Two, really, because the first sentence can easily be made into a question as well: what’s up with your lack of control over your own campaign?

The point of having experience is that it is supposed to help you make better decisions. Why did your experience repeatedly lead you to vote in favor of Bush’s war?

Follow up if I’m not escorted from the room:
What has your experience in supporting the Bush war taught you?

“Senator McCain, like you my father went across the Pacific to war as a young naval officer. He was never a prisoner of war, but his ship was sunk by a kamikaze at Okinawa, his best friend died in the water next to him, he was seriously wounded and hospitalized for quite a long time. But he almost never spoke of any of this — most of this I pieced together after his death or learned from my mother. When he did speak of it his references were either indicative of sympathy for the suffering of others, or humorous, in regard to the Catch-22 situations he encountered in the hospital. He also ran for elective office three times, and, while he may have mentioned that he was a veteran, the Purple Heart and the scars stayed in the closet.

I think the contrast to your handling of a similar situation is striking. But this is not a question about your character. What I would like you to address is what there is different about my father’s war from your war that might explain the contrast.”

Senator McCain you’ve admitted that you really do not understand economics, isn’t it uppity of you to criticize Senator Obama’s tax and economic proposals?

Excellent.

–TP

“Senator, you tell us that true happiness comes from sacrificing for a cause greater than self-interest. Does paying taxes count as a sacrifice? Does clamoring for a tax cut NOT count as self-interest? Please explain how people who make over three hundred grand a year got true happiness from the Bush tax cuts, and what sacrifice YOU would ask of them.”

–TP

“Senator McCain, did Tomas de Torquemada have a firm handshake?”

Dude, you just blew my mind.

Also, I hate to break it to everyone, but even in court the fact that witnesses are sworn in under oath does not actually prevent them from lying or, especially, spinning the facts. A press corps willing to probe politicians in ways that will call them on bullshit is far more valuable than a formal truth in advertising guarantee.

They are, though British politicians have adjusted by simply 1) answering the question they want to answer, 2) talking until interrupted.

E.g. if he says “no” to the second question, the questioner could quote or summarize the relevant parts of the plan

Exactly how long does anyone think they’re going to have? Thirty seconds, max, no follow ups.

I mean, it wouldn’t be that difficult to impeach him, if you actually got a chance to pursue such a line of questioning in the first place and were able to refer to such things as the specifics of what is under discussion in the first place.