Dinesh D’Souza – indicted Campaign Finance Laws –Equal Treatment Under the Law

The New York Times is reportingthe the Conservative, Author and Filmmaker (Obama 2016), has been indicted on charges stemming from reimbursing donors to a NY Senate Campaign, whereby he had exceeded the maximum personal contribution limit.

Although it is, today, the first thought that anyone conservative who is asked to an audit, or indicted is obviously being targeted, perhaps in this instance, given his high profile the odds are greater than average that this was the case.

That said, D’Souza is a smart guy, and should have known better, even if he was, as his lawyer states, helping a friend, and apparently was misguided (New York Times), it is the individuals reasonability to ensure that all is right with any arm of the government that requests one give them cash.

At the age of 16, this blogger was audited by the Massachusetts DOR, having worked perhaps 3 months of that year; it was intimidating to say the least. The agent suggested these were random, and that all was in order, however, what that made clear to me, was to insure that my taxes, both state and federal were up to “snuff”, running multiple audit tests to insure any forms were perfect.

All American’s should have a healthy respect for an agency that wields so much power – frankly I’d like to see a flat tax so that there would be no need to have the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. But, that’s another issue.

Others have broken the same laws, and one understands that there is a slight difference when say it is the finance director of a Clinton Campaign(Fox News 2005), or the fact that certain administrations (Clinton’s) had multiple indictments against their associates with some repercussions(Washington Post, 1988)

Therefore, it’s a 50/50 coin toss as to persecution or basic, you broke it, you fix it with the Feds

The reason it ranks as persecution tall is the fact that conservatives have been targeted by the IRS, therefore a prominent conservative would have a large target on their bank accounts. However, again, he should have known better. The question is, will he be able to walk away, like Rangel, Frank, or so many others who have made ”mistakes” in filing – including this Administration’s Tim Geithner.

That is doubtful. One will get a flavor of a witch-hunt, once the media starts to rally (as of this morning), as to which way this story will spin out of Washington. If D’Souza did, in enthusiasm, break the law, he should suffer the same fate as say, tax cheat Charlie Rangel, and be immediately elected to Congress.

2016 Pre-Update – Rand Paul suggested as likely GOP front-runner – Making Sense of Changing Attitudes in Political Think

Senator Paul, during his filibuster, attracting both left and right over personal liberty - image Sioux City Journal

The Atlantic article titled “Rand Paul is the 2016 Republican Frontrunner” suggests the obvious, assuming that Chris Christie was a serious contender for 2016, or even considering it, and the same can be said of the Senator from Kentucky. If what the Atlantic article suggests were verified in the next 6 to 12 months, that both men were announced candidates for the nomination, there is no doubt that Paul would be the frontrunner.

The reasons are fairly simple, the first being that the media (certain progressive circles) attempt to minimize Paul at every step, from absurd charges of “racism” due to an affiliation with a staff member (who was summarily fired) to charges of “plagiarism” – which was based on the correctness of footnotes, the petty is playing large, as frankly, there is nothing else about the Senator that is remotely touchable. That has to scare a few analysts. He is popular with both bases, as a Libertarian, he is grounded in the Constitution, pleasing the right, whiel at the same time, anti-war, which pleases those on the left. He’s likable, young, a doctor, and does not tread the normal byways of the GOP.

He is the one candidate that one might consider to be free of political sin, and furthermore, not vested in Washington for Decades.

Should he decide to run, in due course, he would certainly be a front-runner. For those who approve of a little push-back against both parties, and Congressional procedures such as a filibuster, Paul ranks the highest in the current “fantasy presidential candidates” sweepstakes. The fact that John McCain referred to him as a “dangerous wacko bird” is just the icing on the cake.

He just might be the next shiny new Presidential candidate, as the left is geriatric at best, with names seen too often, with one exception, Elizabeth Warren, who, although a darling of the left, may not have the juice to unseat a Hillary Clinton (there is the super-delegate though), and should she do so, has less time in the Senate and no practical experience running anything –as a college professor.

Also is it doubtful that Paul would play into the power struggle that was the GOP – after the last two debacles – Romney & McCain, it’s time to recast the party – the Libertarian branch is reminiscent now of the “Know Nothings”, that first formed a viable national party – the Republicans, and elected one Abraham Lincoln. Possible, and probable – Paul is the one to watch for now.

Wendy Davis and Hillary Clinton – Matter Much? – Yes and No

Wendy Davis, Democrat from Texas who is seeking the Governor’s office, apparently has had a few problems in the past. She was the gunner for the pro-abortion lobby, and ensured that Texans had the “right to choose”, yet her past is catching up with her. The Washington Post suggests that although she may have problems with her resume (which is not, when right and left clash in print, the only problems), but she had to run for Governor and lose.. The aforementioned makes no sense at all – in the real world, instead of making excuses for Ms. Davis, ahead of a loss in Texas in 2014, why not vet her first, find a credible female Democrat to run in her stead (surely there is one that hold Progressive tenets and has no .. scandals or misdemeanors or jail time in their past?)

