Caucus Results: Thinning the Hurd

Regardless of your party affiliation, it is always entertaining to watch the first votes cast of the year. Of course, having both tickets up for grabs makes for a much more interesting few weeks. As the results are tabulated in Iowa and then New Hampshire the following week, you can see the energy shift from one candidate to another. Sometimes the results are expected as they essentially meet the predicted percentages that the polling reflected days or weeks prior. However, sometimes there are little twists that basically throw the nomination back up in the air.

This year, Iowa gave us the first culling of the heard on both sides with O’Malley, Huckabee, Santorum, and, unfortunately, Rand Paul, suspending their campaigns following disappointing support. At the same time, there were a few candidates that got a surprising level of support in the first round with the socialist Sanders nearly edging out Clinton, Cruz winning by a surprising margin over Trump, and Rubio nearly taking second place from the lewd Billionaire. However, when all the votes were tallied and the concessions faded into the campaign records, Rubio seemed to be the most presidential both in the support that he received and the gracious yet substantive speech that he made. 

The Iowa Caucus made for some intriguing foreshadowing for what was to transpire in New Hampshire Primary where the outsider candidates, Trump and Sanders, claimed victory. Not surprisingly, following a poor debate performance over the weekend, Rubio fell a couple of spots. However, in the end, the primary did just what it was designed to do… it narrowed the field as both Christie and Fiorina suspended their campaigns following single digit turnouts.

If you want to know what role these initial dry runs have on the process, this is exactly it. We can’t head into November with a dozen candidates on the ballot. In a matter of two weeks a half dozen campaigns came to an abrupt halt. However, it seems as though the vote is still quite divided, more so than it has been in some time, and this whole process could drag on into the summer when Pennsylvania has a darn good chance of determining who will represent their party in the Presidential election. This is clearly case on the Republican side but is also a possibility on the Democrat side as the FBI may finally catch up to Clinton and the vacuum could draw a few more late entries into the fray… makes you wonder why Clinton’s campaign slogan isn’t “Catch me if you can!”

Anyway, it should continue to be an interesting race throughout the year especially if Trump keeps putting his foot in his mouth and Cruz keeps hiring actresses that will put anything in their mouths. Maybe we get lucky and both happen opening the door for Rubio. Of course, this is only half of the ticket and I am curious to see the candidates that have been bandied about as running mates. Could Rand Paul still be in the mix? I guess we will have to wait and see.

Firearms Friday: Talk To And With The People

The politics we percolating this week as the President delivered the State of the Union on Tuesday and the first Republican Presidential Debate of the year was held last night. There were a lot of words bandied about and a heck of a lot of rhetoric disguised as unity earlier in the week. However, there were some moments and some lines that caught my attention last night when common sense prevailed as the topic of the second amendment was brought to the forefront of the debate (note that the full transcript can be found at The Washington Post).  

Bush: “…I have an A plus rating in the NRA and we also have a reduction in gun violence because in Florida, if you commit a crime with a gun, you're going away. You're going away for a long, long while…And that's what we should focus on is the violence in our communities. Target the efforts for people that are committing crimes with guns, and if you do that, and get it right, you're going to be much better off...”

Trump: “If we had guns in California on the other side where the bullets went in the different direction, you wouldn't have 14 or 15 people dead right now. If even in Paris, if they had guns on the other side, going in the opposite direction, you wouldn't have 130 people plus dead. So the answer is no and what Jeb said is absolutely correct. We have a huge mental health problem in this country… The guns don't pull the trigger. It's the people that pull the trigger and we have to find out what is going on.

Rubio: “Look, the Second Amendment is not an option. It is not a suggestion. It is a constitutional right of every American to be able to protect themselves and their families… criminals don't buy their guns from a gun show. They don't buy their guns from a collector. And they don't buy their guns from a gun store. They get -- they steal them. They get them on the black market. And let me tell you, ISIS and terrorists do not get their guns from a gun show.”

Christie: “I don't think the founders put the Second Amendment as number two by accident. I don't think they dropped all the amendments into a hat and picked them out of a hat. I think they made the Second Amendment the second amendment because they thought it was just that important.

Cruz (When asked “So what is the answer, Senator Cruz, to stop mass shootings and violent crime, up in 30 cities across the country?”): “The answer is simple. Your prosecute criminals. You target the bad guys… Listen, in any Republican primary, everyone is going to say they support the Second Amendment. Unless you are clinically insane that's what you say in a primary... I've got a proven record fighting to defend the Second Amendment. There's a reason Gun Owners of America has endorsed me in this race. There's a reason the NRA gave me their Carter Knight Freedom Fund award and there's a reason, when Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer came after our right to keep and bear arms that I led the opposition, along with millions of Americans -- we defeated that gun control legislation.”

The other candidates on stage did not contribute to this part of the debate. And while I was satisfied with many of the answers I think I was most impressed with those coming from Senators Cruz and Rubio. When taking into account their track records on the subject, Cruz would be the one that I cast my vote for in the primary. When taking all other issues into account, the divide becomes more pronounced and I, once again, vote for Cruz. With that said, that statement pertains to those on the main broadcast.

