Here.

At a rally in a Staples somewhere in the South, Romney tells a flat-out lie and gets called on it by an AP reporter. After Romney ducks the reporter, one of his staffers takes the guy aside and berates him for "being argumentative for the candidate". Romney's brainless supporters then insult the reporter, with one of them (I think) saying she wants to slap the guy.

Poor guy tries to do his job and every brainless moron in the store jumps down his throat. Let's hear it for the gallant South!

---

The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.

He was being pretty brusque (the reporter), but it was probably good in this case - he managed to get Romney worked up (although he still didn't break through Romney's Smile Guard).

I loved that one woman at the end of the video who said he was "rude and ugly".

---

"Because ten billion years' time is so fragile, so ephemeral, it arouses such a bittersweet, almost heartbreaking fondness." -Now and Then, Here and There

"Do not presume to demand my respect, boy. I grew up before the Self-Esteem Generation, and in my day, respect was something you EARNED, not something you demanded. What have you done to earn anyone's respect?" -Darth Wong

Just for more context; this reporter covered Romney for the Boston Globe and AP throughout his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts, so they have a history of this sort of back and forth. Regardless, of whether this was personal of not, good on a reporter for finally questioning and challenging a politician instead of just parroting what they say.

You guys need Question Period so badly it's not funny. Your politicians are simply not accustomed to handling aggressive questions. They think that every question is merely an opportunity to spout off "talking points" and political platform bullshit, and they get pissed off when they're actually taken to task.

That's bugged me for years, but I didn't realize that other places actually made their politicians answer the questions.

"Ooh! A question that's actually reasonable. Let me talk about some topic that makes me look good and happens to be kinda, sorta, tangentially related to the original question but in fact doesn't come close to answering it."

---

"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."

In your country, you rely on the media to ask the tough questions, and their incentive to risk the ire of the administration in order to do so is ... well, I haven't heard a good answer to that one. In the British Commonwealth, we rely on the opposition party to ask the tough questions, and their incentive to risk the ire of the administration to do so is obvious. That's why you guys need Question Period.

The worst problem is not just that they never face hostile questions, but that they are accustomed to feeling superior to the people who do get to publicly ask them questions. After all, they're leaders and these people are just reporters: media scum for whom the politicians have some justification to feel contempt. This breeds a certain arrogance which, in turn, leads them to regard any reporter who presses the issue as "insolent". You can see the anger in Bush's face the moment any reporter fails to show the proper deference before His Majesty (I know this thread is about Romney in particular, but the problem is widespread).

Even with QP politicians get around it by just saying anything other than answering the question. Irritating as hell when an opposition MP asks a tough question but the minister that is supposed to answer just sidesteps it and just praises the government. Or the minister doesn't even bother to answer the question and gets either the deputy minister or the secretary to answer.

---

ASVS('97)/SDN('03)

Better than nothing. Question Period is on TV so, if the Minister answers or dodges the question, it's right there for everybody to see. If it's really bad, it makes the 6 o'clock news. Say what you want about parliamentary privilege, but unless the human race becomes ten times more intelligent and realizes the difference between fuck and fag, there needs to be a blanket rule and environment to let the opposition sling whatever they want. Question Period is it.

Of course if a MP really stood up and said fag it'd be declared unparliamentary language by the Speaker, but the point is MP can say almost whatever the fuck they want to the government without legal bullshit, and most importantly have a chance to make the government look stupid.

It's quite legal for the US press to do the same (thanks to SCOTUS and the NYT vs. Sullivan ruling), but to our everlasting shame, they don't have the cojones to call politicians on their bullshit.

---

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier

Oderint dum metuant

Indeed. The press could demand real answers, but they won't. The nice thing about forcing the sitting administration to answer questions from hostile politicians is that the people asking the questions have a powerful incentive to give the sitting administration a hard time. The press has no such incentive; their primary interest is in making money, not exposing the administration's flaws.

I'm not saying that QP is useless it is that questions are easily sidestepped. MPs know that it is being televised but they do know that voters are lazy and apathetic and will stick to the status quo unless something really bad happens.

---

ASVS('97)/SDN('03)

Obviously, Question Period cannot solve all of the problems of democracy. But a lack of Question Period can be a real problem itself, as demonstrated by the shock and anger displayed by Bush whenever someone dares ... DARES! to confront him on something.

It was a shock to me when I first found out taht your ones don't have to answer squat. Well it did answer a number of questions, but it was still a shock.

---

|ASVS-1999|

"Spyder's chest should be required viewing for all SDnet denizens. " - InnerBrat

True. You know what I'd loe to see happen in the U.S.? British style QP. I wonder how long it would take before it ends up in a taiwanese brawl.

---

ASVS('97)/SDN('03)

Uh, from where I sit, the Washington Post has been quite critical of the administration; do I have to point out to you the series they've been running about "Angler" aka Dick Cheney and his power accumulation?

That requires people to actually read uppity rags like "Washington Post" or "Newsweek".

Seeing politicians sweat and stammer and bullshit when confronted by hard questions, on TV, would be more enlightening.

Loinstar

---

Yeah sure, as long as "awesome" is some kind of Shroomy code-word for "fucking stupid". - DW
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZook

Indeed. Investigative reporting by the press is one thing, but most people don't get their news from printed materials anymore, and besides, those reports don't ask tough questions to politicians. They dig up dirt and pull skeletons out of the closet, which is good media oversight no doubt, but having the White House Press Corps actually interrogate the President, and challenge the outrageous claims he regularly makes would be a far more effective oversight method.

In Britain, it's called Question [/i]Time. And it's not just quite effective, but tremendous fun. Pretty much every major department (and the PM, of course) has to go through it at least fortnightly.

---

"what huge and loathsome abnormality was the Sphinx originally carven to represent? Accursed is the sight, be it in dream or not, that revealed to me the supreme horror - the Unknown God of the Dead, which licks its colossal chops in the unsuspected abyss, fed hideous morsels by soulless absurdities that should not exist" - Harry Houdini "Under the Pyramids"

"The goal of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions" - John Ruskin, "Stones of Venice"

Yes, all of which only took them 6 and a half years to generate. The Post, and a host of other organizations, CAN be good at ferreting out opinions and power struggles behind the scene. From a historical perspective they can and do serve to inform folks of the real narrative. The problme is the are all but completely incapable of addressing issues AS THEY OCCUR. The real problem in American politics is that politicians can and do dodge questions until its too late to actually inform the electorate. Its all well and good that the Post can ferret out the manuevering Cheney pulled after 9/11. The problme is they hadn't done it and they did not hold the administration accountable for it in the run up to the 2004 elections.

---

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

Yeah, it's totally strange how the press becomes much bolder when the population gets tired of the administration and its war, so it is more profitable to attack them openly.