Politico offers some "hard questions" that might conceivably be asked. But the questions, as phrased chez Politico, all sound softened to me. If they're soft on paper under a link-begging headline about hardness, how can we hope for any toughness face-to-face with the President who's been withholding press conferences for 8 months?
Here are the Petraeus-related questions:
Do you believe the FBI should have told you and Congress sooner about the investigation that led Gen. Petraeus to resign?Easy: yes, yes, no. Add a few mushy words and you're done. Instapundit notes that Question 1 "lets Obama off the hook by pretending to believe that he didn’t know anything about Petraeus until after the election, which is quite implausible." It's like the old "When did you stop beating your wife?" question, assuming a fact not yet proved, but the assumed fact is helpful to the witness. The witness is in no danger of getting tripped up, letting the negative assumption go. He'll notice the positive assumption, silently celebrate, and proceed to answer the question asked.
Do you worry about a culture in which trusted officials behave badly?
Does this administration consider anyone who’s having an extramarital affair, or has had one in the past, to be unfit for public office?
0 comments:
Post a Comment