Is there a Glimmer of Hope for the New Congress-Senate? Bi-Partisanship maybe on horizon

If there was ever a time when a band of likeminded politicians from both sides of the aisle was needed, it would be this era, this year, this time in our nation’s history. Let alone it is the beginning of a general election season where one expects the partisanship to ramp on, again, and again, this should be put aside for those elected to do the people’s business.

Therefore – two articles stood out that makes one believe it may be possible to finally get things done, or not done, depending on the actual needs of the nation.

The first from Politico: Some house Democrats are seeking to add term limits to leadership positions according to Politico – in a nutshell, they see the GOP opening positions for new members of the body, and so, they would like to be able to have new voices heard on their side of the aisle. Smart move as it infuses new ideas into an otherwise stagnant and politically polarized group of older leaders (see Pelosi) (Politico)

Move to the Washington Post article which suggests that there is a large enough group of moderate Democrats who may be willing to work with the new Senate Leadership – thus giving the Senate the power to override a Presidential veto if necessary. We can only hope so – the constitution allows for a system of checks and balances - keeping everyone on an even playing field. (Washington Post)

There are instances where members do work together for the common good – see Rand Paul and Corey Booker.

Rand Paul pulls Away in Polling – Tops GOP Charts – Hillary Trumps Lackluster Dem Field.

Forbesreporting on the last Zogby Poll, shows Rand Paul (R-KY), pulling away from the establishment candidates (Bush, Christie) by a larger margin than previously seen. Paul received 20%, while the next 2016 potentials placed at 13%. (Forbes)

Obviously it is far too early to place any bets on who might or might not have the nomination, or even be running for the nomination until after the 2014 mid-terms, that said, what stunned Forbes in their analysis of the poll data was the fact that Paul topped the charts with less “name” recognition than the other “establishment” candidates. It is not surprising given the amount of press Paul has gendered and his popularity across multiple demographics.

On the Democrat side, Clinton buries the competition, which doesn’t say much given the lackluster bunch of Democrats that are being put forth. Name recognition may be the albatross in the next two election cycles, which leaves the door wide open at this point.

An interesting tidbit: the signers of the Declaration of Independence were a rather youthful group – given that Franklin at 73 was the oldest, Washington at 43, and Jefferson a 33 were what may be considered middle age, and the youngest was 26. Occupations also varied, from ministers, to lawyers. The document suggested that the individual was a representative of the people, rather than of the government. There was an abhorrence of all things monarchial – go figure – dynasties were considered to be less than desirable.(Archives.gov)

Three for 2016 - Rand Paul – Pragmatic Approach to the Middle East, the Borders and Voting Rights, Chris Matthews on Elizabeth Warren, and the Left on Rick Perry

Senator Rand Paul (K), on Meet the Press with David Gregory (link here to full video interview at NBC), (synopsis) was asked and answered a few topical questions regarding his stance on the issues of the day. He suggested that we stay out of the Middle East, (but also not for total isolationism), laid the crisis in the region on the laps of both parties in suggesting the Congress of 2002 should have given more thought to the process. He spoke to the need of securing the borders first, and that immigration as de facto amnesty would not pass. In addition he suggesting allowing non-criminal felons, who had paid their dues, be reinstated with the right to vote and spoke to Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Scandal. It is well worth watching as he comes across as measured and looking out for both the right left and center, while maintaining his core conservative values.

Elizabeth Warren (MA) was “grilled” by Chris Matthews, in a rather unusual testy interview for the Progressive Matthews, who, one would have thought, would treat Warren as the feminine version of President Obama (Video here – Breitbart-TV) - Warren, when interrupted suggested that he “stop” his line of questioning, while she continued to harangue the Republicans, Matthews asked what would you do about it?

Apparently she preferred to answer a serious question from Matthews with rhetoric.

Finally Rick Perry, who in his sometimes gruff Texas non-politically corrects way of explaining anything, ruffled feathers of gay activists by suggesting they were comparable to alcoholics (which, could be taken in so many ways, its mind boggling). The thought police have apparently pulled an equivalent of the Texan’s “I misspoke”

"I got asked about issues, and instead of saying, 'You know what, we need to be a really respectful and tolerant country to everybody,' and get back to talking about, whether you're gay or straight, you need to be having a job," he said. "I readily admit I stepped right in it."

(AZ Central- read full article here)

Summarizing, two men potentially running in 2016, one is pragmatic, the other apologetic, but at the same time, a straight shooter, versus a woman, who is also a potential 2016 (more of a bet on her than on Hillary Clinton) promising 4 more years of Obamanesque rhetoric (and a do nothing attitude to boot), should she be elected.

David versus Goliath – how Cantor Lost to the College Professor – David Brat

As Washington insides and pundits left and right are thawing out educated guesses as to why David Brat, a little known economics professor, bested, on no budget, a well funded, Congressional Majority Leader, the truth is rather simple – perhaps too simple. (See this link for Meet David Brat by NPR).

It was not necessarily the strength of the much maligned tea party, it was not that Brat “got lucky”, it is not that he is particularly far right, or far left, but more Libertarian –and pragmatic. It is simply put, an atmosphere in Washington of wealth, and degradation, as well as a propensity to watch out for Corporations rather than the general public, that has the general public, Democrat or Republican, rather sick of the same people in the same office. Therefore, they vote them out, good, bad or ugly, that’s the rub.

This phenomenon did not start yesterday, and it is not an across the board given, however, if one is to look back at minor races nationwide in 2013, at mayors races, in smaller cities, one might just find that incumbents, no matter how popular, got the boot. That boot was given by the general public, not because they were tired of the individual, rather because they were tired of multiple terms in D.C. and they took it out on the local level. Therefore, one can hypothesize, (exactly what this is all about), that this phenomenon will carry through the next few reelection cycles, and will reshape both major political parties. As to the Professor, David Brat, he will be doing exactly what our forefathers had done – Congress was made up of your ordinary neighbors, not the legal scholars of the day, those “gentlemen” preferred the Senate – but the real work is done in the House – which is history.

