Archive for the ‘Ted Cruz’ category

Ted Steps Up

September 25, 2016

Ted Cruz announced yesterday he would vote for Donald Trump. Hmmm.

One can ponder the motivation that engulfed Cruz and brought him to this endorsement. His words were that he could not support Hillary Clinton and (implied) he would hold his nose and endorse the Trump-ster. Trump said he was honored to receive this endorsement.

This comedy of the absurd is just another chapter in an extremely unconventional Presidential race. Ted Cruz is probably the most unqualified person, a step further than Trump himself, to become President. So for Cruz to say he was trying to save America from Hillary clinton is asking the listener to overlook Cruz’ fringe position.

Cruz is squarely his own best fan. Almost every move Cruz performs in public is for his own self aggrandizement. But then who cares. The evangelicals think Ted walks on water. The Tea Party-ers love his “government shut down” charades. And the “truth challenged” love Ted Cruz for who he is, “lie’n Ted”.

The Clinton camp should take note but not get exercised over this endorsement. Cruz is the darling of a very finite group. The un-obvious concern, however, is that Trump is consolidating the Republican (I won’t vote for Hillary) base, adding one more extreme faction.

Trump is the antithesis of Cruz’ evangelical supporters. Trump has a reserved place in Hell’s waiting line (should there be such a line). And with the Trump “give aways” he has promised voters so far (infrastructure spending, new child care support, and enormous tax cuts), he must have real conservatives and the Tea Party crowd apoplectic. How does Ted reconcile this “free lunch” spirit?

For the Trump campaign this endorsement must come as an expected (and welcomed) surprise. As long as Cruz keeps his mouth shut or reads from a teleprompter, Cruz support removes someone who might have lobbed a grenade in the closing days of the race.

But then, reading from a teleprompter seems good advice for the Donald too.

How About Some More Division?

July 21, 2016

When President Obama was elected, the Republican Party decided to just say no. For President Obama’s first two years, the Democrats enjoyed a Senate majority (thanks “W”) and some legislation was passed, notably the Affordable Care Act. Beginning in 2011, however, it was “NO” in capital letters.

The height of Republican “no-ism” came early this year when Senate Leader Mitch McConnell promised not to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee vowing to wait until the next President was elected. Unprecedented and clearly outside the spirit of the Constitution, this was a politically divisive act of the first order. Many Republicans cheered McConnnell anyways.

This past week in Cleveland, Republican conventioneers have bemoaned the division of their own party, the division gripping Congress, and the division drenching America. Calls for unity and making America great again were heard everywhere. Has the GOP decided to turn the page on division and go back to governing in the entire country?

Hmmm.

Senator Ted Cruz had other thoughts.  Cruz called for all voters to vote their mind. Read that no endorsement for Donald Trump. Cruz is all for GOP leadership… as long as Congress acts the way he thinks it should. And Cruz is just not so sure about Trump.

Most of the GOP speakers have been in agreement on only one subject. Hillary Clinton.

Each speaker tried to out vilify Clinton compared to the other speakers. The hyperbole went as far as to call for sending potentially the next President to jail for acts which up to now have not been judged criminal by any competent authority.

These anti-Hillary chants are not likely to sway any Clinton supporters and the raw demographics currently point to a Clinton victory. So, what is the real message to be taken from the Republican Convention?

How about more jobs, improved foreign policy, ending poverty, immigration reform, or tax reform?

Hmmm.

There has been no road map for new and better jobs laid out. There has been no plan revealed on how American foreign policy can be made more effective. There has been no ground swell behind ending poverty or dealing comprehensively with immigration and the 11 million undocumented living here now. While there has been broad support for tax cuts (a gift to the rich), there has been no discussion how such cuts would be offset with spending decreases.

In short, the only totally agreed upon position has been to demonize, if not outrightly label Hillary Clinton as a criminal.

Does anyone think these charges befit a party which claims it wants to govern the entire Country, let alone bring unity back?

The Republican Titanic?

