As a conservative, Tea Party Republican, last Tuesday's election result in the Mississippi senate runoff between Sen. Thad Cochran and state Sen. Chris McDaniel hurt a lot as Sen. Cochran pulled out a dramatic, come-from-behind victory.
It was in all ways the worst of what politics has to offer. And no doubt because Sen. Cochran did win the runoff, he is being tarred and feathered by a lot of Tea Party folk. Some of it is righteous and some of it is as bad as the criticisms of the Tea Party from the other side.
But where I think one of the blames does lie in the person of Thomas Carey.
Who the heck is Thomas Carey you ask?
Well, I thought the same thing. As it turns out, Mr. Carey is the third Republican candidate for the U.S. senate seat on the ballot on the initial primary day on June 3, 2014. Mr. Carey received a grand total of 4,789 votes or 1.5% of votes in the Republican primary. In Mississippi, a candidate needs to get 50% of total votes plus one to avoid a runoff. As you can see here, because of Mr. Carey's 4,789 votes and 1.5%, neither of the two top candidates, Sen. Cochran nor Sen. McDaniel passed the 50% plus one threshold.
And that, my friends, is what sent the primary into overtime. And that overtime was fierce, sloppy and pretty dirty. And it revealed a lot of things.
First, Sen. Cochran is a pork-laden Southern Republican. And damn proud of it as the runoff campaign proved.
Before I go on, Sen. Cochran is not a moderate Republican in the least. Sen. Cochran's overall American Conservative Union life rating as a senator is 80%. That is 40 plus years worth of votes. But he certainly is not a conservative that really talks a lot. Very low key kinda dude. As a comparison to others of his way, Sen. John "F--- You McCain (R-Az.) has a lifetime 81% rating. Sen. Goober Graham (R-S.C.) has an 88% lifetime rating. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.) has a ACU lifetime rating of 89%.
What unifies these senators is what they get their press about.
As noted, Sen. Cochran is a pork-barrel, earmark kinda dude. Sens. Graham and McCain are very pro-amnesty for illegal aliens. Sen. Hatch has been around Washington over 40 years. As has Sen. Cochran. All represent what we call the Washington establishment.
As Sen. Cochran barnstormed across Mississippi, he knew that he had lost conservative Republicans that would consider themselves to the right of himself. He needed to find votes somewhere. And some of his advisers pushed him into seeking Black, Democrat votes in Hinds county, the largest in the state and where the state capitol, Jackson, is located.
But, Sen. Cochran did not campaign as some kind of Republican that would be interested in gaining Black voters for the long term. Not in the least. It was clearly targeted to get enough crossovers to make up for those votes he knew that he could not get from his fellow Republicans. Why, Sen. Cochran went so far as to point out all the money that he got from the feds for Mississippi. And especially how much of that went to Black Mississippians. And how he was always with them on all the civil rights stuff.
In other words, Sen. Cochran sounded like a born-again Democrat to gain these new voters. Voters that would vote now for Sen. Cochran to deny state Sen. McDaniel the GOP nomination and then come November turn around and proudly vote for the Democrat nominee, Travis Childers.
But worse it maybe that Team Cochran actually paid a Democrat operative, James "Scooby Doo" Warren, to work with a prominent Black pastor, Bishop Ronnie Crudup, Sr., to spread more money around for Black votes
It is very possible all of the above is totally true. And much of this is what irks Team McDaniel so much that they may very seriously challenge the election results. Now it just maybe way too much to challenge an election in which Sen. Cochran appears to have won by roughly 7,000 votes. And to challenge based on potentially singling out Black voters, I hate to say this, but it will not help the Tea Party at all.
But make no mistake, what Sen. Cochran did was not present those potential voters with a conservative, Republican message.
Ronald Reagan did in fact do that during the 1980 presidential campaign. Mr. Reagan went so far as to visit a South Bronx neighborhood to discuss his economic program. Sure, he was shouted down and reacted to the shouts. But he did make the effort in an area he had no chance of winning. He gave a conservative message, not one touting bringing in federal dollars and especially targeting that money to Black Americans.
That is what really bothers me about the whole way Sen. Cochran went for the Black vote.
It is not the way the Republican party should be doing so. For then we are nothing but Democrat Light. If even that.
But it's not just the feeling among the rank and file that many a Republican is finding themselves are not listening to them. For the leadership, especially in Washington, D. C., is not. There is a feeling that the congressional leadership especially is doing a Kabuki Theatre on issue after issue. So called "comprehensive immigration reform", tax policy, regulations, over-reach in general of the federal government. The leadership talks tough but behind the scenes are trying, still as this writing, for some kind of "comprehensive' immigration reform. This even as our Southern border is literally being invaded by children from Central America.
What the base and or the Tea Party want is leadership and elected officials to speak and act like an opposition that is ready to lead, not a bunch wanting to cut deals and take the road of least resistance. And also to mean what they say. Especially about cutting the size and scope of government, especially the federal government. That is what has the rank-and-file voter and Tea Party folks so frustrated.
It is not a good thing to see a stalwart Republican senator so desperate to cling to power that he would do anything to win an election. Even so far as trying to buy votes.
But this was not an election about Chris McDaniel. At least it should not be. But what I fear is happening is that Sen. McDaniel is doing what we accuse, rightfully, of RINOs* of doing when they lose.
Being a sore loser.
Remember Mike Castle in 2010 when he was running against Christine O'Donnell for the senate seat of now Vice-President Biden? Mr. Castle was the RINO, a real RINO, that was suppose to win the nomination in a cake walk. But a little publicity and push by some conservative talk radio hosts and Miss O'Donnell ended up winning the nomination. Mr. Castle refused to endorse her candidacy. He went away sulking. Ditto that for Sen. Richard Lugar who also lost his bid for renomination in 2012.
Did we conservatives not rightfully complain about their sour grapes? Did we not suggest that their personal piques more than the candidates that bested them may have cost the Republicans control of the senate in 2010 and 2012?
Yes, we did.
To see Sen. McDaniel go down the same road, I honestly believe, will make us no better.
I am not alone in thinking that we should let the Mississippi results stand and live to fight another day. After all, Sen. Cochran is not a RINO but a center-right conservative. He did a very bad thing is apparently winning the Republican nomination for the senate. But we should learn from that experience. That some candidates will stoop to any level to attain and or hold on to power.
David Freddoso of The Washington Examiner explains that because of the Tea Party and it's revitalizing the conservative movement, the Republican party as a whole is moving more to the right. Mr. Freddoso explains also how it took 16 years from then Sen. Barry Goldwater's defeat for the presidency to Ronald Reagan's triumph. That there were a lot of bumps along the way. Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, real RINOism front and center. Conservatives were truly in the minority of a minority party. And since Ronald Reagan, we have had to deal with Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush and their serious lapses of conservatism. I think the old man would have to be the less conservative of the two.
But what has happened since George W. Bush left the White House in 2009?
Conservatives have fought to get the party back in the right direction. It was the Tea Party that put the testicles back into the Republicans. Many candidates, especially in the House and Senate were Tea Party supported and won election.
What the Tea Party has done is put fight back into the party. And we still do by keeping those in leadership from themselves and cutting bad deals in Washington.
We have to accept this loss in Mississippi. Its not because of anything but to drag it out does not do any side any good. Yes, I would vote for Sen. Cochran in the general election over the Democrat, Mr. Childers. Not because I think that he is an honorable man. He has proven that he is not. But because we can't let one state and the shenanigans done there ruin the chance of the Republican party gaining the senate majority. Yes, it is principled because Sen. Cochran will be a reliable no vote if the Dear Leader, President Obama, gets a chance at another supreme court nomination. On most issues he will be with us. And I think he will not support so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. Not at all.
It hurt to lose this election in Mississippi. It really did. But it would be even more painful if the Democrats can somehow pull the rabbit-out-of-the-hat and win this seat. We don't always win the battle, but we can win the war.
*RINO-Republican In Name Only
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Thursday, June 26, 2014
The Games The Sudan Are Playing With Meriam Ibrahim
Yes, yes, Sudan is playing games is regards to the continuing saga over Meriam Ibrahim.
Mrs. Ibrahim is the Christian woman that had been charged with apostasy for "rejecting" Islam under the Sudanese interpretation of Sharia law. Mrs. Ibrahim was convicted in a kangaroo court based on so-called relatives "evidence" who essentially turned her in to Sudanese "authorities". And she was pregnant with her second child at the time of conviction. A conviction of 100 lashes for adultery (she is married to a Christian man), and once the baby is born two years after the child is weaned death.
Yeah, that Sharia law is no joke especially when interpreted in the worst way.
Well, this past weekend, a Sudanese appeals court voided the lower court sentence and the court ordered Mrs. Ibrahim freed. It seemed like sanity was about to prevail, right?
Oops! My bad!
So sorry to fib about that because as Mrs. Ibrahim was with her husband, Daniel Wani, and both of her children were at the Khartoum International airport waiting to get the hell out of the hellhole known as Sudan, she faced the wrath of the crazies once again and was rearrested on a unique charge to say the least.
Mrs. Ibrahim was arrested and charged with forging her travel documents. And this time, the Sudanese "authorities" had the whole family to throw in jail.
The best part of the second arrest?
That one of Mrs. Ibrahim's half brothers went to the "authorities" to claim that she was kidnapped from the Islamic side of the family and should not have been returned to her Christian husband, Daniel.
Such a wonderful family they are.