Hillary Clinton is being ballyhooed as the front runner for 2016 – Politico reports that she is cleaning Chris Christies clock in the polls – a veritable shoe in, a done deal. While other news reports suggest that perhaps Benghazi may come back to haunt her – are either a factor?

First Christie, not necessarily the candidate of choice for the Conservative does not have yet to declare, nor has anyone else for that matter, and polls taken only pit Christie against Clinton. The danger there is that the public is led to believe that she is infallible and Christie is the only one running. Secondly, Clinton has run and was, quite clearly, robbed of the nomination in 2008, but that was history – the two major political parties appear to play a game of “the loser get’s the second chance”. In other words, should one come in second, one will come in first the very next opportunity. Never mind that there may be baggage now that was not there in 2008, given her close association tot his administration, and the additional fact that the public is growing sick of the Washington elite.

Yet, depending upon who does run, Clinton may be the best choice – baggage and all. If another female with impeccable credentials, a Governor perhaps, who has held the seat for at the least one full term, would do.

Sadly, the public is weary, both sides of the aisle and their respective media outlets, have hammered the Republican versus Democrat battle to the point where one can’t even stand to read an article, listen to a newscast or even get the energy up to care a whit – which is good news if a candidate is not the darling of either media, or exclusively branded with a major political party. Yes, once again, America needs a shiny new toy, to hold up on a pedestal, but this time, the low information voter may not be so quick to choose, and may want more in the way of leadership than slogans.

Which begs the question for both sides of the aisle and both genders – is there anyone at all, without the baggage or the brand -who would risk the backlash and the cash to take on the nightmare that surely will be the next President’s inheritance?

If a woman does run, regardless of which one, for which race, one would hope that the criticisms of which there will be many would focus on their political acumen, their management skills, rather than their personal lives and/or their wardrobe.

New Hampshire – 2014- Scott Brown – Not Declared – behind Sheehan (D) Incumbent by3 points? –Let the Games Begin

One does not even have to be a declared candidate to meet polling margin of error in 2014 -image Poltiico

2014 is starting to shape up similarly to 2009 - Politico is reporting that Public Policy Polling has Scott Brown with an early deficit of 3 points should he decide to run against the incumbent, Democrat Cindy Sheehan.

To those watching minor mayoral races, city council races, and the like in 2009, there was a refreshing schematic that became apparent in close to sixty percent of the races nationwide, and that was the incumbent – lost. It was not, by any means, a partisan route, as in Democrats only – although that did play a factor in Massachusetts. However, it was anti-incumbency – mad at Congress and the major parties, that had a hand it the vote.

Therefore, one would surmise, that no seat is “safe” in 2014. Of course, that’s a long ways off – and things can and do change. The economy could come roaring back to life, the Democrat and the Republicans in Congress and the Senate, might just put aside all their difference and cooperate on multiple issues, especially the revising the Affordable Health Care Act, the President might just get a little more centric, and Harry Reid may switch parties – all of the aforementioned, of course, are as likely as any change taking place to alleviate the overtaxed and disappearing middle class, as well as the angst felt by those 20 something’s who have – no hope.

Polling is also a funny thing, depending upon the pollster – a recent Rasmussen Poll on Presidential matchups, for example, gave two choices as to whom one would prefer – Hillary Clinton or Chris Christie. One was compelled to finish the polling electing one or the other. If the point of the poll was to see how one would do against another in this hypothetical match up – that’s fine, but if it were to give an overall view of how the vote may go – it was far off the mark. Other choices, could have included Rand Paul, the Senator from Kentucky – who one would hazard to guess would do well across a broad spectrum of voters – as well as anyone who has an idea and not a permanent place in D.C.

Yes, Brown could win New Hampshire easily, he’s new to New Hampshire (sort of), he had a get along and get my way approach to legislation in his short time in the Senate, and he got things done (which message failed to get across with all that screeching about Billionaires, and ads suggesting that ok, he did his job, but he just might vote Republican. In Massachusetts, that’s pretty much all one used to need.

Notice the past tense.

Therefore watching races across the country, look to the underdog –the one candidate that is not politically savvy in the Congressional districts, especially during the primary season. This time around, one thinks it might not be scads of cash that’s going to make or break an election (although it does help) it might just be the people who decide – enough is enough.

Obama believes Poll Numbers down due to Racism – Yet, other factors may be driving decline in approval.

From Bloomberg.com, comes an article where the President, Barack Obama, suggests that racism is playing a factor in him decline in approval. Gallup currently has his approval rating at 39%. (Bloomberg).