April 29, 2016

In the wake of the Acela Primaries, news reports are coalescing around the inevitability of Donald Trump’s nomination. This outcome has been reinforced by the apparent rejection of Ted Cruz’ VP selection of Carli Fiorina, and the seemingly unexplainable coalition with John Kasich. With Trump’s opponents self destructing in real time, who is there to oppose Trump?

Politicians are many things but normally brave, predictable, and principled are heard less and less these days. Republican leaders are in a tough spot. They do not like Trump (and predict bad things in the general election with the Donald at the top of the ticket) but Kasich has not caught American’s interest and Cruz is held in lower esteem than even Trump. So, GOP big whigs don’t want to get caught without a chair when the music finally does stop. QED, hold our noses and get behind Trump.

There are certainly elements of the GOP leadership, including big money, who hold hope that Trump can be defeated in a contested convention. It simply unclear who the GOP could put forward to unite the Party and have a chance to do better in November.

A thoughtful Republican must conclude, one would think, that the Grand Old Party is about to disintegrate. This is probably an exaggeration. But disintegration into two or three large pieces is not only possible but long over due.

The Freedom Coalition (Cruz and Tea Partiers) present an evangelical/fundamentalist, no compromise approach to social values and an austere fiscal policy. Since the rise of the Tea Party, this group has been trying to hijack the Republican Party by claiming to be more Republican than any other Republicans. The views they hold and policies they endorse are backward looking and are not where US demographics are heading. The GOP would be wise to let them go.

Donald Trump followers are people who feel let down by Democrats and assign their economic worries to the “handouts” Democrats call entitlements. This group is largely uninterested in social issues and believes in “live and let live”. For this group the future is all about sensible policy which puts the American dream back in play. The GOP would be wise to build upon this base.

Third largest segment might be the old fashion “establishment” characterized by Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, and the Koch Brothers. This group knows best what is in Americans best interest. They also know what’s best for themselves and see any path forward as featuring a tax cut for the wealthy (no matter how a tax cut is packaged). Benign neglect and civility are the hallmarks of this segment.

How might this all play out?

If the world was perfect, the GOP would realize two things. (1) The Cruz followers have no place to go. Their world view is held by an ever decreasing number of people and their no compromise stand will prevent others from joining. (2) The GOP needs to take a drubbing again in the general election in order for it get real on its core beliefs and policies. (For example, person center healthcare (Paul Ryan’s proposal) in place of Obamacare is the same as “the best healthcare money can buy” and that will not fly.)

In this perfect world, the GOP would return bravely to the center (slightly right of center is ok). Repairing and improving the infrastructure which is necessary for jobs and commerce doesn’t know what a Democrat or Republican is. Income inequality is real but the idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy is somehow going to bring about high paying jobs is a cruel pipe dream. And, saber rattling (how the US is going to get tough with other countries) has no place in the real world of globalization, the US is either militarily strong or it isn’t, and oh by the way, that country the US just shook its saber at is a key trading partner).

If the GOP doesn’t think the middle is for them, then the GOP may need to receive a thrashing more than once.

America needs the GOP to regain its senses. There are important issues facing the country which needs a more diverse set of eyes and minds thinking about them. The budget is unbalanced and without more tax revenues, the only path to a balanced budget is by decreasing government spending… which moves quickly to reductions in entitlements as well as defense spending. Cutting entitlements and not defense spending at a time of income inequality is a prescription for social unrest.

There is a chance that the GOP can escape the Titanic’s fate but only if they move away from the destructive policies of the Freedom Coalition/Cruz faction. If the GOP doesn’t move, the majority of current GOP members will.

Acela Has Spoken

April 27, 2016

Tuesday’s primaries along the Acela train route have confirmed, at least for the Northeast, the two Presidential candidates which Democrats and Republicans prefer. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump won by impressive margins and with the wins, piled up delegate vote leads which make their ultimate selections as presumptive. And both candidates seem genuinely pleased to run against the other.

If there remain pockets among the GOP elite who cannot accept Trump, time is getting short. Trump’s oppositions finds itself in a pickle. Ted Cruz is absolutely unelectable nationally and John Kasich seems unable to gain any traction despite not being disdained.

