Big Winner of the 1st 2016 GOP Primary Debate Marathon – Fox News – All Candidates – Too Early to Determine

The large field of 2016 GOP Candidates - split for two debates by tiers - image insider fox news

Last night’s back to back GOP 2016 Primary debate hosted by Fox News is Cleveland, OH, with 17 candidates vying for the spotlight, appears to have had, at first glimpse of the headlines, a net zero effect on the candidates, however, the most positive or negative reactions go to the network itself, with the majority of commentators either praising or debasing the network. That leads to the theory that this debate may have been the largest audience for a primary debate in the history of televised debates. Obviously time will tell, as the ratings are not yet available, however with the hype surrounding many of the key players, such as Donald Trump, but all news organizations, and the number of people watching just for Trump, makes that scenario likely. See: CNN Opinions on who won the GOP Debate

New York’s CBS

Time

Tucson News Now (one of my local where to watch to GOP Debate

On the Candidates there are a variety of opinions as to who won or lost in the debate, and front a general consensus of the 13,200,000 available on Google News as of 5:32 AM EST 8/7/15 it could be any one of the seventeen GOP Candidates who were either in the first or second debate.

Donald Trump was the prime draw for the majority of viewers, based on comments either positive or negative and possibly of the plurality of coverage of the debate itself. In this humble opinion, there were no clear winners or losers, with only personal preference needles moved slightly. The Drudgereport poll results indicate that Trump was the clear winner, with Cruz in second place and Carson in third, however, as with all internet polls, there are opportunities for campaign operatives to help on a large scale to get their candidate over the top in, what is the largest news aggregator on the net(Drudge Report)

The only candidate to truly stand out as lackluster from the perspective of this Libertarian leaning independent from MA was Gov. Jeb Bush. The balance delivered as expected, with the time constraints and the unusually large field. What might be missing in all of the hype is the huge service Donald Trump has performed for the GOP in general – without his presence causing such a national firestorm (and international given the coverage by the BBC and other world outlets – viewers tuning in to watch Trump only may have learned about the other candidates and conservative viewpoints, counting as new votes cast in the primaries and caucuses let alone the general election, regardless of who the nominee may be. Personal favorites, Cruz, Fiorina, Carson and yes, Rand Paul and Donald Trump – go figure.

Clinton Announces 2016 Candidacy – GOP to add Rubio to the Roster this week

Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy via social media this weekend in what the Washington Post dubbed: “A long awaited announcement”. Apparently, Clinton is going to strike a populist tone.

If there was a do-over and 2008 was the year, that would have been the time to forward Clinton as the candidate of choice (she was the popular candidate of choice, she was not the candidate of choice for the Super Delegates), unfortunately that did not happen. At that time, there was as choice between Clinton, McCain and Obama, it was a no-brainer for the women of America, both Independents, Democrats and yes, some Republicans’. Unfortunately that was not to be, we can’t turn back the clock, and despite best and worst intentions of the media – it may not be the best time for Clinton in 2016. Martin O’Malley is running as well, and he strikes a younger more attractive tone vis a vis the aura of Dynasty that hangs about Clintons Neck.

On the GOP side, polling suggests according to Bloomberg, that Rand Paul and Jeb Bush may have problems in the primary, although, Bush more than Paul, while other conservatives such as Ted Cruz will fare better. (Bloomberg). One might suggest that a robust primary, sans the attack ads at Paul (first) and second whoever does not fit the Beltway image of what is right for the nation, is what does the primary a disservice. Let the duke it out in the debates and the same should hold for the Democrats. Several news sources site that Rubio will announce this week – adding to a decidedly “youthful” cadre of candidates.

A note on those dark and menacing political ads – those should be pulled – one by Ron Paul, a candidate which this blogger finds more than worthy of support, is exactly the type of negative ad, dark, foreboding, that turns back on the candidate. Having watched so many good politicians go down in flames due to bad ads, the anti-Hillary ad is just that. Highlighting differences is fine in this opinion, helping the competition is not. Humble opinion notwithstanding, this general election primary is shaping up to be one of the most interesting - a lot of smart people are running, and there is nothing that the country needs more than a fresh face with a brain.

