Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Thoughts On Iowa

Last night the voters spoke in Iowa and delivered victories to Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Ted Cruz.
In terms of delegates, both winners simply received the majority of, not all. Thus Sen. Cruz ended up with eight delegates. Second place finisher, Donald J. Trump, and third place finisher, Sen. Marco Rubio ended up with seven delegates each. On the Democrat side, Mrs. Clinton gets 23 delegates and her opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders will get 21 delegates.
A lot of criticism is thrown Iowa's way (as well as New Hampshire) being the first in the nation to vote in the respected party primaries. I think that they are good states to see how a candidate can deal with organization. Clearly Sen. Cruz out hustled all the other Republican candidates. His team singled out the state's conservative, evangelical Christian voters and Sen. Cruz scored their votes. Like it or not, the Donald did not take the old fashioned retail politicking and organization seriously and it showed. Also, sorry but skipping the last debate before the caucus did not help. No matter what excuse the Donald uses to not participate in the debate, many caucus participants said that eventually determined their vote. And who would have thought Marco Rubio would have had such a strong third-place finish looking at the polls?
As I noted last night, clearly there was something called Marcomentum that catapulted Sen. Rubio to nearly a huge upset and forcing the Donald to a potential third place  finish. That is breathing life into a campaign that really needs it.
Ted Cruz went one way too long in his victory speech. And while his religious references did not bother me, I thought about the rest of the nation and places that would be totally turned off by such overt Christianity. Sen. Cruz will have to find a way to be less evangelical Christian preacher and more able to really expand the base of his support to those people he, and I, believe he needs to win a general election campaign. We will see if Sen. Cruz can pivot in much more secular New Hampshire.
Donald J. Trump has to begin to take this campaign seriously if he is really in it to win it. The Donald will have to spend real money for organization and broadcast advertising. And he will have to participate in debates no matter what.
Marco Rubio needs to continue to build on the Marcomentum and get to second place in New Hampshire, simple as that.
For the Democrats, Mrs. Clinton has to be humiliated that she could not put Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed "democratic" socialist, away in Iowa. I will say it now. The Democrats are that far to the left that I will not be surprised if Sen. Sanders ends up the Democrat nominee. What we are seeing is the left-wing crack up and the end of the Obama coalition. And the only saving grace for Mrs. Clinton is the whole Super-delegates that are there to guarantee an "establishment" candidate wins the nomination. We shall see but there is no doubt Mrs. Clinton is going to lose badly to the senator from next-door Vermont next Tuesday.
The funny thing about all of this is that it has not made the race any easier for either political party. It is all still up in the air. And maybe for a while.

Monday, February 01, 2016


Texas senator Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton are the projected winners according to the Ace of Spades Decision Desk. 
The big loser is . . .the Donald. Oh yeah, and probably Hilary Clinton as well.
What?! Mrs. Clinton?!
Well, as of this writing Mrs. Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are essentially tied at 50%. Some guy named Martin O'Malley who had not even polled a full percent may keep Sen. Sanders from victory. Oh yeah, and he dropped out of the race. 
Stay tuned for that one.
On the GOP side, Sen. Cruz vanquished the gasbag from New York City, Donald J. Trump and with relative ease as well.
As of this writing, here is the total

Ted Cruz:                    47,510     28%
Donald J. Trump:         41,812     24%
Marco Rubio:              39,599     23%

I am not even bothering with the rest of the field as they are irrelevant.
Here is one for you.
Only 2,213 votes separate Mr. Trump from the Florida senator, Marco Rubio. While 99% of the votes are in and it is doubtful, it is a slight possibility that Sen. Rubio can overtake Mr. Trump for second place and more delegates. All three will have some delegates on the road to New Hampshire in one week.
There really is some Marcomentum as the last Real Clear Politics average had Sen. Rubio at 17% and he should finish with 23, maybe 24% of the vote. I hope that carries on to New Hampshire.
And what about the Donald?!
Maybe when all is said and done, two things will stand out.
One is that Mr. Trump should not have skipped that last debate this past Thursday night. And maybe, just maybe the whole Trump thing is overblown and we are settling into a race between Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio that still may go all the way to Cleveland.
Oh, and already the Cruz win has claimed a casualty as the former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee, is calling it quits. Look for the Rev. Mike to endorse the Donald sometime this week.
The voters have spoken in Iowa and now, on to New Hampshire next week.

