Questions for the Next Democratic Presidential Debate

If you are interested in reading the entirety of the CNBC, October 28, 2015 Republican debate you can find the transcript here:

http://time.com/4091301/republican-debate-transcript-cnbc-boulder/

The following questions are suggested for the next Democratic Presidential debate. The questions are patterned off of the questions used by CNBC during the last Republican Presidential debate.

1.    (To all the candidates as the opening question): What is your biggest weakness and what are you doing to address it?

a.     Verbatim of the Republicans’ opening question. It should be noted that CNBC agreed to open the debate with a question on economic or financial matters. They did not.

2.    (To Bernie Sanders): Mr. Sanders you have stated that Americans should become socialists. Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?

a.     Same as a question directed at Donald Trump for proposing to build a wall across the Mexican border.

3.    (To all the candidates) You have all spoken of increasing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and providing a free college education to all Americans. I talked to economic advisers who have served presidents of both parties. They said that you have as much a chance of increasing government spending that much without increasing the deficit as you would of flying away from that podium by flapping your arms.

a.     Same as a question directed at Donald Trump except instead of increased spending, the context was tax reduction. Seriously, “flapping your arms” was used.

4.    (To any of the candidates) Your increased spending on social programs and the creation of new social programs will require you to cut other government programs. What will they be? (ignore whatever  the candidate responds then state) That won’t make up the difference for all the spending you are adding. If the candidate states that your facts are not true, just respond with: That is true, I’ve looked at the numbers.

a.     Same as a question directed at Dr. Carson except it was in the context of his flat tax rate proposal.

b.    The unfairness of this question was that the moderator stated that Dr. Carson’s 10% flat tax would cause a $1.1 trillion deficit. After Dr. Carlson stated that his flat tax would not be 10% it would need to be closer to 15%, the moderator then stated that to close the $1.1 trillion gap you would have to cut government by 40%. When Dr. Carlson said “That’s not true.” The moderator said “That is true, I’ve looked at the numbers.” Obviously she looked at numbers based on a 10% tax – NOT a 15% tax.

c.     This reeks of Candy Crowly taking sides with President Obama during the 2012 debate with Mitt Romney (“President Obama did call Benghazi a terrorist attack” – which he did not). If the moderator had done the math with a 10% tax and calculated a 40% government reduction equivalent to $1.1 trillion, how did the number not change in the follow up accusation? Clearly if a 10% tax equates to a $1.1 trillion deficit or 40% of government spending, a 15% tax would equate to a lesser deficit (and maybe no deficit).

This line of questioning not only reveals the moderator’s bias but also her lack of intellect. If you can't think quickly enough on your feet to realize that a 50% increase in taxes would more than offset a 40% deficit, you should not be moderating a presidential debate.

5.    (To Governor O’Malley): Governor, your poll numbers are extremely low. Shouldn’t you pull out of the race?

a.     Same as the question asked of Governor Bush. Of course the Democrats cannot afford to lose anymore pretenders. They have to maintain the appearance of a contest before the coronation of Mrs. Clinton. Of course if the FBI uncovers too many "personal" emails that were not really personal, or too many emails that contained classified information, the Democrats will immediately pivot to Plan B - Vice President Biden. If the FBI does find something untoward, do not expect the information to be used in a debate question.

6.    (To Secretary Clinton): Mrs. Clinton, you made a personal promise to the families of the four Americans that lost their loved ones in Benghazi that you would “get the people responsible for the video.” Did you keep that promise or have you given the families a personal update on what the government really knew at the time? If you have not, why should voters believe the promises you are making now?

a.     Patterned after this question: “Mr. Trump, let’s talk a little bit about bankruptcies. Your Atlantic City casinos filed for bankruptcy four times...  Bankruptcy is a broken promise. Why should the voters believe the promises that you’re telling them right now?”

7.    (To Secretary Clinton): You stated that when you and your husband left the White House, you were broke. You were both in your mid-fifties at that time. In terms of all of that, it raises the question whether you have the maturity and wisdom to lead this $17 trillion economy. What do you say?

a.     The “In terms of all that, it raises the question whether you have the maturity and wisdom to lead this $17 trillion economy. What do you say?” is the exact question posed to Senator Rubio. The lead into Senator Rubio’s question was his financial mishandling of campaign money and his unfortunate financial condition.

8.    (To Secretary Clinton): Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Foundation has received large donations from foreign government officials and from American companies doing business abroad while you were Secretary of State. Is this indicative of the fact that you were selling favors?

a.     This question equates to the question that Dr. Carson was asked with regard to his Christian faith and his board participation with a company that is gay friendly.