Immigration - Rubio – Conscious and Political Folly – The Right and the Right of Cruz vs. Rubio

Rubio and Cruz - photo - Politico

The Senate Passage of the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act’’ (Read Act Here)has shed some light as to the individuals within the Senate that are willing to compromise to move a goal post towards progress (rather than Progressive), and Marco Rubio, the Senator from Florida, appears to be of such mind. This was the type of move, bi-partisan in nature that sunk Scott Brown like a rock in the 2012 elections. One might think it was the fact that he was tagged as a Republican, however, those on the right in Massachusetts and those so-called independent voters, were not thrilled with the way he voted – crossing party lines in this heavily polarized nation in which we live, can be political folly. The Tampa Bay Times writes an interesting article, titled: “Senate passes immigration bill, but at what cost to Sen. Marco Rubio?”in which his move to work within the structure of the Senate and Comprise, may hurt him politically, with those considered to be on the “fringe” or “far right” voters – (see Tea Party). Of course, the later labels are journalistically created nonsense; rather it is a question of those who adhere to the Constitution and those who feel it is a document to be trifled with. Those Conservatives and Tea Party Members are constantly cast as out of the mainstream, however, one might find that more agree on principle, than not, with conservative values.

Ted Cruz, the Senator from Texas, is one who opposed the Act – not because of immigration reform, rather the contents of the ACT. There are those who refuse to go along to get along, and regardless of political outcome, act on their principals, rather than what is politically correct at the time.

Both Senator’s Cruz and Cornyn voted “No” on the Immigration Reform Bill (Dallas Morning News), as it was written. The Act in its current form, with the addition of amendments, and the loss in the bill of any border security, that stopped both Texans, and will cause the Act to die in the House.

One can understand that Rubio voted out of compassion for those, living here in this nation, who are in the shadows (to use a tired phrase), and would be allowed to come forward, with a process, and become law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. However, without border control, and with the past as a guide, once amnesty (and that is what this Act allows), is granted, millions more flock to this country. To get to the border, and across there is much peril, including those who would financially benefit from either holding individuals for ransom, or charging exorbitant fees to bring them across the border, or, once in the U.S., having them work of the cost of their travel to the U.S. which could take half a lifetime.

That is what Cruz objects to and rightly so. It is not that one might be against an orderly and fair immigration bill, as long as the first measure was to secure the border, by whatever means possible.

It would be surprising if either man were hurt by their respective positions in the long-run, as geography is a grand factor – Florida being a microcosm of the Northeast, and Texas being a border state with good reason to be suspicious of any bill coming out of DC. – The Senate Bill as written, is similar to ObamaCare, and everyone knows how that is turning into a nightmare for the Democrat Party.

Senator Rand Paul – Historic Defense of Civil Liberties – Spans Party Lines – Lessons in Civics - #Standwithrand Still Trending on Twitter

The Man one might want to Stand With - Senator Rand Paul - image Reuters via Breitbart

It goes without saying, that far too many American’s have had no education as to basic civics, especially how our government and the separation of powers brilliantly installed in the U.S. Constitution provide the people with a safety net against that government. Today, most people in this country, otherwise known as “low information voters”, have a concept of the body politic that is more “entertainment”, by which, a politician becomes a “rock-star”, rather than a servant of the people. It also goes without saying that those who do serve, from the Congress, to the Senate to the Office of the President, deserve the nations respect; for these Offices, and the intent to serve, are not undertaken lightly. The people and those that serve may have differing opinions; however, the entire body politic in these United States is one that is built on laws and oversight. In 1939, a feature film, ”Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”, became one of the most enduring films of our time. The Oscar winning film is described in brief: “A naive man is appointed to fill a vacancy in the US Senate. His plans promptly collide with political corruption, but he doesn't back down.” (Watch Trailer with links to film at www.imdb.com. It is the story of the filibuster and how that tool is used to bring attention of a situation viewed as untenable to the general population, and to hopefully, change a wrong to a right.

This was a fictional piece, yet, it is doubtful that many who are over the age of 50 have not seen the film at some point in their lives. It was a rare occurrence indeed, when on March 6, 2013, the nation was treated to the “real deal”. Senator Rand Paul, (R-KY), stood on the floor of the Senate and spoke for almost 14 hours. As one watching C-Span, desperately trying to stay awake to watch this event continue, the film from 1939 came to mind. Obviously, Paul is not naive when it comes to the ways of the world, nor the U.S. Constitution which he swore to uphold, and to watch as the hours wore on, his ability to maintain a clear, concise message, and stand firm in his convictions, was truly inspiring.

In brief, the Administration (White House and its various agencies) has considered the use of drones (a weapon) against individuals whom they feel might be a threat to the nation. These individuals would be U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The law of the land allows all U.S. citizens due process, and obviously, if one were thought to be an enemy of the State (with no clear indication of what the criteria would be for such a finding), the U.S. government would have the ability to blow them to smithereens, whether they were in their swimming pool, a coffee house, the grocery store, etc. These weapons are used in the theatre of war, to protect our armed forces, and there has been the consequence of unavoidable civilian deaths. In the theatre of war, it is an unfortunate expectation. However, it should not be an expectation at all in the confines of the boundaries of the United Sates of America. Rand Paul was asking the Administration (Attorney General, Eric Holder) if they felt the President had the authority to use drones as describe on American Citizens. The answers were vague in the extreme, thus Senator Paul took to the floor and spoke for thirteen hours.

