I ask that in all seriousness. As we look forward to the 2016 presidential election the democratic party seems to be in the hands of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. One of them will be the nominee unless Cory Booker can streak that far in the limited time remaining. I doubt that I think he will run in 2020. so Hillary and Biden definite front runners. Wait you say Benghazi! Well that will come up, but eventually Barack Obama is going to take one for the party and Hillary will be somewhat free of that unfortunate circumstance.
On the right you have several prospects, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Santorum. What will you do?
As it stands today Chris Christie a moderate stands to be the front runner. He doesn't always act the way you want him too, is very pragmatic, compromises for the common good, and is very outspoken not only against his opponents but sometimes against his own party. He is (I hate to say it again) center right, charismatic , and most important can win. In New Jersey he won the Hispanic vote, he won the minority vote, he won the women's vote, all in a pretty damn blue state. What will you do?
Let's look at your options.
Ted Cruz he will have 3 years under his belt as a U S Senator, 5 years as Solicitor General of Texas. He had a short legal career but other then that nothing. I would have a problem with his overall experience.
Rand Paul. He will get the libertarian vote although he is much more mainstream then his father. He will have 8 years under his belt as a U.S Senator, provided he is re-elected in 2014. I see no problem with that for him. He's an Ophthalmologist by trade an eye doctor. Geesh if my daddy was a Gynecologist I think I would have followed him into the trade :). Rand Paul is already moving more towards the mainstream. It's where presidents get elected.
Marco Rubio. Well you're mad at him for his stance on immigration. By 2016 he will have 5 years in the senate and 9 yrs. in the Florida House. Hey that's about the same experience of our current president before he was elected. Nope gotta nix this one no experience.
Rick Santorum, 2012 presidential candidate and the runner up in the primary. I'd have took him as my vice presidential candidate if I were Romney. He could have helped the ticket carry Pennsylvania. We know now that wouldn't have been enough but at the time it was pretty hotly contested, and carries more EC votes then Wisconsin. 2 term senator, 2 terms in the U S House, proven family man, high on family values, what's not to like? Except he probably is not electable on a national scale. I think you'd have the Mitt Romney, John Kerry type, all kinds of qualifications but can't connect with the common man. I think this hindered him during the last primary.
And ya got Chris Christie. 2 times governor of N J, 6 years District attorney for N.J. 3 years as a Morris County N.J. commissioner. Guys got it all and then some. Whats he got? Fundraising, fundraising, fundraising. While exploring his chances in 2012 this guy got the backing of the Koch's if he decided to run, he has Kenneth Langone CEO of Home Depot in his pocket. He has the Bushes behind him. He has endorsements from Scott Walker of Wisconsin, John Kaisch of Ohio and Rudy Guiliani if only he will run. What will you do. Christie has reliability issues, Christie will probably not run right to get the nomination and back center to run, it's just not his style. Christie can poll well among independents and moderate democrats and in early polling he runs the best race against Hillary Clinton. He is charismatic, he is electable, but he doesn't completely believe the things most of you do. He is the best choice right now to give you the white house but he has been, is and will remain a right center republican. What will you do?
I just read an article whose author was of the opinion that Rand Paul has become a viable candidate because of the contrast with Ted Cruz. Basically, Cruz is so right wing, and makes such far out statements that Rand Paul seems like a moderate by comparison. Could be,
ReplyDeleteSome truth to that and Paul is already making his swing to the center. It's where presidents get elected regardless of their beliefs. He is not going to repeat Mitt Romney's mistake of running center too late in the campaign and looking like he is pandering for votes. What will you do is Chris Christie acceptable? He is a center right republican.
DeleteWill Chris Christie run? That is the question. If he does, I think he is a shoo-in for the nomination. But I have been wrong before and the election is a long way off.
DeleteHere is the link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/27/1241845/-Ted-Cruz-s-rise-is-Rand-Paul-s-gain#
ReplyDeleteTed Cruz? Please. Rick Santorum? Again, please. Rand Paul? Not so much.
ReplyDeleteJean
2016.....Wayyyyyyyyyy too soon to even guess.
ReplyDeleteLotsa time for all to commit political suicide.
The race is on, whether we like it or not. Ever try an stop an avalanche of money? Can't be done.
DeleteYa...I know.
DeleteWhat I don't know is if I'm ready. I do have one thought tough,What in the hell do the Democrats think they have gained with the misrepresentation of the ACA.
They haven't gained anything. But Hillary Clinton is uninvolved with the whole mess and she is the dems strongest candidate right now.
DeleteRather than misrepresentation of the ACA, I would call it incompetence, which is unintentional but inexcusable.