9.    (To all the candidates): Would you require your secret service guards to leave their guns in their vehicles when they accompany you into a gun free zone?

a.     This is a silly question, but no sillier than the question of Mr. Trump having a permit to carry his own gun.

10. (To Governor O’Malley): Governor O’Malley, Mrs. Clinton has been associated with numerous scandals through her and her husband’s careers. Most recently there was the question of what and when she knew about Benghazi; her personal decision as to which emails were personal and which were the people’s business; the fact that she maintained her own server to host her email. Further back there was White Water; Travelgate; and her Tammy Wynette act of standing by her man through her husband’s many extramarital affairs that she claimed were untrue (until Ms. Lewinsky). Considering all of Mrs. Clinton’s scandals; when you look at her, do you see someone with the moral authority to unite the country?

a.     Exact question posed to Governor Huckabee with regard to Donald Trump. The only difference was the moderator did not think there was a need to make a case before just bluntly asking: “do you see someone with the moral authority to unite the country?” The moderator assumed that all Americans are grounded in the fact that Donald Trump has no morals. Really?

11. (To all the candidates): Now that we have made fun of the Republicans, will each of you tell me who is more handsome and why? (Thank you Senator Cruz, that was a great line.)

As sad as this reads, this is exactly how the debate was conducted by CNBC. I did not mention the moderators by name because they deserve no free publicity. All I can say is that Fox has a business channel and CNBC will not be on my television ever again. Also, the PBS show Washington Week (which I used to watch every Friday night) will no longer be displayed on any of my screens. During this week’s Washington Week, one of the perpetrators of the CNBC debacle actually summarized the tragedy of the debate as a result of all the anger within the Republican Party; the participants were just taking out their internal anger with themselves on the media. That analysis is so wrong. Worse, nobody challenged him. I used to respect Gwen Ifill, but she lost that respect this week. Bye-bye CNBC and Washington Week.

The correct analysis is that the line of questioning was demeaning, it served the American people poorly in that it did not shine light on the candidates’ positions and demonstrated that Senator Rubio’s comments were dead-on; the media is the ultimate Super-PAC of the Democratic Party. Had Fox News Channel used the above listed questions in a Democratic Presidential debate, the news media would have gone crazy. How much noise have you heard from the main stream media about the Republican debate?

Does anyone care to join me in my ban of CNVC and Washington Week?

Retraction of President Obama's Congratulations – An Uncertain World Order Remains

The previous blog entry is hereby retracted (although I am leaving it posted). The reason for the retraction is that further information released by the White House disclosed that President Obama is not authorizing any combat by the special operation forces that have been dispatched to Syria. Furthermore, it appears as though there are no plans to do anything more than send a few advisers into Syria.

I am leaving the previous blog entry posted as advice that the President may want to heed. Following the President’s present plan of inaction will continue to leave America and the world at grave danger from terrorist groups and terrorist nations.

Congratulations President Obama – Taking a Stand in Syria is a Great Start

The breaking news today is that President Obama is sending special operation troops into Syria to train and assist Kurdish and some Syrian insurgents in their fight against ISIS. Finally, the United States is taking the fight to an organization that is now capable of global terror and is no doubt planning attacks against the American homeland. In addition to fighting ISIS, this move also puts Arab countries on notice that America is not relinquishing its influence in the Middle East. Moscow should take notice.

Until this time, President Obama has projected American weakness that has shaken the world order. Just as financial markets falter during times of uncertainty, civilization also falters when it is uncertain as to whether or not the good guys will defend freedom and human rights. That is how Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorists grow in power and territory. Well, assuming this is just a start, President Obama is providing some certainty for global affairs. Terror groups should take note.

It is a real possibility that Russia will test President Obama’s resolve by bombing very close to the American forces in Syria; even targeting the Kurds and Syrian rebels we will be working with. We should be ready for this and immediately have a jet fighter on the tail of the Russian bomber with a signal to let the pilot know he has been targeted. If it happens a second time, more drastic measures will be required. Let us hope we never get to that point; but we must let the Russians know we mean business.

Initial reports are that the number of troops is very small. It can only be assumed that this is a start and that more and more troops will enter Syria as each preceding deployment clears a path for the safe arrival of the next. The other action that we should be simultaneously taking is wiping out ISIS in Iraq. Keep it up Mr. President, it is not just Syria and ISIS at stake but the defense of our homeland and America’s role as the world power of goodness. It is about the certainty of civilization.

