Randy's Views

South Carolina hosted the latest Presidential Debate. FOX News televised the Republican Presidential debate, complete with promos, commercial breaks and text message voting. It was like "American Idol" except for politics. There were contestants who do not belong, and there are those who do. Beyond that, the debate was not good for much.

Debates are generally a good thing. Debates afford Americans the opportunity to hear, compare and differentiate between the candidates. Admittedly, the ratings for the debate do not reflect a stampede of voters anxious to watch and see the candidates in action. Yet, they do generate information - which is a good thing.

Unfortunately, the current Presidential debates do not work. Here are some reasons why.

So many candidates, so little time. Lining all of the declared candidates on a stage only marginalizes the debate. Simple mathematics illustrates the problem. If the debate is ninety minutes (without commercial breaks) and there are eight candidates, then each candidate gets a total of approximately twelve minutes. Of course, this assumes the moderators/questioners do not use any time. Add them into the mix with commercial breaks, and the time is below ten minutes. And, speaking of the moderators/questioners -

So much talking, so little value. None of the questioners are a candidate for anything. Their opinions regarding history, the issues, or the candidates are worth Zippo, nada, nothing. Yet, they preface every question with a speech reflecting their assessment of the situation, and followed by a narrow question aimed at proving their value and scoring some point. Of course, the candidates promptly respond by ignoring the question and delivering their rehearsed comments, even if only tangentially connected to the question. So what is the value of such questions? And speaking of the questions -

So much "gotcha," so little meaning. No one doubts the ability of the research teams of media organizations (undoubtedly assisted by the extensive opposition research from various political organizations) to find a less than flattering act, quote, or event in the historical political life of every candidate. And that furthers the debate how? The "gotcha" mentality controls over any real interest in substance. More significantly, it does little to help Americans determine the thing
they most want to know - what do the candidates really think and why?

So, what are some solutions? In addition to the obvious, here are some suggestions.

Make them talk more, not less. My grandmother once said - "if you let someone talk long enough, they will tell you all you need to know." So, as opposed to a "shot clock" restricting answers to short bursts of prepared remarks, set a minimum of five minutes. Candidates can deliver their memorized remarks for one or two minutes. Make them talk about one issue for five minutes - like the Iraqi war, or healthcare, or Social Security, and Americans can learn a lot. Make them respond to each other, and voters can learn the most.

Ask opened ended questions. Candidates never answer the question asked, so why spend so much time on the question? Consultants, advisers, and spinners have generally developed a way for their candidate to answer any question, even a stumper. They cannot, however, think for their candidate when their candidate is on stage. Who, what, when, where, how, and why questions always work pretty well.

Five minute answers combined with open ended questions should provide some valuable insight into what the candidates know and how they process the information they have. Basically, Americans can learn how they think, and this is no small thing.

Marching to the beat of different drummers – that is the perception most Georgians have of Georgia Republican leaders in state government – and for good reason. Any reasonable person would almost certainly reach that conclusion based on the reports regarding the last days of the 2007 Georgia General Assembly.

Some argue that that these differences started to emerge during the 2006 Georgia General Assembly. During the budget negotiations, Georgia House and Senate leaders differed intensely on Georgia’s budget. Yet, the 2006 General Election loomed on the horizon. Cognizant of the gloomy national political forecast for Republicans, Georgia Republican political leaders put aside their differences just long enough to get through the election. Having successfully weathered the negative 2006 political climate, Georgia Republican leaders picked back up right after the election. The rest is political history.

And, the media loved it.

In the rush to fan the flames of political divide, controversy driven reporters and pundits have largely ignored the changes in Georgia government over the last few years that make this public political domestic dispute so significant.

Obviously, the players changed. There is a Republican Governor, a Republican Speaker of the House, and now a Republican Lieutenant Governor. With three Republicans in leadership positions, some might ask a relatively obvious question: if they are all from the same political party, how could they differ so much? It is a good question.

Interestingly, they all started their political journey with the same destination in mind. They wanted to wrestle control from an old party structure in order to change the direction of Georgia government. This included imposing some serious and stringent fiscal controls on budgeting and spending. Within just a few years, they made it. It is also where the problem is.

Everyone had agreed on where they were going, but they had very different views on what do when they got there. Starting in 2006, and continuing in 2007, the rewards of fiscal restraint paid off. As budget surpluses continued to grow, the disagreements about what to do with those surpluses mounted. Increasingly, as folks started to focus on where they were (budget surpluses), virtually everyone had forgotten where they had been (budget shortfalls). Hence, the context of the debate was lost.

