I’m updating and republishing this post from yesterday, to be sure we give all potential contributors ample opportunity to participate in Step #1 of the exercise described below.
As you can see in the comments section, we’ve already received a rather impressive set of suggestions from various TMV readers and authors, and we hope others will take this opportunity to contribute. Going into the weekend, we’ll edit the list then publish it early next week (so everyone knows the final set of questions we’re deploying) … and then we’ll get about the business outlined in Step #2.
Please take a moment to add your voices to the chorus.
In my post Monday on Saving the GOP, I wrote that, “I am sick and tired and more-than-a-shade furious about the debates that are distracting the party’s attention from governance issues.� I then turned around and focused on one of those distracting debates rather than tackling the more substantive governance issues that I accused the party of short-changing.
One reader, Sam, called me on this hypocrisy in the comments section, and rightly so. Next, he added a plea to all TMV contributors: “How about we get some blog posts up here about actual governance issues to comment on? One of the things I like about TMV is that folks usually do a much better job looking into issues than I would on my own. Not only that but you guys often bring up topics that I would not have seen or heard about normally. But lately its been kinda a rehash of many of the same. I think some articles about fresh topics, and also important topics, would be really nice.”
On the one hand, I think Sam’s point may be a smidge too broad, too sweeping, to be entirely fair. Fact is, my colleagues and I do write write about substantive governance issues. (As but one example, check out some of Paul Silver’s recent posts.) Sure, we also write about other issues, some of which are substantive, some of which are merely responses to the news that’s reported elsewhere and/or the social zeitgeist. (In the latter category, consider Shaun Mullen’s recent post contrasting Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith, the title of which even prompted a chuckle from my wife). And all of that’s OK — it’s fair game; it’s as-advertised fodder for these pages.
However, the above-noted caveats notwithstanding, I thought there was some merit to Sam’s challenge; maybe we (I) could post more often on on fresh and important topics, especially governance-related topics.
And so, starting today, I want to take Sam up on his challenge, in three discrete steps.
1. Identify five critical, governance-related questions that, if we could, we’d ask each of the candidates vying for their respective party’s presidential nomination next year. (Here’s a starting point, with a conservative bent, though I’d ultimately prefer to go with a list culled from TMV readers’ and contributors’ suggestions.)
2. Put those questions to each of the candidates, either directly or via their campaign committees, Web sites or blogs — and ask for answers in return: namely, honest, substantive, and to-the-point answers (rather than this type of answer, with apologies to Senator Obama).
3. Publish those answers in one or more round-up articles here at TMV.
So, if you’re game, I look forward to your thoughts on the five critical questions in Step #1, and any suggestions you might have for advancing step #2. (I have some resources in the latter area, but could always use a more direct insider’s assistance, when and where available.) Plus, I’d like to invite my TMV colleagues to let me know if they’re interested in contributing to the round-up posts, once we have the Q&A completed. (I certainly can’t, nor do I want, to write all of those posts.)
And finally, here’s to Sam, for inspiring what I hope will be a worthwhile exercise for all concerned.