We can imagine the U.S. presidential debates to contain questions like these:
- Do you consider the sense of global cooperation higher or lower than when you took office four years ago? Examples: Middle Eastern countries considering formation of their own Internet after U.S. insult of historical religious figure; China/Japan/Taiwan tension; European economic/political unrest; a war in Syria that threatens peace in Turkey, one of our friends; al Qaeda still strong enough to surprise a consulate and kill our own…
- You say you are for the people. Which people? For instance, were Wall Street banker bonuses smaller or larger after the bailout? Who has benefited the most during your term in office? Hasn’t it been the very same people you blame Bush for the recession? What has fundamentally changed?
- Reagan didn’t blame the economy on Jimmy Carter four years later. Why do you keep blaming your predecessor four years later? Doesn’t that mean you admit you don’t have the power base to make the fundamental changes this country needs other than plugging a few holes in a dam that’s still losing a lot of water on your watch four years later?
- How many more Solyndras do we need until we can see your administration’s track record on picking winners is no better than throwing darts in the dark?
- I am financially independent enough that I can make my own decisions. You are a pure politician who has not united our government, let alone the real world. Which one of us has the real global power to make the U.S. economically strong again?
- They say you’re a quick thinker. Okay, try this. A preacher, a rabbi, and an imam walk into a bar. Finish the joke, making sure a Buddhist priest says the punchline…
Having politicians to play with is like herding cats — open a can of food and watch ’em come running to eat, despite whatever else they thought they were doing that was important enough to pretend to ignore you.