Three different approaches have emerged – set aside more for the reserve fund, return some money to the taxpayers, or invest more in programs that suffered during the lean years. Now, if the choice was between any one of these options, on the one hand, and the budget shortfalls, on the other hand, then the choice would be obvious.

But the debate has shifted. This is not unprecedented. A similar thing happened in Washington, D.C. in 1994. As Republicans assumed control of the Congress, the debate centered on whether to balance the budget. After they assumed control, the question shifted from whether to balance the budget to how to balance the budget.

In Georgia, the debate has shifted from how to fill a budget shortfall to what to do with a budget surplus. Budget shortfalls are no longer an option. The center of debate has moved and it is a dramatic shift.

This shift does not diminish the significance of the differences among the Governor, Senate leaders, and House leaders over what to do with budget surpluses. It does, however, put them in context.

There is little doubt that the debate over the next few months will be passionate and even contentious. Unlike the backroom governments of years passed, it will undoubtedly also be a very public debate. After all, it has already been open to the public.

How can a high school graduation party turn into a deadly gunfight? What worries law enforcement officials about illegal immigration? Why have malls and shopping centers adopted stringent policies for unaccompanied minors after curfew. Gangs. They threaten the safety, security, and future of inner cities, suburban communities, and rural areas. While stories about gangsters like Al Capone, Charlie "Lucky" Luciano and Frank Costello are a distant past, the new criminal element is now a contemporary reality and getting worse. The Young Gang Survey indicates that more than 772,500 American teens are members of gangs and more than 24,500 different gangs exist in the United States. These staggering numbers provide concrete evidence for the need to tackle this issue without delay.

The increase in gang activity has countless negative repercussions for Americans. First - and probably the most obvious - gang activity contributes to a substantial amount of the violence in areas where gangs are active. Murders are up; assaults are up; vandalism is up; theft is up; drug related crime is up. While no one needs proof of the connection between gangs and crime, a survey conducted in Denver, Colorado discovered that 89 percent of the crimes committed were committed by gang members. Anyone with doubt should just ask their local District Attorney or Sheriff.

Not surprisingly, the violence against people and property has led to intimidation and fear in neighborhoods, communities, churches, and schools throughout America. There is an unspoken angst growing among law-abiding Americans. The fact is that anyone can become injured or killed by a drive-by shooting, a random robbery, or an inadvertent encounter with a drug deal gone bad. Gangs are a direct threat to adults and children alike.

Increasingly, the number of gangs and gang members have overwhelmed in many areas the thin blue line that stood between innocent Americans and violent criminals. The affluent hide behind privately guarded gates while the rest of America is left to endure the continual threats from thugs oblivious to any meaningful boundary between right and wrong. Even when the criminal justice system responds, the juvenile justice system fails. While Youth Violence Prevention points out that the average age of a gang member is seventeen to eighteen, gangs recruit their members from much younger people. They capitalize on teenagers depriving them of any real opportunity for a promising future. Approximately 95 percent of gang members do not even graduate from high school. Criminal behavior becomes the norm, and the norm translates into a lifetime of antisocial behavior.

Contrary to the view of some, gang activity is not a cultural necessity that should be tolerated for the sake of political correctness. The increased use of technology and the greater allocation of law enforcement resources has become unavoidable in treating the symptoms of gang activity by creating safe zones in the midst of gang dominated areas. But this is not enough. Forcing gang activity from the malls to the streets does not solve the problem. Instead, like cancer, gangs have to be dealt with in a multi-tiered approach.

To effectively address gangs, Americans must adopt programs aimed at prevention, detection, treatment, and cure. These steps require more than a "catch and release" program that recycles criminals. Each time, they come back more violent than before. If they are illegal in this country, they should be removed. An illegal immigrant gang member released after criminal behavior has no reason to respect, honor or obey the law - at least not in the real world.

As the threat of gang activity grows, Americans really have only two choices - ignore it or deal with it. If ignored, it will only continue to spread. The time has come for the other option - aggressively deal with it like the threat that it is.

With the announcement that the President and "key" U. S. Senators would attempt to resuscitate the fatally flawed immigration bill, it became clear that there is a clear disconnect between the President, "key" Senators and the American people.

In an effort to address public outrage and sway public opinion, the latest political gimmick by Washington, D.C. politicians involves the President dangling a $4 billion dollar promise to secure the borders immediately if the Congress passes the immigration bill. Of course, this offer begs the question of why not immediately use the $4 billion to secure America's borders? Securing our borders is the right thing to do and will make America safer without the political quid pro quo from Americans and politicians of support for something that they do not believe in. The President's latest move misses the point.

As highlighted by the many proposed amendments, the President's immigration bill has a number of flaws. Some can be addressed by changes to the bill after thorough debate and careful consideration. Others cannot.

