Thursday, September 05, 2013
2014 Charlie Baker Will Run for Massachusetts’ Governor’s Office – Second Run Announced Via Social Media
NECN Reports that Republican, Charlie Baker, will make a second run at the MA Governor’s office. Baker made his announcement via social media rather than the expected Press Conference. Baker who ran against incumbent Democrat Governor, Duval Patrick in 2010, lost by a small margin of 6 points to Patrick – both faced former Democrat, Tim Cahill who garnered 8% of the vote, with the state split between Baker and Patrick by county. Head to Head, Baker won heavy population counties, Essex, Plymouth and Worcester by 4 or more points, Norfolk by .1 point, and Barnstable, a lower population county by 3 points. Patrick took Bristol and Middlesex by 5 plus margins, Suffolk (Boston) a smaller county by 20 points, lower population areas, Dukes and Nantucket by a larger margin, with the Western side of the state, Hampshire, Berkshire and Franklin County coming in by 20 plus points, and Hamden, the most populated county west of Worcester, by the lowest margin of 5 points. (New York Times)
Massachusetts, however, tends to turn red on occasion, and Baker has shown strength in the 3 way 2010 race. Moderate Democrats tended to lean towards Cahill, who swayed the race in Patrick’s direction. Without a stronger, high-profile Democrat turned Independent in the race, and a likely more Progressive Democrat running against Baker, all bets will be off until the dust settles.
Massachusetts, known as the “bluest state” is home to Cambridge and Amherst, Progressive conclaves that are locally given the moniker “the People’s Republic of…”, the balance of the state tends to be Independent, with 50% of total registered voters noting a status of “unenrolled” in either party.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
The debate has been raging for far too long, be it the administration or those forces both right and left who are weighing in on a pending strike in Syria over the regimes use of chemical weapons on its peoples. Regardless of one’s political aspirations and/or bent, it is always a fair manner in which we, as a nation, have weighed use of military force to free a people of a madman. The evidence is growing (and has been there for sometime – that chemical weapons were used in the Middle East, be it in Iraq, when Saddam Hussein murdered the Kurds, or now, in Syria, as a means to eradicate the rebel forces. The innocents suffer – that’s the end of the game.
French intelligence is insisting that the use of chemical weapons on innocents is taking place as reported by the French – The Local, the government is now sharing images with the public – and they are disturbing. The U.S. has been bickering over a military strike, as Britain’s usual backbone crumbled, and the Russians are warning against a strike on an area of the world in which they actively arm those that support cruel regimes.
Therefore, as the UN is now wondering what Lebanon is going to do with a million Syrian refugees and that agency is weighing which political moves made be at hand to stop the murders (Financial Times) – our President has politically stepped back to get an approval from Congress, and those members who are, for political, not ideological reasons, bucking Obama, should knock it off – and now.
There is a great deal at stake here for the U.S. as it stands in the world, and should we, as a people, or our leaders, more specifically, show division and distrust in our leadership, over party politics at a time when innocents are being murdered – it will send a stronger message to those who would harm their own, and us as well.
For one, never being a war-monger and as a mother, always praying for deterrents - it is those images of women and children that always haunt and bring out the U.S. A. in a soul. If we, as a nation, have the ability to stop murder, then we should use the full force of our military to do so. That does not mean putting boots on the ground, but a sustained and massive strike on strategic targets (airfield, palaces, and military command centers) would be a great start.
There will be risks, to be sure, perhaps a few Russians who are helping the regime might fall, or perhaps, once the dictator is no longer, a more militant group will be in power, or perhaps, just perhaps there will be fewer civilian deaths, and those contemplating similar action will think twice before proceeding. One must prefer the later. We, as a nation, are not the world’s policemen, which is often the argument used. However, we are, are at least appear to be a moral nation, one which, when shown atrocities, move to prevent father harm to the innocent.
Timing and decisiveness may not be the strong suit of this Administration, where in 2009 in Iran, an opportunity was lost while the world, waited and waited to weigh in, giving the Mullah’s time to bring in reinforcements to put down a massive revolt. That said, an opportunity to right a wrong has existed for months, and as the evidence is at hand, the I’s dotted the t’s crossed, it is time to put politics aside, and do the right thing.