Of course I still believe that Rand Paul is the best candidate still in the race (and not just because of his ardent support of the Second Amendment) but there is clearly a lack of support for his campaign which was evident in his absence from the stage. However, his presence was still felt last night as the crowd chanted “We want Rand!” during the broadcast and, throughout the evening, Paul was answering questions coming directly from the voters via Twitter with the hashtag “#RandRally”. So, while the punches were being thrown (and dodged) on stage, a unique dialogue was taking place between a Presidential candidate and the people. What a novel concept.

Debates And Big Brother

Flipping through the channels on Thursday night I couldn’t help but watch the debates, backstabbing, manipulation, empty words, and downright stupidity that some people feel is the right thing to say to get them ahead in the game. It didn’t matter if I was watching Big Brother or the Republican primary debate, the same observation holds true. With that said, the roster of candidates would also make for quite the interesting season of Big Brother. While there are a few good people in each that have the right mindset and perception to make a positive difference, there are also the ones on the media stage that are just there for the few minutes of fame.

I don’t hide the fact that I am an ardent Republican but I can’t help but look at some of the unqualified, inexperienced, and downright liberal politicians on the stage and wonder what they have against this party that makes them want to handicap the process so badly. I had this perspective long before the debates began and I feel proven correct now that this first round has concluded. But what still baffles me is the support that is still on display even after the last question is posed.

Do you really think that Trump would do anything else besides declare bankruptcy as soon as he takes office? Do you really believe Christie is a conservative given his liberal track record? Can you really see a third Bush being anything but a disappointing shell of Republican? Does the brilliance of Carson translate to politics?

It is because of these questions that I can’t support any of those candidates. While not the most effective, the loudest, or even the most eloquent, I still stand with Rand. As I previously wrote, I would like to see a Paul/Rubio ticket and after this past week I feel that is still the right choice. Paul continues to supports the rights of the people, defending against the infringements of the government while Rubio brings the eloquence and personal experience to which many can relate. It is an interesting combination and one that is far more genuine than any of the others on stage.

It will be intriguing to see how this all plays out and how the remaining debates continue to shape the campaigns. I doubt that my opinions will change before the time the election comes around and I am just hoping that the right candidates make it to the final ballot. Of course, anyone is better than what is being offered from the other side of the aisle… even Donald Trump. And since they are already such supports of big brother, it would be interesting to see the liberals locked in that house.

WTF Of The Week: California Hypocrisy

Hey look, another quality California politician and official donkey cave.

Seems as though talk radio was blowing up a little more than usual this morning. I can’t really say I blame them for ranting the way that they have been doing lately. In addition to the national scams and acts of severe dishonesty there are also the local debacles. And I really don’t know which one is worse at this point.

First you have the overblown traffic jam from New Jersey which started as just that, a means to try and blow a traffic jam way out of context in order to make Christie look bad. Honestly, I don’t even know why the other party even started this whole thing. Christie is one of those people that if you just let him talk for long enough he is going to hurt himself. Just like with this ‘scandal, the longer that it has gone on the more crap that Christie gets himself into. Recently he decided to spend over a million taxpayer dollars to hire his personal lawyer to prove his innocence. Let me see if I understand this… you hired someone you know, from a firm you are affiliated, to conduct an unbiased investigation which in the best case demonstrates that you have limited control over your own staff. You have got to be freaking kidding me.

The other situation going on is, unfortunately, in my state as the attorney general is lawyering up and threatening a defamation suit in order to ‘prove’ that she did not sweep a corruption investigation under the commonwealth’s carpet. This is the type of over-reaction that almost proves that you are guilty. What gets me is that this was allowed to just go unchecked for so long and that no one said anything, especially those in higher political offices.

While Kane and the fat man are enough fodder for a blogs worth of rants, there is another story that broke early this morning that easily overshadows all the aforementioned BS and so much more. Here is the first two paragraphs from the Forbes story by Greg McNeal:

California Democratic State Senator and candidate for California Secretary of State, Leland Yee, a gun control advocate, has been charged with conspiring to traffic in firearms and public corruption.  The charges are part of a 26 person criminal complaint and a major FBI sting operation.  The full criminal complaint is a massive 137 pages that tells the story of Yee’s involvement with a broad ranging conspiracy that includes firearms trafficking, murder-for-hire, drug distribution, trafficking in contraband cigarettes, money laundering, and honest services fraud.

Yee is charged with “conspiracy to deal firearms without a license and to illegally import firearms” as well as six counts of honest services fraud.  Each corruption charge is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000, while the gun-trafficking charge is punishable by up to five years and $250,000.

That’s right, the gun control advocate is essentially an arms dealer. If he is so comfortable with dealing firearms, it makes you really wonder about his motivation to ban and control firearms. After all, I am certain that he didn’t restrict himself to selling six shot revolvers. There isn’t much more I can say to highlight the hypocrisy and heinous acts. However, I will say this… why is there such a light sentence for gun trafficking? While I am against the restriction of the legal ownership of firearms of all kinds, I am a firm believer in the harsh punishment of those individuals who so blatantly break the law and deal in illegal firearms. If anything, the penalty should at least be equal to the sentences doled out for the other corruption charges.

Well, with the mid-term campaigns about to warm up along with the weather, put some thought in to who you are really voting for. Don’t let a despicable donkey cave like Lee hold public office and open your eyes to the hypocrisy that might be as blatant. It is all around you and, in fact, you probably voted for some of the ones that pride themselves on this practice. A traffic jam doesn’t seem so important now, does it?