It is important to explain that Mrs. Ibrahim did have an Islamic father and a Christian mother. The dad left the family high and dry when Mrs. Ibrahim was a young child. Mrs. Ibrahim's mother raised her in the Ethiopian Orthodox church. In fact, the mother remarried a Christian man and the marriage certificate is available. For some reason not really explained, a relative from the dad's Islamic family turned her in to the "authorities" claiming that she is really an Islamic woman and committed adultery by "marrying" a Christian man. Thus charges were filed and a trial was commenced. Now Mrs. Ibrahim could have prevented this from going where it did. So long as she renounced being a Christian and nullified her marriage to Daniel Wani. But Mrs. Ibrahim did not renounce the only faith that she knew. That of the Christian faith. And according to Sharia law, it was wrong for her to be raised as a Christian because even though daddy left mommy, one has to be raised in the faith of the male.
Kind of neat that the males can marry whoever they want but if one is a gal, too bad. That's Sharia law for you.
Again, all this occurred because a half-brother that Mrs. Ibrahim did not know by the name of Al Samani Al Hadi Mohamed Abdullah. The real reason he used Sharia law is so that he and his Islamic wife could take Mrs. Ibrahim's successful businesses.
Sharia law my a*s!
But the court that the trail was held found Mrs. Ibrahim guilty of rejecting a religion she never knew, Islam, and being an adulterer because she married a Christian man that she should not have done. She was supposed to marry an Islamic man. Even though she said throughout everything that she was never, ever Islamic.
Thus came the development of her sentence being thrown out on appeal and the appeal court freeing Mrs. Ibrahim.
And the rearrest of Mrs. Ibrahim, her husband, Daniel Wani, her 21 month old son, Martin and one month-old daughter, Maya, born in a horrible women's prison named Omdurman Federal Women's Prison. As I noted, the whole family was jailed.
But today, it appears that the whole family has been released from jail under the condition that they remain in The Sudan for the time being.
While that seems to be good news, there is no word as to when the family can leave the hellhole of The Sudan for freedom. Originally, the family was going to go to the Christian South Sudan. But now once they are allowed to leave The Sudan, they will all come to the United States.
But this just shows what happens when a government implements Sharia law. A law that totally discounts anything that a woman may or may not say. A law that takes whatever a male says, even if it is all lies, as the truth. That is exactly what happened here. What has to really gall the fanatics is that at no time, even while giving birth to Maya, Mrs. Ibrahim would denounce her Christian faith. She was going to be a martyr for the faith.
Radical Islam claims a lot of things but it claims Islam is so much the only way, truth and light that one can be killed if they renounce that religion. Islam is such a loving, life giving religion in these fanatics' eyes that one has to be kept in that religion at the point of a sword. Or the end of a gun.
And the fanatics in The Sudan that lied about Mrs. Ibrahim almost were going to get their pound of flesh.
The reason that they did not is that in the end, such a sentence could not be carried out because many disparate forces unified to point out what a horrible act the carrying out of the sentence would be.
Yet the "authorities" played some more games quite possibly in a last ditch effort to get Mrs. Ibrahim to reject Christianity and become Islamic and her children become Islamic. And while using a trumped-up charge, they gave it their best shot.
Hopefully very soon, Meriam Ibrahim, Daniel Wani, Martin and Maya will be on a plane for the United States and real freedom.
The Sudan government will not be able to play their games with the family here in the United States.
Mrs. Ibrahim is the Christian woman that had been charged with apostasy for "rejecting" Islam under the Sudanese interpretation of Sharia law. Mrs. Ibrahim was convicted in a kangaroo court based on so-called relatives "evidence" who essentially turned her in to Sudanese "authorities". And she was pregnant with her second child at the time of conviction. A conviction of 100 lashes for adultery (she is married to a Christian man), and once the baby is born two years after the child is weaned death.
Yeah, that Sharia law is no joke especially when interpreted in the worst way.
Well, this past weekend, a Sudanese appeals court voided the lower court sentence and the court ordered Mrs. Ibrahim freed. It seemed like sanity was about to prevail, right?
Oops! My bad!
So sorry to fib about that because as Mrs. Ibrahim was with her husband, Daniel Wani, and both of her children were at the Khartoum International airport waiting to get the hell out of the hellhole known as Sudan, she faced the wrath of the crazies once again and was rearrested on a unique charge to say the least.
Mrs. Ibrahim was arrested and charged with forging her travel documents. And this time, the Sudanese "authorities" had the whole family to throw in jail.
The best part of the second arrest?
That one of Mrs. Ibrahim's half brothers went to the "authorities" to claim that she was kidnapped from the Islamic side of the family and should not have been returned to her Christian husband, Daniel.
Such a wonderful family they are.
It is important to explain that Mrs. Ibrahim did have an Islamic father and a Christian mother. The dad left the family high and dry when Mrs. Ibrahim was a young child. Mrs. Ibrahim's mother raised her in the Ethiopian Orthodox church. In fact, the mother remarried a Christian man and the marriage certificate is available. For some reason not really explained, a relative from the dad's Islamic family turned her in to the "authorities" claiming that she is really an Islamic woman and committed adultery by "marrying" a Christian man. Thus charges were filed and a trial was commenced. Now Mrs. Ibrahim could have prevented this from going where it did. So long as she renounced being a Christian and nullified her marriage to Daniel Wani. But Mrs. Ibrahim did not renounce the only faith that she knew. That of the Christian faith. And according to Sharia law, it was wrong for her to be raised as a Christian because even though daddy left mommy, one has to be raised in the faith of the male.
Kind of neat that the males can marry whoever they want but if one is a gal, too bad. That's Sharia law for you.
Again, all this occurred because a half-brother that Mrs. Ibrahim did not know by the name of Al Samani Al Hadi Mohamed Abdullah. The real reason he used Sharia law is so that he and his Islamic wife could take Mrs. Ibrahim's successful businesses.
Sharia law my a*s!
But the court that the trail was held found Mrs. Ibrahim guilty of rejecting a religion she never knew, Islam, and being an adulterer because she married a Christian man that she should not have done. She was supposed to marry an Islamic man. Even though she said throughout everything that she was never, ever Islamic.
Thus came the development of her sentence being thrown out on appeal and the appeal court freeing Mrs. Ibrahim.
And the rearrest of Mrs. Ibrahim, her husband, Daniel Wani, her 21 month old son, Martin and one month-old daughter, Maya, born in a horrible women's prison named Omdurman Federal Women's Prison. As I noted, the whole family was jailed.
But today, it appears that the whole family has been released from jail under the condition that they remain in The Sudan for the time being.
While that seems to be good news, there is no word as to when the family can leave the hellhole of The Sudan for freedom. Originally, the family was going to go to the Christian South Sudan. But now once they are allowed to leave The Sudan, they will all come to the United States.
But this just shows what happens when a government implements Sharia law. A law that totally discounts anything that a woman may or may not say. A law that takes whatever a male says, even if it is all lies, as the truth. That is exactly what happened here. What has to really gall the fanatics is that at no time, even while giving birth to Maya, Mrs. Ibrahim would denounce her Christian faith. She was going to be a martyr for the faith.
Radical Islam claims a lot of things but it claims Islam is so much the only way, truth and light that one can be killed if they renounce that religion. Islam is such a loving, life giving religion in these fanatics' eyes that one has to be kept in that religion at the point of a sword. Or the end of a gun.
And the fanatics in The Sudan that lied about Mrs. Ibrahim almost were going to get their pound of flesh.
The reason that they did not is that in the end, such a sentence could not be carried out because many disparate forces unified to point out what a horrible act the carrying out of the sentence would be.
Yet the "authorities" played some more games quite possibly in a last ditch effort to get Mrs. Ibrahim to reject Christianity and become Islamic and her children become Islamic. And while using a trumped-up charge, they gave it their best shot.
Hopefully very soon, Meriam Ibrahim, Daniel Wani, Martin and Maya will be on a plane for the United States and real freedom.
The Sudan government will not be able to play their games with the family here in the United States.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
An OH SO CLOSE Night For The Tea Party
Well, tonight saw a heart breaker of a loss for a Tea Party backed candidate in Mississippi in the senate runoff, an actual fossil getting another two-years in congress and a win in Oklahoma in the latest round of primary elections.
The Fight Of The Century is probably over in Mississippi as state senator Chris McDaniel fell about 6,300 votes short of ousting the dinosaur Sen. Thad Cochran in the Republican senate runoff. It was a total reversal of fortune for Mr. McDaniel who defeated Sen. Cochran in the original primary a couple of weeks ago. Because neither candidate got 50% plus one, there was today's runoff. At 50.8%, Sen. Cochran barely cleared the mark to probably dispatch Mr. McDaniel.
Why do I not say this with absolute certainty?
Because, Mr. McDaniel may challenge the results.
Why not? After all if the results hold as is, a case can probably be made that there was some shenanigans in the vote.
In a strange voting rule in Mississippi, a voter from another party who did not participate in their own party primary could have voted today in this primary. So if one is a Democrat and did not vote in the primary election a couple of weeks ago, they could participate in today's Republican runoff. And Sen. Cochran decided to go for Black and Democrat voters to make up his deficit and may have them to owe for his apparent win. I look for Mr. McDaniel to decide in the next 48 hours if they would in fact be able to prevail in court to challenge the results. If Mr. McDaniel does not challenge the results, that does not mean he will go away anytime soon. After all there will be future elections and maybe a race for governor in the future.