So to hijack Trump’s nomination in a contested convention will spell disaster for the GOP slate come November. Trump may not appeal to a majority of all voters but he does have enough stalwart support among Republicans (and some cross over Democrats) that the perception of the nomination haven been stolen will significantly reduce Republican turn out on election day.

Hillary has morphed her campaign from a coronation to a grind it out, traditional battle. She has cleverly evolved and in some cases revamped her campaign policies to narrow the differences between her and Bernie Sanders without sacrificing a more centrist position for the general election.

Sanders has his same campaign lines, once seen as original and motivational, and now appear somewhat flat.  He seems to be running out of gas. The stage is almost set.

To be sure, the Northeast, does not speak for America. Our Country is broader and more varied. Never the less certain demographics came forward in 2008 and 2012 and should be expected to hold again in 2016. Women’s rights, immigration, religious tolerance (acceptance of the LBGT community) will once again tilt the vote in favor of Democrats… simply because the GOP will choose a Platform emphasizing the opposite.

GOP positions on tax cuts, ending Obamacare, and reducing entitlements will be equivalent to shooting themselves in the foot. Further, comparing Hillary Clinton to President Obama will backfire too. There simply is no evidence that any of the “just say no” GOP rhetoric of the past 8 years has been based upon sound thinking. In fact, the GOP statements have been 100% wrong.

What should not be lost by either party is that the next 4 or 8 years may not be anything like the past, and may require new policies and resource deployment. There is no reason to believe at this point that Hillary Clinton would be better at operating under new conditions than Donald Trump.  Will the GOP make the case that the next four years will be significantly different from the past?

Voters will be left with the issues and policies which both parties present. In this sense, Donald Trump represents a genuine risk to Clinton. Trump, who has voiced some shallow thinking policies could flamboyantly walk away from anything he has already said in the primaries as if they didn’t count.  And there is little doubt Trump will relish trash talking about Hillary (and Bill). Maybe something will stick.

Voters will undoubtably see Hillary as the only adult in the room but if there wasn’t a chance for Trump, there would be no horse races.

Pandering To “Deeply” Held Religious Views

April 16, 2016

The Constitution’s first amendment guarantees that Government will not restrict expression of religion. But what is included in this presumed freedom? Can mothers prevent their children from being vaccinated to guard against a communicable disease if their brand of religion believes god will safe guard their child? Or, what if ones religion rules out blood transfusions? Could an individual refuse a transfusion? Could that individual refuse a life saving transfusion for his spouse or child? Hmmm.

Many religion are associated with certain wearing apparel. In America, there is fairly wide acceptance or probably better daid, an indifference) to religious dress such as Jewish Kippah, Muslim Hijab, or Amish traditional dress. And underlying this acceptance (or indifference) is that no one else is forced to wear these items.

The operating principle over the years has been religious freedom means that an individual can believe what they want providing their beliefs do not hurt others.

The secular world is another place altogether. Here is where the economy and daily living takes place. One would nowadays never expect to see a door at Walmart which said “Christians Entrance”, or another which said “Blacks Only”. Over the years, secular laws have evolved to provide a commercial world open to all.

The rub arises when religious worlds cross paths with the secular world. Christians normally have religious services on Sunday while Jews hold services Friday evening. In the recent past, there existed a set of laws restricting commercial activity on Sundays. These so-called “blue laws” attempted to discourage most commercial activity on Sundays.

Today there are no laws requiring a commercial establishment to operate on Sunday but more importantantly there are no laws preventing them from being open. Commercial businesses, even those associated with specific religious groups have a choice. No one is required to shop on Sunday and no business is required to be open.

Now a new conflict has arisen testing freedom of religion.

Over the past few years as the Country’s social conscience has evolved to where a majority of Americans accept the LBGT community and recognize same sex marriage.Unfortunately many religious organizations have brought forward objections under the headline, homosexuality, changing gender identity, and same sex marriage violate “deeply held religious views”.

While the law of the land might be that same sex marriage is legal in all 50 States, certain individuals holding “deeply held religious views” believe they possess a right (from the first amendment) to withhold service (during their work) from those who are in some way in violation of their “deeply held religious views”.