DeleteObamacare will sweep the Pubs to victory
ReplyDeleteMaybe but I doubt it. The Repub party is broken. The democratic party is still larger then the repub party although independents outnumber both. The dems have had a better ground game recently and that probably isn't going to change. And more independents have been breaking to the dems in recent national elections. Next years election will tell us a lot about the direction of the country. People are pissed at the dems over healthcare yes, but they are pissed at repubs even more for things like obstructionism, failure to consider compromise and shutting down the govt. Regardless of how you view it personally these are the current attitudes in America.
Deleterick,
DeleteThat shutting down the government thing? It may be prudent to let PPACA play out a bit, and see if delays come into play, yes? And where, oh where, would the meme by the democrats and Obama go about blaming it on the republicans, when all the dems ahd to do was agree to delaying it?
Jean
I don’t know. I think that I am losing my optimism for the future of the U.S. This will make the Ricks of the world happy but I think that the left has played a very shrewd game and is winning. The right, that is, those people who hold the constitution and rule of law in high regard, are not very articulate in getting their message out and the left has slowly infiltrated their camp. While I have always believed that high moral standards are important in a society, forcing them into law was a mistake.
ReplyDeleteThe right does itself no favors when it preaches ‘no gays’ and then holds the constitution up which says ‘liberty and pursuit of happiness’. We are after all, a secular nation and if, as we state, we want the nation guided by the constitution and rule of law then we must insure than Christian edict is not forced into law or we will soon find sharia law imbedded as well because our constitution does not stipulate ‘who’s religion’. While one might have the opinion that gays are harmful to the long term success of a society, the law is not the place to control, non violent, consenting adult activity. The left has defended these social rights in two ways... 1) via the supreme court which is correct. The court, however, in my opinion, steps out of its bounds when it rules to give absolute protection to an activity rather than judging that it can’t be regulated by law... (Counter intuitive) how can a court rule that another court cannot control behaviour and issue a ruling granting protection to the very same thing. 2) Most insidiously and harmful, the left have moved to make societal objection to their movements into hate crimes and admonishment of political correctness to stifle free speech and objections, thus cutting off society’s method of self regulation.... The left hate free expression... unless it is theirs.
The left have managed to skilfully plant people whos ideology assists the socialist without most of the population even knowing. The left always is in an uproar over the ‘neocons’... warmongers... but the truth is that they are born out of socialist doctrine but with a more global goal. Over time, things like social security have infected the thinking of conservatives. Conservatives who perhaps didn’t plan well or saw social security as their retirement fund are now dependent and conservative legislators know it.... They may not like and they may know that these programs are harmful and unsustainable but their very own constituents are now institutionalized....
So where Rick talks about the middle.... it is a contrived one based on some rather slick moves by the left to move the center to the place where any compromise going forward makes their position stronger. Not more correct... just stronger.
Continued...>>>
With regard to this upcoming election, I fear that a candidate that it fiscally conservative and socially tolerant is not in the cards. The conservative right tends to be socially right as well, which means trying to box the ‘bad guys’ in by forcing restrictions via law rather than creating a movement that shames certain behavor out of existence.... as a libertarian I strongly object to violate means of social reform but I believe that every citizen, every business and the common belief of every community has the right to purge behavor that it finds to be inconsistent with its beliefs and the includes rejecting someone for jobs, service and attention.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with getting these kinds of candidates elected is that 1) the libertarian party is broken. It fields candidates that are less than libertarian and refuses to vote of people who happen to be in other parties who will forward their goals. Ron Paul is the closest thing to being a devout libertarian that the US has seen but ‘Libertarians’ voted for Johnson because he was in the party.... Johnson had many flaws. 2) Conservitives refuse to look at themselves and understand that being a believer of the constitution doesn’t mean that you give up your personal values but it does mean that others have just as much right to theirs. Social reform is organic not legislative and as long as you try to make laws to forbid, others will take their case to the Supreme Court. If the court is doing its job, it will strike down your moral law but what happens all too often is that it ends up protecting what you tried to outlaw. Conservatives need to get to the fiscal problems of our government and start insisting on smaller and less intrusive government and not one that is intrusive ‘In our way of thinking’. Main stream republicans end up electing people polluted by socialist ideology which continues to consolidate power in Washington with a desire to take it global. This shifts Rick’s ‘center’ even farther to the left.
Constitutional conservatives need to do some soul searching about the premise of the constitution and that just as ‘all men are created equal’ means men and women of all racial backgrounds, ‘life, liberty and pursuit of happiness’ applies to ALL of those people and not just the ones you agree with. Stay strong in your first amendment rights and fight ‘political correctness’ because it is designed to shut down opposing beliefs and roll back intrusive laws that prevent people from exercising their rights to buy, sell and associate with whoever they choose.
But, as I said at the top... I am not optimistic because the left have either cooped the right or pushed it into an ideological corner that it can’t escape from...... My best hope is Rand Paul... he believes those things but has chosen to operate within and fundamentally change an established party rather than trying to resurrect a broken Libertarian party.