Expect more David Brats, not only in the House but in the Senate as well, this is going to be a season of unforeseen upsets, and it all comes down to the perception by the people, that Washington is working for Washington, and the lack of trust in the government (as witnessed by pollsters), is set firm. There is also a question of each parties base and the heft it carries foreword – specifically with the GOP – when Romney was nominated (as they are pushing Jeb Bush) – the backlash came not from the general voting public, rather from within their own party – millions stayed home and as a result, the race was lost President Obama. Perhaps, just perhaps if they (Those who run the RNC) paid attention to who will actually turn out and vote, and base decisions on which of their grass roots is going to put them over the finish line, they’ll be more careful in choosing a nominee that may appeal to just about everyone – even if that individual is reviled by his peers – and today, that leaves several people in mind. (And that goes for the Democrats as well, for in DC one can’t really tell the difference between the two.)

Scott Brown as the”Carpetbagger”, Politico Asks – “So What?” – Valid – Are you listening New Hampshire?

Politico’s article on Scott Brown, Republican running for Senate in New Hampshire, offers some valid points as to his “residency” in the state, and the moniker of “carpetbagger” that some have attempted to attach to Brown. The article states what anyone living between the Granite and the Bay State understands – we travel. Most of the Massachusetts residents living on the border or near the border of New Hampshire, have, over the years, moved next door, over the state line, escaping the extreme liberalism that is the Bay State. Friends have gone over the border, no excuses, for better schools and nicer real estate options, and all were, to the point, conservative in nature, although most “unenrolled” or independent minded. Scott Brown, therefore, has a lot of company in New Hampshire that is extremely like minded.

Never mind that the State flipped houses, that was due to those tax-hating liberals who thought nothing of going over the border as well – short commute to Boston and all. One might think that there were enough of them that would not appreciate Brown as an alternative; however, one might be wrong in that regard.

When Brown broke on the political scene in Massachusetts, weeks before he announced his run in 2009 for the Senate, he was a curiosity as a State Senator - with many wishing their state senator would be so attentive to constituents needs. That was the big reason Brown was so popular in MA – he was genuine. He did not work for one group or the other, he was not a brand X and that is what got him into some hot water with the Political “you own me” groups. Let alone, once elected, those who were “late to the campaign dance” declared their victory in getting Brown elected (State Republican Party, for one, Tea Party for two). Brown, with the help of a few trust aides, did it himself.

Yes, guilty, a Scott Brown fan, because is actually is a legislator. One might not care for everything Brown suggests, or the way he votes, however, since all of us, (the State in question), are not of the same political mind set, or share the same needs, one would think a legislator who walked the walk for all of their constituents would be welcome. One hopes the residents in the State of New Hampshire recognize what they have in Brown giving himself over to a race, to represent them.

Very rarely are there those who will not vote a party line, one way or other, just visit Thomas.gov, the congressional record, and look up ones Representative or Senators and find a party line state of mind. It is “us versus them” that get’s nothing accomplished. Brown manages to straddle the middle ground without comprising his principles or his constituents, and plays to no particular group.

It cost him the Massachusetts election - simply because he was accused on one side of being party line, and on the other – no so much. One might hope the New Hampshire streak of independence would allow them a tad more intelligence than their taxing neighbors to the south.

In a word this former constituent is jealous – look at what Massachusetts has to offer in its senators – both progressives, one running for the 2016 nomination (although denying) – Senator Warren, and the other – invisible in most of what he does – Ed Markey. Think long and hard, New Hampshire, you too could be just like your neighbors, which may not be the most envious position to achieve.

Then read the article at Politico to find how many real “carpetbaggers” are in the Senate, State House, et al –it might surprise.

The Perfect Presidential Candidate (or any Federal, State or Local Candidate)

Is there truly a perfect candidate for any office, no matter how low or how high? No, in truth, there is not, and the reason has less to do with any given candidate than it does with the massive political parties, the money brokers, and the “fringe” groups who hold every candidate to the fire if they dare to step an inch towards getting something accomplished that doesn’t align with their belief structure.

The groups involved in the above, some considered mainstream, some considered fringe (although they should all be under on large umbrella), are the Progressive Left, the DNC, the RNC and those who adhere to the middle of the road, there is the Tea Party, and there are the religious (which covers several categories) – All of these unforgiving and holding to a set of principles that is neither right or wrong, yet somehow muddies the water consistently for very good candidates who may somehow not meet a small criteria.

As we move towards yet another contentious general election, one will find they will either have a candidate that is flawed according to the set of specifics, and neither vote, or perhaps vote in spite for the opposition. Then there are the pragmatists, who each election hopes against hope that they will have a candidate they can stand, rather than a candidate that is the lesser of two evils.

Categories that fall (or may fall) under an undesirable individual for whom to cast a vote (according to the fringe)

A Catholic A Mormon (see 2012 and millions of evangelicals) A woman (not, sadly, in my lifetime) A candidate, male or female, that has not given enough money or support to NARAL A candidate, male or female, that has given to and supports pro-life groups A candidate who votes against the particular dogma of the “group”, while in office, and that group pulls support, preferring to lose on overall ideology rather than gain on purity (Scott Brown – Tea Party).

Voter suppression, dead voting, bussing in “voters” from other states, and a myriad of other charges, both real and imagined, are often used as an excuse, or the fact that the candidate does not excite, or did something long buried in the past, that makes them – un-pure.

There are those groups with money or clout or both that will throw both at a particular candidate who suits their needs and future gains – unions, PAC’s, those that have the wherewithal – Koch brothers, Hollywood, aligned against, a candidate or candidates who may not be one hundred percent pure to the electorate, but who would, in anywise, be a better choice, than the conglomerate that the party hierarchies and the money that follows, make for them.

The solution to this entire schematic would be to score the candidate, not necessarily on purity, but perhaps on a scale of purity – 70% say, in order to finally bring some sensibility to the process.

The national parties may have their “chosen” one, (or perhaps two), and those are the individuals, who for whatever reason, are called to the vocation, yet, may side more often with the party, than with those who cast votes – it would be a miracle, indeed, if one were able to cast a vote for the individual who was also called to the vocation, but was a choice of the people.