There is a cartoon circulating which shows a number of grocery store check-out lanes. In the first lane, the employee tells the customer that due to his “deeply held catholic beliefs” the condoms the customers wishes to purchase must be taken to another lane. In the next lane, a Muslim tells the customer that due to his “deeply held religious beliefs” he can not ring up the bacon and that the customer must take the product to another lane. Sound ridiculous?

Consider then the recent move by some Republican majority States to pass laws nibble away at rulings by the Supreme Court.  These individual instances are not isolated but reflect a broader effort by evangelical and fundamentalist religious groups to have it both ways. They want freedom of religion and they want the right to take certain freedoms from others. Hmmm.

These religious groups want the right to deny service to others whose life style they deem an offense to their “deeply held religious beliefs”. As private organizations, one might understand rules excluding others who can not meet religious tests but when members of these religious organizations are working in the public sector, this seems way over the line. What ever happened to “love thy neighbor as thy self”?

As disappointing as these religious groups behavior, even more disappointing, yet not that surprising, are the political leaders who are pandering to these evangelicals and fundamentalists.

So it should be no surprise that States like Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama have all proposed or implemented State laws which in some way attempt to “guarantee” religious freedom and protect individuals who discriminate from civil suits…  anyone, that is, who withholds services due to “deeply held religious views”.

For these religious groups, it takes very small people to think and act in a mean and discriminatory way.

For these political officials, the bar is even lower. Politicians only seek enough votes to remain in power while feeding off the public trough.  Votes are just votes.  Et tu Ted Cruz.

The Dark Side Of Cruz and Trump

April 8, 2016

With New York as the next big primary delegate prize, an amazing yet frightening picture is emerging. Main stream Republicans are racing to support Ted Cruz in order to block Donald Trump from gaining the nomination.

Conservatives, that is real conservatives like Ted Cruz see the US quite differently from most everyone else. These conservatives seem to lack any capacity to comprehend income inequality and the hardships it brings to so many. Getting “government” out of the way and getting “tough” on undocumented workers will reignite America’s economic growth, they say. Hmmm.

Getting government out of the way, of course, includes repealing Obamacare, eliminating government departments (like Department of Education), and doing away with the “inconvenient” regulations which provide the rules businesses must follow. Cruz promises that jobs will grow practically on every tree when he is President. He neglects, however, to say how much these jobs will pay, nor why Americans will line up for the jobs currently performed by soon to be deported undocumented workers.

Another GOP theme this year deals with law enforcement. The conservative candidates promise to have law enforcement’s back. They point a finger at those politicians who have supported careful reviews of incidents where excessive force was suspected of having been used. For Ted Cruz, it is black and white, police are your friends, suspects are the enemy.

Exactly how much of Cruz’ campaign rhetoric he actually believes, of course, is debatable. That Cruz is a calculating, mean spirited, ego centric demagogue seems pretty clear. His policy statements could be self serving and aimed to simply build a support base. But there is no reason to believe that a President Cruz would walk away from his pronouncements on Obamacare, religious freedoms, immigration, and “neoconservative” foreign policy.

Donald Trump is different.

Trump has said some outrageous things. For example, black mailing Mexico in order for Mexico to pay for building a wall along the border, or stopping entry into the US for anyone who is Muslim (whether US citizen or not), or unilaterally renegotiating trade deals involving China, all masquerade as solutions designed to improve a hurting middle class.

In reality Trump’s proposals will just create more problems… if they were actually implemented… And there in lies the difference.  Trump is highly likely to walk away from these extreme views.  He is a business man after all.

Both candidates have spewed half baked ideas which are economically foolish and values wise bankrupt, but one candidate is backed by Americans who believe in Tea Party conservatism and the other who is backed by Americans who are sick and tired of income inequality, don’t know its cause, and see Trump as the only candidate who promises to try and rebalance the playing field.

What a mess.

For those who always look for a bright spot, this current GOP front runners situation presents a potential which might not be obvious. There is no longer a majority and genuine Republican Party in America. The Cruz segment, Tea Party or Freedom Coalition members, espouse economics which are dead ended mixed in with quasi religious values which allow an individual to pick and choose who they wish to disadvantages… with a clear conscience.