The 2016 Iowa GOP Caucus: It's On!

It all comes down to this as Iowa FINALLY goes to caucus and  roughly about 150,000 Republicans will begin to clear the field as some voting begins.
Here is a good place to get up to the minute results for both the Democrats and the Republicans. For the Democrats, 44 convention delegates are up for grabs. The Republicans have 30 delegates at stake. For the GOP, it is not a winner-take-all and expect the top three finishers, whoever they may be, to walk away with delegates.
I will update later when results come in and we get a picture of who wins, places and shows for the GOP.
It's on!

The Iowa Caucus Is Really Almost Here

No really, in less than two hours of this post, the good Democrats and Republicans will finally caucus and the first votes of any kind in the 2016 presidential Death March campaign happen.
For Republicans and or conservatives, National Review's David French has an important article about what this voting cycle may mean for the parties and movement.
I tend to believe that what is happening is exactly a celebrity moment with Donald J. Trump. But it is a lot of Pat Buchanan as well. Somehow, a billionaire is leading the pitchfork rebellion against the establishment.
Nowadays, I guess I am part of that establishment because for one, I support Marco Rubio for president. And I don't think that there is anyway the United States will deport 11,00,000 illegal aliens or whatever the number is. Neither does Mr. Trump really believe that, but that is not the point of the piece by Mr. French.
There is about a quarter of the GOP that is tired, rightfully so, of being sold out by those they send back to Washington. The real indictment should be how much importance we have even been told that the nation's capital has become in our lives. That is not an issue to these folks and yet it should be. But at a level, conservative and or right-wing populism does not really make the size of government  the real issue. Note that the Donald never talks about actually cutting the size and scope of the federal government. He will need that big government to round up the illegals and implement the tariffs he is proposing against Red China and all those that are "unfair" in international trade.
That is also a part of what is at stake in this election.
If you are in Iowa, read the link before you caucus and think long and hard if you want to send a message or back a candidate that will be able to implement real change.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

The Des Moines Register Poll Has Good News For The Top 3

This really is it folks as the last The Des Moines Register poll before Monday's caucus just came out a while ago. 
And while it does show Donald J. Trump in the lead with 28%, Sen. Ted Cruz is not far behind at 23% and trailing in third place is Sen. Marco Rubio with 15%. Which means that all should get some of the 30 delegates up for grabs in this state.
Each of the top three candidates can point to some good news for their team.
For the Donald, his support is the most solid at 71%. And 50% think that the Donald will actually be feared by foreign leaders the most. But the downside is that many feel the Donald is not the most knowledgeable or will be respected by friends of the United States.
In regard to Sen. Cruz, he has a higher enthusiasm rating to be the GOP nominee compared to the Donald. Sen. Cruz is in positive territory at 56% while the Donald is at 44%. Sen. Rubio leads that field at 58%. Se. Cruz also is sky-high in favorability ratings at 65% compared to the Donald's 50%. Sen. Cruz is also strong as a second choice at 17% while the Donald only manages a seven percent second choice in a caucus where people can and do change their minds at the last minute.
The good news for Sen. Rubio is that people would be very inclined to be with him if he ends up winning the GOP nod with 58% of those voters. And Sen. Rubio has strong favorability rating at 70%. The problem for Sen. Rubio is that it has not translated to potential votes in the caucus.
This is usually the most reliable of the polls and does not change my prediction that Sen. Ted Cruz will win the caucus, Donald J. Trump will come in second and Sen. Marco Rubio  third.
In less than 48 hours we will finally see the voting begin and the hand wringing fire up on all sides.

I typed in the wrong numbers of the poll results. I have corrected that error.