Look carefully at these candidates, that are now standing before – not as Republican’s or as Democrats, or as Tea Party, Libertarian, Progressive, or pick a flavor, but as the individual who’s story is most compelling, who is wedded to a philosophy and who may have strayed from that philosophy either through growth or pragmatism. They might also wish to be in the good graces of the respective party, for one reason or the other, but overall, they may mostly align with one’s belief structure. One will not go to hell for voting for a Mormon, a Methodist, or Catholic, or what-have-you, their Church will never rule the nation. In a perfect world, that would be exactly how individuals would cast their votes, and it would, in this opinion produce far better results.

The 2016 Speculated Packed Republican Field versus the Speculated Democrat Field of One (?)

Senators Bernie Sanders, VT, and Rand Paul (KY)Presidential Hopefuls - image from Politico

So much is now being bandied about regarding the individuals who are “front-runners”, denigrating and complementary, depending upon which media one prefers it becomes a bit tired. What is somewhat as musing is that this is a pattern that occurs every four years, yet, somehow those pontificators (including this one) continue to spout the good and the bad of potential candidates for two respective parties. There are those who accuse the party establishments of colluding against the populace (sounds about right), and those who are so wedded to an ideology (either right or left) that should their favorite candidate not jump into the race, they need therapy. It is nothing new really, but more of the same and this is where that same old jargon takes a twist and gives one side of the “two-party” system a little bit more depth.

An opinion piece in Bloomberg states the obvious - Winnowing The Republican Presidential Field - which goes into a place few dare to tread – some will drop out, some will show up late to the dance, and eventually there will be a winner. As of this moment the polls are indicating that Hillary Clinton, the lone Democrat who has yet to announce, leads the field, but recall 2006, when there was no mention of one “up and coming” Democrat from the State of Illinois, who most of the nation never heard of – Barack Obama. Therefore, one can bet, Democrats being Democrats, that the nominee will not be Hillary Clinton, chances are better than average that a little knows Senator from MA, who hails from Oklahoma, will be in the limelight as this year wears on.

On the Republican side, much to the dismay of many, the front runners, Chris Christie, Rand Paul and another Bush, lead the field, with Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and several others vying for spots, and that depends on the pollster. Straw polls being what they are should be taken with a grain of salt – yet, they offer insight into who the political activists favor. Having a crowded field, in the end, offers choices, which is a bonus to those who are in the political cheap seats, and normally have little to no say as to the nominee, given the Party’s ability to choose long before the positioning begins. However, times are changing, and there is always hope for a little rebellion and resurrection taking place in both parties, going even so far as to form a third party – which for some would be the Holy Grail of political gains.

The aforementioned terrifies the powerbrokers as one would imagine, as that’s hard cash splitting three ways rather than two – which is why the Tea Party is so frowned upon and vilified.

This is the time of the season when those of us in the trenches choose favorites (plural) as one should know, the field will narrow, and like any gambling, with the stakes much higher, betting everything on one horse is not the best way to play –unless of course, things stay the course and one knows the Party Elite. However, if there is a crack in the wall of power that is DC, then all bets are off. Confusing to say the least, but, as it should be.

Current favorites: Senator Rand Paul and Senator Bernie Sanders. If one were to pick two, one for each ticket, they represent politics the way it should be in this nation. Paul, who is a Libertarian Republican (Jeffersonian) is representative of the middle and the left with some right thrown in for good measure, he calls them like he sees them, and that doesn’t sit well with lapdogs like Rep. Peter King. Sanders, for being the Independent Democrat who suggests he really is a Communist – which, frankly, someone not hiding their true political bent behinds a blanket Party Logo, is refreshing!

2016 – The Early Players - Update– Elizabeth Warren (D) Continues War on Women, Rand Paul (L-R) squarely in the Middle, Jeb Bush (R) – Name Brand

First and foremost, one must understand that Hillary Clinton is most likely, not going to run for the 2016 nomination – despite all rumors to the contrary – and hints from the Clinton’s – part of the reason is one Elizabeth Warren – newly elected Progressive Democrat Senator, former Professor (Part-time) from Massachusetts – as the Washington Post suggests: “A case for Elizabeth Warren in 7 Minutes”. The drumbeat is just beginning. Warren, the female equivalent of Barack Obama, is a darling of the far political left, and with past “Super Delegate” experience, Clinton certainly knows that the Progressive Wing is capable of ousting the actual popular vote winner, in a heartbeat. With this is mind, and years of service, she is undoubtedly tired and wary.

Therefore the equal pay for women drumbeat has begun, yet, it may sound, at this point, overly familiar to those who are in the trenches, or feminists who have seen passages of Equal Pay Acts since 1963. Although denying she is seeking Warren, she is the best bet the Democrats have of even making a dent in 2016.

Unless of course, the RNC is ridiculous enough to run Jeb Bush – former Governor of Florida, son of President George H, and brother to President George W. Political dynasties are well-liked by the public in the same vein as lifetime Senators and Congressional Representatives. Yet, as CBS asks the question Can Jeb Bush win over the Christian right in 2016? , the answer is – yes. The next question would be – to what avail? The Christian base is put a part of the electorate that either shows up or not, and is unforgiving and unpredictable at best. The ranks and file would be expected to vote for yet another Bush, but that leaves the independents, the Libertarians, the Tea Party and a slim yet viable chance for Warren.

However, there is one Libertarian that has the RNC wary, as well as the DNC, that doctor from Kentucky – Rand Paul, the Libertarian leaning Republican – In the Politico article the Libertarian Surge, it is apparent that suppression of freedom, the growing and ever domineering Federal government, loss of free enterprise, and jobs, is becoming more popular with the general public. What Paul represents is a hybrid of both, the Republicanism of the 1960’s aligned with the Libertarian small government ideology and his popularity is growing, along with his donor base.

It is, of course, far too early to suggest one may best the other, as pitfalls happen to candidates in the primary stages, and in the general election and the players change – constantly up until those in New Hampshire, Iowa, and the Carolina’s suggest who may or may not be the next President, but who will continue to move forwarded on that particular quest. For now, we watch we wait and we listen for someone who is not necessarily wedded to the “Party” but to the people’s best interest – so far, we have one who can break the mold, so to speak, set by his father.