At first, the Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid attempted to limit the ability of Senator Paul to speak – He failed. Rand Paul did not do this alone for 13 hours. In the process of the filibuster, one might not yield the floor (keep the discussion alive) and entertain a question from a college (another Senator). At the early hours, it was Sr. Ted Cruz of Texas, who stood to give Senator Paul a respite from standing and speaking, with authority on the subject at hand. Senator Mike Lee entered and, as a Constitutional Authority, joined in supporting Paul’s filibuster. Democrat Senator, Ron Wuyden of Oregon, joined in support. (Mediate.com) There was a dinner at the White House, with the majority of the Republican Senators’ in attendance, several of those who attended the dinner, apparently felt compelled to join Paul on the Floor, including the senior senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell. Senator Dick Durbin came to the floor to agree on principle with Senator Paul, but compared the use of drones on Ben Ladin, to the potential to use drones on American Citizens, he also suggested that this type of debate take place within Committee, instead of a forum that allowed the public to watch the proceedings.

What took place as a rare event, as this body, the Senate, does little in the way of protecting the interests of the American people. It is not for lack of trying, however, these Senators, regardless of party affiliation are often found blocked by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who holds the power to bring a bill (law) to the floor for a vote – or not. He is the main reason that the U.S. has had no budget since 2009, using “continuing resolutions” instead to keep from confining the Federal government to do what ordinary households must do – stick to a budget. This government is run, and operates, of course, with monies supplied by the very same ordinary households.

To watch part or all of these proceedings, C-Span has the entire video – which is embedded below. What the Senator was requesting was simple. A statement from the Administration noting yes, or no, regarding whether they (the Administration) believed the President has the authority to use drones to kill American Citizens within the boundaries of the United States – a simple Yes or No response would have ended the filibuster in hour 1.

It was not forthcoming.

Thus the almost 13 hour (12 hours and 54 minute) debate on the Senate Floor.

This is the type of occurrence that truly makes one feel that this is truly the best nation on earth in which to reside.

The twitter hashtag #standwithrand maintains the top trending topic on Twitter (as of 6:22 am est) (Twitter.com) When “Code Pink” #standswithrand, the issue is crossing ideological lines, and is one in which the entire nation should be vested (as is the world.)

The entire filibuster, video via Cspan.org.

The Washington Power Struggle – Ted Cruz and Mark Rubio – Dangerous to the Status Quo – To Both Major Political Parties.

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio - Serving Public Contrary to Party Leadership - image Latino Fox News

When one thinks of the center of power in the United States, one instantly identifies Washington, D.C. the wealthiest City in the nation, the home to the President, Senators and Congressman, and their lobbyists. There are the political party leaders, and then the rank and file members – who are expected to do whatever is necessary to keep everyone at their peak of personal power, and when one member rocks the boat, there’s hell to pay.

The Republican’s now have two such members in their ranks – Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas, and Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida – both Hispanics and both staunch Conservatives.

First, Sen. Rubio, who delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union in in February, 2013. (Link includes full text of speech - NPR). Apparently, Rubio became thirsty and grabbed a bottle of water off camera – which quickly developed into Bottled-Watergate via a media hailstorm suggesting that one drink would stymie any future political ambition possibly held by the Florida Senators. In an op-ed by conservative columnist, Cal Thomas, in Newsday Rubio, and his Senate counterpart, Ted Cruz of Texas are portrayed as a “double threat”, first to the Democrats as they see Rubio communicating with Hispanics (which, said minority are considered “owned” by that political party), therefore, a sip of water becomes a full-blown career ender. (With Ted Cruz, it is also about his connection to the Hispanic Community, however, as Thomas suggests the Democrats have a vested interest in eliminating Cruz, not necessarily, it is more likely the Republican Leadership- see Red State on Cruz which follows.) The import of the State of the Union and the Response for the American Public is not as pivotal as it was in decades past – therefore one would imagine it is more about power, controlling power, and consolidating minorities in order for those that hold the power in D.C. to maintain that power.)