Iowa 2016 Republican Edition

Monday is the big day as the Iowa voters finally will caucus and get the GOP presidential nomination show on the road.
This is a helpful guide as to how the caucus actually works. It is not a primary and is somewhat byzantine in how delegates are eventually chosen. One thing that it is not is a winner-take-all caucus. Delegates are chosen based on the percentage of votes any given candidate receives. Thus More than likely the top three finishers will walk away with delegates and possibly power at a possibly brokered GOP convention in Cleveland later this year.
One bit of digression that is important to note is that most states in the past were winner-take-all primaries and or caucuses. Not this time. A full 84% of the delegates will be chosen by a form of proportional representation. Only 16% will be from winner-take-all primaries and or caucuses. Thus it is possible that fewer candidates will simply drop out as in the past. It is possible that it could be a three-way race all the way to Cleveland and no one candidate will have the 1,237 delegates needed for a first-ballot victory. It is possible no one will be close enough in the end.
So back to Iowa.
According to the Real Clear Politics polling average, yes Donald J. Trump still leads all candidates with 31% of the vote. Texas senator Ted Cruz is a strong second with 25% and Florida senator Marco Rubio is a surging third place with about 14%. The rest of those still standing are in the single digits.
But history shows, and this year is no exception, that as much as 40% of the people who will actually caucus can change their minds right up to caucus night.
What does that mean?
Well, it possibly hurts the Donald more than anyone. Since he decided to skip the last debate this past Thursday and host a hastily-staged support for veteran-themed event, the potential caucus goers do not like that disrespect. It was something that Ronald Reagan regretted when he skipped the last Iowa debate in 1980. Mr. Reagan lost and it lead to the eventual sacking of his campaign manager, John Sears. That is something when people point that out to defend the Donald and his decision to bail because he could not take Fox News channel's Megan Kelly and her possible pointed questions that he might actually have to answer.
Not having the Donald on the debate stage helped all of the candidates. But probably helped Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida governor Jeb! Bush more than the others.
There is a school of thought that a serious caucus attender will have heard all of the candidates at least once in person during this Death March of a campaign season. They make up their mind and then get to the caucus site and hear all those from the different campaigns and some just change their mind right there on the spot. While 40% seems to be a high number, it is the way that a caucus works. Yeah, it is a little messy but truly democracy in action.
What do I think will happen on Monday night?
It will be a nail-biter but I think that Sen. Cruz will finish first. Then it is the battle for the scraps and that will be between the Donald and Sen. Rubio. My guess is that Sen. Rubio could easily surge to second place based on the past. But more than likely the Donald will finish second and Sen. Rubio a very strong third. The rest? Well, it won't matter except for Jeb! and his millions that he can stay in hoping that there will be a dreaded brokered convention.
Then it is on to New Hampshire only a week later.
The 2016 presidential Death March campaign is finally going to the caucus goers and the voters and not a moment too soon.


I looked at the last time that I posted and realized, wow it has been a while.
A lot has happened since December 22, 2015. Too much not to use this post as a spray at all fields, so to speak.
The 2016 presidential campaign is in full swing and finally, Iowa voters will caucus on Monday. We are at a point of the campaign in which we will see in the Donald J. Trump campaign is going to steamroll it's way to the GOP nomination. On the Democrat side, we will see if voters Feel the Bern and whether once again, as in 2008, they go far left and nominate an open socialist.
The Super Bowl is set and next Sunday the Carolina Panthers and the Denver Broncos will play for all the NFL marbles. I'm pulling for a Bronco win for probably the first time because I do like Peyton Manning. And He has not ruined any chance for my beloved Cleveland Browns making the Super Bowl the same way one horse-faced looking guy, John Elway, did twice to my Browns in the 1980s. The reason that Mr. Manning has not done damage is because, to be blunt, my Browns have sucked. Pure, plain and simple.
On February 28 will be the Academy Awards, truly a waste of time and space. Yet millions will watch and salivate over people that could not get a serious job. Oh, and there is a manufactured controversy about the fact no Black was nominated for best actor and or actress. And the movie Straight Outta Compton was not nominated for best picture. Why there is the hash tag, #OscarsSoWhite. And I say so what?! There have been plenty of years in which Blacks have been nominated and won. Last I checked, and correct me if I am wrong, but the movie 12 Years A Slave won the Academy Award for best picture in 2013. It's all arbitrary anyhow and some years are just better than others for Blacks and well, everyone else. Some Black actors and actresses are boycotting the Academy Awards this year. And I say welcome to my party. I too am a boycotter but that is every year, not just over some made-up controversy. I just loathe the whole awards show concept.
California is still in the toilet and moving to the left at a rapid pace. There is still corruption at all levels of government and always the wonder of why. Maybe essential one-party rule is part of it. Just sayin. . .
There is so much to write and so little time. But one vow is that I will make an effort to get something in at least once a day from here on in.
Ruminations are not all that easy to do.