Letterman – Last of the Late Night Retirement’s - for now

From the New York Times David Letterman is set to retire – according to the New York Times, he will retire after his contract expires in 2015. That will bring him through the mid-terms, but one has to wonder, to what effect will this “icon” have on anything future? Jimmy Fallon appears to have swung squarely to the middle, with guests that are both ideologically right and left, pleasing both halves of the nation – Smart move. This is where Lettermen’s relentless and often tactless attacks with those whom he politically disagreed, may have led to faltering ratings.

In some respects one might be sorry to see him go, along with Jay Leno, mostly due the age of the viewer and nostalgia more than any real desire to tune-in nightly. On the other hand, with these types of venues and political figures from both sides, patronizing the platform in order to reach the late night crowd, perhaps not – it just always struck this individual as somewhat – demeaning to the office they held, or the office they hoped to hold.

CNN – Opinion Speculates on Why Obama is Losing the Millennials' –the reasons - and what that means for the 2014-2016 election.

A young CPAC attendee - standing with Rand - the image from genprogress.org - asks "...but do conservatives stand with his generation?". Note: CPAC attendees are conservative activists.

An opinion piece on CNN by Julian Zelizer, a CNN Contributor, suggests that Obama, besides his best efforts, is losing the Millenials (18-24) due to a lack of jobs, however, there may be more to the distance than that alone. There is a growing trend in that particular age group , like so many generations before them, that casts a pall over those in positions of authority, specifically government, and the real or perceived injustices of the particular time. They are concerned over jobs, no doubt about it, but also the skyrocketed costs of borrowing money for student loans, an industry that has been placed squarely in the hands of the government, a government they no longer trust due to the NSA data mining of civilians. In addition, they are more self-reliant than the generations before, although much has been made of a few who made headlines recently, those are the exception, not the rule. They know that the costs of the Affordable Health Care Act/Obama Care has increased premiums and has become cost-prohibitive to their parents, and in many cases, some have lost their coverage entirely. In the age of instant information through multiple social networks, making “friends’, is no longer confined to one’s home, state or campus, but includes the nation, therefore, knowing several people who are suffering due to a government program is not out of the question. A growing trend toward self-reliance, entrepreneurial spirit and a desire to partake in the original concept of the founding fathers is fairly amazing – they read the Constitution and are prone to prefer free markets, no taxes and peace through strength. They are not racist and they are not prone to any particular party affiliation – they are, if anything - Libertarians.

Which explains a lot of the appeal for Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, and of all parties, the Tea Party – they are a conundrum – many of whom did not vote in the 2012 election and if they did, are regretting their vote based on advice from teachers , professors and yes, parents.

They speak of having no future and t hey are sick of it, which will play out in one of two ways politically. In the first instance, although fed up – they may also retain the lack of interest in voting as in the previous election (those old enough at the time) and simply not vote. On the other hand, they may join their fellows from Berkeley, and campuses, tea houses, pizza shops, fast-food restaurants, and the like, and get out the vote for the individual who offers them what they want to hear and has done something about attempting to fix any number of the their grievances, someone who appears younger, and in tune with what is currently happening in their lives. They will support the candidate that has never held office, approves of free markets, and lower taxes, in 2014 and in 2016.

The President, like so many before him, has aged, and in the continued drumbeat about his actions or inactions from all sources, he is old and authoritarian to one who is a Millennial. He has also painted the party in the same vein. It is these old men and women, from both parties that are the perceived problem –reminiscent of the 1960’s mantra: “Don’t’ trust anyone over 30”, this generation prefers not to trust anyone over 50 who is currently a politician and a repeat offender (i.e. multiple terms).

The big “if” is at issue – “if they vote”, they could propel the modified Libertarian-Republican party to the forefront of history.

Note: Based on opinions of male and females 18 to 24 years old in random selection partaking in non-scientific interviews from campus and non-campus locations throughout Massachusetts and Connecticut. The particular blue of these areas and the answers of the majority (89.5%) were exceedingly surprising.

The Rand Paul Effect – Media Love-Hate fest Begins on the National Election front.

Lately, the Love him or hate him effect from old and new media for Rand Paul, the Senator from Kentucky who is the current GOP 2016 frontrunner (though hardly announced) has been ramped up a bit. The reasoning is pretty clear to those who are of a political mindset – the Establishment GOP sees Senator Paul as a threat to their preconceived notions of a candidate, and the Democrats see him as a threat for the same reason. Oddly enough, Libertarian ideals appeal to voters on the left and right of the political spectrum, so therefore, Paul is a threat to the status quo.

In addition, with each major political party, there are those who are to the right of the right and the left of the left, absolutists that would never, for example, vote for a Mormon as they might see that religion as a “cult”, and there are those on the left that would never vote for a Democrat if that individual did not have a perfect NARAL (abortion lobby) score. It is the extreme’s that drive both parties, as they are “the base”. The base often lives in print and broadcast, so loyal to party affiliation they fail to see the forest through the trees – believing that a Hillary Clinton – Jeb Bush match-up is, somehow, perfect, (the political dynasty equaling name recognition), or some such nonsense.

Therefore, reading articles on the Senator is conflicting – as it is a love, hate relationship taking form – there are two from Politico one exemplifies the hate and one sits squarely on the fence of neither. This following a week of pluses for the Senator, especially the warm reception received in Berkley, by the millennial – those 18-22 year olds who are itching to vote for someone fresh.

The first is titled “Big in the Bluegrass, In Kentucky It’s already about President Paul”, written by Sam Youngman, who writes for the Lexington Herald Leader. He lays out the Paul phenomenon with clarity – what his challenges are on the right and the left, with personal inflections being confined to reminiscing about past campaigns and the reality of the right and the left. It is worth the read. It may well be state pride, or it may also be a career motivated article, considering there is always a special place for reporters that can become attached to a national presidential campaign.

The second is entitled “Ready for Rand? – by Kevin D. Williamson, a “roving” contributor to the National Review who suggests that American’s will learn to hate Paul, they just don’t know it yet – blaming his Libertarianism. Of course, he also suggests that most American’s would prefer to be government dependent on various programs, which in the end, will prevent them from pulling a lever for a man who may take away social security, or and suggests that Libertarians and Liberals are one in the same – as the labels are from the same root word. From the establishment comes a salvo aimed at suggesting Paul is a non-starter.