One might suggest that it is not racism, rather the economy, political ideology differences, and numerous “scandals”, that have brought his poll numbers to a new low. If one is to compare the vote in both 2008 and 2012, one gains some insight into the “race card” being played out on every conceivable scenario. Preface that by the fact that yes, racism exists, in all forms, whether one is African-American, Asian, Hispanic, or white (both in terms of African American racism (Cracker), and in terms of inter-demographic socio-economic (White Trash). Go figure. Although prior to the arrival of the first African American to run for the Presidency, let alone get elected, one might have thought that yes, pockets of racism existed, however, that was past and the past was behind us.

This is speaking from the experience of a young blond child, being held by her Spanish father, at a Union event in the 1950’s, where epitaphs of “Colored” were bandied about in relationship to a “dark man” holding a “blonde baby”. One was either white, or not. It was one of those memories that always puzzled, as one would not think color of the skin would enter into the scheme of things. It was always a question of competence of the individual.

Fast forward through the 1960’s through 1990’s and with laws in place, diversified workplaces, and schools and colleges, and one would think nothing of anyone other than by their own merit. Then in 2007 and 2008, the world was, once again, made aware that there was “racism” in this nation. Who knew? If one said something negative about an individual running for office, such as pertaining to experience, they were racist. Oddly enough, some were thinking that with the experience, and then Candidate Barack Obama had, was hauntingly similar to one Jimmy Carter (White Southern Baptist), which made many leery of voting for then Candidate Obama.

Fast forward 4 years, again, after 4 years of a stagnant economy, and for many differences in political ideology – that same Barack Obama was reelected. Nothing has changed for the better, in fact, with the roll-out of Obama Care, and the rank incompetence displayed by those who were hired to do the job; the President is surprised that his poll numbers have dropped. It must be racism.

The problem lays in the fact that fewer people today believe that race plays a factor, in hiring, or otherwise (gender, different story), therefore, when one is say a boss, and things go wrong, the boss is to blame, the further up the rung one sits, the proverbial flake falls upward. Since the President if visible, then he is the target of angst for all things economic and political that may go wrong with his administration.

To point out demographically speaking, the elections of 2008 and 2012, one finds that everyone who voted as “categorized” – (as in every election)

In 2008, the Republican’s ran John McCain (no confidence) against the rising star of the Democrat Party, Barack Obama: who won a majority of the women, African American, Asian, Other, Youth, etc. in all categories except for “white”. In that instance he lost 12 points to McCain, one might wish to scream racism, but is it even entirely possible that those 12 points were Republican Brand Votes, or fear of Jimmy Carter returning votes? (Roper Center UCONN) (Note the same differential between John Kerry & George Bush)

In 2012, the Republican’s ran Mitt Romney (a slightly younger version of John McCain, but not by much), Oddly enough, the Democrat, although winning, lost across points across all demographics, yet still won the election. (National Journal On line). One might suggest that had Evangelical and Tea Party prejudices not hampered Romney, the political scene would be different.

The problem with assuming Race as a factor is that one truly does not know. Unless one is polling every voting station in the country – and asking if racism played a part, one does not know that vote were cast based on a) political affiliation) or b) political ideal logy) or c)someone just wants somebody new.

Therefore, one might conclude, that Racism, is playing a very minor factor (admitting it exists), and to the larger extent, it is a condemnation of the job performance.

Up next, gender – Women, who are a majority (minority in pay equity), may see a woman run for President in 2016. One might suggest that this woman would succeed if that woman can connect to the majority of the voters on competence. One might also think that the vote will not go to a woman who has little to no experience in government, based on the fact that the public has “been down that road”. With more individuals identifying themselves as no party affiliatin (or independent) – at a staggering 42%, one might see a totally different schematic play out. However, having a brand, in this opinion, a strong brand,(as in Party Leadership), one might as well save their campaign cash or run for another office. Assuming 42% of the voter, identify with someone running as a Democrat or Republican who is more Libertarian, green party, or even disantace themselves from the major brand, that individual should, it follows, be elected. A doctor, perhaps, or someone who runs a business, and one, who has not been in office for decades, but a decent length of time, say at least one full term. Icing on the cake, someone disliked by both parties “leadership”. There are several that fit this mold, but, as it is too soon to tell who will or will not run (next year – during the midterms the process should begin). Now, whether that individual is a man, a woman, African American, Hispanic, what have you, will not matter, it will be their personal ideology that counts, no matter how wacky – or perhaps because how wacky the Party power brokers believe the to be.

As to the President, it matters not what race he is, it matters only that he is being seen as fixing the problem. Additionally, historically few if any incumbents have fabulous approval ratings in their 2nd term.