Immediate Reaction to the First Democratic Debate of 2016 (O'Malley = Winner)

Here are my "flashpoint" thoughts" -

• Tonight's Debate Winner: Martin O'Malley (Former Governor, Maryland)
• Worst Debate Performance: Lincoln Chafee (Former Governor, Rhode Island)
• Still has work to do to appeal to ALL Democrats: Hillary Clinton (Former Secretary of State)
• Great at Domestic Policy, but needs to step up on Foreign Policy: Bernie Sanders (Senator, Vermont)
• Biggest Whiner: Jim Webb (Former Senator, Virginia)
• First 2016 Democratic Candidate to Drop Out: Lincoln Chafee (Former Governor, Rhode Island)

Clinton played a lot of defense and didn't really dive into policy changes. She even dodged questions regarding her flipping of issues like TPP and she didn't show much leadership against Wall Street. I think that will hurt her on her leadership. I was surprised she mentioned working with China to balance relations between the two countries. Sanders really needs to toughen up on the foreign policy and not mention calling on military action for a cleansing in Kosovo as history shows that was not ideal for Americans to have intervened.

O'Malley was the strong leader in tonight's debate as he threw no punches and went toe-to-toe with Sanders and Clinton more than once. He defended his time in Maryland. Every time Clinton said something, he managed to slip in his point without being arrogant.

Chafee will be the first to drop out as he kept giving the excuse of being fresh on the job in Congress and not focusing on the task at hand. The American people need someone who will be ready on day one and not have a tutorial waiting for them once they get the key to the Oval Office. Also, Jim Webb was like the product of Carson & Trump with his constant "but the rules say this" and nagging of time…is this a foreshadowing of how you will act as President? A conflict arises and you're in the situation room and whine about not talking - You would be the President, you command the room…

Overall, good performance. More to come...

The Next Speaker of the House is….Wait, Who???

     With the news that John Boehner will be resigning as Speaker of the House at the end of October, it will be a race to see who takes the gavel from him. While many are confident the next Speaker will be a  man, I am sure the Republican Party will voice their support for a woman to take the Speaker's gavel. Given the highly-charged issues of women's rights, attack on family values, and other rhetoric of the Republican Party, it will fall to someone that can go toe-to-toe with the candidate Republicans all hope will be the Democratic Nominee. Out of the twenty-two women within the Republican Party who serve in the House, I have narrowed my predictions to three women. They are all qualified based on their merit and tenure. Each candidate brings a unique perspective to the position and if elected by their peers, would able to take command once the gavel is in her hands. I will present them not only on longevity, but also on who is best qualified. The three women that are ready to take the Speaker's gavel are:

1)     Llena Ros-Lehtinen (Representative of Florida's 27th Congressional District)

        She has been in Congress since 1989 representing Florida as the first Cuban American elected, the first Latina elected. She has had prominent "rising stars" on her staff including the current Republican Presidential candidate Marco Rubio. She is already in a position of leadership within the House as the Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a vocal member within the following caucuses - Pro-Life Women's, International Conversation, Hispanic, and Taiwan. She is just enough of a proponent of LGBT individuals that wouldn't register with Republicans during a primary and would be able to carry women and hispanics during a general election. Her stances on pro-life women's issues and Planned Parenthood would guide the next Congress into ways to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood (even though no tax dollars fund abortions). She would be the resolute leader the Republicans are clearly lacking after the ongoing departure of Speaker Boehner - who couldn't control members of his own party including those aligned with the Tea Party Caucus.

2)     Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Representative of Washington's 5th Congressional District)

        She has been in Congress since 2005 and she hails from the state of Washington - a great state to retire to by the way…it's the New Hampshire of the West Coast.  She has given the State of the Union Response back in 2014 and many political pundits stated she did an amazing job and great response. She is the highest ranking woman serving as the House Republican Conference Chairwoman - which makes sense for her to be the next Speaker if the former mentioned Congresswoman declines the position. She is a member of  the Energy and Commerce committee which will play a big role regarding domestic issues in the 2016 election. She receives high praise from the Family Research Council, Gun Owners of America (as of 2014) and other Conservative groups throughout the nation. She is also a member of the Tea Party express of 2010 election cycle.

