I've long wondered whether the current presidential debate format sufficiently informs the public about where the candidates stand on the issues, or whether the debates are merely stage-managed public relations events during which candidates offer obtuse and abstract answers to pre- approved questions from friendly questioners. I participated in seven Republican presidential debates in 1999 and 2000. Although I performed well, I was constantly frustrated over the format of the debates, which typically allowed candidates a mere 90 seconds to answer complex public policy questions and another 30 seconds to offer rebuttals. The inadequacy of the current debate format was highlighted during last Thursday's CNN-hosted Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas. While host Wolf Blitzer introduced the debate audience, from which some of the questions were derived, as a crowd of "ordinary people, undecided voters," it turns out that they were far from "ordinary," and at least one was not even a legal voter. In fact, all were liberal activists who had been pre- selected by CNN. The group included the political director of the Democratic Party of Arkansas, the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada, an anti-war activist, a labor union official, a radical Chicano separatist and a non-U.S. citizen and soon to-to-be staffer for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Even worse, all the questions were pre-approved by CNN. One questioner who has been mocked for asking Hillary Clinton if she prefers "diamonds or pearls," responded that she was forced to ask the question after CNN rejected a variety of other, more substantive questions. This election season has already seen 20 Republican and Democratic presidential debates; yet, polls show many voters remain confused about where the candidates stand on critical issues such as illegal immigration, abortion and the war in Iraq, thus proving the old adage that quantity does not always ensure quality. Presidential debates are supposed to be authentic exchanges between candidates, often with the voters help, highlighting the substantive differences between candidates on matters of public policy. When, instead, they become carefully-managed public relations events, voters lose.

Thanksgiving-a great American tradition during which families gather to thank God for the many blessings He has bestowed upon them in this great country-is fast approaching. Of course, in this age of left-wing political correctness it was only a matter of time before this cherished observance came under fire. Last year, one public school insisted on teaching its children that the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians (whoops-I mean NativeAmericans) rather than to God. But the idiocy hasn't stopped there. Last week, the Seattle School District sent a letter to its teachers warning them that, "Thanksgiving can be a difficult time for many native students." The letter goes on to tell the teachers that for many Native Americans Thanksgiving is seen as a "time of mourning" and "a reminder of 500 years of betrayal." To which I reply, "Pass the stuffing!"  Seriously, folks, is there any little pleasure of hearth and home that we are allowed to enjoy unmolested by the thought police and bullies of political correctness? Puritans and Indians originally celebrated Thanksgiving as a time of celebration for a successful harvest. On October 3rd, 1789 President George Washington, by request of Congress, designated November 26th as a day "of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many.favors of Almighty God." In the same proclamation, Washington asked, "the great Lord and Ruler of nations.to pardon our national and other transgressions." There are plenty of things that American children can and should be taught about Thanksgiving, but mourning is not one of them -unless you happen to be the turkey.