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Conservatives Have Conservatives To Blame For GOP State Of Affairs

Guess what fellow conservatives?
There is a huge problem in our ranks and we have ourselves to blame.
Before ye call me a sellout, RINO, etc., etc., read on.
A case in point and what I will concentrate on is the Republican leadership in congress. 
Recently former Speaker of the House, John Boehner, all but handed conservatives a gift by giving up and leaving congress. Mind you, Mr. Boehner was not some hippy, left-winger. He was reliably conservative while moving up the leadership ladder. Something happened when Mr. Boehner attained the pinnacle of house leadership, the speaker's office. Mr. Boehner came in as House minority leader and acted as such when he became the speaker. It appeared that Mr. Boehner was more interested in cutting the deals no matter what rather than taking stands against the overreach of the executive branch. Sure, we are in divided government and at some level, deals will be cut. Conservatives simply wanted floor votes on a myriad of proposals that did not have a chance of even getting out of the then Democrat senate. But Mr. Boehner did nothing when the Republicans took control of the senate this year. 
As I noted yesterday, the GOP could simply have taken a page from the Democrat playbook of 1974-76 and sent the whole left-wing agenda to an impotent President Ford. He vetoed 66 pieces of legislation and was only overridden on 12. That's an over .800 winning percentage. Maybe it will end up the same but what the Republican base wants to see is less deal making and some back-bone. Count me in that group. 
But when Mr. Boehner quit, where was the great conservative to win over the disparate forces of the House of Representatives GOP caucus? 
NO ONE, but NO ONE wanted the job. The current Speaker, Rep. Paul Ryan, literally had to be dragged into the job. Where was Daniel Webster? Where was anyone in the Freedom Caucus? Huh? 
I'll tell you where they were. 
Hoping that they would not have to try for a job that saw a pretty conservative fellow, Mr. Boehner, run out on the rail.
I fear that some firebrand conservatives realize that because deals have to be done, some disgusting, some just unpalatable, they do not want their fingerprints on it. Really, that is what we have to conclude.
You know who cut some lousy deals with a worse political landscape but turned out to be a damn good president?
Ronald Wilson Reagan.
So the dude literally dragged into the speaker's chair, Mr Ryan, cut a lousy budget deal that as he said the cake was already baked.
He is right. 
What was he supposed to do? Rip it up and start over? Maybe. Give conservatives more of a place at the table? Well, duh! 
By getting this out of the way, next year is going to be different. Conservatives will have a place and Mr. Ryan will make much more of a conservative effort to govern with the most left-wing president in our lifetimes. 
We conservatives expect a lot and were promised a lot over the past couple of election cycles. at a real level, we have been hosed. But we also are so damn tribal, we can't get a good, unifying governing majority. 
I hope my fellow conservatives think about all of this and don't think blowing up the place will make for a winning coalition. 

Monday, December 21, 2015

The Trump Train Rolls Along To The Cliff

I still do not get it, the Trump Train that is.
It seems that the Donald's support only grows and it is whenever he opens his illogical mouth and shoots off some absurdity.
Is it the fault of the GOP establishment? The Democrats? The Dear Leader, President Obama, himself?
It's all of the above I'm afraid.
The GOP establishment seems more interested in cutting deals, such as the latest budget deal in congress, than ever confronting the Democrats and their titular leader, the president of the United States. Votes should have been had on repealing Obamacare as an example. Yes, the Democrats would fight in the senate and try the filibuster. So what? The GOP leader, Ol' Mitch McConnell, could drop a nuke on the filibuster and make the Dear Leader, President Obama, veto it.
The Dems did this to Gerald Ford after he became president in 1974 and they swept to super-majorities in both houses in the midterm elections that year. The impotent successor to Richard M. Nixon in less than two years as president vetoed a total of 66 bills. Only 12 vetoes were overridden by congress and thus became law. And I will note that a Democrat, one Jimmah Carter, was elected president in 1976.
My point?
It can be done and not hurt in the long run. It inspires a base that is needed to turn out the vote in 2016 no matter who the candidate is. It shows a party that believes in what it runs on.
I get all of that.
I would like to remind my friends who are on that Trump Train thinking that the Donald walks on water and says nothing wrong, there is nothing wrong with having a little political experience when running for office.
Despite the comparisons to one Ronald Wilson Reagan, by the time he made his serious campaign for the presidency in 1976, he had served two successful terms as governor of California, and was able to enact welfare reform before it was cool. He had a record. And he had a lot of serious people supporting the failed '76 effort. Many of those would be influential in his two successful terms as president.
I'll say it.
Donald J. Trump can not and could not shine Ronald Reagan's shoes on a  good day.
Yeah, go ahead and show a picture of Mr. Reagan shaking the Donald's hand once as proof I am wrong.
Policies and ideas matter.
I have written before and will again that the Trump Train is more like the eventual Schwarzenegger Train Wreck.
There is no there there. What proof does ANYONE have that the Donald can do anything that he says he wants to do.Yesterday in an interview, the senate majority leader, Sen. McConnell, said there will never be passage of any Trump plan to ban Muslims entering the United States. Sen. McConnell and congressional leadership is a whole other post. There is no record because while the Donald has never been in any political office. Like Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger, there is the feeling of somehow we should just trust him.
I don't.
The Donald has no serious policy advisers. His national spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, seems to be as unserious as he is.
In the end I do believe that the Donald could score some early victories. Or maybe not. The Donald does not have much organization in Iowa, a caucus state. He leads substantively in New Hampshire, but it is essentially an open primary. Think some Democrats won't try to skew the vote there? The Donald could win in South Carolina, but many pols there are making their support clear now that Sen. Goober Graham has left the presidential race.
If your a conservative and Republican, the only way we win is with the most electable CONSERVATIVE in any given race.
And that is not Donald J. Trump and his merry train wreck in the making.

