Dynamics in U.S. politics in 2016 capable of damaging all manner of relationships.

As is typical of someone from my generation, I always find myself comparing the present to the past.  The United States of 2016 is no doubt split by political ideologies that could not be more further apart.  When I think about the different stages of my life, I am unable to recall a time when Americans were so politically polarized.  The Red State voter is motivated by a deep resentment for Barack Obama, and the Blue State voter is exhibiting the same kind of emotion for Donald Trump.  Personally, I hate this time of year.  It seems to be impossible to express oneself politically without offending a friend here and there.  Recently my blog posts have been more political, and I also post the occasional news link on Facebook.  Each time I post a political blog, I find myself worried about possibly offending friends with different political ideas.  I wonder, am I the only one who feels this way?  I can think of three friends in particular, one in Washington, one in Tennessee, and one in New York City, for whom I have tremendous respect and admiration.  All three work very hard, and have created successful careers and relationships.  I don't know how or why we ended up on the opposite end of the political spectrum, but here we are.  With Social Media at everyone's fingertips in one form or another, it only takes a few seconds to write a political comment or link an online article.  Recently, one of my friends posted his thoughts about Donald Trump, and I agreed with much of his assessment.  In totality, though, I did not agree with main thrust of his argument.  I wanted to reply, and provide my perspective. Then I remembered, how many times have I written something that rubbed him a bit raw?  Probably more times than I would like to admit.  Don't get me wrong; none of my friends are thinned-skinned.  All three love to laugh and reflect on some of the more absurd daily details of life.  The problem is with me.  Actually, the problem is with a bunch of folks, not just me.

Lets face it: roughly one-half of the country is conservative and one-half is not.  You know just as well as I do that the two separate voting groups are for the most part, cemented to their overall political perspective.  Nothing I post in my blog is going to change someone's mind about not voting for Donald Trump, and no amount of reasonable argumentation is going to convince someone in Midland, Texas, to vote for Hillary Clinton.  No doubt the recent past was different.  During the elections of the 1970's and 80's, the Independent voter accounted for more than ten percent of the electorate.  It was possible to sway an undecided voter here and there with a well-argued commentary or speech.  You would think that in 2016, if the Independent voter is down to three or four percent, and the rest of the country is evenly split, that the Independent voter would be even more valuable today.  I just don't buy it anymore.  When Trump spends the next week, screaming himself hoarse before thousands and thousand of supporters, he will not be impacting his final vote tally, and neither will Hillary, campaigning with Elizabeth Warren in Rhode Island one day and Joe Biden in Delaware the next.  This election will work itself out in a fashion very similar to 2008 and 2012.  The side that motivates its voters to not only get to the polls, but to drag two or three like-minded voters along for the trip, will reap the rewards of victory.  The Democrats have run circles around the GOP when it comes to registering and getting people to the polls on election day, so the Republican Party had better be working up a sweat chasing down those unregistered conservative voters.  I think that this election will highlight the importance of the precinct workers more than every before.  In 2012, a number of odd things accurred in certain respective precincts across the nation.  It was nothing that would have impacted the final outcome, but both sides are being very careful to ensure precinct representation.

So why do we keep writing blogs, and linking stories, and watching debates, when we all know that our efforts aren't changing the mind of even one voter?  Since I know that turnout and getting voters to the polls will have the real impact on this election, then why did I link that article today on Facebook which trashed Obamacare in Alaska?  Can anyone out there who reads my blog (U.S. citizens only, please) honestly say that some random blog post of mine from the last year caused you to reconsider your choice for president?  I have been trying to keep my political commentaries and links to a minimum, but inevitably something I read online will nag at me until I offer a rebuttal.  The truth is, I like my friends and I don't want them to think that our political differences have the power to put a strain on our friendships.  The three individuals of whom I speak are truly amazing people and I am fortunate to know them.  I am beginning to consider the possibility that we have become so different in the way we view our nation and how we believe society should evolve, that the time has come to separate.  I realize we tried it once before, but I dare say the circumstances are different.  Red State and Blue State citizens seem to be so polarized, that maybe we would all get along so much better if we just went our separate ways.  Have you looked at the violence that accompanies political rallies today?  Its disengenuous to blame Trump; American flags were getting burned and Mexican flags waved long before Donald decide to bully his way into this election.  The truth is, we are like an old married couple that have grown apart, and for some reason, sentiment probably, we refuse to even begin the discussion of separation.  Here is the reality, folks.  Red Staters were not happy with many of the developments of the Obama years, and if Trump wins, I can guarantee you that the Blue Staters will be at least as agitated with some of Trump's actions.  Keep in mind, he has already announced his willingness to utilize Executive Action in the same manner as his predecessor.  At the end of the day, I hope we can find a way to reach across the divide and not aggravate our friends with opposing viewpoints.  Maybe we can get past this election without having to split apart as well.  Its possible that an emeny may invade our towns and cities and force us to remember the things that kept us together all these years.  God Bless America.  

