For the GOP: "Keep Your Eye on the Ball."

And for whomever is the victor in the Democrats' civil war to determine their presidential nominee: "Some policy questions, if you please."

“Call the ball.”

Navy and Marine Corps carrier pilots are taught to open “call the ball” when landing on an aircraft carrier. The “meatball” or simply “the ball” is a round yellow light in the Navy’s optical landing system. To make a safe landing the pilot must keep his eye on the ball and adjust his flight path to keep it optically centered between two horizontal rows of lights. A carrier pilot on final approach who fails to keep his eye on the ball and to keep it centered risks disastrous consequences.

Optical Landing System

Keeping your eye on the ball and keeping it centered is also important in a variety of other everyday situations, from baseball to a lawyer trying a lawsuit, and, importantly for the present, selecting the next president of the United States.

What is the ball?

In the upcoming election, winning the election is the equivalent of a safe carrier landing for the GOP and its supporters. To achieve that, they must keep their eye on the ball. And the ball to guide the GOP to a safe landing is sound positions on substantive issues and policies. Like a carrier pilot on final approach, they must keep that ball at the center of their approach. If they lose sight of that ball — substantive issues and policies — and instead focus on non-substantive issues, it can be fatal to their safe landing in November.

Don’t lose focus on the ball.

Right now, much of GOP and its conservative supporters appear to be at risk of losing sight of the ball. Every day I see countless articles, videos and broadcasts arguing about Joe Biden’s dementia and general mental fitness for office. We see Biden and his White House claiming that his pitiful debate performance was just due to an “off-night,” or that he was suffering from a cold, or maybe it was jet lag, the moderators’ fault, not enough sleep, that he just doesn’t do well after 4:00 p.m., or …. whatever. Biden’s given position is what scientists would call a “dynamic system,” i.e., one that is constantly changing. Personally (with my tongue only slightly in my cheek), I would say that Biden’s position on this (or anything else) also is subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle because we cannot know at any particular moment what his position is how fast it will change.

Quite understandably conservative commentators and GOP politicians fire back against these bogus excuses, pointing out what has long been obvious to any sentient person not suffering from Stage IV Trump Derangement Syndrome — that Joe Biden is not capable of being the CEO of a local plumbing company, much less the United States of America.

So, although the Republicans in the House are continuing their investigations, many (most?) of Trump’s supporters still seem to be focused on that issue of mental competency — which has already been won due to Biden’s self-immolation at the debate — at the expense of not keeping their eye on the ball of other substantive issues and policies. That focus needs to change.

Why not reinforce a winning issue?

So that I am not misunderstood, it is important and necessary to rebut the constantly changing stories about Biden’s mental fitness for office, but that should now become a peripheral effort, not the main focus.

Why? Because if Biden is replaced as the Democrat nominee, as seems increasingly likely, that issue will disappear immediately. The state media will instantly begin crowing about how wonderful Kamela is, or Gavin, or whomever the Democrats run after ousting Biden, no matter who it may be. The GOP and its supporters therefore need to keep focusing the voters now on the ball — what substantive issues will Trump support that the eventual Democrat nominee will fight? Once Biden is gone, that is what will be important to the voters, so the GOP should refocus on laying the groundwork now.

And if Biden does survive the intra-party battle and remains as the nominee, the GOP will not have lost anything by concentrating on substantive policy issues, and they can still point to his obvious decrepitude.

Below is a partial list of issues and questions that should remain — or in some cases become — the ball that the GOP should encourage voters to focus on. And to the extent that there are any honest national journalists left in the ancien régime media, they should keep these issues front and center by pressing both candidates for specific answers to questions about such issues. Consider, for example, just these questions:

Elections

• Everyone wants a fair election. We already have reports that illegal aliens are being registered to vote. Attorney General Garland has said that he will take action to prevent states from enforcing voter ID laws because he says such laws are discriminatory. Do you support reasonable efforts to require verifiable identification of all voters? If not, how can we have confidence in the outcome of the election?

  • Should illegal immigrants be allowed to vote in any elections, state, federal or local?

  • If not, what specific steps would you take to prevent that?

The border

• Our southern border is a shambles. Please describe with specificity what you will do to control the massive influx of people coming into our Country from all over the world in violation of our laws.

  • Many of these people falsely claim that they are only seeking political asylum in this country. What are your views on that, how to control that, and on how to distinguish valid asylum claims from bogus ones? What are the specific changes both in the law and in enforcement policies that are necessary to control this?