It really makes one wonder, if the left (i.e. Pelosi and Reid) are suddenly Hawks, and the right, (pick a name, any name) are suddenly Doves, something smacks of political gain all the way around. The public may not have a taste for war, but this is not war, per se, it is a rescue mission. Again, it is a moral imperative that a nation with as many resources at hand as has the U.S. – intervene. Note on Title, loosely based on lyrics by the Clash – appropriate in this situation.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
2016 Presidential Speculation on Cruz and Clinton – Longshoreman Opt Out of AFLCIO over – Obama care
Image of Senator Ted Cruz and article from Western Free Press - "Ted Cruz Close to tie with Hillary Clinton in CO
Ted Cruz, the Senator from Texas, as of now, garners more headlines than any potential (speculated) 2016 candidate for President. The latest, an appearance at an event hosted by the Tea Party Group, Americans for Prosperity, in Tampa, FL. The Washington Post suggests in an article written over the Labor Day Weekday that Cruz enjoys a clear edge among tea party activist, at this particular summit. Cruz, who is not particularly shy about telling those in the media what he thinks, (and why he’s right) is one of the most compelling potential candidates with a Libertarian leaning. (One which dictates smaller federal government, more states rights, a peaceful rather than Hawkish approach to military involvement (unless directly attacked). In other words, a perfect example of someone the nation’s founders would have embraced. The more one hears from Ted Cruz, and the apparent heartburn he causes the establishment GOP (i.e. the McCain’s), the elite media, and the White House, the more his stock rises. Cruz has given no indication of a run for the oval office, as of yet.
Hillary Clinton - Image from Infographic.com where one will find a - Ted Cruz Vs. Hillary Poll
Hillary Clinton inspired an op-ed that seems to make the most sense one might have read recently. From the Pittsburgh Tribune, Douglas Mackinnon, noted as a former White House and Pentagon official, opined that its’ “Too early to crown Hillary” He suggests that the National GOP and the media have gotten it wrong re: Hillary Clinton’s strength as a candidate in the not so distant past – i.e. 2008 – where Barack Obama came out of “nowhere”. He also correctly asserts that Elizabeth Warren may be a challenger.
If one were to bet on anything, it will be that the National GOP sticks its head in the sand, far too long to recognize the real challengers (i.e. the Warren’s), while prepping what they feel is a suitable candidate (one can bet it will not be Ted Cruz). It is hoped that with all hoopla that surrounds a Presidential Primary season, that Cruz, or someone who is similar in stand and clear chutzpah, will give both the National GOP and the Progressive Wing of the Democrat Party a real kick in the pants – all the way to the White House.
Cruz has been one of the strongest opponents in the Capital to Obama care – wishing to stop it by defunding the program – He is not alone in his angst regarding the disaster that is “Obama care”- Surprising Company, according to Labor Notes.org are the members of the Longshoremen Unions, who recently split form the AFLCIO – over Obama care and Immigration.
n a surprise move, the 40,000-member International Longshore and Warehouse Union announced its disaffiliation from the AFL-CIO yesterday. The news comes just a week before the federation is set to hold its national convention in Los Angeles, the nation’s biggest port and an ILWU stronghold. –
Lockstep with Obama
“[The AFL-CIO] wants to organize these big conventions, and rally to pat themselves on the back, doing nothing to promote the working-class,” said ILWU Coast Committeeman, Leal Sundet, who supported the union’s decision to disaffiliate.
The ILWU supports a national single-payer health care system, while the AFL-CIO is “in lockstep with Obama,” Sundet said. He criticized the federation for being unwilling to discuss the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act, which discriminates against union Taft-Hartley benefit plans and will impose a so-called “Cadillac tax” on generous benefit plans.
Sundet also chided the federation’s position on immigration reform. The AFL-CIO is backing a bill that he contends will only make things harder for working-class immigrants, because it is “designed to give [only] highly-paid workers a real path to citizenship.”
Letter re: ILWU Disaffilation - here at scribd.com
Strange bedfellows indeed – but that speaks volumes about those elites pushing the Program regardless of the harm to the nation’s health care delivery system.