One might suggest the most egregious examples will come from the National GOP who undoubtedly has a candidate in mind who will carry the banner right up until the concession speech.

Frankly, at this early point in the game it is impossible to tell where the cards will end up falling, and who will be in the deck – for either political party. Therefore, early stone-throwing accomplishes the ground work for later – just in case. It is the way of it with the D.C. bunch, and as it has happened in the past, and will happen in the near future; those who would decide the issue of who will be the standard bearer may be surprised to find themselves overruled – by the simple act of a vote.

Ted Cruz – In Florida – Crowds Exceed Expectations – Center Right GOP throngs to Cruz Message

Ted Cruz speaking in Sarasota, image from the Bradenton Herald

There’s just is something about Ted Cruz, the Senator from Texas – he rails against the GOP leadership, he is not concerned so much about his place in the party, rather in following what he believes to be right for his state and the U.S. overall – by the book – which is the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, as the left media (Mainstream) throws bomb after bomb, and are joined by the likes of John McCain and Mitch McConnell (the Establishment GOP), one wonders where on earth the appeal would be for Cruz by center, rather than hard-right Republicans?

In a word, he is forthright and as far as one can tell, speaks to what he believes in, not necessarily what is politically correct – he is refreshing.

When a rally was held in Sarasota for the Senator who was receiving a Statesman of the Year Award by the Sarasota GOP, they expected 200 people, 2,000 showed up. The gathering in Sarasota contained those people most likely to vote for a standard center right Republican Candidate, say a Mitt Romney; yet, they came to see Cruz, and gave, significantly, to do so. According to the article on Breitbart, it was noted by a FL GOP spokesperson that Cruz did well with those in FL most capable of donating large sums to the GOP.

This astounding Cruz popularity makes for a conundrum of sorts, since one thinks of Cruz, given the national media, as a Tea Party only Senator or a “wacko bird” in McCainian speak. Yet, he is more an everyman, which is the appeal, and why, when seen engaged in speaking (not in sound bites) he is instantly liked, even by those whose party is more progressive!

Although the media in Florida had different accounts of the crowd size (Palm Beach Post, suggests 1000,, while the ABC Affiliate in Bradenton suggests 1500, and the Sarasota Herald Tribune admits to “more than a 1000” ) it is apparent that the event was noteworthy for two reasons: one Cruz generates media, and thereby attention, and two, it was more than the anticipated 200 attendees – bearing mention.

One may hypothesize that Senator Cruz will be running for President in 2016, or perhaps, he feels so strongly about the many things that are wrong with the status quo in Washington D.C., regardless of political affiliation, that he is just out there on the stump spreading the message of standing up for what you believe in regardless of party. The bonus is that in and by doing so he is also raising money for state GOP’s. 2016 sounds more likely – and those pundits in D.C. and elsewhere that will be looking for the right meld of moderate again, will be wasting their time. Regardless of the intent of Cruz, he has a growing base of admirers – including Massachusetts and New Hampshire, where grassroots will be flooding to Manchester to hear him speak in April, 2014 and the event it sold out, with a waiting list only in case a larger venue is found or seats open up (unlikely).

Maybe, just maybe, the nation is looking for someone sincere, who doesn’t sound like Washington, and who is – simply put, unafraid and smart. The addition to the 2016 potential candidates of Senator Cruz, would make for an interesting primary, specifically if the choices include Rand Paul, and then the “old guard” – Santorum, Gingrich (no kidding), and Jeb Bush (even his mother is against that move). A more constitutionally based, Jeffersonian GOP is certainly possible, and that terrifies the left media, as well as the major political parties, who would hold less sway with a Libertarian leaning President who would not cow-tow to the right nor the left.

2014 – the Games Intensify – Senate Dem’s Meet Ad Blitz – Clinton-Obama Huddle to Save the Senate

ABS News Photo Picturing Presidents Obama and Clinton - saving the Senate Dem's - no easy task.

According to the Washington Post, the American’s for Prosperity Pac, is targeting 12 – vulnerable Democrat Senators, while at the same time, it appears that zero of the Republican Senators are in precarious positions – the ad buy is said to be massive, making it difficult if not impossible for Democrats to defend their “turf” – The Republicans are semi-untouchable .unless of course, it is a primary challenge from one of those rascally Conservative-Libertarians.

Meanwhile, CBS News is excited that former President Bill Clinton is “in the huddle” with Obama to save 2014 – to the point where the President has promised to distance himself from those Democrat Senators who may just lose their seats. (CBS) Of course, of note, this is not a popular well read story on CBS News, which begs the question – Does anyone really care, or find Bill Clinton/Obama “huddles” relevant?

One has to imagine that the Democrats in questions, being targeted as they are with anti-Democrat Senator ads – might not do well with or without Obama and/or Clinton, as the gift that keeps on giving, the Affordable Health Care Act, or Obama Care or Romney Care, continues to bring new angst to soon to be former Democrats by the day. The LA Times Tells of the Obama care patients who apparently cannot get a doctor to see them, as coverage is limited, and not unlike the websites, the exchanges are running in similar dysfunction manners.

Therefore, ads or no, this group, as well as anyone who can be remotely tied to the Bill, will be seeing a whole new crop of voters who will vote the other way - Estimates of upwards of 7 million individuals have lost their plans through the new program – therefore, that’s 7 million who may take it out in the polls. That’s a thought worth chewing on for a moment. In the swing of things, with parties being equal in enrollment and Independents growing in leaps and bounds – the chances of any type of Democrat comeback for the next 2 midterms and general election are starting to wan. Further and perhaps most interesting is the relevance of President Clinton on getting out a mad base to begin with – especially saddled with the irrelevancy of Obama. Should he succeed in saving a seat it should be considered nothing short of miraculous.

Good Grief –WAPost, suggests GOP Trouble with No Clear Front Runner – the Tea Leaves

The Washington Post is suggesting that the GOP is in “turmoil “as there are no clear frontrunners yet for 2016. They go on to explain that the “elders” of the party, are not happy unless there is a clear front-runner before the nominating process begins – keeps it neat, sweat and no messy primaries – since this may not be the case, chaos should reign and the Democrats should be sitting pretty. The reason is that Hillary Clinton has an unprecedented lead in early polling.

