U.S. v Terrorists

In a discussion about whether or not Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be allowed to speak at Columbia, I was confronted by the statement that "Bin Laden's videotapes are full of stuff that CNN doesn't report." It sounds as though the speaker believes Bin Laden is more credible than CNN.

Now I'm not a big fan of CNN, but I think they're a lot more credible than Bin Laden. But the exchange brought a quesion to my mind. After listening to the Iranian president and CNN and reading transcripts of Bin Laden's tapes, it sounds like they're campaigning for the democrats.

Why would terrorists want the Democrats to win?

I don't have an answer, I'm just putting the question out there.

Iraq Misses Benchmarks. How Did Democrats Do?

With the testimony of General Petraeus making it clear that troops are still needed in Iraq, Democrats are expected to press that the Iraqi government has not met the benchmarks that were set for it. How is that different from our government?

Iraq had benchmarks set by the U.S. government. The Democratic Congress set its own benchmarks. Iraq is a completely new government, with no member being in power prior to the U.S. military effort. Many Democratic members of Congress have been in office for years, and in some cases decades. So why does the Democrat-controlled Congress expect this new government to meet benchmarks it didn't set, when they can't meet the promises they made in their own campaigns?

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has asked for the troops to stay. Can we really be an occupying force or invaders, as some would portray us, if a democratically-elected government is asking us not to go?

It is true that we cannot keep an expanded force in Iraq forever. The strain is wearing on our armed forces. But do people really believe that Al-Queda has an unlimited number of terrorists and an unlimited budget. They will fight us where we are. If fighting in Iraq keeps them of American soil, why should be bring the troops home and fight them here?

Bush 32, Congress 18

Democrats swept into office last November stating they had a mandate for a change. They pointed to President Bush's low approval ratings and said they needed to take charge. Since they entered office Bush's approval rating is up to 32% while their own is down to 18%.

Congress promised more than they could ever have delivered and failed miserably. Now, the American people are telling them they don't have a mandate, they have the lowest approval rating in history.

And how does this bode for those presidential candidates? How can we lend any credibility to promises by Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, etc. when they have failed so miserably at the jobs they were elected to do.

Of course the Democrats point squarely to the Republicans, saying they are obstructing the Democrats. It takes two to tango. Neither side has wanted to work with the other, but it was the Democrats who stood to lose the most. Now, the Democratic leadership is figuring out how to spin what it is expected to be a positive report on Iraq into more doom and gloom.

If Congress wants its approval ratings to go up, they need to start listening to the people of America and not to the vocal minority of idiots that are holding the parties hostage.

Elected To Serve The People

Liberal activists are up in arms over the failure of the Democratic Congress to enact the changes they want. It seems that the elected officials are realizing what the activists refuse to admit. Congressmen and senators are elected to serve all of the people, not just the activists.

Democrats who were elected to Congress on anti-Iraq platforms neglected to remind these activists that Congress doesn't control the military. Activists also fail to realize that this is a country of laws and elected officials need to follow them. An excellent example of this is the impeachment laws. You can't simply impeach a president, there has to be just cause and due process. Impeachment doesn't mean you don't like the president, it means he broke the law.

Activists are great about insisting their will is followed. It's too bad more of them don't have an understanding of how things really work.

Much Ado About Nothing

Last night was the much-publicized CNN/You Tube debate. Why is this debate different from all other debates? Because the people get to ask the questions, albeit in prerecorded video. Did it make a difference. Not really.

The problem with political debates has never been with the people asking the questions. The problem is with the lack of answers. Candidates have talking points that they continually fall back on. These talking points are meant to sound impressive while saying nothing.

Want to fix the debate? Let me suggest some changes.

1) Start by making each answer a two-part question, with the first part being yes or no. Go through every candidate, with each one getting to say yes or no and nothing more. Then go back and have them explain why they answered that way.

2) Give the candidates scores that are shown on their podiums, like a game show. They get 3 point for a direct answer, 1 point for a rambling answer that ultimately gets to the point and they lose 5 points for going off-topic or skirting the issue.

3) Alternatively, don't air the debate live. Force the candidates to keep talking until they answer the question, then edit out everything but the one sentence that answers the question for broadcast.

4) Finally, after the election, rerun all of the comments by the winner, alongside video of their campaign promises immediately before the inauguration. Rerun this package every three months while the person is in office and have them explain why they haven't lived up to what they said.

Politics As Usual

There are those in office that want to fix things, and then there are those who just want things their way. Senator Harry Reid wants things his way. Reid is holding the Senate for an all-night debate on Iraq. The problem is he doesn't actually want to debate what's going on in Iraq, he wants the Senate to vote to withdraw the troops.

This is not debate. Debate is here's a problem, let's get people's opinions and see what the best decision is. Reid doesn't want to debate, he wants to placate his liberal constituents. But if he really looked at the issue he'd realize that we don't get a do-over. Pulling the troops out of Iraq does not turn back the clock so everything will be like it was before we went in. You can't base a decision on what could have been, you need to base it on what is. Of course, Reid doesn't want wait for the September report on what is, he wants his way now.

This isn't just going on at the federal level. New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is willing to jeopardize $500 million in federal money because he doesn't like Mayor Bloomberg's plan for congestion pricing. Bloomberg, who has been fighting to meet a federal deadline for the money, has stated that this would be a pilot program, which means let's see what happens and we can stop the program if it doesn't meet expectations. What does Silver want to do? Nothing. He agrees there are environmental and traffic problems, but he wants to create a committee of his cronies to study the problem. The Speaker held the Democratic contingent of the Assembly in New York City, keeping them from attending the debate and voting in Albany.

Enough of politics as usual. Can we get rid of these do-nothing politicians who would rather argue than actually come up with solutions?