Thinking on Your Feet

Ask any student after they have taken an exam and nine times out of ten they will come back with a refrain that is all too familiar. "I didn't know (or think) they were going to ask that." It's usually inspired by the fact that professors will provide a list of topics they feel are important to the material covered and what particular focus should be given on. However, that is never meant to imply that what they are listing is all they would be interested in asking about or would consider testing you on. It's something that most people, no matter their level of education, will have run across at one time or another and so it's with some surprise that I read about how so many candidates are 'shocked' or 'angry' at being surprised by a particular line of questioning. I think it's a sham excuse.

Now I agree that the media does attempt to create a certain amount of havoc in interviews when they are speaking with someone. Call it a liberal ambush or a conservative low-blow, it doesn't matter. There are questions that the public wants to ask candidates and the media is the only group that can seek those answers. Particularly the televised media. It's one thing to write up thoughts on an interview because no matter what, there will be some sort of bias that seeps into the write up. With audio recordings you can hear the voices but not see the faces. That's important when you consider that during Kennedy and Nixon's first televised debate, those who heard the debate on the radio felt both Kennedy and Nixon were evenly matched but those who saw it on television felt that Nixon was far too nervous and sweaty to be honest.

Maybe Nixon was just hot under the warm lights or maybe he was sweating due to the questions he was being asked. You never know but it's those visual cues that you get that make you sometimes change your way of thinking. So what does this have to do with being able to think on your feet? Well, I think when you pull out a question that a person just isn't expecting, you get their honest reaction whether that is a position that is contrary to what they have previously been espousing or if it is totally contrary to their running mate's views. It may not be fair but I think it's the only way you're going to get an honest answer out of so many politicians. Now everyone suddenly comes out of the woodwork and talks about how they were falsely convinced to support the War in Iraq; never once does someone come out and say, "Hey, I was worried I wouldn't be re-elected and would be seen as a traitor to our nation for not supporting a war against those that (supposedly) were involved in the attacks of 9/11."

You'll get answers that are vague and misleading or redundant to the point that you the listener forget what the initial question was. Any politician, liberal, conservative, moderate, whatever, never answers a question straight. Even if asked about something as mundane as what they like for breakfast in the morning there is that momentary hesitation as they wonder who they will piss off if they say Cheerios instead of Frosted Flakes. After all, when you have people who choose brand loyalty based on who sponsors their favorite drivers NASCAR racer, is it any wonder that a candidate will stoop to being vague to prevent losing votes? It's in their best interest but it's not in ours.

We need to know where our candidates honestly stand and we need to hear their real responses, not canned responses that have been laced with campaign slogans or catchphrases. Just as a professor asks you something beyond what was given to you as possible test subjects, I think candidates need to be asked about things relevant to their job but outside the normal scope of what they are looking to be asked. And I certainly mean outside of whether they enjoy drinking regular or decaf coffee or what their opinion is on sports. It may help me identify with the candidate but I'm looking for a leader, not someone to commiserate with over the latest sports loss. If we have someone in office who is smart, knowledgeable in a variety of subjects that are relevant to the job they are looking to hold and can answer without hours and days of prep work then perhaps that's the person I'd vote for.