Sen. Cochran owes his almost guaranteed seventh term as senator to Black and Democrat voters. I don't see how this helps the Republican party in Mississippi much, but that did not matter to Sen. Cochran who wanted to help himself.
While I am more than disappointed with the Mississippi result, I think that I am more disturbed that this fossil, Rep. Charles Rangel, will continue in congress and serve his 23rd term for New York state's 13th congressional district. Although in terms of a Republican chance in this race, there is none as no Republican chose to run. But Rep. Rangel was heroically challenged by state senator Adriano Espaillat. And while Sen. Espaillat is in worse shape to challenge any result as he is about 1,800 votes behind and almost four points down. But Sen. Espaillat is not giving up as of this writing. Sen. Espaillat believes that there are still votes to be had. I sure hope that is the case.
Charles Rangel is a reprobate in every sense of the word. Besides being a tax cheat, he loves to stir up the rhetorical pot big time. Why just before today's election, Rep. Rangel found time to compare the Tea Party to Hamas, the terrorists running the Gaza Strip. In other words, yeah, the Tea Party are nothing but a bunch of terrorists. I just recommend watching the video at the link.
The voters of the New York state 13th congressional district obviously does not seem to care just how awful Rep. Rangel is and I swear he could die and they will still vote for his propped-up corpse. You get what you deserve.
My last highlight race is in Oklahoma between current congressman James Lankford and former Oklahoma speaker of the house, T. W. Shannon. There were five others, but they were insignificant.
Mr. Shannon was very much supported by the Tea Party and folks like Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum. Rep. Lankford got more establishment support, but Rep. Lankford rode the Tea Party wave to congress in 2010. No matter who won this race will be a solid conservative Republican in the senate. This election is to finish the remainder of Sen. Tom Coburn's term as he is retiring.
In the end, it was not even close as Rep. Lankford defeated Mr. Shannon 57% to 34%. It was not even close. The fact is that Rep. Lankford won huge in and around Oklahoma City and just enough in the Tulsa area to blunt the Shannon challenge. In the end, being a federal legislator helped Rep. Lankford while Mr. Shannon may have been seen as inexperienced. Who knows. In the end, both are and would be solid conservatives and are more of an overlap than a battle as was in Mississippi.
I wanted to see Mr. Shannon and yes, it is a reason I don't necessarily like but needed in the current climate.
Had Mr. Shannon won, he would be the first Black and Indian senator from Oklahoma. He would have joined Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who should win election in the November general. I thought that Mr. Shannon was the more reliably conservative of the two front runners. And my advice to Mr. Shannon is stay politcally active. Mr. Shannon is only 36 and should think about a run for governor in 2018. He will make a great governor as he was a great speaker of the house.
So this round of primaries was a kind of palate cleanser for us. It does not mean that it was a disaster for the Tea Party. The Tea Party exposed Sen. Thad Cochran as the establishment tool he is. We have a good candidate in Oklahoma for senate. In other words, it was a wash at worst.
It was an OH SO CLOSE night for the Tea Party.
The Fight Of The Century is probably over in Mississippi as state senator Chris McDaniel fell about 6,300 votes short of ousting the dinosaur Sen. Thad Cochran in the Republican senate runoff. It was a total reversal of fortune for Mr. McDaniel who defeated Sen. Cochran in the original primary a couple of weeks ago. Because neither candidate got 50% plus one, there was today's runoff. At 50.8%, Sen. Cochran barely cleared the mark to probably dispatch Mr. McDaniel.
Why do I not say this with absolute certainty?
Because, Mr. McDaniel may challenge the results.
Why not? After all if the results hold as is, a case can probably be made that there was some shenanigans in the vote.
In a strange voting rule in Mississippi, a voter from another party who did not participate in their own party primary could have voted today in this primary. So if one is a Democrat and did not vote in the primary election a couple of weeks ago, they could participate in today's Republican runoff. And Sen. Cochran decided to go for Black and Democrat voters to make up his deficit and may have them to owe for his apparent win. I look for Mr. McDaniel to decide in the next 48 hours if they would in fact be able to prevail in court to challenge the results. If Mr. McDaniel does not challenge the results, that does not mean he will go away anytime soon. After all there will be future elections and maybe a race for governor in the future.
Sen. Cochran owes his almost guaranteed seventh term as senator to Black and Democrat voters. I don't see how this helps the Republican party in Mississippi much, but that did not matter to Sen. Cochran who wanted to help himself.
While I am more than disappointed with the Mississippi result, I think that I am more disturbed that this fossil, Rep. Charles Rangel, will continue in congress and serve his 23rd term for New York state's 13th congressional district. Although in terms of a Republican chance in this race, there is none as no Republican chose to run. But Rep. Rangel was heroically challenged by state senator Adriano Espaillat. And while Sen. Espaillat is in worse shape to challenge any result as he is about 1,800 votes behind and almost four points down. But Sen. Espaillat is not giving up as of this writing. Sen. Espaillat believes that there are still votes to be had. I sure hope that is the case.
Charles Rangel is a reprobate in every sense of the word. Besides being a tax cheat, he loves to stir up the rhetorical pot big time. Why just before today's election, Rep. Rangel found time to compare the Tea Party to Hamas, the terrorists running the Gaza Strip. In other words, yeah, the Tea Party are nothing but a bunch of terrorists. I just recommend watching the video at the link.
The voters of the New York state 13th congressional district obviously does not seem to care just how awful Rep. Rangel is and I swear he could die and they will still vote for his propped-up corpse. You get what you deserve.
My last highlight race is in Oklahoma between current congressman James Lankford and former Oklahoma speaker of the house, T. W. Shannon. There were five others, but they were insignificant.
Mr. Shannon was very much supported by the Tea Party and folks like Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum. Rep. Lankford got more establishment support, but Rep. Lankford rode the Tea Party wave to congress in 2010. No matter who won this race will be a solid conservative Republican in the senate. This election is to finish the remainder of Sen. Tom Coburn's term as he is retiring.
In the end, it was not even close as Rep. Lankford defeated Mr. Shannon 57% to 34%. It was not even close. The fact is that Rep. Lankford won huge in and around Oklahoma City and just enough in the Tulsa area to blunt the Shannon challenge. In the end, being a federal legislator helped Rep. Lankford while Mr. Shannon may have been seen as inexperienced. Who knows. In the end, both are and would be solid conservatives and are more of an overlap than a battle as was in Mississippi.
I wanted to see Mr. Shannon and yes, it is a reason I don't necessarily like but needed in the current climate.
Had Mr. Shannon won, he would be the first Black and Indian senator from Oklahoma. He would have joined Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who should win election in the November general. I thought that Mr. Shannon was the more reliably conservative of the two front runners. And my advice to Mr. Shannon is stay politcally active. Mr. Shannon is only 36 and should think about a run for governor in 2018. He will make a great governor as he was a great speaker of the house.
So this round of primaries was a kind of palate cleanser for us. It does not mean that it was a disaster for the Tea Party. The Tea Party exposed Sen. Thad Cochran as the establishment tool he is. We have a good candidate in Oklahoma for senate. In other words, it was a wash at worst.
It was an OH SO CLOSE night for the Tea Party.
Are You Ready For Six Californias?
Yes, not one, or two Californias but if venture capitalist Tim Draper has his way and the voters approve, we could see the once Golden State split into six states.
Yes, there have been multiple proposals to split California into two states with the most recent being in 2011 and it was proposed by Jeff Stone.
And there is the ongoing attempt to get some of the most northern counties to split off from California and with some Southern Oregon counties getting together to form the State of Jefferson.
But this plan by Mr. Draper could make the general election ballot in 2016. And with about a year and a half to get about 806,000 signatures, it should make that ballot.
I don't find myself drawn to this plan because it is too many divisions and has a lot less chance of seeing the light of day as opposed to simply dividing the state by north and south or east and west.
And while this is only a potential ballot initiative, judging by the people on this Facebook link with KNBC 4 News, the beyond low information voter is rearing their collective heads in a really bad way.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of commenters are against the general idea of splitting the state in any way. And that is fine in and of itself. Yet few if any give a substantive reason as to why it would be a bad idea.
A lot of people think that because Mr. Draper is a venture capitalist, that automatically disqualifies him from even promoting such an idea.
Still many think that Mr. Draper is an eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Republican and just trying to give the GOP some kind of electoral advantage.
Too bad that Mr. Draper is not a Republican but a Libertarian.
And really, if California were to be split in an east/west way, it would guarantee that it would be a GOP electoral gain. Even a north/south split would be better for the GOP than six separate states.
Look at the map below.
Each state would be able to determine their own policies towards education, law and order, prisons, whether they want to continue the policy of the ballot initiative or not.
In other words, each state determines it's fate on it's own terms. That is that does not violate the United States constitution.
One of the problems is that local control, cities and counties, seems to erode year after year. More and more matters that cities and counties should handle are being taken by the state.
An example are plastic bag bans.
As I noted in an earlier post, my hometown, Pasadena, passed a city ordinance that supermarkets could not continue to provide plastic shopping bags for customers. That customers could purchase a paper bag for 10c if they do not want to bring plastic, reusable bags. Besides it being crony capitalism at its worst, I think that it will not help in the matter of litter and the like. Now there is a push to take this ban state-wide. Thus no matter where you go to shop, no matter what city, better have those reusable plastic bags if the legislature has its way.
That is not the state's business. Let the local governments decide such issues.
