WSJ: ‘Yes or No’ Questions Not So Easy, Eh?

Susan Davis reports from Las Vegas on the presidential debate.

"They should have seen it coming. “Assuming there isn’t going to be comprehensive immigration reform, do you support or oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants?” CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked the Democratic candidates. That’s essentially the question that tripped up Sen. Hillary Clinton at the debate two weeks ago.

But as their responses show, it’s no easy task to sum up a top domestic concern in a single word.

Sen. Barack Obama: “I am not proposing that that’s what we do. What I’m saying is that we can’t… No, no, no, no. Look, I have already said, I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver’s licenses at the same level can make that happen. But what I also know, Wolf, is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it.” (72 words)

Sen. John Edwards: “No, but I don’t accept the proposition that we’re not going to have comprehensive immigration reform. What I do support, and what I will do as president of the United States, is move this country toward comprehensive immigration reform. And anyone who’s on the path to earning American citizenship should be able to have a driver’s license.” (57 words)

Sen. Chris Dodd: “Well, it’s important to put it in context. It’s obviously, look, clarity is important here. The American people, in a debate like this, want clarity here. Certainly, the whole idea of getting immigration reform is something I strongly support. But I believe part of our job is to discourage those who want to come here — I understand why they want to come, but coming illegally creates serious problems — four to 500,000. No, my belief is that giving a — as I’ve said in the very beginning here, I think driver’s licenses are the wrong thing to be doing, in terms of attracting people to come here as undocumented.” (110 words)

Obama, Round II: “Yes. I’ll tell you, I am going to be fighting for comprehensive immigration reform, and we shouldn’t pose the question that, somehow, we can’t achieve that. I believe that the American people desperately want it; that’s what I’m going to be fighting for as president.” (45 words)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: “I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigrants. There aren’t any illegal human beings. That’s No. 1. No. 2, they are undocumented. I believe that the best way to do it — thank you. I believe the best way to deal with this is cancel NAFTA and renegotiate the trade agreement with Mexico. You give people a path to legalization, and then they can be legal and have their driver’s license. That’s the way to work it. You know what? You give people a path to legalization and you work to make sure that you don’t criminalize their status any further. Again, I take exception to the way you framed that question.” (115 words)

Gov. Bill Richardson: “Well, my answer is yes, and I did it. You know why? Because the Congress — and I notice Barack mentioned the president — but the Congress also failed miserably to pass comprehensive immigration. And we need to have it in this country. I did it four years ago. My legislature sent me a bill. I signed it. My law-enforcement people said it’s a matter of public safety. What we need is public safety, a reduction in traffic fatalities. We wanted more people to be insured. When we started with this program, 33% of all New Mexicans were uninsured. Today, it’s 11%. Traffic fatalities have gone down. It’s a matter of public safety. States have to act when the federal government and the Congress doesn’t act. The answer is comprehensive immigration. The answer is secure the borders, a stronger relationship with Mexico. Those that knowingly hire illegal workers should be punished. And a path to legalization. That is the solution.” (161 words)

Sen. Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden were the only two to respond with a one-word answer. “No,” they both said. (1 word)"

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/11/15/yes-or-no-questions-not-so-easy-eh/trackback/