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.

Will This Debate Start Clearing The Field?

Well, it is safe to say that high school is back in session. Of course, we didn’t need to look at the calendar to figure it out, all you had to do was watch the first 45 minutes of the Republican Presidential Debate last night on CNN. Thanks largely to comments carelessly caste by the bombastic Donald Trump, the first part of the over saturated debate consisted primarily of name calling, quips, and generalized statements rather than substantive discussions which should have been the primary focus throughout the evening. Thankfully, once the back and forth between the candidates took on a serious tone, Trump faded into the background having little input on the points being made.

I continue to be dumbfounded by the polling numbers which have shown significant support for the former Apprentice host and after last night those figures are even more confusing. Fortunately, there were a number of people on the stage that treated the event the way it should be, as an exchange of ideas and challenging the ideas of others. And while there were many that neither helped nor hurt themselves last night, there were a couple of candidates that showed some real promise. Of course, we will have to wait and see if it has any impact on their respective polling numbers.

Honestly, I haven’t paid too much attention to Carly Fiorina during these early stages of the campaign season. However, her performance in the secondary debate last month and on the main stage last night demonstrate that she is a viable choice. I have actually been quite surprised by how quickly she has developed her political persona and impressed by her ability to educate herself on the various topics that will surely shape the political landscape over the next year. The only thing that she really lacks is political experience but that can also be a good thing. We will just have to wait and see how she handles the additional pressure as she gains more of the spotlight.

While not my preferred candidate and having previously been hesitant to back him, I have always been a supporter of Marco Rubio. He delivered succinct well informed responses to the questions put on the table displaying a broad but deep knowledge both of foreign and domestic policy. In addition to the intelligence he has shown, I agree with many of his positions and respect his combination of tact and straightforwardness. He has also been willing to forge his own political path at times but never too far from the main road. These are the things that make this Senator, at least in my mind, the front runner for the presidency regardless of what might be reflected in the polling numbers.

Sadly, Rand Paul’s performance last night didn’t help his campaign. While he got a couple of good lines in he didn’t clearly convey the knowledge, passion, or eloquence that many of us know that he possesses. Barring a tremendous comeback (see Reagan in 1984) there seems to be a marginal chance that he will make it to the stretch run. I still support his campaign but I am also a realist. Besides, maybe he can be more effective as a cabinet member and run again in the future.

The other candidates didn’t really stand out, at least for any good reason, to me with many of their words falling into the category of generality throughout the debate. However, at least there were the performances of note, Fiorina and Rubio, and hard hits, Trump, which will hopefully realign the field in the coming weeks and months. It would also be nice to have a smaller field moving forward as having a crowded field is not helping anyone.  

Firearms Friday: Blame

Once again, we end the week looking back on another cowardly tragedy committed by a clearly unstable individual. Unfortunately, it was also no surprise that the shooting was politicized before the suspect was even found… the calls for more gun control range out louder than the shots fired early on Wednesday morning. Another heinous act blamed on inanimate objects and those who own them rather than the individual who committed the crime.

It wasn’t long before posts from my liberal friends on Facebook began filling my feed and with quotes posted my conservative friends following this initial deluge. The most commonly used of which was a quote from then Governor Ronald Reagan when he addressed the Republican National Convention in Miami Florida on July 31, 1968 amid a time of tremendous racial turmoil which erupted in riots. The excepted says simply “We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Essentially, violence is an individual act and must be treated as such… the idea of railing against a group of people because of the acts of an individual must be rejected.   

Yesterday, the coverage continued and, of course, the calls for more laws intensified. While there was plenty of political banter, the quote that really crystallized the debate for me was that of Senator Marco Rubio who was quoted by the New York Times at a campaign stop in New Hampshire having said “It’s not the guns, it’s the people who are committing these crimes. What law in the world could have prevented him from killing them?” And that is what this all really comes down to… we must hold individuals accountable for their acts especially those with premeditated plans who would have followed through with this act regardless of means. In the end, this is why there are more knife attacks and beatings in the UK… people find a way to accomplish their goals regardless of whether they are good or evil.

Lastly, the other part of this whole equation that is being overlooked is the fact that even when bills are passed, they are not being enforced and/or the funding is not being spent (i.e. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System). The NICS Improvement Amendment Act was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2008 with the explicate mission to improve the background check system in this country. The law, endorsed by the NRA by the way, allocated Congress $1.3 Billion to improve record keeping in states which would allow greater transparency and improve the Federal gun background check system. To date nearly 90 percent of funding has never been spent and the Obama administration will further reduce spending from its peak in 2015 of $78 million down to $55 million in the President’s 2016 budget request.

Why don’t we focus on the real issues at hand instead of the hype and politicization of tragedy? Instead of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by gun control groups (keep in mind that I am well aware of the money spend by gun rights advocacy groups in response to various proposals and campaigns calling for the stripping away of our rights), what if we focus and put our money elsewhere that would really have an impact on the issue at hand. What if we committed hundreds of millions of dollars to mental health? What if we actually improved NICS and spent the $1.3 billion? We don’t need more laws and we definitely don’t need to prosecute and entire group of people in this country. We need to improvements in mental health in this country and we need to improve the effectiveness of the background check systems already in place. This is not a debate… this is the solution!

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.

Which One Is The “Old White Men’s Club”?

Here is a screen shot of the potential GOP candidates for 2016
(not all have announced or formed committees).

It is interesting to read the news with the media still labeling the Republican Party as the “old white men’s club” rather than using descriptors that are based on principles. While I will discuss the latter of the two dilemmas later in the post, let’s first take a look at the slander that is still being bandied about. Here is the current list of those who are running for President in 2016 (this includes those who have announced and those who have formed exploratory committees):

Democrats:

Former Governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee: White, Male, 62

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: White, Female, 67

US Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders: White, Male, 73

Former US Senator from Virginia Jim Webb: White, Male, 69

Summary: 4 candidates; 3 men, 1 woman; all white; average age of 67.75.

Republicans:

Dr. Ben Carson: Black, Male, 63

US Senator from Texas Ted Cruz: Hispanic, Male, 44

Former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson: White, Male, 60

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina: White, Female, 60

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee: White, Male, 59

US Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul: White, Male, 52

US Senator from Florida Marco Rubio: Hispanic, Male, 43

Summary: 7 candidates; 6 men, 1 woman; 4 white, 2 Hispanic, 1 black; average age of 54.43.

While there is no denying that politics on both sides are still dominated by men, the other characteristics of the candidates paint a much different picture than those on MSNBC would have you believe. Diversity is nearly nonexistent among the Democrats while nearly half of the Republican candidates are ‘minorities’. Additionally, the average age of the Republican candidates is over 13 years younger than those of their counterparts on the Democratic side. So, tell me again, which one is the “old white men’s club”?

However, let’s step back and look beyond the demographics of the candidates. Would you rather support a party that prides itself on limiting the rights of the people to support and defend themselves or would you rather vote for someone who will maintain the rights of every citizen of this country to be self-sufficient, hardworking, and accountable for their own actions? Would you rather have the government make choices for you or would you prefer to have the freedom to choose what is best for yourself and your family? Would you rather have the power reside in the individual states and the people therein or in a large, centralized, government dictating policies and handing down executive orders?

Consider your responses to those questions carefully. I have had to answer those questions for myself which is why I continue to support the party of the people, the party which continues to fight to preserve my rights, the Republican Party. This is also why, when considering the changes that need to be pursued and the decisions that have to be made moving forward, that I am supporting Rand Paul for President in 2016 (still up in the air as to running mate but I am currently leaning toward Marco Rubio). I have made my decision, who are you going to support?