While the amendments can make the bad bill into a better bad bill, they cannot change the fundament flaw with the immigration proposal. The core problem with the proposed immigration legislation centers on one simple issue: amnesty for those who have entered the United States illegally.

Many in the administration argue that since the proposed legislation would impose penalties, it does not grant amnesty. This is where the disconnect occurs. Penalties are important. Remedies are critical. Amnesty means permitting people to retain ill-gotten gain. Basically, it is the core principle that a robber or burglar cannot keep the property they took, an embezzler cannot kept the money they took, and a trespasser cannot stay on the property pending payment of a fine or completion of service requirements.

Here is one of the metaphors that is often cited by opponents to the President's immigration proposal to illustrate the point. Assume a homeowner discovers someone in their house that has entered illegally. The unauthorized person has vacuumed the carpet, cleaned the bathrooms, cooked a good meal, and mowed the lawn. The homeowner notifies law enforcement authorities. The intruder admits to entering the house illegally but insists that he or she has done all of the jobs that the homeowner does not like to do. Now, if the prosecutor proposes a plea bargain that says the intruder must pay a fine, but can stay in the home, what would the homeowner say? Would it make a difference if the prosecutor proposed that the intruder could stay permanently in the home if the trespasser agreed to do the household jobs for ten years in addition to paying a fine and completing the requisite paperwork?

Well, America is our home. It is now clear that over ten million people have entered our home illegally. The question is whether there are circumstances where they can stay in our home -- permanently? Some think that it sounds too harsh to say that they cannot stay in our home because they entered our home illegally. Yet, in a country where the rule of law protecting our homes is central, can there be any other option? Good works cannot earn the right to stay in a home that you illegally enter.

Of course, the President's plan goes much further. The plan grants to those entering the country illegally not just the right to stay, but also the right of ownership to the house they illegally entered after paying the fine, staying the requisite number of years and completing the requisite paperwork.

Amnesty in the immigration context means getting to keep what was illegally gotten. Fines and penalties punish but they do not right the wrong. Amnesty means giving up on righting the wrong.

"Global warming" - some regard these words as calculated political buzz words defined by environmentalists and liberals as their own "hot button" "wedge issue" for motivating voters, contributors, and activists. They fear that "global warming" is little more than a one-way ticket for bigger government, more regulations, and increased bureaucracy. Others insist that "global warming" is no longer a theory.

Instead, citing experts, international and domestic, they accept "global warming" as reality, like the reality that the earth is indeed round.

There is no shortage of data on the issue. Since the industrial revolution, the average temperature of the earth has elevated 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit. On any given day, a swing of a degree or two is not significant. On a planetary basis, the change of a few degrees can be the difference between life and extinction. Of course, the nine billion person question is what, if any, connection is there between human activity and the planet's increase in temperature?

No one knows for certain. Some scientists believe that people are the cause. Presumably, based on this argument, fewer people would mean a lesser problem and no people would be no problem. Obviously, while effective under this theory, this is not a very good solution (speaking
on behalf of all people).

So what is the deal with "global warming"? As celebrities and politicians increasingly politicize the debate, it is hard to tell. Carbon dioxide concentration levels are the highest on record. In the year 1900, the CO2 concentration levels in the earth's atmosphere were 290 ppm. So, according to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is "very likely" that human activity has been the principal cause of "global warming" since 1950. Former Vice President Al Gore won an Academy Award for a movie on "global warming." Lots of books attempt to explain "global warming." And, world leaders talk about "global warming."

One of the most important issues in the "global warming" debate is how bad is the situation. Some insist that the "global warming" of Earth is at a tipping point. These folk insist that the planet is on the verge of passing the point of no return, a/k/a the tipping point. Of course, this presupposes that global warming has not already passed the tipping point and, if not, the tipping point is avoidable.

Unfortunately, meaningful discussion of "global warming" has become almost impossible. In large part, this is because the very issue of "global warming" has itself become a means toward an end - whatever end someone wants. Indeed, comedians have had great fun with explaining how "global warming" is the cause every social, cultural, financial, or personal situation that exists. But, the risks involved in this debate are not funny.

The mere possibility that this generation could irreparably injure the planet is enough to warrant action. Putting aside talk of earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes, it is a moral responsibility. Each generation should view the planet not as personal property, but as a temporary gift that is their responsibility to sustain, enhance if possible, but certainly not irreparably hurt.

While macro solutions at the international and national level are legitimate debate, actions at the personal level do not have to be. Every American can, and should, do their part. It is good for the pocketbook. It is good for national security. It is good for America.