Replies

You have a point, but in this case Alison is asking the citizens of Kentucky to send her to DC to represent them in the US Senate. Unlike the current poser in the White Hut, who has sealed all of his records from the public, Alison should be asked questions beyond what the normal citizen should expect.

She doesn't want to answer the question about Obama, fine, then just say that. Her evasions and protestations would lead me to believe that she would have no problem with lying and stretching the truth to her constituents in the event that she were actually elected...

Both of your responses are reasonable -- I was asking, not staking out a definite opinion.

So -- the dividing line is somewhere between those running for high office, and the rest of us. I an accept that.

Of course, the question is easy for a lying politician to answer (once) -- as the answer is not verifiable. An honest politician (let's assume they exist, for the sake of argument), who also feels strongly about the "sanctity of the ballot box", would have a harder time answering the question. He might not want to answer to preserve the principle of ballot-box secrecy. You could have a situation of a lying politician appearing forthright, and an honest politician appearing devious. Oh, the irony.

It would be better to insist on release of verifiable information -- such as all the sorts of things Obama has managed to embargo. However, that raises its own problems -- as we saw in the Romney tax-records brouhaha.