The basic forum topic has to do with our so-called 'Free Press', not the validity of yes/no questions. I got sidetracked in my earlier response today (5/31/09).

I support the concept of a free press (1st Ammendment) completely. Yet today, how can anyone seriously consider our mass media a 'free press' ? They constantly lie by omission, which in the last few decades has served to swing national and local elections.

On most campuses, the 'journalism' department ranks at the bottom of all the colleges in IQ - even below teachers. Most 'journalists' have great difficulty with numbers - especially those greater than about 1000 - so they are unable to even understand debate about budgets and deficits. Of course, there are exceptions, but that is what they are - exceptions.

In a previous life I was good friends with the head of the College of Journalism at a very large university on the west coast. We talked about everything and shared many nonpolitical opinions. Yet this gentleman could not grasp the idea that the main-stream media is grossly prejudiced toward the left, a fact embraced overwhelmingly today by most Americans.

I believe we have a 'free press', more or less, in the intent of the Constitution's First Ammendment. However, to say that they are performing the useful function intended - providing the truth and informing the public - is laughable.

Our 'free press' is about as good as the local Union news, combined with a hollywood gossip sheet.

Yet, what can be done? Obviously the unconstitutional 'fairness doctrine' is just that - unconstitutional. The same can be said of the insidious moves ongoing by the Obama drones in pushing the FCC to examine 'funding' of radio stations - and obvious attempt to silence conservatives. This is a fascist move, if there ever was one.

After the Vietnam War, General Westmoreland filed a lawsuit against one of the major networks for grossly distorting casualty figures. Anyone who served in Vietnam knows the American press was so virulently anti-American as to be virtual spokesmen for the VC. General Westmoreland's basic contention was that the network was intentionally falsifying accounts - in other words, lying to the American People about an important topic. The court's response ? "News media are not required to tell the truth" (paraphrased).

BTW, this was a libel suit, for which the truth standard would normally be expected to apply.

In this environment, what does 'support a completely free press' mean, exactly ? We cannot 'support a completely free press' by promulgating regulations. 'Ordering them' to 'tell the truth' would be tantamount to another kind of unconstitutional 'fairness doctrine'.

Yet what we have is nothing but a childish propaganda machine, corruptly funded by those who do not wish America well, or who are too ignorant to know the difference.

I want all questions to be 'Yes/No' - every one. But how do we fix this one?

Or am I being unreasonable?

John R. Chaffer / Bozeman

Hey Tim,

Looks like quite a few posters on here have not read The Book (yours).

The purpose of the yes/no questions is to prevent precisely the 'waffling' that is supported in some posts on here. If a candidate can write an 'essay', or have a graduated response, the whole thing is a meaningless addition to the already meaningless process.

Who wants to give candidates yet another chance to submit carefully worded phony advertisements that actually commit to *nothing* ? - A waste of time, questionaire space, and words.

I say make ALL the responses Yes/No. Anyone who will not answer ALL questions in that fashion is OUT.

That is part of the POINT folks.

John R. Chaffer / Bozeman

There are approximately 660,000 people per district, and we expect 1,000 or more to participate. GOOOH will not make a run until we have at a minimum hundreds, but ideally thousands, of participants per district - we will not be able to on the ballot or raise the needed funds until we do.

It may sound tough, but it is achievable. In time, we will tell our story on a national stag, and when we do, it will not be long until every person in America knows about GOOOH--the vast majority will support the system.

Continue to spread the word. We have time to tweak the process, but we must continue to build our base of supporters.

I don't know Tim. I think there is a lot of merit in that compromise. There is some overlap in the 100 questions so that could be trimmed down to allow different levels of details for those who want more. For some issues, a yes/no is sufficient for me. For other issues, or where I see inconsistency or conflicting answers, the multiple-choice, or short essay resolves those questions.

Just don't make the additional 'sections' required. If candidates don't fill them out, or don't read the additional information of other candidates, so be it.

What if there are districts that you have only one candidate? Written responses or questions that would have been asked during the selection process won't be available for accountability later.

Our intention is to allow all candidates to submit written responses to a few key issues before the Selection Sessions begin.

Remember, each candidate will be reviewing the yes/no votes of nine other candidates in a Selection Session, and if they had to read 100 essays by each it would simply not get done. We have done quite a bit of research on the process, and the 100 answers will give you a very throrough understanding of the belief system and values of the other nine candidates.

How about a compromise?  It seems some want to hold the politicans accountable with specific questions, and others want to know what the politicans believe, and how they will vote on a wide range of questions.  So, lets try a little of both.

How might this work?  Well, first, we keep the specific questions.  We should continue to add to the list with new issues, such as off shore drilling and financial rules.  We could also have another section which allows the candidate to rate how they feel about certain issues.  This other section could would have statements, like the topic of this thread, where the candidate could select Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree, and Strongly Disagree.  This was we hold people accountable with the specific questions, and give votes an idea of the beliefs of the candidates.

Keep in mind that we still need to have the Yes/No questions in order to hold the Representatives accountable.  Without accountability, we will end up right back were we are right now.

Trenton, I'd second that but I'd go farther. Rather than questioning on specific measurements or solutions or time frames, focus on the amount of support one has on a subject. Per "free press", I am "Somewhat in support", but not "Strongly in support". On abortion, I would be "Somewhat against" not "Strongly against".

But I still don't see the accountability when some can say the support something but vote against it "because of something else in the bill".

Tim,

Something I meant to post last week should also be considered.  We all agree that some questions may be viewed differently.  I have commented on the wording of questions looking like they were written from a certain point of view.  However, I believe a fix for this is fairly simple.  While looking into the voting record of a candidate, I ran across a website that lists positions of house and senate members.  Each issue stated that the person was either "For" or "Against" it.  Therefore, if the questionnaire started every question with "Are you for or against" at the beginning, it would eliminate issues surrounding each question and the point of view from which it was written.  Then, instead of Yes and No responses, you could replace with For or Against.

I'll try and keep that in mind. From my perspective, many people make up their mind before hearing the justification or extent of what someone supports. I may have to answer yes to supporting abortion, but I only support extremely limit use of it. Answering yes or no may pre-establish a mold before a candidate can explain an answer.

As far as the press, I'm going off perception of "how it used to be" since I'm not THAT old, but it seemed that the press used to know reasonable boundaries and responsibility about what they published and those lines don't appear to be respected anymore. Is slander even a word anymore? I'm not proposing all media be submitted and published through a central agency that can edit anything it wants, but more than there should be lines enforced. Now and then I hear a whisper about a retraction about something that was blasted on the front page. Corrections should be as 'bold' as the original release of information.

Maybe the same exact objective you have for GOOOH should be GOOOP to demand the same accountability for the press.

I'll let the Question Committee weigh in on your proposed wording, but let me answer your general question. We are asking candidates to declare EXACTLY how they would vote if the EXACT issue were to come up for vote. However, we doubt the wording of a bill will match our wording very often if ever, but that is not the point. 

Your yes or no answer is going to force you to support general isues (reduce spending, support or oppose abortion, support term limits), and if you do not, it will be very easy for your opponents to point out why you should not be re-elected. Further, the way you answer the questions allows your constituents to very accurately predict how you are likely to vote on almost any other issue - we believe with 95%+ accuracy.

The issue in question here is does the candidate believe the government should try to write laws defining what the press can and cannot print. "At all times" is important in this question because either you believe the press should not be controlled ever, or you believe it is ok to write a law even once that attempts to do so.