Background on the State of the Union

The first televised State of the Union was introduced by Democrat President, Harry Truman, and televised in 1947 (History.com), eventually drawing huge audiences, up to three quarters of the adult population watched on the new medium of television by the 1960’s. (History Channel, The Presidents). As the televised State of the Union developed over the decades, a response by the opposing political party was added. in 1966. (Senate.gov/artandhistory) The last State of the Union in February, drew 35 Millions, (Washington Post), which indicates that fewer U.S. citizens are interested in what the President, or the opposition might have to say - there’s also alternative cable channels.

On Cruz and his being a thorn in the side of Republicans see Erick Erickson of Red State’s take on that subject. Erickson outlines the business as usual in D.C.; the party leadership assigning lobbyist and allocating committee seats to newcomers in order to bring them around to a status point of view. As Ted Cruz is not playing along, therefore, leaks to the press about Cruz are more than likely coming from the left of center Republican Leadership. (Think McConnell, McCain and Graham). Red State).

When a politician who’s ideals outweigh their commitment to power, one of two things happen, either they become part of the party establishment after a period of time, they face a primary in the next term, or they decide one term in Washington is more than enough (Read: A National Party No More” by Zell Miller, one term Senator from the State of Georgia.)

Although one might not politically agree with either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party, the fact that our elected officials, who are elected by the people of their districts or states based upon their individuality rather than party (one would hope), once elected, those members are expected to become part of the “machine” that is Washington. This occurs in both parties (See Rahm Emmanuel and the Blue Dog Democrats), and does little but continue the partisan politics that pervade both Houses of Congress. Moreover, nothing actually gets accomplished other than the growth of wealth and consolation of personal power in the current two-party systems. It is refreshing when a member of either House, goes “off the reservation” and openly revolts by doing exactly what they said they would do – so far.

Obama State of the Union February 2013– Loaded with Ideas – Some Good Points – Bigger Government – Lackluster event –and the Wealth and the Fashion – America on Display

>br>


The First Lady, Michelle Obama, stunning hair, stunning dress - image CBS News



President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address for the beginning of his second term. A Complete transcript is available at www.npr.org.

There was general applause throughout the speech, not over much, but surprisingly bi-partisan, specifically as the President hit on several sound ideas, two in particular stood out: immigration reform and decreasing the tax rate on manufactures that return to the U.S. and create jobs. However, he opted to blame “big business” for making massive profits, prior to announcing an end to loopholes for more tax reform which, in essence is a tax increase. For some larger businesses, that may be an incentive to move elsewhere – or return to manufacturing in Mexico, etc. An across the board simplified reform of the tax code would be more beneficial to most Americans, as some of the loopholes that are subject to close are mortgage interest deductions and the ability to deduct interest on student loans.

Immigration reform, which is way overdue, was spelled out in terms that would please anyone – fix the borders, put actual boots on the ground (perhaps U.S. Military that is due back from Afghanistan and could be kept on the payroll, rather than unemployed, while keeping human and drug trafficking down on our southern borders), given those here illegally an opportunity to become a citizen, but having them go to the back of the line, giving preference to those who have legally gone through the process, and finally overhauling or simplifying the legal immigration process (which is extremely costly, requires thousands of dollars for lawyers, testing and fees) – the president mentioned speeding up the process, however, a lowering of the fees involved and a realistic test that an 8th grade student could pass, would accomplish a deterrent to illegal immigration and increase the line for legal immigration). Overall, in his plan for immigration reform, including an English only segment, the President sounded less progressive and more conservative in his approach.

The balance of his programs, however, required “investments” in infrastructure and education. Investments, as anyone knows, are taxes and or outlay by the government. The fact that the initial stimulus was to put millions to work on construction projects fixing roads and bridges, somehow contradicts the 2013 call for billions to be spend on repairing those same bridges. There are several in Massachusetts that have been in the “construction” stage, for more than 2 years, part of the original stimulus. One can imagine if there are two in one small Western Massachusetts cities, how many more would be languishing half finished across the nation, based on the original spend.

He spoke about how these programs would not add to the deficit. Unless he is anticipating a rather large haul through closing loopholes one has only one recourse, and that is to take on additional debt. However, if he pushes through a low tax rate on manufactures, which will increase the workforce, he will be generating revenue through additional private enterprise.

The education cooperatives were somewhat bothersome, as they involved schools in cooperation with government and businesses. A student comes through high school, with skills and a two year college degree, and is hired by the company which partners with the government and the school. It sounds like a win-win – however, in his remarks he also signaled that more people cannot afford higher education, and therefore, this is an alternative. The President did go father suggesting colleges should cut back on tuition rates, which would give everyone an opportunity to save and go to college. Perhaps he is aware of Texas Govenor Rick Perry’s plan that called for state University and Colleges to produce a 4 year degree, tuition and books included, for $10,000. Perry’s plan succeeded as colleges and universities took up the challenge.