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

Trump's Muslim Plan A Non-Starter

I get the point that Donald J. Trump is making regarding Muslims coming to the United States and our extremely permissive immigration policy, especially under the Dear Leader, President Obama.
But it is a non-starter for a variety of reasons.
For one, the way that Trump says we can stop Muslims coming to the United States is to simply ask them at the point of customs.
Really?! Does the Donald really think that a Muslim being asked that question is going to answer honestly? Why would they?
And many are not coming to stay but to travel and do business. Are we going to ban people who practice Islam, or at least say they are Muslim, from doing business in the United States? And travel, are we really going to turn away people simply coming to see relatives and or travel and go home? Many do that. Not all stay over their visas.
The insanity of the Donald is that he compares what he proposes to what the paragon of liberalism, one Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in the opening days of the United States entering World War II.
Interning Japanese-American CITIZENS and to a lesser extent German-Americans and Italian-American CITIZENS in concentration camps and taking away their property.
Why many Trump supporters are also pointing out that the former worst president of the United States, Jimmah Carter, banned Iranians from travelling to the United States during the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-80. Even that is kind of wrong as this points out that the ban was against travelling TO Iran.
What is the pattern in all of that?
The United States took these actions against nationalities, not religions. And even that became questionable especially concerning the Japanese-Americans during World War II. The fact was that it was a total overreaction and did not prove to be effective. We threw the baby out with the bath water.
You know what nations use what Trump is talking about against a nation?
Arab and Islamic nations against Israel. If one has an Israeli passport, don't bother trying to go to a nation outside of Egypt or Jordan, the two Arab-Islamic nations Israel's have relations with.
Is that what we want?
I don't.
There is a way to make the point by simply not accepting refugees on face value. To some that is harsh and xenophobic, but rather than try to cherry pick between Syrian Christians and Muslims, we have to be willing to say no to any at this time.
What should be done is to visit this aspect of immigration without the whole so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform refrain and set very concrete policies for allowing or not allowing refugees into the United States. It is the role of congress and the executive branch. But I suspect that both have very different ideas on how to handle this situation.
But outright banning Muslims coming to and fro is not the same as banning people from nations that are clearly our enemies and or frenimies. My United States passport does not have a place for religion and it should not. Is it the price of living in the type of society we do, a free one? Possibly. But again, if congress and the executive could work out some kind of legislation that could do a better vetting process, it would help.
This brings  me to a new conclusion about the Donald.
I thought I answered the question that the Donald is not a fascist in the traditional sense of the word and he is not.
But he is a strongman type. The Donald is used to getting his way in business and it is totally different from politics in which, like it or not, coalitions are built. He acts and reacts like a businessman that has a set way and expectation.
What is troubling is that man conservatives, myself included, see the current occupant of the White House as a sort of strongman. Yet many Trumpettes do not seem to get that the Donald is the same thing only with an R after the name.
My point is that I do not want to replace one strongman for another. I want to see a constitutionalist in the White House. One that does not want more power but willing to let go of power, especially as in regards to usurping state rights and or obligations via Washington, D. C.
The Trump Muslim plan is a non starter and the reaction of a strongman, not a leader.