It may be best to recall that Hillary Clinton had an astounding lead going into 2008 – she also had the popular vote, until the Democrat Super Delegates went nuclear and nominated Barack Obama. That would be turmoil. Yes, Obama won, but one might hazard to guess the GOP’s next in line for the nomination theory didn’t quite pan out with John McCain. One might also suggest that a messy primary was not the problem with Mitt Romney’s loss –moreover it was those within the party that viewed the man as belong to a Cult –and 20 some odd evangelicals just could not vote for him. There may have been a few million Tea Party people viewing him as a “Rhino” that would not vote for him either –t he end result – Obama won a second term. Now that was unprecedented.

There will always be names bandied about 3 years prior to any one seriously considering a run, and of course, they all say yes. But when push comes to shove, the field narrows, and the people are left with a variety of choices, as it should be.

Look for front runners to begin to emerge after the mid-terms, when they should make some noise not before. There will be talk of this one and of that one, there will be favorites, but, the more the merrier – just this humble opinion. Recalling the 2012 primaries, it was difficult for those political junkies to watch the painful process of Mitt Romney slowly making it to the top – surely if he could run the gauntlet of fierce competition, he should have had answers for everyone – yet, it was not to be, and through no fault of him own.

2014 is the time to concentrate on who might be the next speak of the House or Senate Majority Leader –and once that dust clears, the nation will look at who moves them. One can bet it will be one that is pro-growth, more libertarians, less party faithful that will have more of the juice, so to speak, that’s wild guess. One will just have to wait it out. As to the party “edlers” – they should go on vacation – until 2017.

S.C. Tea Party – Organizes Precincts – The Beginning of the New Party.

Flipping through the dials, I happened upon a C-Span program – the S.C. Tea Party Convention - video here at C-Span, and decided to watch – what I learned was rather astounding. The main gist was as follows – The Tea Party, not unlike the New York party that held influence and reinvented the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln See Graphics hereat Learnnc.org., was promised by the current Republican party that they would indeed welcome them, and made promise of a Constitutional nature, that were soon dismissed (as soon as they were back in the beltway).

Apparently, what they did not understand, and perhaps still do not understand is the power behind the Party that began by being disgusted with the Republicans under George Bush (TARP specifically) and those same policies under the Democrats. The Tea Party, therefore is neither Republican nor Democrat, but a separate, states’ rights, constitutional political party. In South Caroline, they are literally organizing by precinct. Good.

The first order on the agenda appears to be to get individuals on the ballot not as Republican’s, but independents, who will challenge incumbents. It is apparent the Tea Party leaders have been watching the political landscape and do understand that those two brands, despite the money and the perceived power, are on shaky ground with the general electorate. As more voters identify themselves with neither party, the more the Tea Party stands to gain. Lindsey Graham will face a challenger, and one can bet the house, 2014 will see a Tea Party individual in the race.

They appear more savvy than one might imaging, and as historically, it is part time to form new political parties with some clout, the timing is perfect.

Some articles worth reading:

The Greeley Gazette Gen. Vallely unveils liberal’s worst nightmare: united tea party

The Charlotte Observer On the Tea Party holding the Convention.

There is not much solid reporting on the subject, but suffice it to say, one might find they have more sympathizers than most often believed.

2014 Foreseeable Shift In Senate Power – Rand Paul – 2016 – Ted Cruz – Majority Speaker – Opinion

2014 should see a shift in power in both the House and the Senate, given 2013 local races and the anti-incumbency that drove incumbents out of office. Politico lists the 12 most vulnerable Democrat Seats here, and they are not far off the mark, figure 8 of the 12 are in any serious jeopardy. On both sides, the Progressive and Tea Party Factions will be pushing candidates that will in based on the aforementioned angst of the voter against anything Washington – throwing the baby out with the bathwater in some cases.

Although 2014 options are on the table – one who is suggested to run for the Presidency – but does not seem to be avidly pushing that front – is one Ted Cruz – he’s fighting in the trenches, and appears more concerned about being the point man for the base – against the Democrats – specifically the President and Harry Reid. CBS’s Bob Schieffer attempted to corner him this weekend, and failed – the transcript here is telling, in that Cruz shifts from a Presidential run to his usual for the people – which given the shift in power that is likely, Cruz would be a perfect replacement for Harry Reid. – One would have to have the support of one’s peers, however, once the primary dust settles, that may not be a problem on the GOP side.

As to 2016, Rand Paul (R-KY) is the most probable candidate to run at this point, and has been telling it like it is –most notably pointing out some disturbing facts about the alleged War on Women – going so far, The Daily News reports, as to suggest Bill Clinton’s relationship with a young intern was – predatory. He’s a favorite among those who are, again, looking for a different flavor other than – Republican and/or Democrat – he’s not seen as a strict Republican.

The chess board is open, there are few pawns and knights on the board as of yet, but there is plenty of time to speculate and look to the disillusioned low information voter to lead the charge.

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.

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.

The Changing of the Guard by the Quiet American – Historical Patterns Justify A Change in Political Ideology and Parties – The 42% Principle

Of Conservative Attack Ads against Incumbent Democrats to Susan Collins Explaining Benghazi – It is no wonder the is antipathy towards the Parties that Be?

One might think that the overall lack of enthusiasm by the general public as far as getting out the vote and standing by a particular political party brand is the result of gridlock in Washington, or perhaps the centuries old fight between the two major parties for power over one another has become tiring, however, it just may be that there is simply put, a desire for something different, something more stable in nature that is the driving force behind the growth of the “Independent” voter.

In January of this year, USA reports that Gallup polling revealed a 25 year high among individuals that identified themselves as “Independent of any political party” – the number now stands at 42% of the nations voters. Further 42% is a rather large percentage, leaving the both major parties, as well as minor parties, without enough of a base to carry a national, or for that matter, state election with any certainty.

This leads to the question, it is perhaps time for a new party, or new parties to replace the older parties, or reinvigorate an older party? The last shift in major party politics was in the lead up to the civil war, circa 1820-1854 – form the formation of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. The Democrat-Republicans from the south and west of the nation – became the Democrat Party, while the Free Soil party formed the Republican Party – (Read full article with party shifts (Whigs, Know Nothings, etc.) here at Scholastic.com) – it has been 150 years since two major parties were born and have controlled the government and its branches. The civil war brought about these phenomena, along with an interest in minor parties by U.S. citizens.