Trey Gowdy - Please Turn Off the Cameras

Dear Representative Gowdy,

Let me introduce myself. I am a center-right leaning, independent American. Many people read my blog and believe that I am very conservative. I seldom agree with the Democrats’ view, but often with the Republicans’. If you read a sample of my previous postings you will see how I think on most issues. Today, I am proud to not be a member of either political Party. I am a registered Independent. Now that you know me, here is my request:

Please turn the cameras off in your Benghazi hearings with Hilary Clinton. I ask this as a service to you and your fellow Republicans. You probably are not aware of the fact that you are embarrassing yourself. The country has suffered greatly from the Benghazi attack and Americans mourn the loss of four of our fellow citizens. The country would like to know that our leaders are taking the necessary actions to avoid re-making the mistakes of Benghazi. You are not doing this.

What we Americans want to know is: Why were there any Americans in Benghazi at that time? We also want to know if we got the terrorists that committed the horrible acts in Benghazi (we are aware of the capture of Ahmed Abu Khatalla but not of any others). Answer those questions and turn the lights off.

The ridiculous questioning of Secretary Clinton with regard to emails she received from Sid Blumenthal are meaningless to us. Worse than that, we find it appalling that our taxes are funding such ridiculous lines of questioning.  The political nature of these hearings are so obvious that it is embarrassing to all Americans.

Secretary Clinton provided the most profound “new” information today when she stated that America has suffered numerous terrorist attacks in the past with loss of American life – but there was no partisan driven witch hunts (I am paraphrasing).  Secretary Clinton noted that both parties came together after such attacks to heal and to strengthen our defenses. You are not doing this.

It is not your committees charge to submarine Secretary Clinton’s presidential ambitions.  And, unless I am living on another planet that is what it appears that you and all the Republican members of your committee are doing today.

Sincerely,

Fairway Frank

Wake Up and Smell the Coffee – Russia Can Win in the Middle East

I last reported (see the previous blog entry) that Russia has economic and political motives that are driving its actions in Syria. I also envisioned that Russia’s motives would be best served by the total destabilization of the region with Russia then eliminating American influence in the region.  This would ultimately result in Russia being the only super power with influence in the Middle East.

Since my last report there have been statements made by various people, including the President of the United States, that Russia cannot win any territory by merely bombing. The talking heads have stated that you must have a ground force to follow through after bombings to take and maintain control of territory. And the pundits say: since the Russians are not putting boots on the ground, they cannot win the battle and they will be eternally bogged down in Syria.

Why then has the United States been bombing in Syria for a year now? We have not put any boots on the ground.  Based on the pundits’ logic, we too are doomed to an eternal bog in Syria.

The pundits are correct. We are doomed to remain bogged down in Syria.  Not only do we not have boots on the ground, we also do not have any partners of strength with boots on the ground. Our game plan was to train Syrian rebels that would have been our boots on the ground. Thus far, this strategy has not worked very well. And, there is no hope in sight anytime soon.

Funny how the talking heads inaccurately depict the Russians as making a mistake – the talking heads have not yet identified that America has been making the same mistake for over a year.

The Russians are not as naive as we are.  They are not foolish enough to waste bombs without following up with ground forces. They are following the United States' strategy (bomb and have others do the grunt work on the ground).  The difference between Russia’s plan and the American plan is that the Russians actually have boots on the ground with strength. The Syrian government’s army is able to follow through after Russia’s bombings to take and control territory. For good measure, the Syrian government is being assisted by Iranian soldiers and militia men from Hezbollah.

A good case can be made that the Syrian army along with an estimated 2,000 Iranian soldiers and an unknown number of Hezbollah militia men is a stronger ground force than the five American trained local rebels that have taken up arms against Syrian President al-Assad. Furthermore, the way things work in the Middle East, success and power projects to growth. Therefore, small successes by the Russians and the Syrian army will result in a growth of the Syrian army.  Thus, the ability to build on success and take more and more territory.

The Russians can win at this game and it is time that someone start taking the situation seriously and inoculate the remainder of the region from Russian influence before it is too late. Again, I refer to the blog entry just prior to this one for a suggested strategy that America should follow. The strategy will stabilize a region that has the potential to unravel out of control and potentially spawn World War III.  If followed, the strategy would also reposition America as the world’s true super power and expose Russia as a super bully, not the super power it pretends to be.

If Russia is the New World Power – What is Next?

I have decried the fall of American power.  This fall from power is not due to our lack of military might but due to our lack of leadership.  The world no longer believes that America has the will power to take on the challenges of being the world’s police.  This fact is indicative that the bad guys are winning the war on terror.

To this end, Russia has clearly demonstrated its willingness and fierceness to take on the challenge of terror.  Or at least it has portrayed its Syrian actions as such. 

Does anyone fear the United States anymore?  Does anyone fear Russia?  Does anyone believe that the United States can stop Russia’s aggression? Answers: No, Yes, and No.

