Musings on a Wednesday afternoon

"Have we stopped the war in Iraq? No. Have we gotten health care? No. Have we improved education? No. But we have been able to do what we've done. We've done a lot of things." Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Roll Call, Monday, Dec. 10, 2007

So, what exactly have they been able to do? Well, they tried to oppose the surge. And now the surge is working. Just ask John Murtha. Let's see, I think they raised the minimum wage. Anything else? Oh, right, endless investigations. How is that working for them? Seems like a pretty poor return that Democrat voters got on their efforts in the '06 elections.
So I am assuming, if you care anything about politics, you have heard the biggest bombshell regarding the use of waterboarding in interrogation of terrorists. If not, it goes something like this. Democrats have been beating the Bush administration over the head, demagoguing like crazy, implying that the Bush administration approves of torture, because it has allowed a total of 3 very high al Qaeda terrorists to undergo this technique for a combined total of 3 minutes, in exchange for which we received incredibly valuable information. Waterboarding is torture because politicians say it is, and it makes a nice stick to beat the President over the head with. Only problem is that now those intelligence people who have for so long been leaking information to the press that gives the Bush administration a black eye have now bitten the hand that feeds them and let slip that top lawmakers, including Democrats like current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, had received extensive briefing regarding the use of waterboarding, and either gave their tacit approval, or, at the very least, expressed no disapproval with the technique. In fact, some even questioned whether that was enough. So to turn one of their favorite questions on them, I would ask, "Madam Speaker, what did you know, and when did you know it?" And did she approve of waterboarding before she disapproved of it?
Finally, you have to really wonder whether the kid gloves that the media is using to treat the Democrat candidates versus the bashing they are giving the Republicans is, in fact, really beneficial to Democrats. In Democrat debates, they get softball questions from devoted Democrat voters, allowing them to discuss in detail exactly which one of them opposed the invasion of Iraq first, and who has the quickest plan to retreat. They venture into such dangerous venues as labor union debates, NPR radio debates, and CNN/YouTube debates, but won't consider Fox News debates. Repbulicans, on the other hand, go to Univision debates, CNN/YouTube debates (where they get hit with setup questions from Democrat plants - not very clever plants, either), and take all the tough questions. Okay, maybe they like that now, but when they actually have to go up against an opponent of substance in the general election, I'm thinking the guy that has already had to take some tough questions is going to be better prepared. So I actually have no problem with Republicans getting tough questions. I think there should be debates where, instead of getting questions from their own party, they should have to face questions from people of the opposite party. No softball questions at all. I would treat it like prepping a witness for questioning in a trial. Hit them with the tough questions now, so they are prepared for when the battle begins in earnest. To some extent, Republicans have already been doing this (yeah, I'm sure that guy who asked who believed in the Bible was somebody considering voting Republican). Democrats won't. They won't even go on Fox News for a debate. Now that is what I call reaching out to all voters!