The 'Yes' or 'No' Trick in Congressional Hearings

Let's be candid and fair here. Both sides of the aisle in congressional hearings engage in this practice. They pose what they term "a simple yes or no question." However, when you actually listen to these questions, you'll often find that they are not straightforward yes or no questions at all. Instead, they are meticulously crafted to establish a foundational claim that the questioner wants the respondent to confirm or deny. Their goal is a "gotcha" moment, and these questions are specifically designed for that purpose.

The reality is that no one asking the questions are genuinely interested in the answers. Rather, they use their five minutes as an opportunity to deliver a narrative that supports their preconceived conclusions. When the person being questioned attempts to clarify the details or explain their actual position beyond the confines of the question, the questioner can conveniently dismiss them by saying, "I guess you don't want to answer the question, let's move on." 

The reality is that most questions almost always require more than just a simple yes or no, especially depending on how they are framed—and let's be real here, politicians are as masterful at asking questions that lay traps as they are at answering questions with non-answers.

It's a trick for the cameras and a way for the questioner to commentate rather than to actually learn what the respondent actually believes.

I will admit, as a political junkie, it can be entertaining to watch. At the same time, it can also be a bit frustrating because, we all want to hear the answers to real questions regardless of what aisle we happen to be sitting on.

The purpose of asking questions, by their very nature, are not to hear the views of the person asking the questions, but rather to understand the views of the respondent. When we get gotcha questions such as are posed in these hearings, what we get instead is a one-sided view and before anyone can even attempt to answer, they're more often than not simply cut off.

Of course, the time limits are part of the problem. These senators and representatives want to get as much "information" out as they can and if they allow questions to actually be answered, they'd run out of time before they can say all they want to say.

Maybe we should change the rules. Limit the time for the questioners but stop the clock on their time for the answers and allow a separate time limit for the answering part of the back and forth. If we did that, perhaps these congressional hearings would actually serve the public better than they do.

When we don't get real answers, but instead only receive commentary, we, as voters, have a much more difficult time getting the answers we actually want to hear. It makes the whole thing seem like nothing more than a show.

More than that, wouldn't it be better for the respondent to decide whether the question is a yes or no one? After all, it's their answer. If it were as simple as a yes or no, I am sure that's how the question would actually be answered.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Carville's Harsh Words Are Only Halfway to the Truth

Most of the time, we can agree that James Carville's views are often more hot air than common sense. It really depends on the topic at hand. When he dives into wild, woke progressive agendas, for example, it seems like he's not putting much thought into his words—he's just spouting nonsense and trying his best to make it make sense.

At best, he's an entertaining individual, and I usually listen to him whenever I get the chance, purely for that entertainment value. He's a living, breathing caricature who often has a way with words that you can admire, even if you don't always agree with him. 

While his policy ideas might not always hit the mark, one thing he does know well is the political game and how it works. These are the views I tend to agree with most of the time. His insights on strategy and his ability to dissect the political landscape.

Ultimately, Carville emphasizes that politics is about tapping into the psyche of the American people and understanding what they want to hear. Does that mean policy doesn't matter? Not at all. But it does mean that, regardless of your policy, you need to deliver results and convince people why you are right.

More importantly, you need to show why you are the right person to lead it all.

Carville has long believed that the Democrats' loss in the last election was due to Biden not dropping out of the race much sooner. I don't agree with his assessment. The Democrats lost because they didn't listen to the American people, deployed harmful policies, and weren't forthcoming about the reality of the situation. 

Nonetheless, Carville still places all the blame for their devastating loss on Joe Biden himself, and there I think he's right. It is Biden's fault. He knew he was unfit to lead, and so did his staff, yet they continued the ruse and allowed him to run for reelection anyway, making it harder to put forward better candidates than himself or Kamala Harris.

Maybe the Democrats could have forged a closer race? Who knows? We can only speculate if the outcome of the election would have been different if Joe Biden had dropped out and there would have been a real primary. 

I still think Trump would have won because, unless someone on the left was willing to admit what Americans already knew—that the entire Biden presidency was a disaster—they stood no chance. But things certainly might have gone differently.

The trouble for Carville is how Biden tarnished his legacy—though I question how Carville might define legacy. He says no one cares about Biden anymore. He's old news. People are tired of hearing from him. He needs to go away.

My words are slightly harsher than Carville's, but not by much. "Just go to your condo in Rehoboth and stay there," Carville said. He even chided Biden's back and forth with his own party as petty, "'Oh, I would have beat Trump.' No one f--king believes that at all. Look guy, you had a noble career. Your last act was terrible. Just get out of the way."

I get it. Carville's mad that his party lost the election, and handily. What Carville should do is not just scold Biden for his mistakes but also hold the entire party accountable for theirs. As I mentioned before, the Democrats failed to resonate with the American people and caused more harm than good. That's why they lost. Putting a fresh face on bad policy wouldn't have changed the outcome. Their ideas weren't what the American people wanted, and the damage they caused was too much for anyone to bear another four years of going down the wrong path and leaving untold new carnage in the wake.