Relatively speaking more moderate GOP members find themselves handicapped with unattractive policies necessary to maintain their coalitions majority and looking at the wrong side of demographic trends. In America, the voices of gays, Hispanics, and women see the Cruz type Republicans unfavorably and will express this dissatisfaction at the polls.

For those who look for what can go wrong, Democrats without a strong and viable opposition represents only a slightly better economic policy option and within a short period of time could drive the ship of State onto the rocks.

But given the current candidates, is there really any other choice?

Belgium – How Could You Have Been So Unprepared?

April 6, 2016

To listen to US Congress members, the GOP Presidential primary leaders, and talk show talking heads, one would think that Europe in general and Belgium in specific, know diddli-squat about national security. Do you know that someone can travel from Germany to France to Spain and then to Portugal and no one needs to verify his “papers”. Hmmm. I wonder whether that like traveling from Boston to Houston and then onto Los Angeles?

Those pointing a finger at Belgium believe that Europe’s lack of border checks between European countries is paramount to an abdication of police duties. Once a terrorist gains entry to any European country, the terrorist has free movement across borders to any other European country. Now that I think about it, it is the same in the US.

Another complaint involves European security services not talking to each other. Hmmm. Does that remind one of 9/11? And critics suggest the number of police jurisdictions found in Belgium and Brussels are too many. But how does that compare to the DEA, DHS, FBI, AFT combined with State, County, and local police units. Life is complicated.

Most Americans hearing these self-serving critique of the European and Belgium security services think these foreigners have something to learn… and none better than the US to teach them. Hmmm.

As in most of life, things are the way they are for reasons. If one thinks things should be different, one must begin by understanding why things are the way they are.

Europeans and Belgians are not mentally challenged nor are they lazy. Rather they carry memories of authoritarianism common through out the histories of these countries and most recently dramatically demonstrated when the NAZIs occupied other countries during World War II. The Nazis were simply good at knowing who you were and where you were suppose to be, and if that wasn’t what they thought best, one paid a heavy price.

The recent rise of muslim terrorists, not withstanding previous colonial bouts with the IRA, Algerians, Moroccans, and Turkish extremists, has undoubtably raised the stakes in keeping track of residents who wish to act on a different agenda. The world has seen a steady increase in criminal, bordering on terrorist, activities for the last 50+ years. Plane hijackings, suitcase bombs, ransom demands, and now suicide bombers have become more frequent and more sophisticated each year.

The socialization of weapons know-how coupled with the availability of physical weapons of all types (if one has the money to afford them) has changed the balance of power. Do it yourself, buy them pre-made, or inherit them from a friend, with guns, explosives, or dare I say, poisons plentiful, is a wonder that anyone who wants to be a killer or a terrorist can obtain the tools of the trade easily.

So, the terrorism threat is not really about ISIS (as fear mongering candidates would like us to think). Separatists, anarchists, and religious zealots have all offered the disconnected a cause to give their lives meaning. And for sure ISIS does attempt to provide that type of meaning but ISIS is just another group in a long list.

We must not overlook, that it takes money, methods (training, communications), and means (guns, explosives, lethal materials) to carry out terrorist activities. Someone is providing money (even if it is someone else’s money), someone is providing weapons and lethal materials. And, of course, someone must be the person willing to give up their life to carry out the terrorist act.

The GOP political spin attempts to assign causality to ISIS (and Europe and Belgium are just too dumb to know this). Get rid of ISIS and the problem vanishes, we are told. Wrong.

The world is awash in weapons and lethal materials. Money seems also to be no obstacle, either to be available or to be delivered to feed, house and cloth terrorist and to pay on-going businesses which manufacture weapons or lethal materials. Why don’t these politicians focus on the tools of the terrorist trade and seek to shut down these operations?

The most likely answer is that the real world is far too complicated for a five second sound bite and not nearly enough of a message to rouse fear in voters. In other words, those criticizing Europe and Belgium appear unable to understand the breath and depth of terrorism and far more interested in leveraging fear to their political advantage.

I suspect Europe and Belgium could teach the US (and certainly the GOP candidates) a thing or two about how the world really operates.

