Debating Ahmadinejad may be Obama's Best move

He does this every chance he gets, but Iran's President has once again offered to debate our President on...how did he phrase it...”to see who has the best solutions for the world's problems,” I think it was. He was quoted in a Reuters' article as saying, “Toward the end of summer we will hopefully be there for the (U.N.) General Assembly and I will be ready for one-on-one talks with Mr. Obama, in front of the media of course."

He has done this before, of course. Specifically, he challenged President Bush the same way. Of course, one of his statements in the course of the challenge included claiming
Bush was scared to talk, but Iran preferred it, “We have always favored talks, Iranians have never, ever favored war."

On the face of Iran's continued provable terrible record on civil rights, Ahmadinejad's statements and position is laughable, undeserving of response, much less serious consideration.

But...

Maybe...just maybe...President Obama should take on the challenge. Why? Well, things have not been going well for the President recently. He campaigns well, but people are starting to talk. Why isn't he staying in the Oval Office and improving the still stagnant recovery? Why haven't his promised improvements in job development happened? Why are we perhaps on the verge of a “double-dip” recession? And other questions, still un-asked by most of the media remain quietly considered by voters. He is clearly not an accomplished administrator, so staying in the office is not his best option. So...what to do?

Perhaps he could turn support for him into a patriotic thing. Take on Ahmadinejad directly...at the UN...in a debate. He could put the clear facts that Ahmadinejad denies into a presentation that would be an “in-your-face” moment that would rally all of America to his side...at last, the President standing up for the inherent exceptional-ism and good of America and, in the process, making the idiocy of the Iranian President's claims clear to all...once and for all.

Doesn't it sound great? Of course, it will take a bit of work and preparation. Mr. Obama will first need to get all of his facts in order, memorize those facts and be able to talk on them from many different points of view and in different contexts, all without the aid of a teleprompter...this, after all, will be a no-holds debate, not a formal speech. And he will need to get used to getting into the face of his opponent at close range, dealing with yelling and challenges coming from close range and being able to show his emotion while remaining in control of his argument and presentation while avoiding his proven tendency to calm others by giving them what they want...approval or silence. But...if he can get that part down pat...what a show that would be. Single-handedly, he could bring American's back on board his bandwagon...and he might find out that he likes it, that being and acting strong has more going for it than waiting for others to play "nice."

Just think of it...I had a dream...a President standing up for America and all that is right in the face of one of the proven rights-denying representatives of a dictatorial regime.

Someone should call Rahm.

Who...really...should have the right to Vote?

Had a number of conversations recently about election results and why they turn out the way they do.There were no "light bulb" moments, but it started me thinking about our current national position that every adult, not convicted of a felony, has the right to vote.

I start with a question: Does this standard serve, support and protect the United States of America as a free democratic republic?

For the sake of this discussion, my answer is, "No."

Here is my reasoning. If the vote is "free", that is, your choice does not cost anything, then your vote will be more emotional than it is logical; it will be more self-serving than balanced; it will be ill-thought-through, because it doesn't matter...no cost, no risk, no consequences of note. I think a more logical position is that you must have a financial stake, an "ante" to put it in Poker terms, in the matter in order to vote. You should be a property owner, or a renter, or a tax-paying wage earner in order to vote...these requirements all in addition to a basic literacy test. Along with these requirements, I would require all rental leases to be Net, Net...that is, your rent would show the amount of your rent that pays Property Taxes separate from the rent that goes into the pocket of the Landlord, AND you would get to deduct that property tax on your tax returns. To vote, you would need to show a copy of your last years tax return proving that you have a "stake" in the outcome.

Those who are receiving government subsidies (welfare, grants of any kind, food stamps, etc.) would be ineligible to vote. After all, they have proven themselves unable, through bad luck or bad choices, to manage their own lives so as to at least break even so how can they be trusted to help make choices about running the country at any level?

This disability to vote is removed if and when they again become stake-holders who are positively contributing in the work force and helping to shoulder the cost of government.

OK...that is my reasoning. I do not declare it to be an ultimate answer or position, but to me it holds the promise of offering us the opportunity to get government that is selected on a balance of what we want and what we can afford, getting away from the efficacy of the "free lunch" promise that seems to have become so effective in electing officeholders for the past 30 years. But I would enjoy seeing criticisms that offer better ways of solving our present problem. What do you folks think?

(And lets stay away, for now, from the response that "we just can't change it." First we need a thorough discussion about what change might be beneficial before thinking about how, if at all, to get it done. Clearly if we can't arrive an a consensus about something that would be better, there is no reason at all to consider how to implement it.)