Very nice piece TS. The points you make to gay rights from the left I can turn around and say the same about conservatives, using gun rights. You know when NC went to conceal carry we put up signs prohibiting it inside our restaurants as a continuation of national policy for our company. We don't allow it in any state with conceal carry. But these gun rights people have continually hounded us, sent letters, threatened to wreck our business etc. One even was doing his thing one day when the AD was there. The guy was so mad he was shaking and pointing his finger into the AD's chest, telling him in his ignorant grammar how ignorant the AD and the company were. He told him that CC's are as well trained as a police officer which you and I know is not true. But look the point is you can carry a gun everywhere in NC except those businesses that choose not to have it on their property. Why do you need to have a concealed weapon to take your family out to eat. Could the restaurant be robbed possibly, but it probably isn't going to effect you they want our money not yours. Are you going to do anything about or could you do anything about it probably not, because probably you aren't going to know that it is even going on until it's over. Every gun toter envisions some guy getting up in the middle of a crowd and spraying bullets and shouting out some holy Islamic crap and being able to draw on him and gun him down. It ain't gonna happen and it don't go down that easy. Sitting in my restaurant with your gun provides me no more protection then if you sat there without it and it does put my patrons in a greater danger if something happens because most are not the gunslingers they think they are. But the gun rights people keep forcing this down the throat of America just like gay rights etc. Yes constitutionally you have the right to bear arms, but I have a right to pursue the safety of my business and customers too and I don't think you wielding a gun is the answer.
DeleteWhile I won’t invoke divine intervention or even suggest genius, the framers of the constitution, IMHO, did a pretty darn good job of setting out a document that if read ‘as it is written’ creates a government structure that will do a good job of protecting its people from the greatest danger of all... a tyrannical government. The problem now is that we have Princeton lawyers twist the constitution in a way similar to a defense attorney convincing a jury that is murderous client was really only a victim. The second amendment was then and is now very relevant to a free society. In my opinion the risks to the American people and a country open to ideas and the freedom to explore those ideas are greater today than ever before.
DeleteI defend and the constitution should defend your right to turn away anyone in your restaurant that will not follow your rules. Unfortunately the same rights you wish to invoke to keep out weapons from your store are rights you deny to another owner who wishes not to hire men or fat people or gays or turn away business for any reason they deem appropriate. I don’t hear any desire to roll back any of those laws and as a matter of fact, I think if you were pinned down, forcing people to accept state intervention in the way someone runs their business, what customers they choose and what counts for discrimination will have far broader in scope than anything intended by the constitution.
I know that you have a real problem with guns.... I would suggest and have suggested many times in the past that the guns aren’t the problem. Our society is ill and that is the root cause to the violence and lack of respect we see today but taking the short root to ‘fix’ this problem is 1) not the solution to the problem and 2) a dangerous fix that leave our society open to much worse violence than we see now. The second amendment was put in the constitution for a reason... It wasn’t a whim. To me, the only people who seriously want to curtail the power of the 2nd amendment are people who do not understand its importance or people who do and don’t want it in their way. Don’t get me wrong, the violence and harm that come from the barrel of a weapon is heartbreaking in so many ways but it can’t compare with the pain of an out of control government and no way to fight back.
I would also like to say something else to put this discussion in perspective. As I said before, we all have the right to our opinions and we should have the right to express them... I have no problem with that. Antigun people have a good argument about the pain caused by guns, just as anti abortion folks have a good argument about the pain and harm caused by abortion.... But preventing abortion through law will not fix the underlying problems of irresponsibility any more than banning guns will cure the societal illness that spawns such violence.
You applauded my comments above because they were directed at the hypocrisy of the right with respect to the difference between the way they act and the things they say in my defense of the constitution.... does the left really have a leg to stand on either?
With respect to concealed carry practitioners... I can say nothing for NC rules but I can for Texas. My father got flagged for a minor incident for which charges were dropped some 45 years earlier. It took him 2 years to and correspondence with the governor and the Texas attorney general to have the decision reversed. His proficiency test was on par with law enforcement qualification. While they probably don’t go so far as physiological evaluations, I’m thinking that there are far too many people carrying a badge than otherwise should given that you can find death by cop stories every single day and personally speaking, I would rather have had my father next to me than some of these trained professionals that we give official permission to shoot people.
DeleteMy dad was very pragmatic about stores telling CC owners that they were not welcome in the store. He carried a stack of cards and a roll of scotch tape and put a card next to the sign :
“We have noticed your sign and are going to respect your wishes by shopping elsewhere. You lost my business today and in the future. For your convenience we will be telling others we know not to bother you either.”
He posted one whether he was carrying or not....