Foreign Policy

April 2, 2016

This year’s GOP Presidential primary campaigns have begrudgingly included discussion of America’s foreign policy. Republicans, long advertised as “strong on defense”, claim foreign policy as their strong suit. In this year’s Presidential race, you could have fooled me.

Think about the world around us.

  • China, which has grown at an almost unimaginable double digit pace for over ten years, still clings to the notion that Asia belongs to China regardless of what international law may say. Fully nuclear capable, China remembers Japan’s war atrocities, coverts Taiwan’s return to China, and does not forget the years of colonial occupation at the hands of the West.
  • Japan has a split personality, part imperial and partial to the Samaria way of life, the other part worried about the devastation of WWII and not wanting a repeat, both of these personalities comfortable with isolationism.
  • Russia remains much the same country as depicted in “Katherine the Great” always worried about clandestine thoughts supposedly held by neighboring countries. Fully nuclear capable, Russia and its authoritative leaders simply do not think like Americans.
  • Europe is not one country but a composition of many. The big players are Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy and Spain and all are focused on increasing material wealth without giving up any cultural riches regardless of what hazards loom outside Europe’s borders. Europeans have known war like no one else.Advertised as America’s ally (under NATO), European Countries prefer focusing on their own country’s social problems than global conditions.
  • India, Pakistan, and most of Southeast Asia possess heavy loads to carry just to feed their people and, if possible keep up with their third world development. From time to time, these countries become victim of religious intolerance and in the case of India and Pakistan look at each other as the worst of enemies.
  • Africa and South America are lands of the rich and very poor. At this point, the countries making up Africa and South America are only capable of civil or regional wars. These countries posses abundant mineral resources and the potential for attractive trading alliances, yet somehow seem unable to reach the modern world.
  • Middle East and Israel are geographically commingled. Both struggle with the allure of modernity and both cling to views based upon ancient history. While Israel appears as modern as any country in the world to a traveler, its views that certain lands belong to Israel because “god” said so is not much different than China’s claim to Southeast Asia or Russia to Eastern Europe. Muslim Middle East countries have varying degrees of modern world attributes but are internally at war with a paralyzing view based upon life as it were 1000 years ago.

So tell me again me again why nuclear proliferation is a good idea, why a religious test is applicable to refugee resettlement, why trade tariffs and embargo are helpful, and why any direct military involvement in foreign lands can unilaterally reduce world tensions?

Tell me why the red meat of political speeches make any sense at all?

Tell me why the 7/24 news media not only tolerates but at times encourages politicians to make unsubstantiated policy proposal and not call them on it? Tell me, given the GOP 2016  monopoly of simplistic foreign policy views why it is ok to block Supreme Court nominations, revert to health care coverage which covers less people, or seek religious freedom protections which promulgates discrimination and unequal treatment under the law?

There is assuredly no way any candidate can get it right on all the issues, domestically or in foreign affairs. The world is too complicated and nuanced. On the other hand, naive and half baked ideas, populous based, send the wrong message to other countries and to voters.

This complex world we live in has traded world wars for regional wars for the past 60 years. Americans need to recognize that the appeal of Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders are based upon disenfranchised segments of our population whose wants and needs reflect domestic conditions only. Satisfying these domestic wants, however, could upset world order without anyone suspecting it happening. Such an outcome could be devastating.

Electing a President is more than a beauty contest, a fancy slogan, or the person with the most money. Electing a President might begin with selecting someone as thoughtful, as sincere, and as inquisitive as Barack Obama

Will Progressives and Independents Get “Bern-ed”?

March 25, 2016

Bernie Sanders is making a remarkable run for the Democrat Presidential nomination. He speaks in unambiguous language and repeats a message that electrifies many. He is almost, but not quite, a Barack Obama reincarnate. Are you feeling the Bern?

His opponent, Hillary Clinton, appears almost boringly calm.  Clinton seems headed towards the Democrat nomination, but at what cost. Hillary supporters do not appear as enthusiastic and this leaves the obvious question, will they show up on election day?

