Presidential Debates: Time for tougher questions & stronger moderators

I’ve always found it humorous on how politicians are subjective about how or when the Government should intrude in our lives and the Media never calls them on it.

For example, Republicans and the Con-Talkers love to use First Lady Michelle Obama’s childhood obesity battle as a battle cry over Democrats wanting to tell us what to eat & drink or how much to exercise yet forget the history of the Presidential Fitness regime under Eisenhower or the Food Pyramid.

Since they’ve been campaigning, the GOP candidates have been dragging “Obamacare” through the coals. We’ve been told that “Obamacare” will limit one’s Health care choices and that Government shouldn’t be telling us how we should be caring for ourselves.

Yet, it amazes me when the topic comes to Abortion, their tune changes.

And this is not just the candidates nor the useless bunch in Congress, but it stretches across to States legislature as well

As of Jan 1, 2012, there were over 92 new Abortion restrictive legislation enacted, with more waiting to be voted upon.

I have yet to see one Moderator actually challenge, I mean truly challenge the candidates on their answers.

Sure they politely ask “Could you elaborate more?” but that’s playing nice so the Con-Talkers or candidates won’t cry foul afterwards.

With all the new Pro-Life/Abortion laws being enacted across the States, I want a heartfelt “Willie Horton” moment. (If you don’t know the Willie Horton scenario, please Google)

Democrats and the “liberal” Media are too weak to provide a simple assault on how the Republicans try to control our lives as well, more control over what we do to our bodies. And this goes towards all the Federal and State legislation over Abortion

Abortion is a touchy subject for anyone to discuss. Abortion is a woman issue, not a man’s issue. Think about it, who are we, as man, to tell a woman whether or not she can/cannot have an abortion?

There is no grey area out there, you cannot be a Pro-Life person and say “well it’s ok to have an abortion if rape, incest, or mothers life is in danger.” Then you’re not Pro-Life, you are about Choice.

So I challenge anyone in the Media, whether it’s the local reporter to bigwig talk show host, ask the candidates "how would you react if your 12 year old daughter were raped by an AIDES-stricken pedophile and became pregnant, the baby has a 0.01% of survival and your daughter could possibly die during birth?"

What’s your reaction, stick with your beliefs or authorize an abortion?

I know this sounds harsh or very extreme, but I want a true answer from the candidates, not the usual rhetorical campaign answer.

Put them on the spot.

Make them answer, because I can guarantee their answer will change against the fetus and for the life of their daughter.

And if they answer that their belief is no abortion, no matter, then the Media can ponder for weeks to fill time gaps and wonder if the question was "Willie Horton-esque 2012."

And you, the constituents, why do you feel it is ok for Government to be involved in one’s life one way but not another? You decry daily about too much Government involvement in our lives right now, why is this any different?

Or are you picking and choosing on how Government should be involved in one’s life? Rather hypocritical when it comes down to actual involvement.

Currently there is Republican legislation that can fine a Health Insurance provider for providing Abortion coverage. Now think about, if you pay for Health Insurance through your company (that's your money) and the Government is going to say what type of coverage you can have, is that not exactly what Republicans are crying about with "Obamacare?"

Then should we not have an al-a-carte Health insurance provision instead?

Hell, I'd rather have al-a-carte cable then al-a-carte health insurance.

No you don’t want “Obamacare” to tell you who/what/how about health insurance, yet you say you want Government’s involvement on who/what/how a woman's life should be handled.

So I dare any moderator, better yet, get tougher moderators too ask the questions.

I say rid the debates of the catered moderators of Diane Sawyer, John King and so on. I want one debate, with tougher moderators.

I'm not talking about some radical talk show host, but why not place Joe Scaroborough with Bill O'Reilly? These two push, ok bully, the guests to answer the question.

Don't you want to see a candidate, including the President, truthfully answer a question without rhetoric?

Asking cutesy questions like "if you weren't here on a Saturday night what would you be doing?" Seriously, why not ask them "If you were a Spring flower, what type you be and what National Park would you grow?"

Augh! The Guinness Stout bottle is "Tebowing" in front of the empty peanut bowl. Time to pay your political tab