Ohio and the Democratic voters forced to stand in line for hours to vote, you conceded the race the morning after Election Day.

If you plan to run for the Democratic nomination in 2008, how can you convince Democratic primary voters and the American public that this time you'll have the plan and the will and the tenacity to win?
posted by orthogonality at 9:56 PM on September 25, 2006 [4 favorites]

Why not forget the big stuff.. Ask about Net neutrality, or the digital divide. Find a Chomsky-esque stat about Americans being in favour of public health care, throw the fact that Canadians pay half per capita on medical care, and ask him why he doesn't support it..

Or, stick with the big stuff - and this is a weird one considering what's happened in the last 5 years - you might try Amy Goodman's classic.

What do you say to people who feel that the two parties are bought by corporations, and that they are ... at this point feel that their vote doesn't make a difference?

You might even be able to throw the whole Florida/Ohio thing in the middle..

"Some would say the Democrats didn't fight to make every vote count in Florida and Ohio, and many say that both parties are bought by corporations anyway, what do you say to people who at this point feel that their vote doesn't make a difference?"

I like paulsc's too.. But, I dunno, your odds of catching him out are pretty slim.
posted by Chuckles at 9:56 PM on September 25, 2006

"Is it in our national interest to have a viable third party in Washington?"
posted by Chuckles at 10:00 PM on September 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

"How about this: ..."
posted by jne1813 at 12:26 AM EST on September 26 [+fave] [!]

It's your question, jne1813, not mine. I'd ask about getting out of Iraq, if it were mine. But what jellicle said is way true:

"The best questions are extremely short. Long questions give the target time to prepare an answer, and they give him the chance to answer only the part of the question that he likes the best.

So if you can, ask a question which requires no setup. ..."

As a former broadcaster, I'll tell you that there are other reasons to keep your question short and simple.

1) Your question is going to be heard over a phone line, by a TV audience, that needs to understand it, to want to hear the answer. Short and sweet keeps 59 year old ladies who vote in Des Moines and Portsmouth interested.

2) A long question transfers the sympathy of the audience from the questioner to the questioned. If you need more than 7 seconds to ask your question, most people are going to be sympathetic to any response the person you're questioning gives, because they themselves have had to work to remember and understand your question, as much as the person you are asking has. Practically, if it takes more than 5 or 6 seconds to ask a question of a public figure, you're sabotaging yourself.

3) A "set up" question telegraphs the answer you hope for to the person you are questioning. Do you want to know what he thinks, or do you want him to validate what you think?

4) CSPAN is sometimes pretty good about followups, but you can't count on getting any yourself, and you might be switched away by a producer immediately after you ask your question. So, any followups to anything that Kerry may say "off the cuff" could depend on the anchor's willingness to put a followup, based on your initial question. Again, a short, pithy question from you is best, if this is what happens.

But, it's your question, jne1813. You ask what you want. I'm grateful to have had a chance to bat it around with you.
posted by paulsc at 10:06 PM on September 25, 2006 [4 favorites]

Woah. Changing my vote to Orthogonality's. Pity they'd cut you off after the second paragraph.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:19 PM on September 25, 2006

How can future candidates avoid being "swiftboated?"
posted by Afroblanco at 10:29 PM on September 25, 2006

Keeping it short is probably your primary concern. Why do Democrats act like deer in the headlights in abject analysis whenever the Republicans break out a talking point that has no basis in reality. Where is the ability to refute the lie and get the Mainstream Media to report what the Democrats are about? Good night and Good Luck.
posted by ptm at 11:03 PM on September 25, 2006

A war and a bottle of ketchup together cost a trillion and three dollars. The war costs a trillion dollars more than the ketchup. What is the cost of each?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:53 PM on September 25, 2006

What non-Iraq issues will the Democrats be pushing to take back the House in November?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:31 AM on September 26, 2006

Yes, keep the question short, no more than ten or fifteen words, and no two-parters.

"Has America lost the moral authority to act as the world's superpower?"

"Why should Americans expect to see a diplomatic solution to the standoff in Iran, given the history of our involvement with the Iranian government?"

I like the "third party" question too. He wouldn't be expecting that one. Don't ask him something he's been asked a hundred times, like "what can we do about climate change?" or whatever else.
posted by Succa at 5:10 AM on September 26, 2006

What did you learn from the presidential race in 2004 that could give the upper hand to the Dems in 2008 and are you pushing the party to make that change?
posted by JJ86 at 6:01 AM on September 26, 2006

Please don't ask anything about the 2004 election -- including Ohio. I know some of your asses are permanantly chafed about that, but like it or not, it's history. (This holds true even if you are nominally bringing it up on the theory that Kerry will run in 2008 and "history could repeat itself.")

Here's what I'd like to hear his answer to: "Senator, many good people feel deeply alienated and disenfranchised by the actions of the current administration. Others continue to support it. The country seems to be more deeply divided than at any time in recent history. Can that divide be bridged? If so, should politicians even attempt to bridge that divide (through negotiation and compromise, for example), or have we reached a point where both 'sides' must remain single-mindedly focused on their own objectives and principles or risk losing to the other 'side'?"
posted by pardonyou? at 7:16 AM on September 26, 2006

Would you please consider not running in 2008? The last thing we need is yet another career politician in office. You did not have what it takes to win in 2004 so please stop trying. Your efforts to run again are only hurting the Democratic party's chance at winning in 2008.
posted by camworld at 11:21 AM on September 26, 2006

camworld, why would you imagine he would even think of running in 2008? The party would not nominate him to run again. You do realize how the entire process works, right?
posted by JJ86 at 12:23 PM on September 26, 2006

Senator, why the long face?
posted by gigawhat? at 2:25 PM on September 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

Senator,
Can you give me a good reason that the citizens of this country shouldn't be plotting an armed insurrection to overthrow their federal government?
posted by Megafly at 4:08 PM on September 26, 2006

So what did you ask?
posted by dilettante at 4:58 PM on September 26, 2006

Did anyone capture this somehow or have a link to a cspan3 archive?
posted by |n$eCur3 at 9:56 PM on September 26, 2006