Monday, September 01, 2014
Elizabeth Warren, Senator (D-MA) image from Elizabeth Warren.com
Elizabeth Warren, known as the darling of the left, apparently has a mind of her own – shame on her. Warren recently suggested that Israel has the right to defend itself, even if that means, should Hamas be hiding bombs in schools and mosques, Israel is right in bombing said building – the left went- insane (Huffington Post).
It is not so much that this blogger would agree with Warren on most issues, but the Senator from Massachusetts has this issue spot on – good for her.
Not too long after the fact that the Senator has some sense of independence from the “herd”, the Boston Globe published ”Federal Agency that Elizabeth Warren Helped Found Rife with discrimination against employees” Obviously, to the Globe, being in on the ground game of an agency makes on complicit it its’ continuing issues. Apparently, the Globe was unaware that Warren, at one point, was one of “those” Republicans! (ABC News)
When one “shops” political parties, left to right, or vice versa, it is generally because on it either a)an opportunist (like so many politicians) or b) genuinely fed up and seeking an alternative – something “different”. Perhaps, Warren might be interested in what the Libertarian’s are about next? Or at best become “unenrolled” from any major party, like the majority of voters from the Commonwealth she represents.
Either way, one might see more articles of the attack nature, given Warren disavowed a run for the Progressive Wing of the Democrat Party in 2016. In few words: Good for her.
ISIS, the rapid Islamic group that has established a caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq, killing anyone whom they please in the most barbaric manners, including children has taken front and center stage in the American Political area. The question of stopping ISIS in Iraq and Syria by the use of U.S. military intervention has come under some scrutiny by both major political parties. The President has taken his usual steps in being deliberative before he acts, something he has done since taking office. This often leads to missed opportunities and or a worsening of the situation; however, it is his style of being cautious before fully committing U.S. forces.
That cautious quality has the media and both parties in a quandary as politicians’ from both sides of the aisle see the threat of Isis on many levels, not only to the middle east, but to our homeland, as well as Europe and other parts of the world.
NBC News on Senator Feinstein’s remarks that Obama has been too cautious in this situation, suggests that the Democrat from California may be running out of patience, as the public is becoming increasing aware of the real danger that ISIS presents – California being a border state. (NBC News)
CBS News reporting the Presidents delay on strategy - notes that both Republicans’ and Democrats alike are in a quandary over the situation – agreeing with one another.
However, the New York Times, true to the party line, suggests that it is Republican’s only that are politicizing the crisis, and that there is “nothing to see here – move along – the President is in control.
Be that as it may, the U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria may need a buffer via the Iraq and Kurdish forces who are in the thick of the fighting. It is, after all, their country, and other than support (air and weapons); ISIS may be dealt with fairly easily – with a little pushback.
The threats being made to the U.S, suggest that those in ISIS already here (See any Chicago newscast about threats being made in that City by said group), might come to pass, however, one has to wonder if those commanding ISIS forces, understand the psyche of the general American public – unlike any nation in the world, where, when invaded, lay down and take abuse, the U.S. fights back.
One might wonder what ISIS would encounter if, with boots on the ground, in say, a border state, say Texas, might meet once they moved to attack. One might not see Texan’s rolling over so easily, ISIS does not understand the basic independent streak inherent in most U.S. citizens. It is not so much that as a nation, relying on the government is primary, it is also not so much that as a nation, there is a political body in sync that makes all deliberations until it is too late. It is more likely that from Massachusetts, to San Francisco, and places in between, Urban-Suburban-and Rural militias would wipe ISIS out – or as one politician suggested – bomb them back to the Stone Age.
Therefore although we may have interests in the Middle East – it may behoove the U.S. to employ air strikes and tactical support there, and shore up protection in the U.S. – otherwise, the citizens of this nation would most likely do it for them. One would suggest that anytime that intelligence suggests that the U.S. is a target, those from both parties, would align, rather than take political opportunities – it is clearly not the way of the United States. It is not a Republican or Democrat issue; it is an issue that drives all U.S. Citizens or those hoping to become citizens. Furthermore, the New York Times piece is a bit disingenuous suggesting that this is a situation where Republican’s are politicizing an atrocious entity.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Former MA Senator Scott Brown, was lagging in polling with incumbent, Democrat, Jean Sheheen in NH up until this past week, when The Boston Globe reports, that a new poll reveals they are in a statistical dead heat.. The Globe goes on to suggest that being close to President Obama may have changed voter’s hearts and minds. Brown is also expected to handily win the NH primary, (Boston Globe) which will give him headwinds going into the final stretch.
What has brought this seemingly sudden change to the Granite State? – Perhaps they have gotten to know Brown, who when he was representing MA, before moving to his family home state of NH, he was a fair-minded legislator – which actually, in part, cost him the MA senate seat.
One might think that he won because Warren was so popular, however, in MA, it is a) difficult to best a Democrat of any strip (See Ed Markey for heaven’s sake), especially when they are riding the coattails of a popular President (in this instance it was MA and Obama bested Romney by double digits). The “woman” vote bought the whole “take away my contraceptives” gamut, and those more stalwart conservatives in the state, refused to vote for Brown due to his extremely bi-partisan voting record. That combination of factors cost – had those stalwarts given him an inch – Brown might have been in a better position. That said, New Hampshire is not Massachusetts (although may have moved from the Bay State, fleeing to the more reasonable Granite State) and those who expect independent thought, can find that in Brown.
One need only look at his actual voting record (Thomas.gov) and will find someone who, not only weighed towards the individuals he was representing, he did not vote 100% of the time, straight party ticket. He is sincere in his desire to serve, another boon.
It will, in all likelihood come down to a matter of points, 2 to 3 – and that would be in Brown’s favor. Noting that there is little time to fix what is wrong with the Obama Care law in NH, that has the populace, for the most part, up in arms. Unusual in any reality, Brown won the endorsements of two of the state’s newspapers (so far) WCVB reports that the New Hampshire Union Leader and the Nashua Telegraph have given their editorial nod to Brown.
Massachusetts’ loss is New Hampshire’s and the nations gain – a Senator or Congressional Representative that can see the forest through the trees and get away from party-line votes to serve the people is worth the vote.