W. Va. Senatorial Debate

The debate just ended and I was impressed with the performance of Sec. Tennant. The moderator also impressed me and he hasn't always done that in past years. His questions were well-placed and worded and led to very good debate discussion. Rep. Capito tried to fight, but sounded too canned and awkward when she tried to either repeat a prepared argument or to speak her own words. Sometimes she said things which were ungrammatical and she couldn't make sense. That's not to say she didn't land a few punches.

They talked about West Virginia, its economy, its people and the nation's foreign policy. They didn't try to nationalize the race and talk about the national issues unless they were closely related to the state and our people. That kind of focus can be good, but when you're talking about a U.S. Senate seat it's important to realize those senators vote to confirm federal Court judges and they usually have much longer and more complete debates about all issues, particularly foreign policy. I want a senator who is capable of thinking and standing up to a wayward president or Court nominee and not just someone who thinks about W. Va.

Sec. Tennant's main blows against Capito were her recent t.v. ad arguments that Capito is too tied to Wall St. bankers and the difference between Capito's words and official votes. I thought this part of the debate was clearly good for Tennant and Capito didn't have much of a rebuttal.

I suspect Sec. Tennant's experience with television broadcasting made it easier for her to handle this debate. Many people wouldn't be comfortable in front of t.v. cameras. Well, she showed by her discussion points that it wasn't just her comfort level which made her appear relevant, it was the content of her arguments. Bravo Sec. Tennant.

North Carolina Congressional Debate: Ellmers vs. Aiken

I just watched their debate and I was very impressed. I didn't expect to be, so this was a big surprise. Both candidates looked good, spoke clearly, used talking points and spoke directly to the immediate issue, and perhaps most importantly, they found ways to turns the discussion to their favor. This was most impressive as usually neither candidate in a Congressional race can do that and it's rare when even one candidate can.

The discussion hit on all the major issues of the day and I didn't really see either candidate landing a knockout punch. Each scored points for jabs and a few longer sequences, but then the other would come right back and do the same.

I don't know what the people of that district want, but they have two intelligent candidates from which to choose.

Personally, I can't imagine any individual Republican representative having the ability to do more than vote for their party line and Ms. Ellmers had difficulty showing she wasn't just another brick in that "just say no" wall. OTOH, Clay Aiken's belief that new members of Congress who believe in establishing relationships across the aisle and talking to everyone may be a bit naïve too.

Of course, party leadership decides whether to continue the House Speaker's rule of only allowing votes on bills the majority of the Republican caucus will approve. As far as I know the Democrats who have been Speaker never did that.

I look forward to seeing the polls and hearing how this race goes. It appears to be a tough one.

As the Close Races Near the End

I've seen Republicans turn nasty in W.Va., so I wouldn't be surprised if they bring out the "guns from hell" everywhere to smear their opponents in hopes of turning close races into wins.

It shows they don't really believe the issues and proposed policies are really important so long as they can get into office. If they really believed that it was what they propose to do in office, then they would focus entirely on policies and leadership.

Republicans are offering no leadership, only hate and lies.

In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell doesn't care that he's opposed all federal gov't efforts to improve the economy (for Kentucky and all of America), he just wants to make his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, look bad. I suppose he thinks they already know what he would do in office -- just say "No". Vote for Grimes to have an a real positive agenda for America.

In West Virginia's 3rd District House race they're trying the same kind of smear campaign against Rep. Nick Rahall. A few years ago they did the same against the 1st District Rep who was a Democrat and they won, so I suppose they'll keep using the same tactic. But, Rahall has been a good representative for the state. Do West Virginians care about policies or just appearances.

I wonder where the other smear campaigns are around the country. The national media doesn't usually tell us.

What Right-Wing Republicans Stand FOR

I was listening to several campaign debates on C-SPAN and came across the Braley-Ernst debate in Iowa. This is a U.S. Senate race, so it's pretty important.

During the debate there were several moments when I thought Ernst lost touch with reality for a while. She smiles a lot, so it's hard to know whether she is experiencing something ecstatic or is merely following the advice of her "hard-working Iowan" campaign staff.

When asked about things she opposed she mentioned several things which aren't actually laws yet. On another occasion she was talking about tax reform and sounded entirely interested until she ended by saying she hadn't actually endorsed anything.