That is sort of the point of why Mr. Draper believes its time to break up the state.
I think that this is worth discussion. I think that if the required signatures are made, this should go to the voters. We need to have a serious talk with each other. I fear that the reactions of the commenters on the KNBC 4 Facebook page is a bad sign. It is clear if you go to the link that many are the lowest of the low information voters.
I'm not sure that this has any more of a chance than the many other proposals to break up the once Golden State, but let's have a serious, adult, conversation about it. About the possibility of six Californias.
Yes, there have been multiple proposals to split California into two states with the most recent being in 2011 and it was proposed by Jeff Stone.
And there is the ongoing attempt to get some of the most northern counties to split off from California and with some Southern Oregon counties getting together to form the State of Jefferson.
But this plan by Mr. Draper could make the general election ballot in 2016. And with about a year and a half to get about 806,000 signatures, it should make that ballot.
I don't find myself drawn to this plan because it is too many divisions and has a lot less chance of seeing the light of day as opposed to simply dividing the state by north and south or east and west.
And while this is only a potential ballot initiative, judging by the people on this Facebook link with KNBC 4 News, the beyond low information voter is rearing their collective heads in a really bad way.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of commenters are against the general idea of splitting the state in any way. And that is fine in and of itself. Yet few if any give a substantive reason as to why it would be a bad idea.
A lot of people think that because Mr. Draper is a venture capitalist, that automatically disqualifies him from even promoting such an idea.
Still many think that Mr. Draper is an eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Republican and just trying to give the GOP some kind of electoral advantage.
Too bad that Mr. Draper is not a Republican but a Libertarian.
And really, if California were to be split in an east/west way, it would guarantee that it would be a GOP electoral gain. Even a north/south split would be better for the GOP than six separate states.
Look at the map below.
I look at three states that will be Democrat and or Democrat-leaning. That would be North California, Silicon Valley and West California.
And three states that would be Republican and or Republican-leaning. Those states would be Jefferson, Central and South California.
In terms of presidential elections, it would probably be a wash regarding the electoral college. The same in terms of representation in the senate. And possibly each state House of Representatives would be more competitive.
Nothing in this life is a guarantee, but in this being some eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Republican plot, eh, not so much.
There would be some very wide economic disparities in each state.
The three coastal states of North California, West California and Silicon Valley would be pretty invested in technology.
Central and South California would be heavily invested in agriculture.
Jefferson would probably be the most economically depressed of the six states for a variety of reasons.
So if that is the case, and I am only generalizing based on the current economy in each of the proposed states, again what is the possible benefit?
Well for one thing each state would be able to exert greater control over issues that they find to be important for each state's citizens. Each state could determine tax policy and what kind of taxes they want. Each state would be able to determine their own policies towards education, law and order, prisons, whether they want to continue the policy of the ballot initiative or not.
In other words, each state determines it's fate on it's own terms. That is that does not violate the United States constitution.
One of the problems is that local control, cities and counties, seems to erode year after year. More and more matters that cities and counties should handle are being taken by the state.
An example are plastic bag bans.
As I noted in an earlier post, my hometown, Pasadena, passed a city ordinance that supermarkets could not continue to provide plastic shopping bags for customers. That customers could purchase a paper bag for 10c if they do not want to bring plastic, reusable bags. Besides it being crony capitalism at its worst, I think that it will not help in the matter of litter and the like. Now there is a push to take this ban state-wide. Thus no matter where you go to shop, no matter what city, better have those reusable plastic bags if the legislature has its way.
That is not the state's business. Let the local governments decide such issues.
That is sort of the point of why Mr. Draper believes its time to break up the state.
I think that this is worth discussion. I think that if the required signatures are made, this should go to the voters. We need to have a serious talk with each other. I fear that the reactions of the commenters on the KNBC 4 Facebook page is a bad sign. It is clear if you go to the link that many are the lowest of the low information voters.
I'm not sure that this has any more of a chance than the many other proposals to break up the once Golden State, but let's have a serious, adult, conversation about it. About the possibility of six Californias.
A Busy News Day
WOW!
Today there is lot in the news that I want to comment on.
The re-arrest of Meriam Ibrahim, the Sudanese Christian woman convicted of being a heretic for not becoming Islamic and was going to be thrashed and beheaded. Now it appears that they have the husband too. Something very suspicious about that.
There are some big primary elections today with implications for both the Democrat and Republican parties. Watch Mississippi for the Republican senate race. New York state for the result of the 13th congressional district primary between 22-term incumbent Charles Rangel and Hispanic state senator Adriano Espalliat. In Oklahoma is a tight race between congressman James Lankford and former speaker of the state house of representatives, T.W. Shannon. Mr. Shannon is very supported by the Tea Party but Mr. Lankford could get a lot of the religious conservatives' vote. To say the least, it will be an interesting election night.
An attempt to get a ballot innititive here in California to divide California not into two states but six states brings out the low-information voter en mass as I will prove here.
Lots to write about and I will give each one the individual attention they deserve.
Today there is lot in the news that I want to comment on.
The re-arrest of Meriam Ibrahim, the Sudanese Christian woman convicted of being a heretic for not becoming Islamic and was going to be thrashed and beheaded. Now it appears that they have the husband too. Something very suspicious about that.
There are some big primary elections today with implications for both the Democrat and Republican parties. Watch Mississippi for the Republican senate race. New York state for the result of the 13th congressional district primary between 22-term incumbent Charles Rangel and Hispanic state senator Adriano Espalliat. In Oklahoma is a tight race between congressman James Lankford and former speaker of the state house of representatives, T.W. Shannon. Mr. Shannon is very supported by the Tea Party but Mr. Lankford could get a lot of the religious conservatives' vote. To say the least, it will be an interesting election night.
An attempt to get a ballot innititive here in California to divide California not into two states but six states brings out the low-information voter en mass as I will prove here.
Lots to write about and I will give each one the individual attention they deserve.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Raul Labrador For Republican Majority Leader In The House
It appears that somebody in the Republican House of Representatives gets what happened this past Tuesday when the soon to be former House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, was handily defeated in his Virginia primary election.
Two days ago, on Wednesday, Mr. Cantor announced that he would step down as majority leader on July 31 but stay in the house until the session ends later this year.
And this past Thursday, House Majority Whip, Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) announced that he would seek the now open position and a vote was scheduled for next Thursday, June 19.
A slew of conservative candidates that considered running for the post began to drop like files.
Some of that list, per National Journal, included Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tx.), Jim Jordan (R-Oh.), Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Pete Sessions (R-Tx.) said no, not at this time. Maybe even one or more added that it wouldn't be prudent. And who really knows why they decided not to challenge Mr. McCarthy.
In comes second-term Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Id) to take the mantle to challenge Mr. McCarthy and by extension, Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-Oh.)
And good for Mr. Labrador for making the move.
Radio talker Hugh Hewitt makes a great point about what it would mean if Mr. Labrador were in fact elected by members of the GOP caucus. For one, a fresh face. For two, someone that speaks Spanish and will not be afraid to show up in Spanish-language media. While Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) is the leading Republican Hispanic, there is always room for more. I have watched and listened to Mr. Labrador and he is very articulate and a solid conservative. And yes, he has done a much better job explaining his view on immigration reform and its simple. No strong, verifiable border security, no go on everything else. In other words, Mr. Labrador follows the KISS rule. Keep It Simple Stupid.
Sometimes situations like this come once in a Blue Moon. A chance to do something bold, new and yes, different.
That is why I think Mr. Labrador is putting all Republican house members on notice. That they need to get a clue. That the buddy-buddy days yucking it up with the Wall Street and K Street crowd has to come to an end. That the Republican party needs to return to a party of not willy nilly making the federal government larger (but allegedly conservative). The fact is that while the GOP had the whole shooting match in Washington for much of the George W. Bush presidency, federal government spending (outside of defense spending) rose dramatically. The infamous No Child Left Behind only strengthened the federal government stranglehold on education. Now it is being furthered by the Common Core program.
Now, the GOP have paid in many ways a righteous price for this so-called "Compassionate conservatism".
A base that believes, as I do, conservatism is compassion. That it does not take more government spending to affect change in such things as the rise in homelessness, poverty and the stagnation of wages among the middle class. It does take a shift in priorities. And that is why a crack in those that are beneficiaries of the largess of Washington, be it Democrat constituencies or Republican ones, needs to occur.
That is one of the reasons I support Mr. Labrador's run for the House Majority Leader.
Because he will be one to begin to break the House leadership that is almost all Blue and or Purple state representatives.
To breakdown the current Republican House leadership and where they are from, here it is.
Speaker of the House John Boehner (Ohio-Purple state)
Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Virginia-Purple state)
Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (California-Blue state)
Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rogers (Washington-Blue state)
Two days ago, on Wednesday, Mr. Cantor announced that he would step down as majority leader on July 31 but stay in the house until the session ends later this year.
And this past Thursday, House Majority Whip, Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) announced that he would seek the now open position and a vote was scheduled for next Thursday, June 19.
A slew of conservative candidates that considered running for the post began to drop like files.
Some of that list, per National Journal, included Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tx.), Jim Jordan (R-Oh.), Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Pete Sessions (R-Tx.) said no, not at this time. Maybe even one or more added that it wouldn't be prudent. And who really knows why they decided not to challenge Mr. McCarthy.
In comes second-term Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Id) to take the mantle to challenge Mr. McCarthy and by extension, Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-Oh.)
And good for Mr. Labrador for making the move.