Stakes could not be higher for Independents and Democrats, a plurality of voters. The Tea Party and Freedom Coalition (a minority of Republicans) take-over of the Republican Party represents an all or nothing approach. By this I mean, these conservatives want total control and will do what ever is necessary to deny influence to Democrats even if the election favors Democrats. Do you think Republicans will vote for Judge Garland even if a Democrat is elected the next President?

Currently the 7/24 media is consumed with “how will Republicans stop Donald Trump”. It is great entertainment but masks a serious Party defect. Instead of dealing with major non-partisan issues, like infrastructure, job creation, and education, the hijacked Republican Party seems more interested in anti-abortion (Indiana) and anti-gay (North Carolina) issues and passing laws which are unlikely to stand Constitutional muster. If stopping Donald Trump means nominating someone like Ted Cruz, the general elections should be tilted in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Except…

Hillary carries a lot of baggage. The Clinton years and the Clinton Foundation have left plenty of skeletons for mudslinging opposition to throw her way. In addition, Hillary is considered in her responses, nuances some might say. Against negative advertisements and direct personal assaults (from say a Ted Cruz), Hillary could have a messaging problem.

Never the less, Hillary should prevail given the negative and petty GOP agenda.

Prevail that is unless too many Democrats and Independents left their hearts with Bernie Sanders and simple take a pass on the November General Election. OMG.

I trust that Bernie Sanders will be man enough to bow out gracefully if the Democrat Primary trends continue and Hillary gains a majority before the convention. Rebuilding party unity and convincing Progressives and Independents why a Democrat victory is important… for reasons other than steering more money towards Democrat supporters, will be a big and important task.

A November Republican victory will assuredly cement an ultra conservative Supreme Court and GOP control of Congress will swing the laws of the land in a direction rooted in our past.

Who Is The Real Marco Rubio?

March 10, 2016

In life, tragedy, involves a hero being tested and failing when in the final analysis, the hero never needed to be tested. Marco Rubio’s run for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination I would submit offers a tragic ending.

Son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio gained his college education and a law degree before entering Florida politics eventually winning the US Senate seat over a far better known, former Florida Governor. Marco’s story is a rags to riches (well not real rich) story and could have served as a motivational model for other immigrants, especially Hispanic ones. But with Rubio’s campaign on life support, it is most likely his campaign will follow the path Jeb Bush already blazed. Another suspended run for President.

Running for President is hard work involving long hours and quick witted responses to reporters’ questions.  At any point, a candidate can get tripped up.  This is understandable and regardless of the outcome, the consequences are not tragic.

In his 2016 run, Rubio has initiated “tests” on several occasion and regrettably chosen the lesser path when confronted with a moral, ethical, and future looking choice.  For example, Rubio recanted his “Gang of eight” bipartisan position which supported a comprehensive immigration reform in favor of the short sighted, deport them all approach. Who knows why Marco made this reversal but Rubio’s new position was more similar to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz’ stand. Having been an immigrant and having gained access to citizenship, one might reasonably wonder how he sleeps at night.

Rubio also opposes a women’s right to choose, again popular with the right. Marco, however, up his determination to woe the conservatives and evangelicals by insisting that he would oppose abortion even in cases of incest, rape, and risk to the mother’s health. These are mighty strong and unnecessary words (especially for a man) and totally lacking extenuating circumstance considerations.

But there’s more.  What made Marco climb down into the gutter to trade crude and un-Presidential barbs with Donald Trump?  His voluntary decision to raise sexual innuendos and childish “potty mouthed” slurs revealed a clear lack of maturity. How would a President Rubio deal with an opposition Congress like President Obama has had to deal with?

Of course, when the campaign was running smoothly, well before the debates, Marco projected a smooth and polished tone, someone who one could expect to run again in subsequent years if in the 2016 crowded field he was squeezed out. After Rubio’s performance, however, it is hard to imagine him getting another shot at the big apple.

Rubio’s extreme positions were all unnecessary and resulted in him placing a marker on the wrong side of history. Someone whose strength was touted as his youth , composure, and membership in the next generation, Rubio chose to unnecessarily champion losing positions which in no way work to ease income inequality, protect the Country, or to grow the economy.

A real tragedy.