First TS I have no problem with guns and I am a gun owner. But there is a time and place for guns just like everything else. That time is not at the weekly family dine out in a family restaurant. And that my friend is just common sense. Is one that insecure that you can't lay your holster down for an hour to eat supper with your family. CC in NC and most places, yes it is a joke. It is just another money grab. In NC the class is a two day affair and is nothing like a police officer gets. How do I know because I was a police officer earlier in my life and I have an employee who has a NC CC permit and the total affair has been explained to me in great detail. Not even close. Not even close. And yes I agree that there are a lot of cops that don't need a gun either. That is a profession that has gone to hell to. You see the law enforcement field you learn to protect and serve and today our militia style PD's have forgotten that. When I was a cop we didn't pull you over and slap 15 bullshit charges on you hoping something would stick as they do these days. We knew our craft well enough that when we pulled you we had you for whatever the violation. If we were unsure we sent you on your way with a warning. So about todays cops we do find some common ground.
ReplyDeleteMore common ground, I agree that guns aren't the problem but it is too easy for the loonies to get them. I only think more extensive background checks and still then some loonies will slip through. Background checks on ALL gun sales and still some loonies will slip through but maybe just maybe we will stem that tide somewhat. Magazine restrictions and that is not an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms. 20-25 rounds is plenty per mag for anything an honest person needs a gun for. If that's all that there were then the dis honest wouldn't have access to larger ones either. Will it solve all of America's gun violence problems, well of course not but neither will carrying a weapon everywhere you go. Have you ever been in a non war situation in which you have to draw a firearm? I have. It's not an easy thing to do to make a quick decision whether or not to take a man's life.
If you think otherwise you are only kidding yourself.
Do understand rick that this whole escalation in the war about 'keeping and bearing arms' is directly related to a group of people who want guns gone period. It isn't about a group of people looking at the problem from all angles... it is about people who, if they had the power, would wipe the second amendment off the constitution so it could never be talked about again.
DeletePeople knew when and where it was appropriate to have a weapon, although I knew a woman who carried a small .32 where ever she went... store, church, friends house.... everywhere. She was discrete and never flashed it but she was always armed and you know, she never discharged that weapon in anger once. It was the legal push to outlaw them that created the push for concealed and open carry laws....
These are the same calculating people who know that if they can get universal checks... then registration, they will eventually outlaw and confiscate guns. It has happened in too many countries my friend. Hell, Britain, for a while seriously considered limiting the size of kitchen knives after they got done with the guns....
These people by the way gave us Obamacare. They want nothing less than a single payer system whether, in the long run it is bad for R&D or not... regardless if it creates 'death panels' or not. They don't care that it was government intervention in the medical and pharma industries that created the price spiral in the first place. They don't care to address that... they want single payer health care come hell or high water, as if it isn't bankrupting most of the countries in Europe and causing all kinds of crisis of service issues. Obamacare was 'Plan B'... Obama KNEW that it would destroy the insurance market and that consolidation at the government level will be almost impossible to back out of. This is why he wanted no delays in execution and why his friends in the beltway don't have to participate. I would also suggest, being the cynic that I am that, this also creates a National ID program. Combined with our inward looking NSA, a National ID that keeps your address on file and reviewed at least annually, a background check, and perhaps ID checks to buy ammo will pretty will nail down each and every owner.
"Have you ever been in a non war situation in which you have to draw a firearm?"
Once.... and I was young and stupid but it probibly saved me a rather harsh ass whoppin'. I had been out plunking cans with a CO2 .22 pellet pistol. It looked real enough. On that day, it was just in the glove box because no one at that time cared at all about pellet guns. I was out late and headed home. I stopped at a red light and a car of 4 black guys pulled up beside me. They started talking shit and one started to get out of the car... I reached over and pulled the pistol out of the glove box and laid it across my arm... One yelled, 'he's got a gun' and the car ran the red light. In hind sight, that could have escalated badly. Had it been real, I still don't think I would have been any more anxious to pull the trigger but I have no doubt that I would have if they hadn't stood down.....
2016 Tea Party ticket
ReplyDeleteDr. Benjamin Carson and Ashton Kutcher
http://www.policymic.com/articles/25666/ben-carson-makes-obama-sit-through-the-longest-27-minutes-of-his-presidency
Ashton Kutcher speech - teen choice awards You Tube
http://asderathos.tumblr.com/post/58622744386/full-transcript-chris-ashton-kutchers-teen-choice
Ashton may be a bit young. The point is we don't need "only" lawyers on our Supreme court or "only" politicians as leaders.
DeleteWe simply need people with values.
1773-2009
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere is a lot to be said for plain old truth and integrity...
ReplyDeleteI almost wrote a thread about 'How be a lie is to big?'...
I decided not to bother because it doesn't appear, at least from the events of the last 30 years, that lies much matter any more
But, in the end, they will..... they will.