It’s time for another change.

The “Leadership” in both parties must now face the mid-term elections of 2014 – out of which, one might guess, will come a newer and stronger ideology – one that is focused more on personal liberty and the U.S. Constitution. That would be those much maligned Libertarian leaning Republican’s who the leadership refers to as “wacko birds”. There will also be challenges form more fiscally conservative Tea Party candidates also running as Republicans. There may not even be a change in name of the old party, rather a change in personnel.

This is the same scenario taking place in the Democrat Party, and has been since the Progressives began to successfully run and obtain seats from the older Democrats. If one were to go back in time 40 years, and stand a Democrat next to a Republican of today, to those of yesteryear, there would be no way to tell the difference! Thus the conundrum for voters as to who is more trustworthy, no matter which political party brand, and offers them the opportunity for growth in this nation.

If one looks at the statistics from local elections held in 2009, one finds that across the nation, incumbents lost local elections to a fairly large percentage. It did not matter if one were a Republican or a Democrat; the vote was for the challenger. Those political strategist who feel that there is nothing amiss with either party, should take a deeper look at challenges coming from political groups or PAC’s, going into the 2014 mid-terms. It has begun. One might also look to which party members are, in a word, either appearing to distance themselves from their current party and or prove to their constituents that they are just like the primary opposition they might face.

The New York Times wrote a recent piece on the proliferation of attack ads against incumbent Democrats over Obama Care (or the Affordable Health Care Act), which has Conservative Groups (not affiliated with the Republican Party) running ads which are effective, against these incumbent Democrats.

Meanwhile, those Republican’s seen as not Tea Party, and busy bulking up their Conservative Credentials. For example, Susan Collins (R) ME recent press release on Benghazi, shows she worked in a bi-partisan manner, and investigated who might have been responsible for calling a terrorist attack, a protest, when it occurred Report in PDF from 2011 the updated release follows below.

One might wonder why that may be necessary – Susan Collins is a solid Republican (Safe) to win re-election in 2014 –unless of course, a tea party candidate emerges, then, she would be – not safe (Public Policy Polling).

One might suggest to the Massachusetts Republican Party that they put up a challenger to every single political slot (given the great disparity between the two major parties in MA), and sit back and watch what happens. Of course, they may have to fight the Tea Party or the Libertarian Party at the same time (or Green Party for that matter). To do nothing in 2014, for any one remotely thinking about challenging an opponent, would be a wasted opportunity. Call it the 42% principle - which may now be a lot higher – those 42% are seeking someone who will lead, on all levels, and or for those low information voters, someone who is not currently holding office. The winds of political landscape change are blowing and it will be extremely interesting to see where it stands once the dust of 2014 settles.

The Release from Senator Susan Collins, Republican, Maine

SENATOR COLLINS' ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATE INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON BENGHAZI TERRORIST ATTACKS

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Senate Intelligence Committee, of which Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) is a member, today released a bipartisan report on the September 11-12, 2012, terrorist attacks against U.S. personnel at the Temporary Mission Facility and CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya.

In December 2012, while serving as Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Senators Collins and Chairman Joe Lieberman released their own report, "Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi," which determined there was a high risk of a "significant" terrorist attack on U.S. employees and facilities in Benghazi in the months before the September 11, 2012 assault on the Mission, and the State Department failed to take adequate steps to reduce the Mission's vulnerability.

The Lieberman-Collins report found that, while there was an absence of specific intelligence about an imminent attack, this "should not have prevented the Department of State from taking more effective steps to protect its personnel and facilities in Benghazi."

Following the release of today's report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Collins released this statement, which she also filed as Additional Views to the report:

"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) "Review of Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, September 11-12, 2012," represents the most extensive review to date of the actions and analysis of the Intelligence Community (IC) leading up to, during, and after the attacks in Benghazi. I commend the SSCI leaders and staff for drafting a report that joins the only other Senate report on Benghazi, "Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi," an analysis that Joseph Lieberman, the former Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC), and I authored and issued in December 2012. Our Homeland Security Committee conducted the first bipartisan investigation of what took place during the terrorist attack that cost four Americans their lives. Although hampered by time constraints and insufficient cooperation by the Administration, our report is an indictment of the State Department's failure to adequately secure the Benghazi compound despite numerous indications of an extremely dangerous threat environment. "Like our report, the SSCI report joins an increasing number of analyses to reach the sobering verdict that the State Department could have and should have done much more to prepare for the terrorist attack in Benghazi. The critical findings of this and previous reports regarding the judgments, actions, and management processes at the Department of State beg for accountability, and yet, more than a year after the attack, no one has been held responsible for the critical management failures that contributed to the vulnerability of the American personnel and facilities in Benghazi.

"The SSCI report, while adding considerably to our knowledge, would have been strengthened if it had placed greater emphasis on the lack of accountability for the broader management failures at the State Department. It would have been premature for earlier reports published in the months immediately following the attack, such as the Accountability Review Board and the "Flashing Red" report, to reach final judgments with respect to the State Department's personnel actions because the contributing factors to the vulnerability of the facility were still being pieced together. This report could have more fully evaluated the accountability issues because sufficient time had elapsed for the State Department to demonstrate whether or not decision-makers would be held accountable for poor judgments, refusals to tighten security, and misinformation.

"For example, Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy testified before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last year that the threat environment in Benghazi was "flashing red," yet our investigation found that Under Secretary Kennedy, and other State Department officials, failed to ensure that a facility he personally approved in December 2011 had the necessary security to match the heightened threat environment.

"The SSCI report describes many of the management deficiencies that contributed to the inadequate security posture: excessive confusion in the State Department's security decision-making process, uncertainty regarding the facility's future, and the absence of sufficient communication at State Department headquarters. As referenced in the report, the State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) also found that the Department lacks a conceptual framework and process for risk management, and the Independent Best Practices panel found that security standards waivers for overseas facilities are commonplace. Of the 29 Accountability Review Board (ARB) recommendations, fully 26 relate to systemic management reforms in the Department according to the OIG.