  • Millions of people have already gained entry into our country in defiance of our laws. Should they be deported? If so, specifically how will you round them up and deport them?

  • Should people who are in the country illegally receive federal (or state) benefits such as free phones, monetary grants, free up-scale hotel rooms, free or reduced university tuition, and other taxpayer funded goodies? If so, what?

  • The Venezuelan government refuses to accept the return of its citizens who have come here illegally, even those who have committed crimes. What will you do about that?

  • Many of our cities have declared themselves as “sanctuary cities.” They refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities by turning over illegal immigrants, even those who have been charged or convicted of crimes here. What will be your policies about such cities? Should they continue to receive federal funding for any purpose, since they refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of federal law?

The scope and power of the federal government

• What are your views about the size and power of the federal government? Specifics not platitudes, please.

  • Are there any cabinet positions that should be eliminated?

  • Do you support the creation of any new cabinet offices?

  • The 10th Amendment provides that the powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government or forbid the states from exercising, “are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” That foundation principle seems to be little observed today when we see the federal government involved in so many aspects of our lives from how we educate and care for our children to how we plow our fields. What are your views about the scope of the 25th Amendment and will you take any steps to re-empower that States? If so, what? And, again, please be specific.

  • One of the problems with controlling the unelected bureaucrats in the “deep state” is that they can undermine the will of the voters and the President’s policies and it is virtually impossible to fire civil service employees. Do you agree that this is a problem and, if so, how can it be fixed?

  • Should the federal government force taxpayers to pay off student loans?

Ukraine, Russia and international relations

• The war in Ukraine is a bloody mess. What is our national objective in Ukraine? Please define it with precision.

  • President Biden said that we will “do whatever it takes” to succeed in Ukraine. How do you define “success”?

  • Is there a limit to what support you are willing to provide to Ukraine, either in terms of dollars, or types and utilization of weapons?

• In 1963 we risked nuclear war with Russia over Russians and missiles in Cuba, 90 miles off the tip of Florida. Vladimir Putin has expressed concern about Ukraine or any other country bordering Russia becoming a member of NATO. Does he have a point?

• Prior administrations, both Democrat and Republican, never thought that Ukraine was so critical to our national interest that we should enter into a mutual defense treaty with it. Why is it now worth risking a war with Russia over its disputes with Ukraine?

  • If the justification is to deter Russian aggression as we often hear, are there also other countries with which we do not have a mutual defense treaty that we also would support if they were in a conflict with Russia, China, Venezuela, or any other aggressive county? Who and why?

• The Monroe Doctrine is now dead. Both China and Russia are now becoming increasingly influential as they project power in this hemisphere, as well as in Africa and Asia. What will you do about it? Again, be specific, please.

Iran

• Iran is the leading funder of terrorists world-wide. What will you do about that? Please be specific. No platitudes.

• Without asking you to disclose potential operational details, will you pledge to the American people that you will never allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons?

  • Is the risk of war with Iran justified to prevent it getting nuclear weapons?

  • In the past, we have provided both cash and relief from sanctions to induce Iran to release captive Americans. Do you support this, or do you favor our prior policy of never paying ransom to obtain the release of captive Americans?

These are not intended to be “gotcha” questions. These are serious policy issues that any nominee must be required to answer or forfeit any serious consideration to be President. If either candidate were to respond with platitudes or non-specific “feel good” responses, then that should be regarded as an “I don’t know” or “I haven’t thought about that.” Voters can then make their own assessment of the candidate’s suitability.

Different readers will prefer different answers to the questions. It is not my point here to argue for the correct answers; it is to suggest that these are issues that likely will draw a sharp distinction between any Democrat candidate and President Trump, and that they and others should be addressed now and on a continuing basis so that voters can make a fully informed decision.

Many voters now realize that they did not get what they thought they were voting for in 2020. With his basement campaign, Biden and his handlers duped voters into thinking that he was a moderate who would govern from the center. That deception has not bound the country together as Biden promised. Rather, it has widened the gap and poisoned the discussion even more. To avoid duplicating that result, the media and the GOP need to press the Democrat candidate to disclose the specific policies that will underpin their governance, should they remain in power.

Finally, the above obviously is not a comprehensive list of questions for the eventual Democrat nominee. They are just one observer’s starting point for suggested questions that are important to our future and our voting decision. And they can and should be put to President Trump as well. Feel free to add your own questions and issues in the comments. But, need I say it? Do keep it civil.