Radio talker Hugh Hewitt makes a great point about what it would mean if Mr. Labrador were in fact elected by members of the GOP caucus. For one, a fresh face. For two, someone that speaks Spanish and will not be afraid to show up in Spanish-language media. While Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) is the leading Republican Hispanic, there is always room for more. I have watched and listened to Mr. Labrador and he is very articulate and a solid conservative. And yes, he has done a much better job explaining his view on immigration reform and its simple. No strong, verifiable border security, no go on everything else. In other words, Mr. Labrador follows the KISS rule. Keep It Simple Stupid.
Sometimes situations like this come once in a Blue Moon. A chance to do something bold, new and yes, different.
That is why I think Mr. Labrador is putting all Republican house members on notice. That they need to get a clue. That the buddy-buddy days yucking it up with the Wall Street and K Street crowd has to come to an end. That the Republican party needs to return to a party of not willy nilly making the federal government larger (but allegedly conservative). The fact is that while the GOP had the whole shooting match in Washington for much of the George W. Bush presidency, federal government spending (outside of defense spending) rose dramatically. The infamous No Child Left Behind only strengthened the federal government stranglehold on education. Now it is being furthered by the Common Core program.
Now, the GOP have paid in many ways a righteous price for this so-called "Compassionate conservatism".
A base that believes, as I do, conservatism is compassion. That it does not take more government spending to affect change in such things as the rise in homelessness, poverty and the stagnation of wages among the middle class. It does take a shift in priorities. And that is why a crack in those that are beneficiaries of the largess of Washington, be it Democrat constituencies or Republican ones, needs to occur.
That is one of the reasons I support Mr. Labrador's run for the House Majority Leader.
Because he will be one to begin to break the House leadership that is almost all Blue and or Purple state representatives.
To breakdown the current Republican House leadership and where they are from, here it is.
Speaker of the House John Boehner (Ohio-Purple state)
Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Virginia-Purple state)
Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (California-Blue state)
Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rogers (Washington-Blue state)
Republican Policy Committee Chair James Lankford (Oklahoma-Red state)
See, of the five Republicans in leadership, of the top four, two are from Purple, at best, states and two are from very Blue states. You have to go down to the fifth position, GOP policy chair to get to a Red state representative.
No one from Texas. No one from Florida. No one from the Mountain West.
In other words, there is no one from the Republican base in high leadership.
In contrast, the Democrats do a better job as in their top four, only one is from a Red state and the rest are from Blue states.
Why does this make a difference?
Well, Mr. Labrador is from Idaho, probably the second most Republican state in the nation after Utah. He has served in the state legislature and his best accomplishment was fighting against raising the state gasoline tax. Already he has anti-tax bonifides.
Well, Mr. Labrador is from Idaho, probably the second most Republican state in the nation after Utah. He has served in the state legislature and his best accomplishment was fighting against raising the state gasoline tax. Already he has anti-tax bonifides.
In 2010, he defeated a military veteran, Vaughn Ward, in the GOP primary for the First District. And the seat was held by Democrat Walt Minnick at the time. Not easy for a Democrat to win anything in Idaho let alone a congressional seat. After Mr. Labrador dispatched Mr. Ward, he went on to ride the Tea Party wave and defeated Mr. Minnick by 10 points, 51%-41%. In his second run for the seat, Mr. Labrador defeated Democrat Jimmy Farris handily, 63%-31%.
Although only in his second term there is potential baggage for Mr. Labrador that no doubt the GOP congressional establishment types will point out.
Yes, Mr. Labrador was a part of the so-called Gang of Eight seeking to enact so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. Like Florida senator Marco Rubio, Mr. Labrador dropped out when he realized that any border security was an afterthought and not any real priority of the "reform".
And yes, Mr. Labrador did vote for the controversial 2014 Farm Bill. That legislation for some hard-liners is almost right up there with support for "comprehensive" immigration reform with no conditions. It was a bad bill that was going to pass no matter what and Mr. Labrador's vote turned out to be inconsequential.
Sometimes, one has to pick and choose the battles to fight wisely.
And that is Mr. Labrador has done.
FTR, Mr. Labrador has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 97%, which is more conservative than his Idaho GOP congressional ally, Mike Simpson who has a 92% rating. And in the Heritage Action score card, Mr. Labrador scores strong there as well with a 77% rating. Again, his fellow state colleague, Mr. Simpson, had an abysmal 46% rating. Whats more, Mr. Labrador is in a less Republican district than Mr. Simpson.
Most important as I have noted, Mr. Labrador is not in congress long enough to be corrupted by the business as usual in congress that infects both parties. And at 46, he is actually part of the next generation of Republicans.
I want to be clear that I have no animus against Mr. McCarthy. As a fellow Californian, yes a part of me does want to see him move up the ladder of leadership. And from all that I have heard or read about Mr. McCarthy, he is a good guy that has really built relationships with fellow House Republicans.
But now is not the time for a safe choice in a leadership vacuum.
It is time for something bold and different. Let's face it, Mr. Boehner will leave leadership at some point. Mr. McCarthy would still be of great value as the Republican Whip. Mr. Labdrador will bring a more aggressive approach to be sure but not reckless. Again, he knows how to pick and choose the battles worth dying on a hill for.
It is with all of the above that this blogger joins all those who celebrate the challenge of Raul Labrador for GOP Majority Leader in the House. I urge people to let Republican members of congress know you want them to vote for Mr. Labdrador and not Mr. McCarthy. If you want to contact Republican congressmen to voice your thoughts, the Capitol switchboard phone number is 202-224-3121. You can also at the link put in your zip code for contact information. If you are represented by a Democrat, try to figure the closest Republican and give them a call direct.
Please note that the GOP establishment is already anointing Mr. McCarthy as the new majority leader. Note that this kind of arrogance is part of the reason Mr. Cantor will not be a part of the 114th congress.
Join me in supporting Raul Labrador for GOP House Majority Leader.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
J. P. Blecksmith Did Not Die To See Iraq End Up Like This
J. P. Blecksmith was the first United States officer killed in the Battle of Fallujah, Iraq in 2004 and his family were members of my church, the Church Of Our Saviour, in San Gabriel, California.
Mr. Blecksmith was a son of the parish and was a marine corp 2nd lieutenant who came from an upper-middle class and long list of warriors family in San Marino, California. Mr. Blecksmith was a volunteer in the marine corps. No, he was not some poor, underprivileged kid from the wrong side of the tracks that joined the armed forces because he had no future, to paraphrase then Democrat presidential candidate and current secretary of state, John Kerry. He was in the marine corps and was doing his duty in Operation Enduring Freedom in liberating Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein.
One does not know how he felt about all of the politics surrounding the whole Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacist Terror. He was a soldier. He did his job and his duty. And as all warriors fear, he gave his life for the cause.
And today we read and see that all Mr. Blecksmith and the thousands of brave soldiers, seamen, air force fighters, and marines is falling apart at breakneck speed.
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (Syria) has rearmed and with breakneck speed and has captured huge swaths of Iraqi territory and the major cities of Mosul and Tikrit, the hometown of the dictator, Hussein. And they have effective control of the cities of Rahmadi and yes, Fallujah. And they are setting their sights on Baghdad.
The worst part is that the ISIS has gained all of this land while also being protagonists in the Syria civil war. This timeline explains how this group was defeated and ended up now on the march. It appears that the turning point was in July, 2013 when they were able to seize the infamous Abu Gharib prison and break out 500 fellow militants. That ISIS was able to infiltrate the supposedly toughest of Iraqi prisons inside Baghdad should have been a bad sign.
Now in territory controlled by ISIS, they are imposing the ever so judicious Sharia law in such a way that I am certain the Taliban is taking notes for when they regain power in Afghanistan. As the black flag of radical Islam is planted, such wonderful things as forcing all Islamics to go to the mosque and pray five times a day. Whether they want to or not. Of course no alcohol, no smoking and no drugs. Well, one of the three may not be a bad idea. But not in the radical Islamic way. And no public gatherings that are not approved by the ISIS forces. And in its weird interpretation of Islam, they will destroy all shrines, graveyards and monuments. Remember, that is what the former Taliban rulers of Afghanistan did to Buddhist shrines by blowing them up before the 9/11 terror attacks. Of course, the ladies are going to be protected by being forced to dress "modestly", re: burkas or similar restrictive clothing.
One other aspect of all of this is that the ISIS are Sunni Islamics while the government and armed forces are primarily Shia Islamic. And we now read and see that Iran is going to get involved by supporting the corrupt government of al-Maliki going so far as threatening military involvement.
The fundamental reason that this is happening is because it is the fault of the United States and directly the fault of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Because it has been all about politics.
Remember during the 2008 presidential campaign, then Sen. Messiah Barack keptlying telling potential voters that the Iraq theatre was not one that was necessary in the WAIT. Afghanistan, that was the theatre we should have been in all the way and Iraq should have been left alone. It was kind of cute by a half for he sounded like a hawk in Afghanistan and a dove to his left-wing Democrat base on Iraq. But because the 2008 election was really not about Iraq or the overall WAIT, it sounded pretty good to a war-weary public. The United States would draw down in Iraq and leave a token force and concentrate on vanquishing the enemies in Afghanistan.
Well, negotiations broke down over how many and what the role would be of the token American forces that would remain in Iraq beyond 2011. The breakdown that led to total American military withdrawal was how American forces would or would not be granted immunity from the Iraqi government and be subject to it's laws.
