So many Republican candidates, so little time........

Links: A. Jeb Bush running for President.
           B. Donald Trump running for President.

Recently a well-publicized political cartoon highlighted a clown car, with one Republican presidential candidate after another stepping out of the car door.  I thought it was a clever cartoon, and I had no problem understanding the intended point: that the field of candidates on the GOP side has become so large, that its beginning to resemble a circus.  And who am I too argue?  Just a quick review of some of the occupants of the clown car explains why the media has no intention of taking the Republican Primary Election seriously, at this not until convention-time.  The first funny-face we recognize in the back seat is businessman and entrepreneur Donald Trump.  I have no idea why Trump us running for president.  He must realize that even if he were to somehow win the GOP nomination, he would never win a national contest.  So what is Trump's game?  Is it all about publicity, and hawking some new casino or television program? Obviously publicity is part and parcel of Trump's campaign; the guy can't have a bowel movement without a camera running in the bathroom.  Maybe I'm being a bit unfair, but I have listened the few times that I've heard Trump actually discuss policy.  He comes across as a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.  I see nothing new here, and certainly nothing very deep.  He claims to be worth nine billion dollars.  I assume, when you have that much money, that you don't need to fund raise, right?  If Trump announces that he will use only his own personal funds to run his campaign, then he just might win me over.  He is a very hard-working man, who doesn't like to fail.  I have a great deal of respect for his accomplishments as a man and a businessman.  But I want Trump to pay for his own election, and I'm not holding my breath.

And in this corner of the crazy clown car we have a member of America's most esteemed conservative (?) political family, former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush.  Jeb Bush is a nice man.  I've never met anyone who would say otherwise.  He is considerate, polite and generous.  I'm sure he was raised well.  He was a fine Governor of Florida, and at the right time, would probably make a decent president.  I hate to join the chorus, Jeb, but I'm just not ready for another Bush (or Clinton, for that matter). I have to believe that our nation is deeper than that.  When I look at the line-up standing outside of the clown-car, I am astonished by some of the familiar faces that I see.  And Jeb Bush is the most recognizable.  For me personally, I am a bit insulted that certain politicians keep coming around for another shot.  Do they really believe that the United States can't survive without them?  Are they so important, that we can't find someone with less baggage and a newer perspective to be our nominee?  I won't vote for Jeb Bush unless he is the nominee.  Same rule applies for Mike Huckabee. I want new ideas, new visions and fewer reminders about the past.  I remember it well enough on my own, thank you.  For the same reasons, if I were a Democrat I wouldn't be voting for Hillary Clinton.

Another look into the clown car takes us to Rick Santorum, whose been sitting on the jump seat.  Just like Jeb and Mike Huckabee, I really like Rick Santorum.  Of the three, he is the one most likely to get my attention.  I supported Rick in vain during the last few primaries in 2012, but if I'm not mistaken, Santorum was around in 2008 as well.  And this following an unsuccessful effort to hold on to his Senate seat in Pennsylvania.  This is a perfect example of the issue that I find so frustrating.  Rick, I know you love public service and you feel strongly about your ideas for our country, but it would do you well to find something else to do for a while.  I am not alone when I say I'm not looking for anymore politicians-for-life, regardless of their honesty, integrity and generosity, all of which Rick Santorum has in abundance.  If Santorum had taken a break in 2012, and spent a few years driving his own car, writing his own checks, and living the life of a middle class American, I would be much more predisposed to his candidacy.  But Santorum has basically been running for the GOP nomination since 2012, even though he hasn't had a whole lot of resources.  I have tremendous admiration for Santorum; I would have appreciated a Catholic nominee, and I agree with Rick on every issue.  But I made up my mind that in 2016, I would vote for the candidate that I believe our founding fathers would have supported.

Although I would be very comfortable with a Rand Paul nomination, or Ted Cruz, I am sticking with my original choice and voting for Dr. Ben Carson.  I am determined to support a non-politician, regardless of the comments I hear on Fox and CNN that Dr. Carson does not debate well or speak smoothly enough to win the presidency.  Bullshit.  I am really excited about the opportunity to vote for someone who has spent their life saving lives and bringing new life into this world.  I understand his ideas regarding the economy and our tax code because he takes a simple approach and like most Americans, I'm a simple man.  Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are not the only other candidates that I respect; under different circumstances I would vote for Rick Perry and Marco Rubio (a few more years, Marco).  And Carly Fiorino would make a tremendous Vice Presidential nominee; I would love to see her in a debate!  I'm leaving off a few of the other announced candidates.  I really don't know what to make of Lindsay Graham.  Half the time I love him and half the time I'm convinced he's a closet Democrat.  Scott Walker is a solid Republican who has stood up to the best that the Unions and the left have to offer.  My issue with Walker has nothing to do with him, per se.  I can't support someone as the Republican nominee for president, who is the governor of a state that will never vote Republican.  It an important factor.  Carson will finally help the GOP make inroads into the African American electorate; Rand Paul is strong in Ohio and Rubio and Bush can deliver Florida.  From the perspective of the electoral map, what does Walker deliver?  Not even his own state of Wisconsin.  It unfortunate, but true.

So we've had our peak into the clown car, and the circus is getting ready to start.  The media is having a field day with the number and variety of GOP candidates, and I'm all for letting them have their fun.  When the Republican convention rolls around, the party will be united and our one candidate will be battle-tested and sharp.  I'm optimistic that those of us hoping for a more conservative administration in 2016 will see a GOP making fewer mistakes this time around.

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.