These simple answers must lead us to think of how the world will change if Russia is the sole world power.  Russia could become the sole world power because it is willing to use its power – NOT because it is more powerful than the United States.  The refusal of the United States to exert power left the door wide open for Russia to ascend.  But that is behind us.  Analysis must now be directed to the changes that will result from Russia’s new role and what we should do about these changes.

The Middle East’s center of power may shift from Riyadh to Tehran.  Power in the Middle East may shift from Sunnis to Shias.  America has been aligned with the Sunnis (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait). Russia is aligned with the Shias (Iran, Syria). With civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias potentially expanding to engulf the entire Middle East, a potential proxy war between Russia and the United States is possible. Even worse, with Russia having nothing to lose, direct war is not out of the question. 

Russia did not go to Syria because (as Putin stated at the United Nations General Assembly) they are the only world citizen invited by the Syrian government to help them in their time of need.  They went for two reasons: 1) because the Iranians were willing to pay them as mercenaries, and 2) because they see the possibility of helping Iran expand the Sunni/Shia civil war across the region.  Not only do they see the possibility of the expanding civil war, they see the possibility of asserting enough power to assure that Tehran becomes the undisputed center of power in the Middle East.  Russia sees the potential to control the flow of oil from the Arabian Peninsula and therefore control the price of oil.  Russia desperately needs the price of oil to rise in order for its oil exporting economy to mend.

Although it has not been mentioned thus far, Russia’s actions against Ukraine are also despicable.  However, Russia’s real chance of entrenching itself as the world’s sole super power lies in its ability to control the Middle East.  So while enraged Western countries are responding to Russia’s Syrian actions with increased actions in the Baltic nations; these actions are window dressing by politicians pretending to have a back bone.  Meanwhile, the future of the world is being shaped by the lack of response in the Middle East.

Clearly no Western country should directly confront Russia on a military level at this time.  The potential for any accidental conflict should also be eliminated – even if that means that the West gets out of Syria for the time being.  After all, the Russians will take care of ISIS so the need for the West to be in Syria is not as urgent as it was before Russia’s entry.  They have saddled themselves with this responsibility and we should allow them to focus their full attention in this isolated region.  While they are bogged down in Syria, we must fortify the rest of the region.

The first thing we must do is to send ground troops into Iraq and conduct a brutal, lightning fast annihilation of ISIS in Iraq.  We need to do this to reestablish our bona fides which will be needed for the remainder of the strategy.  If you were a Middle Eastern leader, who would you pick as your protector right now; America or Russia?  We need people to believe in America again!

To rehabilitate America’s super power role, more troops are not needed in the Baltic – they are needed in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahram, Iraq, Egypt, the UAE and even in Yemen.  Wherever there is a Middle Eastern nation willing to host an American force (or NATO) we should be there.  Staging equipment and encampments that can be rapidly manned.  Small forces should be left in all such countries to maintain these encampments and to assist the host countries in eradicating their local form of radical Islamists.  American (and/or NATO) should get the official invitation from each of these nations and an agreement that Russia will NOT be provided with such an invitation.  In this way, Russia will not have the false pretense of do-gooder to enter another Middle East country.

After we resolve the ISIS situation in Iraq, we must resolve the Houthi situation in Yemen, then we must fix Libya.  Down the road we have to consider what we do about the Boko Haram (but focus on the Middle East right now).  If and when ISIS or another radical Islamic group threatens a sovereign nation, we must respond quickly.  We cannot allow the “JV” to get too much practice before we act.  Furthermore, we must leave troops behind to prop up a locally elected civil government.  President Obama has said it so many times that many Americans believe there is no other option: “We will not send our sons and daughters back to war.”  Well if we do not, the Russians will and eventually we will not be fighting splintered militias, we will be fighting a nuclear armed military.

Of course we must demand that the Middle Eastern nations provide ground forces to the effort, but we have been down this road before and we know that Western forces must be heavily involved if we want to win.  To that end, we should watch Russia’s conduct of operations in Syria.  We should have learned from our own past mistakes, but the Russians example is a reinforcement – go big or go home.  The next time we target a radical Islamist group for “degrade and eventually destroy” we should forget the "degrade and eventually" part and move right onto destroy.

Just so this pondering of the world situation is not blind to Russia’s physical territory, we should also beef up our defenses in the Baltic states.  Our NATO obligations should not be ignored, but we should rely more heavily on our European partners to affect these defenses.  We can provide additional technology (like more missile defense systems in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) but Europeans need to increase their military spend and their troop presence in Eastern Europe.  We should also demand participation of the Europeans in our Middle Eastern obligations.  However, we should not use their usual lack of enthusiasm as an excuse for us not to act.