I think they should. For example, I'd like to know what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman Sachs, in exchange for their $000,000 tax-deductible political "donation".
Romney's comment about "the 47%" may never have been a campaign-killer....until it was caught on tape.
Should is an awfully vague word here (coming from you, that is not a surprise). Should from who's perspective? What set of values and interests are we talking about for hearing every word that comes out of a candidates mouth?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And how far does it go. Do you think they should also share transcripts from strategizing sessions? What is it you're looking for, their frank and unguarded thoughts or just something to trip them up with and find cause to dislike them?
The comment by Romney hurt but if it was never taped I still don't think he would have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I gotta admit that might be pretty hilarious if it were implemented in some bizarre parallel universe :o
Hearing their frank and unguarded thoughts would be interesting :pQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Referring directly to Clinton, she shouldn't be required to produce them, just like she shouldn't to allowed to use her sex to claim she isn't part of the establishment (and thus problem).
Although I'd love to see how she combines 2 hours of words to make them worth a quarter of a million dollars. Especially for the banking industry so many people how come to distrust.
A politician should care about this from voters' perspective, and should want to share transcripts from paid speeches -- especially speeches made to banking/finance groups in the post financial meltdown/bail-out era. The same applies to any speeches made to BP after the Gulf oil disaster, too. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The "values and interests" are whether the candidates are consistent and honest, or if they say one thing to the public (to get their vote) but something else to big donors (to get their money). Politicians care about their image, and usually go to great lengths to dispel mistrust or any appearance of conflict-of-interest.....so yeah, they should make their speech transcripts public.
I'm looking for a way to make the "dark" money of campaign financing more transparent. Why shouldn't we know what candidates say to powerful groups that influence policy? Why is the public 'allowed' to know how much they were paid for that speech, but not what they said? :confused:Quote:
And how far does it go. Do you think they should also share transcripts from strategizing sessions? What is it you're looking for, their frank and unguarded thoughts or just something to trip them up with and find cause to dislike them?
Why? How does it help getting them elected? It seems to me that a politician would want as much compartmentalization as they could get. If there was some way to ensure that each voter or pandered group only received information tailored to them it would make the politician ecstatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You may get a more consistent message if you got to hear everything and the candidates knew it, it does not follow that you would get something that's more honest. Of course they say different things to different people. All this accomplishes is making the real communication even less transparent.Quote:
The "values and interests" are whether the candidates are consistent and honest, or if they say one thing to the public (to get their vote) but something else to big donors (to get their money).