A bit of politics: The Republican field begins to take shape...Dr. Ben Carson.

Soon Americans will be bombarded with advertisements, billboards, television commercials and radio messages, explaining why one particular Republican candidate is the best choice to run against Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.  The majority of registered voters are Democrats, but the difference doesn't appear to be an issue for the GOP.  In fact, when Ronald Reagan was burying Walter Mondale in an electoral landslide in 1984, the majority of registered voters were Democrat. This fact speaks volumes for the idea that in some instances, you really don't know who someone is going to vote for after the curtain closes.  Along with many others, I thought Mitt Romney would beat Barack Obama in 2012; the polls showed Romney ahead in both Ohio and Florida on the day before the election.  Obviously, some persons who were projected Romney voters, closed those curtains and voted for Obama (not me, I promise).  The point being, that it is very difficult to handicap the U.S. Presidential Elections.  The primaries, on the other hand, don't present nearly as much of a problem.  Take for instance the Democrats in 2016; we have known that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee for years (provided she didn't unexpectedly expire or run off to join the circus).  True, the party pretends that a few other possibilities exist, including Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, and Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts who can occasionally be mistaken for Pocahontas.  But the nomination has been Hillary's since Obama took the oath of office in 2012.  In my mind, Hillary is a very flawed candidate.  If I were a Democrat, I would be very worried.  Hillary is dealing with controversies about emails and a private server, the Benghazi tragedy, the alleged "Quid Quo Pro" for companies and persons who contributed to the Clinton Foundation, and a less-than-impressive turn as Secretary of State.  But, to my surprise, HRC continues to lead all the GOP candidates in every poll I have seen.  This fact leaves me both disgusted as sad.  After looking at the Bushes and Clintons for decades, I would think that everyone would be as ready as I am for a new face, even if it requires taking a chance on an unknown.

The Republican polling machines already have created a two-tier separation between the candidates.  In the top five or six, we have Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee not far behind.  The next group is usually led by Dr. Ben Carson, famed Neurosurgeon and my personal choice, and former Hewlett-Packard/Compaq CEO Carly Fiorina.  The rest of the list includes the "unknowns"; those who have yet to decide, including New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Louisiana Governor and another favorite of mine (sorry Jennifer!) Bobby Jindal, former New York Governor George Pataki and recently retired Texas Governor Rick Perry. A big question mark seems to follow former Pennsylvania Senator and 2012 candidate Rick Santorum.  I really like Santorum.  I have tremendous respect for Santorum; he shows no fear when the time comes to stand up for this issues that are important.  When he is given an equal playing field and access to the electorate, Santorum does very well.  He speaks well and with conviction, and he is a very intelligent man.  Unfortunately, the media and the Democrats (and some of his former Republican opponents), have pinned the ultimate Scarlet Letter to Rick's lapel.  You see, Santorum is TOO conservative to be president.  He doesn't budge on any of the issues; he's against Gay marriage, pro-Life, supports the Second Amendment, opposes amnesty, and is strongly in favor of entitlement and tax reform.  To someone like me, Santorum is not TOO anything.  He is just the right amount.  He talks about the issues that just might be the keys to turning our country around.  No, my issue is not that Rick is too conservative.  Its that he is running for an office that he knows in his heart he can't win.  If Santorum were to get the GOP nomination, he would unite and mobilize the left in a way we haven't seen since Barry Goldwater.  We need a candidate that will appeal to the level-headed Democratic voters who  sense the need to abandon the current socialist agenda.  I am bothered that Santorum would take a chance on putting another Democrat back in the White House, which is what will happen if he wins the election.  It makes me consider that possibly he has fallen victim to the Bush/Clinton fog, which convinces every member of those two families that the United States CAN'T FUNCTION without them.

You probably are able to discern the reasons why I'm supporting Dr. Carson.  Many of you may criticize me by pointing out that Carson has about as much chance of beating HRC as Santorum does.  I don't accept that argument.  Once Carson gets familiar with the podium and the pace of campaigning, he will be a natural.  it may seem a bit strained at the moment because he is a neophyte.  I find his "newness" refreshing.  As for qualifications, Carson has written a number of wonderful books, he has spent a good part of his life caring for other people, and he has dedicated himself to public service OUTSIDE of his occupation.  You would be hard-pressed to find a more well-spoken, polite, learned man, and importantly, he is humble.  I had some questions regarding his grasp of the wide spectrum of issues that face the president (heck, ignorance of those issues certainly did not affect Obama's decision to run), but lately he has made a concerted effort to address foreign policy, economics, and the social troubles that seem to be about ready to catch this nation on fire.  Does it matter to me that he is African-American?  Yes, it does.  Only in the fact that it might provide him with more access into those communities that are bleeding and suffering the most.  I have heard Dr. Carson discuss the inner city neighborhoods of Baltimore, his home.  Dr. Carson did not grow up in wealth and opportunity.  He is a true American success story, as is Herman Cane.  But he never fails to discuss the plight of the poor, inner city youth, who wake up every morning to another day of no options, no opportunities, just suffering.  It will be a priority for Dr. Carson, who will, I believe, create a cabinet-level position to focus exclusively on the people who haven't been able to escape to the suburbs.  It is an issue worth serious attention and funding.