Biden's done, and Carville is right about that. But if the Democrat party doesn't grasp the full reason for their loss, wake up, and listen to the American people rather than just themselves, the damage might be permanent.

Woke isn't just failing in America. It's failing around the world. On that, I think Carville misses the point. More than that, it was the inflation, the border crisis, the war in Ukraine, putting tampons in men's restrooms, and allowing men to compete in women's sports. It was all those things and then some, and the fact that the Democratic party missed the mark on all of it. That's why they didn't win over the American people and lost the election to Donald Trump.

For all of his political smarts, Carville should know this. As he might say, "It's not rocket science, stupid."

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Congressman Andy Ogles' Proposal is a Pandora's Box We'd Rather Not Open

Here we go again. If we want to fan the flames and give the left an I told you so moment, just follow Tennessee Republican Congressman Andy Ogles' lead and introduce a resolution to the Constitution to allow Trump a third term.

Of course, it won't pass and likely won't even be taken seriously. But that's not the point. The left will still run with it, and the mainstream media will have a field day. They're already still talking about threats to democracy and conveniently leaving out the context of Trump telling Fox News' Sean Hannity that he would be a dictator on day one.

The point is, we don't need to give the left any more fuel to stoke the flames of false narratives. Why give them a reason to focus on something as absurd as Ogles' proposal and ignore all the good coming from the new administration that they otherwise couldn't overlook?

The bottom line is, if you give the media a distraction, they'll seize it and overlook the real news.

I understand Congressman Ogles' point, and he makes a valid argument. We have numerous issues that need addressing, and we want to ensure President Trump has all the necessary resources to tackle them. However, proposing a change to the 22nd Amendment is not the right approach. We have rules for a reason, and the law is the law. Moreover, what happens when this change applies to a president we don't support?

In other words, we shouldn't just consider the immediate implications of such a proposal, but also its long-term impact. I offered the same caution to Democrats regarding their overzealous and wrongful pursuit of Trump, dragging him through the courts and threatening imprisonment. 

Had they succeeded, one day the tables will be turned, and once the door to political persecution has been opened, you could be next in line.

We won. Let's just rejoice in that and be satisfied and committed to the fact that we have four years to get the job done. That's how it works. We also have four years to prove our case for 2028 and hopefully have Vice President J.D. Vance or another Republican carry the torch. But we only have four years with President Trump.

I don't want the law changed, and I don't even want to entertain the discussion. No American, not even Trump supporters, should want to have that conversation, even if it might work in the country's favor this time. 

Moreover, if a proposal like Ogles' were to pass easily with serious consideration, how simple might it be one day to argue against term limits altogether? If we have a good president, why not let them run indefinitely until America decides it's time for a change?

This is a glaring example of a slippery slope. 

Congressman Andy Ogles may have good intentions, and I trust that he does. However, it's the bigger picture implications that matter most. Our time in Congress should be dedicated to advancing Trump's agenda, not giving the media a reason to overlook our accomplishments or causing on-the-fence voters to question our intentions.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Schumers Spin is a Dance Around Biden's Mental Acuity

I get it. Politicians have a knack for speaking in a way that only politicians can. It's either in their DNA, or they undergo a rigorous orientation upon taking office, complete with courses on the art of "communication."

How to dodge questions while appearing to answer them. How to create the illusion of transparency. How to lie convincingly and make it seem like you're being truthful. How to craft intricate riddles that no one can truly solve, yet make you sound ingenius.

It is literally an art form.

Remember when Chuck Schumer and his fellow Democrats dismissed claims about Biden's mental acuity as right wing conspiracies? Then came that infamous debate performance, leaving Democrats visibly stunned.

"Oh, God. We can't possibly spin this anymore. Can we?"

They couldn't spin it anymore. The writing was on the wall, clear as day. But to be fair, they're still dodging the question, doing their best to find creative ways to deny the truth. This was evident once again when Chuck Schumer was recently asked on Meet the Press if he felt he misled the American people with his comments.

He didn't answer the question. Instead, he rambled on about Biden's "record," his supposed accomplishments, claiming he achieved more than any other president in history, and highlighting achievements that marked a very successful presidency. 

Beyond none of that being true, it was a relatively simple question. "Did you and the Democrat party mislead the American people about President Joe Biden's health?" Of course, answering that question truthfully would have posed another important question that no one really wants to address.

If Joe Biden's mental acuity was in decline, then who was making the decisions? Who was truly running the country? And whoever that was, how much power did they amass in Biden's mental absence? Could they have controlled Harris? Were they controlling Harris? Was she merely a Manchurian candidate?

During Trump's first term, without any doubt, he posed an existential threat to The Establishment. Were Joe Biden and Kamala Harris the ultimate opportunity for them to reaffirm and cement their power indefinitely?