In One Fell Swoop, Rand Paul Has Lost Me

Link: Rand Paul Supports Relations With Cuba


Politics can be very unpredictable.  This morning I woke up, believing that Senator Rand Paul would most likely be my choice for the GOP nomination for President in 2016.  President Obama normalizes relations with Cuba, Rand Paul supports Obama's actions, and I'm through with Senator Paul. It wasn't just Paul's announcement that he supported President Obama.  What really changed my mind were Paul's comments regarding the issue.

The link that I have included provides all of the comments from Senator Paul which have caused me to rethink my support.  Rand Paul claims that sanctions on Cuba have failed.  What, exactly, did Paul expect the sanctions to achieve?  Our diplomatic and economic non-involvement with Cuba has to do with the foreign and domestic policies of the government in Havana, not some effort to create a democracy.  The United States has the same sovereign right to chose its trade partners as does every other member of the United Nations.  If we chose not to trade with Cuba, then that is our business, and Cuba is free to find other, more sympathetic regimes with which to carry on trade.  Rand Paul also claimed that U.S. sanctions on Cuba hurt the Cuban people.  Absolute HORSE SHIT.  Its crap like that which makes me question how I could have ever supported this man for political office.  Cuba is what it is because of the repressive, leftist/fascist rule of Fidel Castro, not because of the United States.  Not surprisingly, Havana has an expensive, elite neighborhood, with mansions and all the trappings of wealth.  Who lives there?  the cronies and sycophants of Castro, that's who.  Socialism in the best circumstances will eventually collapse upon itself, and in a poor, underdeveloped nation with very little industry or infrastructure?  People are never really given the opportunity to better their lives.  It's impossible to generate wealth when what little the government receives is stolen or spent on military escapades in South America and Angola.  Tell me, Senator Paul, as an American, is it my fault that Castro chose to pay for Cuban Mig fighters and tanks in Angola instead of food on the tables of Cuban families?  I have grown to expect President Obama to blame the American people for the ills of foreigners, but hearing it from Rand Paul was really disappointing.  Newsflash: endemic poverty in Cuba is not the fault, or the responsibility of the United States.

On Thursday, during a radio interview, Rand Paul commented that, “When we first opened up trade with China we were thinking it was a bad idea. But you know over time I’ve come to believe — and many conservatives have come to believe — that trading with China is actually the best way to ultimately defeat communism, and it makes us less likely to fight.”  Lets take a look at this picture, shall we?  Since President Richard Nixon went to Beijing in 1972 (and threw Taiwan right under a speeding bus), and we have become progressively more economically involved with China, communism has somehow suffered?  Not according to reality, Senator Paul.  The Chinese economy, with our assistance, has become an international monster that has a special taste for all things American.  The Chinese have made an art form out of buying up our debt, not to mention millions of acres of real estate all over the United States. Since relations with the United States improved, the Chinese military has greatly improved its offensive capacity and its missile delivery systems.  Much of that missile technology came from the United States.  And a quick look around the current Chinese political environment, the Communist Party is just as much an immoveable object as it always was, and the Red Army has become much more active in espionage and international banking. As for the Chinese government's dedication to the basic principles of Communism, I only have to look at Tibet and the more western provinces to remind myself what the Chinese government really thinks about open, political dialogue.  Basically, the Chinese still do not enjoy the freedom to worship as they please.  The education system is tightly controlled by the government, textbooks are total propaganda, and teachers are almost as left-wing as they are in American schools.  Also, it is highly discouraged (some would say illegal), to have more than a certain, approved number of children.  The political system does not allow for dissent, nor does the average Chinese citizen get to participate in a representative electoral process.  The government controls the media and all aspects of the internet.  So how, exactly, have we been "defeating" Communism with our economic and diplomatic embrace?  I don't see it.  No doubt a growing middle-class exists in China, but it is a segment of the population that does not question authority.  The truth is, Senator Paul, that we have enabled the Chinese Communist Party to become even more entrenched and powerful by forgoing economic and political isolation.  The mouthpiece of the Party continues to look for opportunities to threaten and insult the United States.  This China that Senator Rand brags about is Kim Jong-Un and North Korea's lifeline.  China could shut down Kim Jong-Un and free the people of North Korea in a heartbeat.  But they won't.  Let me tell you what China WILL do.  The Chinese government will export nuclear technology to terrorist states, and also create an elaborate system of spying using Chinese citizens studying at U.S. Universities who just happen to have contracts for research projects with the U.S. Department of Defense.  And spying at the laboratories in New Mexico is another example of Communist China's love for Democracy.

Lets move away from the criticism of Rand Paul and continue the discussion of Cuba.  Today, President Obama gave away the kitchen sink without getting anything in return.  Just last month, the Cuban regime was denounced for continuing to illegally jail Alan Gross, a U.S. Aid worker who was in Cuba to assist the poor.  That government, which jails protesters, refuses to reform, controls all aspects of the lives of the Cuban people, and embraces any political movement that expresses anti-American sentiment, shouldn't exist in our sphere of national security, let alone gain diplomatic recognition.  Cuba has not had a real election in over 60 years, and the government that has been squatting in Havana all that time, has been recognized by the Obama Administration.  Would Obama have recognized apartheid South Africa?  To be honest, if this decision had been debated in Congress and vetted through our tried and trusted legislative system of checks and balances, and passed a vote, I wouldn't complain.  I might express my disagreement, but I would continue to be proud that our system was still functioning as intended.  Instead we have one man making a decision that used to be important enough for full Congressional consideration.  How far is this going to go?  First immigration Amnesty, now normalizing relations with Cuba.  What's next?  Returning Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico?

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.