Please Excuse The Tinest Bit Of Politics

Links A. Will Hillary Clinton Run In 2016?
          B. Romney Looking Like A Candidate For 2016
          C. Another Bush Eyes The Oval Office


The 2016 election began the moment Mitt Romney conceded the 2012 race to Barrack Obama.  The Republican power-brokers (who appear to exclusively be Members of Congress) were quoted all over the media about the need to find "new blood" and "fresh faces" to lead the GOP into this new century. I agreed; because of reasons not unrelated to tradition and loyalty, Republicans always seem to chose the candidate who has "put in the time".  In 2012 Mitt Romney's candidacy and eventual nomination as GOP standard bearer seemed predestined, even with a couple grumbles from Rick Santorum.  A month before the actual election, it appeared that Mitt as in the driver's seat.  All the polls showed Romney in the lead, and he avoided any terrible missteps in the less-than-inspiring final debate.  Not only did Romney lose, but he lost every single battleground state (except maybe Florida; I can't remember how Florida finally ended).  So as 2014 comes to a close, who is on top of all the major polls for the 2016 Republican nomination? Why Mitt Romney, of course.  I don't mind Romney and I believe he would make a decent President, but what I do mind is his obvious belief that the United States cannot survive without a President Romney.  Why else would someone run for the office three consecutive times (you will recall that before John McCain got hot, Romney was leading the GOP race in 2008)?

And if Romney were to decide against running in 2016 (fat chance), who else is making noise on the Republican side?  Jeb Bush.  As if the name "Bush" is all America needs to regain the edge.  I'm sorry, but I'm not ready for another Bush.  I like some of the younger Bushes who seem to have their own ideas and ambitions, but enough time hasn't passed for me to jump back onto that Bandwagon.  I like Jeb as much as I like Mitt, but it just ain't gonna happen.  I will not support a Bush for the Republican nomination in 2016 (unless Barbara decides to run).  Rick Santorum is another face that refuses to go away.  I prefer Rick to Mitt and Jeb, but he has about as much chance as Osama Bin Laden's corpse of getting elected President in 2016.  I mean no disrespect, but I can't support a candidate who is so polarizing that the Democratic nominee would win in a landslide (and I like the fact that Santorum does not run away from his Catholic faith).  I'm hearing Beltway rumors that Mike Huckobee is considering a run.  Oy Vey!  Thank goodness for Chris Christie, who I don't particularly support, and Rand Paul, who I like, for bringing a bit of variety into the conversation.  Rick Perry?  Rick missed his opportunity in 2012, and Ted Cruz isn't quite ready for prime time.

On the Democrat side, I've heard three names mentioned repeatedly: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden (snicker).  In plain English, the nomination is Hillary's for the asking, and ask she will.  Her syncophants have lately tried to spread the idea that Hillary may not run, either for medical or unrelated personal reasons.  Give me a break.  Hillary has been running for President ever since Bill left office.  Hillary wants to be President because she craves authority; its a large part of her nature.  She believes that she is more intelligent than most people and therefore deserves to be in a decision-making position.  Unfortunately for Hillary, she was a terrible Secretary of State, with a degrading and compromising treaty with Russia (New Start Treaty) as her only achievement.  I can't imagine the "Hillary 2016" tour is going to highlight Clinton's diplomacy vis-a-vis Vladimir Putin as reason to trust her foreign policy acumen, and we haven't even gotten to Benghazi.  Elizabeth Warren, the darling of the left-of-left modern hippies that appear to be all that's left of the Obama base, will probably run in order to keep her name and future options fresh.  Biden may run out of vanity alone, but everyday he seems to morph into an even larger baboon, and I can't imagine the Democratic power-brokers allowing Joe to make a complete ass of himself (anymore than usual, that is).

The point of this post is to release a bit of steam that has been collecting in my gizzard regarding the persons who appear to be running for President in 2016.  For the life of me, I just don't understand why certain politically prolific persons refuse to retire.  In the old days (pre-1990), people would run for President once, maybe twice, and then just drift away with dignity and manners.  Today, we have a new breed of politicians who will hold on for life to whatever bit of power the electorate has seen fit to bestow.  Jeez, how I'm sick of the same old faces delivering the same old platitudes.  At least the GOP has a few new names on the list.  I can't imagine what the Democrats would do without Hillary.