3)     Marsha Blackburn (Representative of Tennessee's 7th Congressional District)

        She is a well-known member of Congress within the Tea Party Caucus and those that identify as Tea Party members within the Republican Party. She is an avid opponent of Planned Parenthood, a staunch supporter of traditional marriage and doesn't support any politics that favor LGBT Americans. She has a favorable rating with all of the known conservative groups. If the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party does indeed want to overtake the party - Congressman Marsha Blackburn would be at the head of the line with the flag "Don't tread on me" waving and proclaiming strong conservative values that make Reagan look liberal. For the record, Marsha Blackburn is only one of a few female members of Congress that use the term "Congressman" to identify herself.

     Out of all of these members, the most logical choice would be Congresswoman Llena Ros-Lehtinen.  For the Tea Party Caucus to proclaim "victory" - without a naval warship - then Marsha Blackburn is the choice. For a new voice while bridging the gap between the establishment republicans and new age republicans, the choice would be Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

If the Republicans want to attempt to challenge Hillary Clinton (who is their only person running in a democratic primary apparently) in next year's election and have Republicans take the House, the Senate, and the White House, then the logical choice would be Congresswoman  Llena Ros-Lehtinen.


I guess time will tell. How interesting would a Latina Speaker of the House be if it came from the Republican Party. It would cover two political demographic bases and maybe secure the White House…unless those groups actually do research on the current Republican Party and then a Democrat will win since they have nothing to justify their stances on such issues.

2016 GOP Debate: Round 2 goes to Fiorina

 Everything about last night’s debate was interesting.  We finally saw the cracks beginning to form from inside the Trump egg since his fall off of the polls (thanks to the surge of Dr. Ben Carson). I just hope all the tea partiers and all the anti-government people can’t put Trump back together after last night’s dismal performance.

            On the other hand, how about Carly Fiorina’s performance? She did an amazing job and came to the debate well prepared - which I image is the same way she handled a meeting at HP. She not only went toe-to-toe with Trump, she also took on Christie for a few minutes. Fiorina is the new front-runner by the end of two weeks. While her message of getting right to work on the first day is ideal for a Republican (making calls to Israel & Iran and telling Iran where the United States stands), her business experience is not the best for her to cling to regarding qualifications. The main reason she ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground is because it was dealing with the powerhouses of Apple and Microsoft (at times). She will know what to do on day one, unlike Trump who will learn on the job, but it won’t be for the right reasons. I have much more to discuss about the debate from last night and I think the best way to discuss it is to focus on each candidate on the stage. Overall, I think by the end of  two weeks the polls will read as follow:

1) Fiorina 29%
2) Trump 23%

3) Carson 21%

4) Rubio 12%

5) Bush 5%

6) Kasich 4%

7) Paul 2%

8) Christie 1%

9) Cruz 1%

10) Huckabee 1%

11) Lindsey 1%

The next to drop out will probably be Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana – by Halloween.

Update: My first percentages equaled 196% - I have revised them (What can I say, I'm not a math major haha)

The Hypocritical Gun Rhetoric

     I am taking a moment and offering my condolences to the families of the slain journalists of WDBJ news station in Roanoke, Virginia. I will not attempt to make a political case for/against guns…but I will make points regarding the gun debate in the United States. Hopefully, within the near future we will finally have a grip on the reduction of gun violence in America.

     President Obama continues to push for more common sense gun legislation during his time in the White House. He signed legislation allowing guns to be carried in National Parks, which the NRA never addresses. He advocates for the second amendment. His support for Congress to act on gun control by passing legislation to expand background checks is gaining support. Even within the circles of the NRA, 74% of members support background checks (this is according to the Washington Post and an overall 89% of Americans support the idea as well). I always consider background checks to be an essential part of gun ownership as it serves as a sort of liability insurance for the owner of their gun – and it serves the best interest for both the owner and the general public respectively (example – it protects the gun owner financially in the case of being criminally negligent regarding homicides if their gun is used and it benefits the victim’s family regarding funeral costs). If it is stolen or used illegally, the owner would be fined and would be suspended from buying a gun during a certain amount of time (my personal preference is five years). Better yet, if you own a firearm and it is abused, then you should be fined – it would be called the firearm tax. That would allow responsible gun owners to continue to obey the laws and only hinder those that break the law. This ensures the second amendment is still protected.