Had we extended negotiations on that, we could have had a force of anywhere from 30,000 to 70,000. The 30,000 would be more than enough to continue to be a presence and train the officer corp and the regular forces.
But for Team Obama, they would rather not have any extended negotiations for if that happened and a deal could have been worked out, there would still be a strong American military presence today.
Basically it would be forces like the forces that we had in West Germany after World War II. Oh, and we still do, even though there is no threat of a Nazi resurgence that was feared in the days after the formal end of hostilities. Or the decades-long threat of communist East Germany and their patrons, the former Soviet Union that is no more.
If there was any military presence in Iraq, Team Obama would have broken a major 2008 campaign foreign policy promise. For they did not close down the Guantanamo prison where many of the worst of the worst terrorists have been and are still being held. They had to get totally out of Iraq. And thus in November, 2011, the last troops came home. And of course Team Obama used it as fulfilling a promise to be out of Iraq. Team Obama rode that to reelection.
Remember, it took years for the United States and its World War II allies to train a purely defense force in West Germany, Italy and Japan but forces did not place any false timeline for it to happen and pull armed forces out of these three nations. Again, United States forces are in all three nations. Yes, the numbers are reduced dramatically, but they are still there.
But Iraq, well when the public, fed by the Democrat party left-wing propaganda, tired of the seemingly endless military action essentially gave up. the Dear Leader, President Obama and his allies wanted to end all military action in the WAIT. They wanted to return to the pre 9/11 mindset that all this terrorism is but a legal issue and all terrorists would be prosecuted in American courts and afforded the same rights and privileges as American citizens. If convicted, they would be jailed in American prisons. Team Obama would address, as they saw it, the root causes of such terror and terrorist groups.
But, as noted, Team Obama ended up keeping Guantanamo open. Yes, they made a grave mistake in trading five former Afghan Taliban for one American soldier, and it is probably using this to empty Guantanamo any way they can. And they did not try the chief architect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, in a civilian court in New York City as the attorney general, Eric Holder, wanted to. He was tried in a military court.
So in a sense, reality smacked the collective faces of Team Obama.
But in Iraq, that did not happen. And yes, the United States is reaping what it sowed.
And yup, forces of genuine evil are on the march to Baghdad and a goal of radical Islam may come true.
The rebirth of the medieval caliphate.
And it is unfolding right before our collective eyes.
For the most part, thanks to Team Obama and wanting us to ignore the Mideast and the descent to radical Islamic chaos, we in the United States don't seem to care. I mean, if it gets in the way of the latest fauxtrage of the week, we can't be bothered.
Peace at any price is a false peace for eventually those who sue for peace end up having to fight war with enemies that do not value peace.
I don't believe that J. P. Blecksmith or any of the 4,485 other American troops that died in Iraq in Operation Enduring Freedom did so to see what is happening today. The total disintegration of Iraq into a caliphate state.
Mr. Blecksmith was a son of the parish and was a marine corp 2nd lieutenant who came from an upper-middle class and long list of warriors family in San Marino, California. Mr. Blecksmith was a volunteer in the marine corps. No, he was not some poor, underprivileged kid from the wrong side of the tracks that joined the armed forces because he had no future, to paraphrase then Democrat presidential candidate and current secretary of state, John Kerry. He was in the marine corps and was doing his duty in Operation Enduring Freedom in liberating Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein.
One does not know how he felt about all of the politics surrounding the whole Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacist Terror. He was a soldier. He did his job and his duty. And as all warriors fear, he gave his life for the cause.
And today we read and see that all Mr. Blecksmith and the thousands of brave soldiers, seamen, air force fighters, and marines is falling apart at breakneck speed.
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (Syria) has rearmed and with breakneck speed and has captured huge swaths of Iraqi territory and the major cities of Mosul and Tikrit, the hometown of the dictator, Hussein. And they have effective control of the cities of Rahmadi and yes, Fallujah. And they are setting their sights on Baghdad.
The worst part is that the ISIS has gained all of this land while also being protagonists in the Syria civil war. This timeline explains how this group was defeated and ended up now on the march. It appears that the turning point was in July, 2013 when they were able to seize the infamous Abu Gharib prison and break out 500 fellow militants. That ISIS was able to infiltrate the supposedly toughest of Iraqi prisons inside Baghdad should have been a bad sign.
Now in territory controlled by ISIS, they are imposing the ever so judicious Sharia law in such a way that I am certain the Taliban is taking notes for when they regain power in Afghanistan. As the black flag of radical Islam is planted, such wonderful things as forcing all Islamics to go to the mosque and pray five times a day. Whether they want to or not. Of course no alcohol, no smoking and no drugs. Well, one of the three may not be a bad idea. But not in the radical Islamic way. And no public gatherings that are not approved by the ISIS forces. And in its weird interpretation of Islam, they will destroy all shrines, graveyards and monuments. Remember, that is what the former Taliban rulers of Afghanistan did to Buddhist shrines by blowing them up before the 9/11 terror attacks. Of course, the ladies are going to be protected by being forced to dress "modestly", re: burkas or similar restrictive clothing.
One other aspect of all of this is that the ISIS are Sunni Islamics while the government and armed forces are primarily Shia Islamic. And we now read and see that Iran is going to get involved by supporting the corrupt government of al-Maliki going so far as threatening military involvement.
The fundamental reason that this is happening is because it is the fault of the United States and directly the fault of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Because it has been all about politics.
Remember during the 2008 presidential campaign, then Sen. Messiah Barack kept
Well, negotiations broke down over how many and what the role would be of the token American forces that would remain in Iraq beyond 2011. The breakdown that led to total American military withdrawal was how American forces would or would not be granted immunity from the Iraqi government and be subject to it's laws.
Had we extended negotiations on that, we could have had a force of anywhere from 30,000 to 70,000. The 30,000 would be more than enough to continue to be a presence and train the officer corp and the regular forces.
But for Team Obama, they would rather not have any extended negotiations for if that happened and a deal could have been worked out, there would still be a strong American military presence today.
Basically it would be forces like the forces that we had in West Germany after World War II. Oh, and we still do, even though there is no threat of a Nazi resurgence that was feared in the days after the formal end of hostilities. Or the decades-long threat of communist East Germany and their patrons, the former Soviet Union that is no more.
If there was any military presence in Iraq, Team Obama would have broken a major 2008 campaign foreign policy promise. For they did not close down the Guantanamo prison where many of the worst of the worst terrorists have been and are still being held. They had to get totally out of Iraq. And thus in November, 2011, the last troops came home. And of course Team Obama used it as fulfilling a promise to be out of Iraq. Team Obama rode that to reelection.
Remember, it took years for the United States and its World War II allies to train a purely defense force in West Germany, Italy and Japan but forces did not place any false timeline for it to happen and pull armed forces out of these three nations. Again, United States forces are in all three nations. Yes, the numbers are reduced dramatically, but they are still there.
But Iraq, well when the public, fed by the Democrat party left-wing propaganda, tired of the seemingly endless military action essentially gave up. the Dear Leader, President Obama and his allies wanted to end all military action in the WAIT. They wanted to return to the pre 9/11 mindset that all this terrorism is but a legal issue and all terrorists would be prosecuted in American courts and afforded the same rights and privileges as American citizens. If convicted, they would be jailed in American prisons. Team Obama would address, as they saw it, the root causes of such terror and terrorist groups.
But, as noted, Team Obama ended up keeping Guantanamo open. Yes, they made a grave mistake in trading five former Afghan Taliban for one American soldier, and it is probably using this to empty Guantanamo any way they can. And they did not try the chief architect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, in a civilian court in New York City as the attorney general, Eric Holder, wanted to. He was tried in a military court.
So in a sense, reality smacked the collective faces of Team Obama.
But in Iraq, that did not happen. And yes, the United States is reaping what it sowed.
And yup, forces of genuine evil are on the march to Baghdad and a goal of radical Islam may come true.
The rebirth of the medieval caliphate.
And it is unfolding right before our collective eyes.
For the most part, thanks to Team Obama and wanting us to ignore the Mideast and the descent to radical Islamic chaos, we in the United States don't seem to care. I mean, if it gets in the way of the latest fauxtrage of the week, we can't be bothered.
Peace at any price is a false peace for eventually those who sue for peace end up having to fight war with enemies that do not value peace.
I don't believe that J. P. Blecksmith or any of the 4,485 other American troops that died in Iraq in Operation Enduring Freedom did so to see what is happening today. The total disintegration of Iraq into a caliphate state.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Cali GOP May Be Making A Comeback
Yeah, I know, you think that I am just having one of those California Dreamin' moments when I write that the Republican party in this once Golden State maybe making a small comeback.
But I am very serious.
One of the reasons is while the state-wide turnout in last Tuesday's primary was only a rip-roaring 18%, the reality is that there was no contentious race for the Democrats for governor. That kept Democrat turnout way down. There was a pretty contentious Republican race for governor between state assemblyman Tim Donnelly and businessman Neel Kashkari and that may have driven more Republicans to the polls.
John Phillips in the Orange County Register makes an interesting point about the Republican race and why Mr. Donnelly did not win the race for second place on the all-party ballot and the majority of Republican votes.
If your barely win your home county, and your opponent swamps you in his home county, makes it really hard to win the race.
That is what happened to Mr. Donnelly. He basically tied the votes at 24% a piece. But Mr. Donnelly won the majority of Republican votes in San Bernardino county, his base.
On the other hand, the little-known Mr. Kashkari pounced Mr. Donnelly in his home county, Orange county by 10 points.
