The Blog @ Spolitics » Questions We’d Like Answered

A Question for Chuck Schumer: Are You Incompetant Or Did You Do It Deliberately?

Heywood U. Reedmore — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:03:56 +0000

Senator Schumer, you allegedly sought to prevent IndyMac Bank from failing by publicly suggesting it might fail. Of course, as a result of your actions, the bank failed and you don’t seem too concerned about it. It’s hard to believe you are so naive that you didn’t understand the ramifications your actions would have. So, the question is: Are You Incompetant or did you do it deliberately? And if so, why? An investigation is in order.

A Question for Congressional Democrats on Oil Exploration

Heywood U. Reedmore — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:07:29 +0000

Congressional Democrats, you’re advocating “Use It or Lose It” legislation to address the fact that oil companies have leases where they are not drilling. In California, every single one of the undeveloped leases is tied up with lawsuits. Will fighting lawsuits count as “using it”? Or will that require you to own up to the obstructionism that got us here in the first place?

A Question for Americans Regarding Gas Prices

Heywood U. Reedmore — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:10:49 +0000

It’s hard to take the populist anger about high gas prices seriously. After all, prices began rising sharply in 2000. It’s been eight years and still, many Americans (and Democrats in particular) are opposed to oil exploration and drilling in our own territory, building more refineries and building nuclear power plants – even windfarms (yes, I’m talking to you Ted Kennedy) – to supplement our energy needs. Is $4-a-gallon gas finally high enough to override NIMBY? If not, why are people complaining? We’re simply living with the choices we’ve made.

A Question for Obama on National Unity

Heywood U. Reedmore — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:42:36 +0000

Senator, according to a Gallup poll last month, 28% of Clinton supporters are so bitter over this nomination race they would rather cross party lines in November and vote for McCain than vote for you. As your supporters try to force Clinton out of the race, this cut only seems to be getting deeper. How can voters take seriously your promise to unite the country when you cannot even unite your own party?

A Question for Howard Dean: When Do Rules Matter?

Heywood U. Reedmore — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:56:54 +0000

Mr. Dean, in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state of Florida to change the rules in the middle of an election. You’ve often referred to that as a “stolen” election, promoting the belief that the Supreme Court should have allowed the rule change — even if it was going to lead to an unconstitutional application of the rules to some voters but not others via selective recounts. Now, here you are facing a similar decision on whether or not to change the rules and allow the Florida and Michigan primaries to count. Hillary has said recently that the race for the Democrat nomination will not be settled until that issue is resolved. So the question is, what’s different this time? Why aren’t you willing to change the rules and let those votes be counted? Why do the rules matter to you now when they didn’t matter to you in 2000?

The Ayers Question for Obama

Heywood U. Reedmore — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:57:01 +0000

Senator, when you started your political career in Chicago you picked two unrepentant terrorists to host your coming out party, Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn. Yes, you were just a kid when they declared war on the United States, bombed the Pentagon, the Capital and other buildings — as you pointed out in the last debate by way of trivializing their actions. But you were an adult when Dohrn served time for refusing to testify in a criminal trial. You were over forty when Ayers said he didn’t regret his terrorist acts and that his only regret was he didn’t bomb more. You were over 40 when Ayers wrote a book so he could idealize and glory in his criminal past and profit off of those acts of terrorism. So the question is, why doesn’t it bother you that Ayers has never renounced his terrorist past? Doesn’t that say something about his character, his values? Doesn’t your acceptance of him say something about yours? After all, why did you go to two unrepentant terrorists to help you launch your political career?

A Question for Hillary Clinton: What Accomplishments?

Heywood U. Reedmore — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:57:13 +0000

Throughout your campaign, Senator, you’ve been citing your record as proof that you’re “ready to lead on day one.” But the two biggest examples of your executive leadership — your healthcare reform initiative in the early 90’s and your current campaign — are hardly confidence inspiring. Your push to nationalize healthcare was a disaster; you were so secretive and belligerent that even your own party turned against you and the effort collapsed. Your failure was so spectacular that it ended your “two-for-the-price-of-one” presidency and derailed healthcare reform for decades. The second example of your leadership is your campaign, a portrait of chaos and — backroom deals notwithstanding — another failure. So the question is, Senator, when have you ever demonstrated you can lead any large enterprise, much less our federal government? If you’re promising to run our country the way you ran your healthcare reform effort or the way you’re running your campaign, no thanks.

A Question for Global Warming Activists

Heywood U. Reedmore — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:22:07 +0000

If the science behind global warming is settled and the debate over, why are we still spending billions of dollars each year stuyding it? Would you support redirecting all of those funds into reseach and development for alternative technologies?

A Question for Barack Obama

Heywood U. Reedmore — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:52:32 +0000

Ron Brownstein made a great point regarding Obama’s shallow comments about the way rural, white Pennsylvanians choose their candidates (via Hot Air):

The irony of Barack Obama’s “bitter” comments is that he was lamenting the failure of white working-class people to vote their “class interests” before an audience of affluent San Francisco Democrats doing exactly the same thing.

So the logical question for Senator Obama is: Are Warren Buffett and Oprah Winfrey ignoring their own financial interests and supporting you because they are bitter and clinging to liberal policies of wealth redistribution and socialist government programs?

Something tells me Senator Obama wouldn’t be so crass about their reasons for picking a candidate as to subscribe them to bitterness. He’d likely give them credit for putting financial motives aside and voting for issues that were more important to them; voting for the kind of country they wanted America to be. As opposed to “bitter” he’d likely call them “enlightened.”

So why was he so thoughtless and dismissive towards the issues that matter to rural, white Pennsylvanians? Why wasn’t he willing to give them the same benefit of the doubt? Or are principled stands only allowed for those who can easily afford them? And he wonders why people accuse him of being elitist.