Tweet
I think this is a brilliant idea, since our current relationship with our elected officials about the issues has devolved into a lack of accountability, with spinning and posturing and sound bites the norm. Constituent services has turned into a PR form letter generator.
It’s time that these elected officials let the people see them answering questions about policy and legislation without all of the hired guns behind the curtain — aides, consultants and pollsters ready to coach them on dodging a direct answer. We’ll be able to see who the empty suits are on the Hill, and perhaps break through some of these legislative logjams.
We live in a world that increasingly demands more dialogue than monologue. President Obama’s January 29th question-and-answer session with Republican leaders gave the public a remarkable window into the state of our union and governing process. It was riveting and educational. The exchanges were substantive, civil and candid. And in a rare break from our modern politics, sharp differences between elected leaders were on full public display without rancor or ridicule.
This was one of the best national political debates in many years. Citizens who watched the event were impressed, by many accounts. Journalists and commentators immediately responded by continuing the conversation of the ideas put forward by the president and his opponents – even the cable news cycle was disrupted for a day.
America could use more of this – an unfettered and public airing of political differences by our elected representatives. So we call on President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader John Boehner to hold these sessions regularly – and allow them to be broadcast and webcast live and without commercial interruption, sponsorship or intermediaries. We also urge the President and the Republican Senate caucus to follow suit. And we ask the President and the House and Senate caucuses of his own party to consider mounting similar direct question-and-answer sessions. We will ask future Presidents and Congresses to do the same.
It is time to make Question Time a regular feature of our democracy.
Please join us by signing the Demand Question Time petition.
And this is not just progressives calling for QT. Leading this effort are folks like David Corn, Nate Silver of 538, Markos Moulitsas of DKos and on the other side of the fence — Grover Norquist, Glenn Reynolds, and Brent Bozell III.
You can follow Question Time on Twitter (#QuestionTime)
9 Comments
What a good idea!
Small Reformscan make a world of difference.
It’s much harder to demonize someone when they’re present, prepared, and taking your questions.
Perhaps this might contribute to actual–Dare I say it? Yes, yes, I dare!–PROGRESS.
Where this would end up… Well, first there would have to be a Commission on Presidential Question Time, to discuss matters of format, decorum, protocol…. Then, of course, there’s the matter of getting agreement from both sides. And in most situations, one side or the other is going to have a strong incentive NOT to cooperate. (After the shellacking they got this time around, does anyone expect the GOP to allow cameras ever again, even if they DO invite Obama back?)
It wouldn’t have to be hugely complicated. The GOP could ask the president back. When the GOP has the White House back (and sooner or later, they will), the Democrats can invite the President over. But in practice, one side or the other will determine it’s not in their interest to cooperate, and an excuse not to can always be found. And given the inherent unpredictability of the format, I fully expect both sides to quietly collude in seeing to it that the idea goes nowhere.
Yes, the British have had this for decades, and yes, sometimes it’s an excuse for grandstanding, oneliners that are hilarious but never address the actual question, and all the rest. But it’s also an exercise in accountability, which is precisely why I don’t expect it to be adopted anytime soon. I would love to be proven wrong on this, and if events demonstrate I’m just being a cynical old coot, I’ll happily cop to it.
That suggestion is as pertinent and relevant as anything taught in Civics 101 – that is to say, not at all. Politicians are practiced liars.
Contrast that lie with the facts. Obama wanted the bigot vote and began with a bigot named Donnie McClurkin and ended with an ewually rancid bigot named Rick Warren. He got a big share of the bigot vote.
He continues the occupation of Iraq and he and Clinton do nothing to stop the mass murder of our GLBT brothers and sisters by US trained and armed police, militias and military forces.
He bickers with the Democratic (sic) Congressional misleadership about who should take the lead in passing ENDA and repealing DOMA. They blame each other and Barney blames us.
As it becomes clear that the AfPak war’s going to be a long drawn out affair with heavy causalities he’s calling for an end to DADT to get more cannon fodder.
He surrounds himself with bigots and apparently pays attention to them. He continued and enlarged the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and put it under the control Joshua Dubois, an ordained Pentecostal bigot who task it is to use federal largesse to bribe pulpit pimps. He refuses to dismiss Leah Daughtry, an anti-choice anti-LGBT ordained Pentecostal minister who runs the DNC or her titular boss, a bigot named Tim Kaine. After attacking and dismissing Jeremiah Wright for his nationalist and progressive approach he appointed his own board spirit advisors, two of whom also advised Bush on how to be a bigot.
The Obama administration always defends Clinton’s DOMA against legal challenges saying that LGBT partnerships are akin to incest and pedophilia. He continues to stridently oppose same sex marriage and some GLBT ‘leaders’ agree with him to the extent that they oppose the fight to defend or extend SSM rights. They say that we can’t win on SSM, forgetting that it was Obama who torpedoed the fight against Prop 8 with “gawd’s in the mix”.
If you ask him, or any other Democrat or Republican leader, about their bigotry they’ll just lie.
What’s the point?
Parliament vs. LegislatureI think the problem with this suggestion is that the Brits have a parliament, and we don’t. If I’m not mistaken, the British PM is elected by the majority party in the Parliament, and thus answers to the parliament, so they have every right to call him in to answer questions. In the US the powers are separate; the president isn’t elected by the legislative branch, but by (representatives of) the citizenry.
I like this ideabut considering that we have a legislature as opposed to a parliament, I think this should be done on a quarterly basis
(March, June, September, December). This is a good way that Obama can, in small part, fulfill his promise to make government more transparent.
Now I am not saying that every President should do it or that Congress should pass a law for a mandatory question time (would that be constitutional?). But this is one of the more innovative ideas of the Obama Administration and it works well for him, as it can work for future Presidents and even Congressional leaders.
This WAS John McCain’s idea
I wouldn’t even be surprised if McCain suggested this to Obama on the QT.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com…
This is a fantastic ideaand one that I’ve supporter for a long time….but I don’t think it would ever happen. The GOP has every incentive to ensure that it never happens. The only way they would support this is if they knew the questions in advance.
The fact is that Obama’s session worked because the GOP started buying into their own hype that the man is a “teleprompter genius” and that their talking points about him and his policies were correct. They momentarily forgot that the man is a Constitutional scholar and a teacher….thus well versed in dealing with BS.
I think that with the HOC Question Timesome (but not all) of the questions are submitted to 10 Downing Street in advance.
Speaking of the GOP, I wonder what John McCain thinks about this. Someone should ask him.