That is a bad omen for Mr. Donnelly. And it proved in the end his undoing.
A lot of people think that Mr. Kashkari is but a respectable loser to the current occupant of the governor's office, Democrat Jerry Brown. We shall see on that.
But here is why I think the state party has a chance to make a comeback.
There are a couple of statewide races that are worth watching to see if the GOP can win one or more of the constitutional offices up for grabs this November.
In the race for secretary of state, Democrat Alex Padilla and Republican Pete Petersen ran an essential tie. In fact, as of this writing, only 9,776 votes separate the top two. Both will go on to the November general election.
There is a serious race for state controller and GOP candidate Ashley Swearingen, the mayor of Fresno, is assured to have won the primary. The race is for second place for the November ballot.
Right now, Democrat John Perez is in second place only 1,128 votes ahead of fellow Democrat Betty Lee. Lurking in fourth place is Republican David Evans only 16,577 behind Mr. Perez. And there is still some vote counting to do. If by some chance Mr. Evans can get into second place, it assures the Republicans one constitutional office. But the closeness of the two Democrats could leave a bad taste in the one that eventually is in third place.
One other race that I do think is worth watching is the race for Lt. governor.
The incumbent is Democrat Gavin Newsom. He is the former mayor of San Francisco and has spent most of his time in office mocking the very office he is in.
The Republican second-place finisher is former state chair Ron Nehring.
But as of this writing, Mr. Newsom is below 50% of the total vote. It is marginal at 49.8%, but still it shows that he may be vulnerable and if Mr. Nehring can make a good case that Mr. Newson does not even care about being Lt. governor and is just buying time to run for governor in 2018, I do believe that he has a shot.
Some key congressional races to watch starts with the 52nd district in which is probably a swing district. The current congressman, Democrat Scott Peters, won in the 2012 Obama election year. This year he did win the top spot in the open primary. But he did not clear 50%. He has barely cleared 42%. The second place finisher is one of the more interesting choices and that is Republican Carl DeMaio. Mr. DeMaio's current claim to fame is that he is the candidate that lost the 2012 San Diego mayor election to Democrat disgrace, Filthy Bob Filner. But Mr. DeMaio's strong showing in coming in second with 35% of the vote will make this a race to watch. And it could make history for if Mr. DeMaio wins, he will be the first openly gay Republican elected to the House.
In the 25th district, it will be an all GOP affair as former state assemblyman Tony Strickland will take on current state senator Steve Knight. Call this a safe GOP seat.
An outlier could be the 33rd district which is the seat of long-time lefty windbag Henry The Mole Waxman. The Democrat field was so divided that a Republican finished first overall. GOP candidate Elan Carr will take on Democrat Ted Lieu. I think that this is an outlier, but if Democrat also-rans are still bitter, it could help Mr. Carr.
A better chance for Republicans is the 24th district, current Democrat Lois Capp's home district. It appears that, again as of this writing, Republican Chris Mitchum will try to unseat Mrs. Capps. Turnout was actually strong for both parties here and it could be a close enough race that Republicans may pull off an upset.
The Republicans will not come anywhere close to winning the state senate or assembly, but they do not have to.
All they need to do is win enough seats to kill the Democrats super-majority in both houses. And with three Democrat state senators on leave due to serious legal issues, it is very likely that it will happen.
It may not seem like much but the reality is the party has been on the mat especially in the last two presidential elections. Neither John McCain or Mitt Romney could get 38% of the statewide vote. And if you want to count the 2010 election, Meg Whitman ran for governor and racked up 41% of the vote. Carly Fiorina ran for senate and got 42% of the vote.
If Mr. Kashkari can at least get a little bit closer that Mrs. Whitman, maybe even getting 45% of the vote, that is progress. If one of the three other Republicans can win the races I highlighted, that will be a huge shot in the arm and begin a bench for the state GOP. If the Republicans can get some of the congressional seats back lost in 2012, that will be a sign of comeback. If the Republicans can win enough state assembly and state senate seats and deny the Democrats a super-majority, that will be a huge sign that the party is going to be back and relevant in Sacramento.
These are great possibilities and one can only hope the California Republican party can make some headway in the Democrat stranglehold. For a one-party state is not good for California or any other state in the Republic.
But I am very serious.
One of the reasons is while the state-wide turnout in last Tuesday's primary was only a rip-roaring 18%, the reality is that there was no contentious race for the Democrats for governor. That kept Democrat turnout way down. There was a pretty contentious Republican race for governor between state assemblyman Tim Donnelly and businessman Neel Kashkari and that may have driven more Republicans to the polls.
John Phillips in the Orange County Register makes an interesting point about the Republican race and why Mr. Donnelly did not win the race for second place on the all-party ballot and the majority of Republican votes.
If your barely win your home county, and your opponent swamps you in his home county, makes it really hard to win the race.
That is what happened to Mr. Donnelly. He basically tied the votes at 24% a piece. But Mr. Donnelly won the majority of Republican votes in San Bernardino county, his base.
On the other hand, the little-known Mr. Kashkari pounced Mr. Donnelly in his home county, Orange county by 10 points.
That is a bad omen for Mr. Donnelly. And it proved in the end his undoing.
A lot of people think that Mr. Kashkari is but a respectable loser to the current occupant of the governor's office, Democrat Jerry Brown. We shall see on that.
But here is why I think the state party has a chance to make a comeback.
There are a couple of statewide races that are worth watching to see if the GOP can win one or more of the constitutional offices up for grabs this November.
In the race for secretary of state, Democrat Alex Padilla and Republican Pete Petersen ran an essential tie. In fact, as of this writing, only 9,776 votes separate the top two. Both will go on to the November general election.
There is a serious race for state controller and GOP candidate Ashley Swearingen, the mayor of Fresno, is assured to have won the primary. The race is for second place for the November ballot.
Right now, Democrat John Perez is in second place only 1,128 votes ahead of fellow Democrat Betty Lee. Lurking in fourth place is Republican David Evans only 16,577 behind Mr. Perez. And there is still some vote counting to do. If by some chance Mr. Evans can get into second place, it assures the Republicans one constitutional office. But the closeness of the two Democrats could leave a bad taste in the one that eventually is in third place.
One other race that I do think is worth watching is the race for Lt. governor.
The incumbent is Democrat Gavin Newsom. He is the former mayor of San Francisco and has spent most of his time in office mocking the very office he is in.
The Republican second-place finisher is former state chair Ron Nehring.
But as of this writing, Mr. Newsom is below 50% of the total vote. It is marginal at 49.8%, but still it shows that he may be vulnerable and if Mr. Nehring can make a good case that Mr. Newson does not even care about being Lt. governor and is just buying time to run for governor in 2018, I do believe that he has a shot.
Some key congressional races to watch starts with the 52nd district in which is probably a swing district. The current congressman, Democrat Scott Peters, won in the 2012 Obama election year. This year he did win the top spot in the open primary. But he did not clear 50%. He has barely cleared 42%. The second place finisher is one of the more interesting choices and that is Republican Carl DeMaio. Mr. DeMaio's current claim to fame is that he is the candidate that lost the 2012 San Diego mayor election to Democrat disgrace, Filthy Bob Filner. But Mr. DeMaio's strong showing in coming in second with 35% of the vote will make this a race to watch. And it could make history for if Mr. DeMaio wins, he will be the first openly gay Republican elected to the House.
In the 25th district, it will be an all GOP affair as former state assemblyman Tony Strickland will take on current state senator Steve Knight. Call this a safe GOP seat.
An outlier could be the 33rd district which is the seat of long-time lefty windbag Henry The Mole Waxman. The Democrat field was so divided that a Republican finished first overall. GOP candidate Elan Carr will take on Democrat Ted Lieu. I think that this is an outlier, but if Democrat also-rans are still bitter, it could help Mr. Carr.
A better chance for Republicans is the 24th district, current Democrat Lois Capp's home district. It appears that, again as of this writing, Republican Chris Mitchum will try to unseat Mrs. Capps. Turnout was actually strong for both parties here and it could be a close enough race that Republicans may pull off an upset.
The Republicans will not come anywhere close to winning the state senate or assembly, but they do not have to.
All they need to do is win enough seats to kill the Democrats super-majority in both houses. And with three Democrat state senators on leave due to serious legal issues, it is very likely that it will happen.
It may not seem like much but the reality is the party has been on the mat especially in the last two presidential elections. Neither John McCain or Mitt Romney could get 38% of the statewide vote. And if you want to count the 2010 election, Meg Whitman ran for governor and racked up 41% of the vote. Carly Fiorina ran for senate and got 42% of the vote.
If Mr. Kashkari can at least get a little bit closer that Mrs. Whitman, maybe even getting 45% of the vote, that is progress. If one of the three other Republicans can win the races I highlighted, that will be a huge shot in the arm and begin a bench for the state GOP. If the Republicans can get some of the congressional seats back lost in 2012, that will be a sign of comeback. If the Republicans can win enough state assembly and state senate seats and deny the Democrats a super-majority, that will be a huge sign that the party is going to be back and relevant in Sacramento.
These are great possibilities and one can only hope the California Republican party can make some headway in the Democrat stranglehold. For a one-party state is not good for California or any other state in the Republic.
ERIC CANTOR, YOU'RE OUTTA HERE!
This is historically huge news about the House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-Va.) so much so that it gets double flaming skulls over at the Ace Of Spades and Allahpundit trying to hold back the glee.