Conspiratorial, I admit. Crazy? Maybe. Possible? You never know. But I digress.

When Chuck Schumer skillfully dodged the question, the follow-up might have been even more revealing. "Do you believe Biden could have served another four years?" Schumer's response was that he didn't want to speculate. For all intents and purposes, that's a no, which circles back to the original question.

If Joe Biden wasn't in mental decline, why did he debate performance essentially seal the deal for calls for him to drop out of the race? If he was fit to lead, wouldn't that have outweighed the impact of the debate? And if it were true that he wasn't experiencing any mental decline at all, and it was nothing more than a bad night at the podium, why couldn't that be easily conveyed after the debate to change the Democrat's minds?

I understand Chuck Schumer's going to speak like he does. He's seasoned. The real question is whether the American people buy his answer, and I believe the answer is no. Beyond that, if the Democratic party continues to blatantly mislead the American people and dodge the truth, how will they ever restore the trust they lost in the last election?

Not that I'm rooting for them to do that, mind you. I'm just making an observation and asking, what else were they hiding?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Biden Blocks Nippon Steel Deal: The Uncertain Future of U.S. Steel and Granite City Works

Driving through the streets of Granite City, Illinois, you might notice that the city appears a bit worn down. This is largely due to the presence of the steel mill, Granite City Works, which is part of U.S. Steel, and SunCoke Energy, a separate entity, both of which involve demanding and gritty work environments. However, despite their rugged nature, and the fact that driving past these facilities is quite a bit of an eyesore, these operations play a crucial role in holding the community together.

Without these industries, Granite City might risk becoming a ghost town.

It's no secret that U.S. Steel has faced several financial challenges, putting Granite City Works in jeopardy. Even as negotiations with Nippon Steel to acquire U.S. Steel for an estimated $14.9 billion were underway, Nippon pledged to enhance steel mills in Gary, Indiana and Pittsburgh. However, they remained silent about their plans for Granite City.

In 2023, the plant had to shut down its only operational blast furnace, resulting in layoffs. Additionally, there have been other temporary layoffs and shutdowns, leaving unions frustrated and workers uncertain about their job security. 

These jobs are well-paying, with the average worker earning around $75,000 a year, and certainly these are important, family supporting wages. That's something any community wants to keep around. At one time, about 900 people were employed there. But recent cuts in production and layoffs have reduced that number to around 300.

Typically, if there's an opportunity for new leadership to bring in innovative ideas and operational efficiencies, potentially increasing profitability and securing jobs, people would support the sale. However, steel is different. It's a critical resource for national security, making it understandable that selling to a foreign company could pose certain risks.

Even the unions preferred the initial offer from American based Cleveland Cliffs over Nippon Steel's, despite it being half of what Nippon ultimately offered. This was true even while Cleveland Cliffs never provided details about its plans for any of the U.S. Steel mills involved in the transaction.

President Joe Biden ultimately blocked the deal, and incoming President-Elect Donald Trump likely would have done the same, as he said as much on the campaign trail. Personally, I support the decision for the same reasons they cited.

National security.

The question becomes, are we in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation? U.S. Steel continues to face financial difficulties, and regardless of the outcome of the Nippon Steel deal, the company will still need to make decisions in its best interest. This means that even if we prioritize national security interests, it doesn't guarantee that the workers at Granite City Works will be better off with a sale to either Cleveland Cliffs or Nippon Steel.

Moreover, if U.S. Steel cannot fix its problems, mills will potentially have to be closed anyway, or even the entire company could cease to exist—defeating the purpose of blocking the Nippon Steel deal anyway for national security interests to protect a valuable commodity. 

This raises the question, should the federal government step in and offer assistance, similar to the bailout provided to automakers? Unlike the financial issues faced by automakers, if the government's decision to block the deal creates additional hardships for the company, does it have an obligation to provide some support?

It's reminiscent of the Covid shutdowns mandated by governors and mayors. If the government decides to close business' doors, regardless of the reasons or the societal impact, offering relief seems like a reasonable thing to do. These businesses did not make decisions to close on their own. They were forced to operate under government directives rather than according to their best interests, and unable to make decisions on their own how to operate within the environment they were in.

While I generally do not support government intervention, I believe a case can be made for a situation like the one regarding U.S. Steel. If the goal is to protect an essential commodity, then we must take steps to also ensure its protection.

Moreover, amid all this uncertainty, I think the workers of Granite City Works, and all of U.S. Steel's mills, deserve some clarity about their futures. The people of Granite City also deserve transparency, as decisions made could have long-lasting impacts on their community. High paying jobs like those at Granite City Works are crucial—they are part of the glue that keeps the city whole.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

American Manufacturing Is About More Than Just Jobs
Bringing back American manufacturing is critical to American society in more ways than just economic ones. In order for America to succeed it needs the ability to make things, not only for the stability and good jobs it provides, but for national security as well.