Thursday, December 03, 2015

Barbara Ma'am Boxer Continues To Be The WORST Senator

Seriously, I just hope that if California is stuck with either Kamala Harris or Loretta "Woo! Woo! Woo!" Sanchez as U. S. senator after next year for anything is a improvement over current Sen. Barbara Ma'am Boxer.
She is without a doubt the WORST person in the senate and that is saying a lot.
Look, both political parties have some hack people elected in safe seats and are none too bright. To be fair, a Republican senator I can think of that fits is Louisiana's David Vitter, who just lost his bid to become Louisiana governor.
But Sen. Vitter can't hold a candle to Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
Unbelievably after one of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11, in a push for federal gun control laws, the ignorant tool said this:

Sensible gun laws work. We've proven it in California. And were not going to give up.

Has the tool been under a rock for the past what, 24 plus hours?! Did she not see the carnage that was committed in a state with some of the toughest gun laws in the land? How in the hell could this tool say what she said?
Yes, two people had a helluva lot of firepower. Most were high-powered at that. And all indications are that the two terrorists that carried out the attack yesterday in San Bernardino, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, obtained the weapons legally. And because of the California laws regarding magazines and the like, they are different than in other parts of the United States. They take longer to reload. And don't forget the bomb factory that was in the home of the two terrorists. And since they were killed in a shootout with law enforcement, we will not know what the California gun charges would have been.
But because today was a vote to try to increase background checks and allegedly close a "loophole" about gun show sales, our national embarrassment spoke in her usual manner.
People still get guns. Law abiding citizens follow the law to get guns. Some criminals do as well. Most who are criminals, however, do not. Even an outright gun ban, which is what is had essentially in France, can't stop people, especially committed terrorists, from obtaining weapons. Whether they be guns and or IED's or God forbid even worse.
What matters is how illegal use of guns are prosecuted. Not whether the person had the gun in the first place.
Sen. Ma'am Boxer's replacement has to be better than her for she is not a national treasure but a national buffoon.

Media Coverage Of Islamic Terrorism Pretty Much What You'd Expect

Yesterday, December 2, 2015, a husband and wife committed an act of terrorism that killed 14 and wounded 21 in San Bernardino, California.
As it turns out, it is  safe to say this was an act of terrorism, not "workplace" violence. The two suspects, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were not exactly, oh I don't know, Scandinavian. By the looks of the names, definitely Middle Eastern and or South Asian. And as more information is disbursed, it appears that they were . . .wait for it . . .practicing Muslims.
Put the two together and you get, RADICAL Islamic terrorism.
No, it was not some anti-abortion fanatics. It was not a case of workplace violence. It was a well planned assault on a group of innocent people, having a Christmas party.
But the media coverage is actually worse than expected.
Sometimes I wonder about the whole cable news thing. All the networks, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. All engage in speculation and not trying to get the facts. Some of it is the sheer laziness of reporters. It is much easier to tweet and engage in speculation than actually using resources to obtain the facts and disburse that. Thus we end up with newspaper front pages like this doozy:

Why of course, it's all about gun control! And beating up people of faith, mostly Christians.
Too bad the terrorists had bombs that just did not go off.
Why do I mention the anti-abortion angle? Well, as reported by Allahpundit over at Hotair, Bloomberg Business made sure to note that the shooting was taking place near the local Planned Parenthood clinic. And again, knowing little if any facts, political "leaders" used the occasion to push for gun control. Again, not knowing any of the facts.
One fact is that the home of the terrorist, Farook, was described as an IED (improvised explosive device) factory. That as many as twelve pipe bombs were found is better reported in the foreign press than our own press.
Our press is interested in narrative and facts be damned.
The most important thing that media should do is remember the five W's and one H.
There is nothing taught in a reputable journalism school that adds an S-speculation-to the story formula.
The fact is that the line no longer exists between a reporter and a pundit. Every reporter seems interested in producing spin than fact gathering. Pundits think that their opinion is fact.
We must absolutely demand better reporting and less punditry in these events. It takes time and serious investigation to ascertain facts. It's not neat and tight as an episode of CSI. Once the facts are indeed in, report it accurately and then, then lets comment and pundit away.
When people that are supposed to deliver facts engage in speculation and feed a particular narrative, they are failing in their basic duty.
As the American media continues to decay further into irrelevancy, we the consumers of information end up being uninformed and unable to make up our minds as to what would be the best way to understand and deal with any given situation.