What I wonder is why nobody asks these Right-Wingers (are they all Right-Wingers in Congress now?) if they would be willing to vote for anything (anything at all) which Pres. Obama or indeed any Democratic president said they supported? I have a feeling they would all flinch and begin having spasms while trying to find a way to sit on the fence: opposing Democrats and sounding normal-ish when it comes to reasonable ways forward for America.

Is there anything these Right-Wingers would vote for if Pres. Obama had said publicly he would sign into law?

Even candidates like West Virginia's Shelley Capito (R-WV) try to sound entirely normal, but their practice in Washington has been to vote the party line -- and that is controlled by the far Right branch of the Congressional Republican caucus. Even Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) won't oppose them as he would lose his job.

Could Ernst or Capito vote for a minimum wage increase, knowing Pres. Obama would sign it into law?

America's Billionaires Are Getting Richer, What of Poorer Americans?

I'm almost amazed the president has been so free to (essentially) go to war in Iraq & Syria against ISIS. Generally the Congress demands an opportunity to debate it and vote for the war (if only to grab political credit for being hawkish) and in this case (as well as a year ago when the president wanted to go into Syria to get rid of Assad) the Congress, particularly the House Republicans have refused to vote. Why? Maybe, despite their desire to vote for war and killing, they just can't vote for something the president would agree to. That's beyond Right-Wing, that's asinine.

Democrats should challenge a few of these Republican candidates to some basic questions: can they ever vote for something, or even say publicly they endorse it, knowing the president may say publicly he endorses it too and would sign it into law if it gets to his desk?

In Kentucky Senator (and Republican Leader in the U. S. Senate) says he's against this and that and that his opponent, Alison Grimes (D-KY) sides with Pres. Obama. Yet, Mitch won't say why his job doesn't involve improving the economy, so more people can get jobs. Mitch won't say why people don't deserve some kind of pay raise as their productivity and the overall economy improves (and as billionaires get richer).

Are Republicans willing to say publicly they would vote against anything if it appears Pres. Obama is for it? Against an improving economy? Against National Security (as in the case of fighting ISIS)?

Where are the not so Right-Wing Republicans? Until I see any on the horizon I think America is better-off voting for Democrats who can work for America instead of just their own re-elections.

Republicans, Pres. Obama and War in the Middle-East

Republicans have begun trying to claim they want the war and have wanted it for some time, but that the president has had no play or has waffled and failed to lead. I laugh at that absurdity.

How quickly they forget Pres. Obama wanted to go into Syria to fight Assad and when Congress begged for time to debate and vote on it the only result they could come to was to neither debate nor vote on it. And, in the end, the president didn't have authority to fight Assad or ISIS and now we still have both to deal with.

Republican revision of history isn't hard to refute, but I can imagine their followers who dislike Pres. Obama would gobble it up without hesitation. Suckers.

Now they're begging for all-out war against ISIS-ISIL with foot soldiers and the whole nine-yards. I guess they've forgotten the trillions of dollars of debt and the lack of public support for more war after the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the "war on terror".

I expect the president will fight ISIS-ISIL and continue to support the return of sound government to Syria and Republicans will continue to tell lies.

Is the West Virginian's "Way of Life" in Danger?

Shelley Moore Capito says the West Virginia way of life is in danger, but I don't see it. Certainly, back in the 1980s that was true and a lot of young people left the state to find work elsewhere. The recession of 2007-2009 was too brief to have that impact, but it showed Republican economic ideas really hurt West Virginians. Today the economy is stable due to Democratic economic policies.

Look around and you won't see West Virginia in decline. New structures are being built. The roads are clogged with cars going somewhere. There is LIFE in West Virginia, but Shelley Moore Capito can't see it.

West Virginia, and America, needs the Democratic economic policies to continue growing. THAT, not Republicans who say "no" to everything, will keep America on the right track of growth and new jobs.

America's Strategy for ISIS/ISIL

I think it might be wise to handle them quite different than al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They are a very mobile bunch and, perhaps like a herd of bison, need to be "allowed" to run together into a cul de sac where they can be slaughtered en masse. As I understand it there are a few thousand of them. That shouldn't require a huge military force on the part of a Middle-Eastern coalition.

I suggest this because it would be unwise to get into a protracted effort with many feet on the ground with bases and all the logistical nightmares of that and at the same time remain prepared to deal with Russia vis a via Ukraine.

It's not an easy situation, but it would be unwise to have a knee-jerk reaction to the ISIS crisis and overlook the bigger picture.

ISIS isn't a nation with all the resources that would bring, so one decisive battle could bring them down.