     I’ll make another observation: two journalists were killed, Church members in South Carolina were killed, a theatre in Colorado, and a elementary school in Connecticut has children lose their lives due to gun violence…a military recruiting station in Tennessee was a place where four lives were lost due to gun violence. Why is it that the only place that had citizens step up and protect the members of the military? If you want to help the military and veterans, hold members of Congress that vote against their interests like housing and veterans assistance regarding work, education, etc. I don’t recall after any of the other tragedies that citizens got so fed up that they took up arms and started protecting theatres, churches, schools, news stations, or shopping malls. We want to stand up and patrol our [southern] border with guns but we don’t want to stand up and patrol our parts of our communities that benefit everyone within it – unless it’s a military recruitment station? I know we can protect both without being hypocritical – not to mention we can hold members of Congress accountable if they don’t vote in the interests of military members (veteran, active, and reserves), teachers & school personal  (current and retired), emergency services that assist in such tragedies, etc. One final note about those that decided to “protect” the military recruitment stations, the U.S. Army sent memos to all recruitment stations to be on the lookout for these vigilantes and “keep their distance and alert law enforcement of their presence” according to Lt. Gen. Mark Brilakis, the head of Marine Corps Recruiting Command, and also advised troops not to support the "armed citizen" volunteers in any way.

     Some of my ideas seem extreme, but at least I’m talking about the issue head-on and coming up with solutions instead of playing the blame game that occurs whenever a tragedy happens. Common sense gun laws are necessary to ensure the safety of all citizens – just like taking steps to ensure guns don’t get into the hands of those that are not mentally competent operate them. I think it is ludicrous to talk about Gun Control & Mental Health as two separate issues when there have been multiple incidents and a direct correlation can be found.

     I hope at some point the United States will join the rest of the world and reduce its gun-related deaths by at least 20% within the next 50 years. In order to do this, we need to get serious about the issue and determine which one is more important: clinging onto our “guns aren’t the problem” mindset or common sense gun legislation that protects and saves all lives of United States citizens.

           

The GOP losing to Donald Trump = Democratic Win in 2016

Well, a lot has happened within the last post.  I am going to really strive to post every other day about the political happenings going on in the United States; and, I might even touch on some international areas of consideration.

            If you missed the first GOP debate, please be sure to DVR the next one – It will take place on September 16, 2015 on CNN. There were way to many candidates for everyone to get ample time to answer questions – not that any of the candidates (except one) really answer the questions. There were two main disagreements between Governor Chris Christie & Senator Rand Paul (which proved that Paul can take on aggressive candidates without missing a beat) and Businessman Donald Trump & Senator Rand Paul (which also proved that Paul doesn’t even understand why Trump is a candidate if he is willing to destroy the party is aligning himself with). I do think it was a good debate performance for Senator Paul even though he sort-of got a little heated at times. I’m not the biggest fan of Rand Paul (mainly because I’m a registered democrat) but his performance was the second best. In fact, he does better in a small crowd and on a one on one conversation. Full disclosure, I did meet him in South Carolina at one of his “Pints for Liberty” rallies. He can really turn out the crowds & can sway the minds of those that can read into his rhetoric.

            Donald Trump is just a big pain in the GOP’s side with his insane rhetoric and outlandish statements. IF he were not in the race, I can almost guarantee that Senator Paul would be number one in the polls. Sadly, Trump is leading all the polls with his hard lines on immigration, the national deficit and jobs, the economy, and even social issues – which make no sense and I can’t fathom why Republicans are so wild about him regarding those issues. Even his rude behavior towards Fox’s Megan Kelly went unchallenged by the GOP. The arguments were that she was “too hard” on her questions towards him – which I always thought if you want to be the Commander-In-Chief you should get the tough questions, but then again… - and only fueled the unclaimed notion that the liberal media was taking over the country. If that is indeed true, where will Republicans get their news from now that Faux, er, Fox News has gone liberal. I don’t recall Shepard Smith or Bill O’Reilly resigning in protest. Trump is actually drowning out the other Republican candidates who seem rational in any other election year. If Trump breaches the 40% approval rating, Senators Paul, Cruz, and Neurosurgeon Ben Carson will drop out before the Iowa Caucuses finish on Caucus night.

            The best game-plan right now is for the GOP to call out Donald Trump for what he really is – an adult crybaby with a temper tantrum if he doesn’t get his way. He is indeed demanding he get the nomination otherwise he will threaten the party with a third party bid (which has never worked so I hope he realizes that at some point). Seriously, Trump has the “kiss my ring or else” mentality.  Last I checked, Democracy doesn’t work like that. Trump is behaving like North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un, with worse hair! The GOP need to band together and declare that he does not represent the party. Meanwhile, the Democrats need to stop sitting down and taking his jabs and stand up and go toe-to-toe with Trump. Politics is dirty, so both parties need to have a bipartisan effort to show Trump how the game is played. If you want to play with the big kids, you need to learn how to master the game instead of trying to buy out the referees of the game – yes, the referees are the American People.