"Furthermore, this report, as well as other reports examining Benghazi, has found that the State Department failed to act upon some of the lessons learned from previous attacks. The State Department OIG's September 2013 audit of the ARB process listed four pages of recommendations by the Benghazi ARB that mirror similar recommendations from the report of the ARBs following the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings nearly fourteen years earlier. The OIG blamed this outcome, in part, on the absence of sustained oversight among Department principals, who are defined as the Secretary, deputy secretaries, and under secretaries.

"A broken system overseen by senior leadership contributed to the vulnerability of U.S. diplomats and other American personnel in one of the most dangerous cities in the world. This is unacceptable, and yet the Secretary of State has not held anyone responsible for the system's failings. This leads to a perception that senior State Department officials are exempt from accountability because the Secretary of State has failed to hold anyone accountable for the systemic failures and management deficiencies that contributed to the grossly inadequate security for the Benghazi facility.

"To be clear, the responsibility for the attack lies with the attackers themselves. Unfortunately, the promises of the President and other senior Administration officials to bring any of the attackers to justice have ringed hollow thus far. The report finds that more than a year after the attack, the terrorists who perpetrated the attack have still not been brought to justice.

"The report includes an important recommendation I requested, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman, that the U.S. government must bring the attackers to justice in spite of the unwillingness or lack of capacity of the Libyan government to assist in this effort. Failure to do so would be to repeat one of the mistakes that contributed to the lethality of the attack, which was the excessive reliance on a local Libyan security force that lacked the capacity or willingness to defend the compound.

"The failure to follow through on this promise undermines the credibility of the United States, diminishes the commitments made to the families who lost loved ones that night, and ignores the fact that our adversaries pay very close attention to our response to terrorist attacks. In general, inaction has not made the United States any safer. The failure of the United States to respond meaningfully, in the view of our adversaries, to attacks prior to 9/11/01, such as the 1998 al Qaeda attack against U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 USS Cole bombing, served only to embolden the terrorists to plan and execute larger and more deadly attacks.

"Finally, the report does not go far enough to address the Administration's failure to correctly label the incident as a deliberate and organized terrorist attack in the days following the attack. As our "Flashing Red" report found, there was never any doubt among key officials, including officials in the IC and the Department of State, that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terrorism. Yet, high-ranking Administration officials, including the President himself, repeatedly cast doubt on the nature of the attack, at times attributing it to the reaction to an anti-Islamic video and to a spontaneous demonstration that escalated into violence.

"The SSCI report accurately describes that the IC moved too slowly to correct errors about a protest that never happened, and describes eyewitness testimony that should have been made available or pursued by the intelligence community more aggressively. The report does not, however, describe all of the operational reporting that should have been available to the IC after the attack.

"The "Flashing Red" report identified two emails from the State Department Diplomatic Security Operations Center on the day of the attack, September 11, and the day after, September 12, 2012, which characterized the attack as an "initial terrorism incident" and as a "terrorist event." In addition to the eyewitness testimony and the State Department reports, agencies and offices responsible for terrorism, including the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis, and the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, were immediately involved with gathering information about the attack. Indeed, how could there have been any doubt in anyone's mind that, when a large number of armed men break into a U.S. diplomatic facility, set fire to its building, and fire mortars at Americans, that is by definition a terrorist attack?

"Despite the fact that the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi were recognized as terrorist attacks by the Intelligence Community and personnel at the Department of State from the beginning, Administration officials were inconsistent and at times misleading in their public statements and failed for days to make clear to the American people that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack. It took eight days before the Administration communicated clearly and unequivocally to the American people and to Congress regarding this fact through testimony by NCTC Director Matthew Olsen before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on September 19, 2012.

"Even after the Administration finally published the complete timeline of the changes made to the talking points, it is baffling how a fundamental, unclassified fact that was known to the IC from the beginning was only communicated clearly to the American people by the Administration after the issue had already been sufficiently muddled to result in confusion.

"While I support the SSCI report and appreciate its thorough analysis of much of what went wrong, I believe that more emphasis should have been placed on the three issues I have discussed: (1) the Administration's initial misleading of the American people about the terrorist nature of the attack, (2) the failure of the Administration to hold anyone at the State Department, particularly Under Secretary Kennedy, fully accountable for the security lapses, and (3) the unfulfilled promises of President Obama that he would bring the terrorists to justice."

Bob Gates Let’s Loose – States What Most Already Surmised on Defense Strategy of Obama Administration

Although it is being perceived as “shocking” by the major media outlets, Bob Gates, former Bush and Obama Secretary of Defense’s, critique of the administration’s handling of the nation’s defense in his new book ; he goes so far as to suggest Joe Biden could be wrong on foreign policy (ABCNews).

One might have been living under a rock for the past eight years not to notice several things gone astray, and remarks made publicly by administration officials, including Joe “foot in mouth “Biden, regarding the nation’s defense (foreign policy, economic policy, health care policy, etc. , etc.). It is not necessarily partisanship that drives the aforementioned suggestion; it is the reality of the world today, and the world – pre 2008. Lost opportunities in Iran (the student uprising of 2009), was a beginning of doubt of competence – it was not, to be honest, the fact that it was a lack of trying; it was a lack, as stated by Gates, of the general belief in the outcome.

The entire “sordid affair” will be shoved under the proverbial rug, no doubt sooner than later. Suffice it to say, that the nation, once emboldened by employment and a sterling education, no longer cares it appears, what petty partisanship remarks, made by either side of the political status quo aisle, rather, ignoring and bearing with each and every day of more trial and error.

History will decide, which is often noted by former President George W. Bush, who appears to be quite content. The job, which is bestowed on the President, generally ages and destroys even the most devote political animal – take a long look at President Obama – he is weary, as was Bush in the waning days – some are made for the positions, others have the position thrust upon them, some prepared through governing, others not so much. In this case, historically, the jury will be out for some time, regardless of the progressive bent of historians in general. Take Carter, who has been given a virtual pass by the elite, the general public remembering him as a “good man”, but…not suited for the job. Bush (W), more popular post Presidency, than during, may find history turning in his favor, due to the economics and a sense of nationalism. With the current administration, it is too soon to tell – yet, this book by Gates will be added to the research when the time comes.