The president does have a great sense of humor, but somehow, when he joked, there was little response, and he is funny. Thus the lackluster response. Overall, it was a good speech, challenging both parties to work together to get things done, and laying the responsibility on Congress (and because they are his ideas and plans, a leader takes the responsibility as well (note to the President), and Congress should act, on several of these programs suggested by the President there is enough bases on his address, to get the job done.

In watching State of the Union deliveries in the past, political junkies watch C-Span, as those attending are ushered in, and nothing beats the sound of the Sergeant of Arms introducing the President, which is generally followed by 5 to 10 minutes of continuous applause. Perhaps speaking of the improving economy, and the need to be realistic about college spending, and specifically more reforms, was a sobering message in a room, in a City, that has the most wealth of any in the United States, and is, consequently growing in leaps and bounds – based on nothing more than tax dollars and lobbyist.

They are the self-styled and media and academia heralded “elite” of our society. A Society in which no one man or woman is more “elite” than the next and we all, every citizen, from the least to the greatest, has the opportunity to reach for the moon or fall just as far. It is a bubble in Washington, where out-of-touch of the city limits, one imagines a different America.

Finally, on gun control, the president introduced the grieving parents of the 15 year old girls shot in a park not far from the President’s home. There was former congresswoman, Gabriel Gifford’s, as well as others who had experienced the heartbreak of finding a loved-one murdered. Yet, the focus was on the legal gun owners, and restrictions that are similar to those in Massachusetts. (Criminal background checks for one, which makes sense – and the inability to sell firearms to criminals –the first thought was “Fast and Furious”. What most American’s understand is that there is too much violence in this nation, whether it is with a gun, or beating someone to death, or using a machete, a golf club, a tire-iron – there will always be crimes of passion. The crimes though, that are so prevalent are gang related for the most part, and those guns used, are hardly legally purchased. Additionally, on those who have committed mass murders, such as Newton, Colorado, Virginia Tech, at el, the perpetrator(s) were on medication for mental illness. In every single incident. What this tells us is that reform in the mental health field is more important to prevent mass murder than gun control. Reform such as mandatory visits with one’s psychiatrist to monitor prescription use. As of now, some drugs can be obtained, depending upon the state, at a physician’s office, with no follow-up.

The President now has three years, and a very ambitious agenda, if can accomplish two of the many, he would make great strides and up his political capital, and capital in general on the talk circuit. The two that seem most likely are immigration reform and cutting the corporate tax rate. That said he will have to really push both Congress, and the irascible Harry Reid in the Senate, to get the job done on any of the proposed. I like what our President had to say in party, and in part, not so much (the bigger government at no cost is something that defies math). Therefore, to reach this moderate conservative poetical junkie, he did a good job, however if one in the center right approves, does the base?

Check the Huffington Postfor that side of the response. Marco Rubio delivered the rebuttal. According to Forbes - Senator Rubio delivered an “Impressive Response to Obama's State of the Union Address” Rubio can speak, and he is passionate about the nation and as a conservative and Cuban-American, he is the poster boy for immigration. He agreed with the President, especially on immigration, and delved into two areas of disgreement, more government and the ability to pay for larger programs. He made sense. Yet, he was roundly criticized for taking a break to sip some water during his speech (Slate andCBSNews (difference- very little). That fact alone puts Rubio in contention for 2016. If all the mainstream and left media could find to fault Rubio’s first Republican response to the State of the Unions was in need to take a sip of water during the speech, and said placement of the bottle factored into the this, then Rubio may be squeaky clean for 2016.

Right now, however the focus should be on getting those programs through, again, with bi-partisan work, and knowing, as the President said, not everyone one each side of the aisle will be happy, as they have to give a little to get a little – he may also be speaking of himself, as he has to sign the final bill.

Finally, as a woman, and one who likes fashion, at any age, and specifically when one puts their own spin on their look, it amazes, that those viewing the fair, First Lady, Michelle Obama, and not loving her bangs, are simply out of any loop. She is an extremely attractive woman, who dresses appropriately at such events, and looked less stunning, more age appropriate, and extremely well groomed. One thing American’s do enjoy is a “First Lady” We can at the least be kind, or in cases honest, rather than throwing back partisan critiques on hairstyle and dress. P.S. I love Hillary Clinton in a high placed ponytail too. Instant facelift, defines features, and softens the face, all at the sometime. I missed seeing Clinton at this State of the Union, instead seeing the former Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kerry in her stead. Not quite as inspiring.