Deception in Presidential candidate speeches and answers

**Michael Vass is also a writer for Presidential Race Blog**

So what might be more troubling, a politician that won’t answer questions they are asked or a politician that sets up the questions they do chose to answer? And what does it mean if both come from the same politician?

This is not a new type of question. For a long time politicians have been viewed in a suspect manner. Allegations of being 2-faced, or in the pocket of this or that special interest group is not a new thing. But they are important when a politician is running for office, and severely moreso when that politician is running for the Presidency of the United States.

I don’t think I need to mention any names of politicians that might be accused of the above actions. The media has done a decent job of bringing that to light. Instead I will ask the general question, what does this mean?

How many candidates have done this? In an era of soundbite politics, where 30 second answers to issues that have plagued the nation for years is common, is it wrong for a politician to seed the questions they receive? I would say it is. This is despicable. One major reason is that it stifles open questioning one issues that a particular voter actually has, phrased in a manner that they feel it. I mean to say where to you stand on say the war in Iraq is different than saying for and against the war in Iraq. Or perhaps having them say something like

“As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”

Not only that, where are these questions coming from? Is some poll saying focus on this because it’s an area you are strong on, and avoid that where you are weak? Well when a President is in office, all issues must be dealt with. Hostilities from foreign nations (or groups of people), internal national issues, and international economic issues all must be dealt with, and regardless of polls must be dealt with in the best possible manner for the nation. You can’t duck an issue because you don’t poll well.

Do we even want a candidate to be elected that cannot deal with a citizen asking a question they don’t know in advance? If such a candidate is afraid of a potentially embarrassing or difficult question how might they react to hostility from the various individuals that hate America?

And if a candidate is willing to deceive the public, just to improve their chances of being elected to the highest office of the nation, what will they do once elected? Would they manipulate the press? Would they deceive the nation to their own personal end? Can anyone be sure that such a candidate would do anything that was actually in the best interest of the nation? How would you know?

There is too much that rides on the next President. Immigration, terrorism, the economy, and so much more. These are issues that will not end with a 4 year term of office. They will exist with ramifications for a decade or more. Given that, anyone that wishes to be President must be held to the highest standards. And they must answer all questions posed to them, without influence on where that question comes from or what is asked. Anything else is pandering and manipulation to engender cheap votes, and potentially against the best interest of the nation.