            If Trump were not in the GOP primary, then Senator Paul would be first, followed by Ohio Governor John Kasich (who is the only true Republican that even comes to a Reagan Republican), then Governor Scott Walker. It is still too early, for most people, to determine the nomination ticket for the GOP, but there is only one clear ticket that I know could attempt to blindside the Democrats next year. Can you figure it out? Stay tuned…

Me & Kentucky Senator, and GOP Presidential candidate, Rand Paul

"Pints for Liberty" Rally

Columbia, SC

Clooney for Senate? Makes Sense

With the ongoing speculation as to whom is going to run, and potentially win, the junior U.S. Senate seat from California in 2016, there is one name that is overlooked. In fact, this individual might give Kamala Harris a run for her money (pun intended).  This individual is well known throughout the state of California and the country. He has already proven that he can play the part of a political candidate, and play it very convincingly. The person who should run for the U.S. Senate seat, which is being vacated by Barbara Boxer in 2016, is George Clooney.

            Now I’m sure it is just wishful thinking on my part, but the case for him to run makes sense. There are many factors that have influenced the reasoning as to why I think George Clooney should run for the Senate…and potentially win the seat. Consider the following observations:

1.     As People Magazine – and many other media outlets – has made a big deal about the event, the fact of the matter is that George Clooney is no longer the most eligible bachelor in the United States.  With his marriage last year, he would be suitable to run for office as it sets the “electable family values” stage if he were to run as a Republican and a “for all families” if he were a Democratic candidate. It is important for political candidates to be in some kind of relationship to demonstrate standing values of relationships and likeability.  The only candidate to ever be single while being a candidate is President Woodrow Wilson; but, even he courted a woman during his term and eventually got married. It gives the sense of a “traditional American value” of being committed to someone and starting a family. Notice I said starting a family, not having kids. There are many Americans that are only married and choose not to have kids. In addition, the word “family” is not just defined to hetero-normative ones, but all kinds of family normatives.  That is one of the American ideals that have changed over time for the better of all citizens.  Mr. Clooney supports all families in the country and would represent that value that has encompassed so many people living in the great state of California;

2.     George Clooney, like many other famous actors, has always been politically active. This is true when it comes to issues relating to the continent of Africa, with an emphasis on Sudan.  He also is involved with foreign relation matters in the Middle East and Europe. Due to his involvement in the United Nations as a goodwill ambassador and being involved on Capitol Hill with certain committees on events going on in both Africa and the Middle East. Furthermore, he is very philanthropic and a great humanitarian;

3.     The “geographic challenge” for George Clooney will be trying to get out of the “southern California/Hollywood” bubble. Since Kamala Harris is running for the Senate seat, she will gain a lot of support from Northern California. As the state’s attorney’s general, she will have contacts all over the state; however, Mr. Clooney has been in the California limelight for over twenty years. Given this information, it will allow him to reach a broad majority of Californians, not just those in Southern California and Hollywood.  George Clooney would not be the first person to enter politics from Hollywood (and I don’t think he would run for President or Governor of California as he is more of a utilitarian mindset on a national level of politics); and

4.     Whether you live in Kansas, Florida, Ohio, or North Carolina, you know the names of the following people: Bush, Clinton, Romney, Kennedy, and Clooney.  George Clooney transcends all generations and is known in all fifty states and throughout the world. This is mainly due to his career in the movie industry and of a successful Hollywood lifestyle. Based on that fact alone, his ability to potentially raise an enormous amount of money from any American family (and even donations from other nations). It will usher in many individuals who want to help out a “changing of the guard” campaign. While it will not be a “glass ceiling” campaign for George Clooney, it would be for Kamala Harris.  By him not announcing whether he will run for office anytime soon would play into his favor as he would be generating support “behind the scenes” and laying the foundation of a potentially successful 2016 campaign.

The overall point of George Clooney running for Senate would not only to prove that he is capable to do the job, but also potentially mix up California politics for the 2016 cycle. Even if George Clooney decides not to run in 2016, he would set the groundwork for him to run in 2018 – provided that Diane Feinstein will retire (which I believe she will). Regardless, if George Clooney decided to run in either 2016 or 2018, I believe he would get elected and would be an outstanding United States Senator representing the great state of California.