The history is that no House majority leader has evah, I mean evah, been defeated in a primary since the position became official in 1899.
The dislike for Mr. Cantor in his home district, the Virginia 7th, became apparent as he was literally crushed by political neophyte Dave Brat, a college economics professor by the margin of 56% to 44%.
What's worse is that Mr. Cantor had a $2,500,000 war chest compared to a little over $200,000 for Mr. Brat.
Money did not buy Mr. Cantor job security.
What I believe happened to Mr. Cantor is that he became the Republican House leadership fall guy in their still inexplicable quest to ram through so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. More than anyone else in either the House or the Senate in recent weeks and months, Mr. Cantor was the face of it. The face of trying desperately to cut some kind of deal with Democrats and the Dear Leader, President Obama. So much so that Mr. Cantor seemed to forget that he had a primary to win.
Now, Mr. Cantor has paid the ultimate price by losing his own congressional seat and any power to see any immigration reform through the legislative process.
On the other hand, Mr. Brat gained the support of two of the strongest conservative talk radio personalities, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, who are also both in Virginia. With that and a hearty band of volunteers, Mr. Brat smacked down Mr. Cantor as a part of the GOP establishment. As someone seeking not just so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform, but the dirtiest of words-amnesty. On those two issues, and with some Democrat help in an open primary, Mr. Brat will assuredly be going to Washington for the Virginia 7th congressional district is solidly Republican.
And if one thinks that this does loss for Mr. Cantor does not run deep, look at these city/county election results. Mr. Cantor won the city of Richmond and three counties. Mr. Brat took six counties.
Again, this is a historic and deep rebuke of Mr. Cantor and a real message to the Republican leadership in Washington.
Mr. Cantor was in fact considered a friend of the Tea Party in Republican congressional leadership but since the 2012 election, made a strong move to the center and leadership aligning himself much more with the current House speaker, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio). And as I noted above, made himself the fall guy for the immigration debate and, well, this is the thanks that he has received.
The dream of becoming the first Jewish, Republican Speaker of the House is now dead. His leadership will probably come to an unceremonious end before he even leaves congress. The question is who will replace him.
There is the House majority whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (D-Bakersfield, Ca.), but I doubt that will happen. There is Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tx), a favorite of the Tea Party and more conservative forces in the GOP. Already talk is a compromise candidate, the former 2012 GOP vice-presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
If there is a leadership change, I think that it will be Mr. Hensarling for I do not think Speaker Boehner wants to have an open revolt if he tries to get Mr. McCarthy or Mr. Ryan as majority leader. Mr. McCarthy is seen by many as part of the tone-deaf leadership problem and Mr. Ryan is seen as too much of a waffle on so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform.
An aside.
If anyone wants to read this, unless there is first a provision for serious, tight border security and some deportations, not a total round 'em up and ship 'em home type, but some deportations, do not expect any more Republicans to be willing to face the fate of Mr. Cantor for they will, like it or not.
The lesson is clear. Unless one wants to risk it all on forging a plan that has no discernible support as a major issue, there will not be any major legislation this year. It will be next year and Republicans will be more than likely in control of congress and if they play it smart, a huge if, they will get more of what they want then than they will now. It will be a test for the Democrats as well if they are indeed serious about any kind of immigration reform.
Tonight, a political neophyte took on the biggest of the Republican cheese and did not just nibble at the cheese. Dave Brat ate the whole piece of cheese that was the political career of Eric Cantor.
The history is that no House majority leader has evah, I mean evah, been defeated in a primary since the position became official in 1899.
The dislike for Mr. Cantor in his home district, the Virginia 7th, became apparent as he was literally crushed by political neophyte Dave Brat, a college economics professor by the margin of 56% to 44%.
What's worse is that Mr. Cantor had a $2,500,000 war chest compared to a little over $200,000 for Mr. Brat.
Money did not buy Mr. Cantor job security.
What I believe happened to Mr. Cantor is that he became the Republican House leadership fall guy in their still inexplicable quest to ram through so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. More than anyone else in either the House or the Senate in recent weeks and months, Mr. Cantor was the face of it. The face of trying desperately to cut some kind of deal with Democrats and the Dear Leader, President Obama. So much so that Mr. Cantor seemed to forget that he had a primary to win.
Now, Mr. Cantor has paid the ultimate price by losing his own congressional seat and any power to see any immigration reform through the legislative process.
On the other hand, Mr. Brat gained the support of two of the strongest conservative talk radio personalities, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, who are also both in Virginia. With that and a hearty band of volunteers, Mr. Brat smacked down Mr. Cantor as a part of the GOP establishment. As someone seeking not just so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform, but the dirtiest of words-amnesty. On those two issues, and with some Democrat help in an open primary, Mr. Brat will assuredly be going to Washington for the Virginia 7th congressional district is solidly Republican.
And if one thinks that this does loss for Mr. Cantor does not run deep, look at these city/county election results. Mr. Cantor won the city of Richmond and three counties. Mr. Brat took six counties.
Again, this is a historic and deep rebuke of Mr. Cantor and a real message to the Republican leadership in Washington.
Mr. Cantor was in fact considered a friend of the Tea Party in Republican congressional leadership but since the 2012 election, made a strong move to the center and leadership aligning himself much more with the current House speaker, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio). And as I noted above, made himself the fall guy for the immigration debate and, well, this is the thanks that he has received.
The dream of becoming the first Jewish, Republican Speaker of the House is now dead. His leadership will probably come to an unceremonious end before he even leaves congress. The question is who will replace him.
There is the House majority whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (D-Bakersfield, Ca.), but I doubt that will happen. There is Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tx), a favorite of the Tea Party and more conservative forces in the GOP. Already talk is a compromise candidate, the former 2012 GOP vice-presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
If there is a leadership change, I think that it will be Mr. Hensarling for I do not think Speaker Boehner wants to have an open revolt if he tries to get Mr. McCarthy or Mr. Ryan as majority leader. Mr. McCarthy is seen by many as part of the tone-deaf leadership problem and Mr. Ryan is seen as too much of a waffle on so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform.
An aside.
If anyone wants to read this, unless there is first a provision for serious, tight border security and some deportations, not a total round 'em up and ship 'em home type, but some deportations, do not expect any more Republicans to be willing to face the fate of Mr. Cantor for they will, like it or not.
The lesson is clear. Unless one wants to risk it all on forging a plan that has no discernible support as a major issue, there will not be any major legislation this year. It will be next year and Republicans will be more than likely in control of congress and if they play it smart, a huge if, they will get more of what they want then than they will now. It will be a test for the Democrats as well if they are indeed serious about any kind of immigration reform.
Tonight, a political neophyte took on the biggest of the Republican cheese and did not just nibble at the cheese. Dave Brat ate the whole piece of cheese that was the political career of Eric Cantor.
Sunday, June 08, 2014
Yes, I Voted For Tim Donnelly For California Governor This Past Tuesday
Oh, I am now probably the only one to make this admission, but yes, I did vote for California assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Hesperia) for the Republican nomination for governor.
Mr. Donnelly was well on his way to being the Republican standard-bearer this November against the current governor, Democrat Jerry Brown.
And had Mr. Donnelly won the GOP nomination, he would have lost, and lost badly.
The reason that Mr. Donnelly is not the GOP standard-bearer is summed up in two words.
Neel Kashkari.
Mr. Kashkari is not a household name in California politics. And really, neither is Mr. Donnelly. But Mr. Kashkari came in late to be the moderate great hope in wresting the nomination from the clutches of the strong conservative Mr. Donnelly.
Before I explain why I voted for Mr. Donnelly over Mr. Kashkari, let me explain why I could not vote for Mr. Kashkari now.
Mr. Kashkari, IMO, biggest problem is that he essentially was one of the leading figures in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP.
Why is TARP so bad?
Because it is essentially a bailout of big banks that got in trouble for primarily signing off on many, many bad loans essentially to people to buy homes. People that, regrettably, should not have been encouraged to buy a home in the first place. Because of this, the federal government bailed out big banks and forced some to merge with others.
Ever heard of Washington Mutual savings bank?
That was my bank when the crap hit the fan back in 2008. WAMU, as it was better known, was knee-deep in the mortgage problem. To cut to the chase, WAMU filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the feds made a marriage of sorts by merging their assets with JP Morgan Chase bank. WAMU is no more and I am now a customer of Chase.
And to top off his helping craft the TARP scheme, Mr. Kashkari also supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, also known as EESA. That is essentially companion legislation to TARP.
Bottom line is this.
Mr. Kashkari believed that the federal government had to save the American banking industry.
I, and many conservative and Republicans did not. I should point out that even some Democrats were not supportive of the legislation.
Yet in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Kashkari said that he was a "free-market Republican."
Really?
A free-market Republican would never have done what Mr. Kashkari did to be the power behind the largest government bailout ever. A free-market Republican, note he did not say conservative, would have let the chips fall where they may. Yes, the economy would take a large hit. But new banks would have emerged from the damage that at a level they themselves created.
So, I find Mr. Kashkari would not have a problem using big government to obtain a certain outcome. Something that a conservative Republican would not.
Yes, Mr. Kashkari is very much a "libertarian" on the left's two favorite social issues.
Mr. Kashkari supports same-sex marriage and abortion.
And just to infuriate people like myself, Mr. Kashkari also so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Where have I heard this before? Where, oh where?
Ahh, that would be the former governor of the once Golden State, one "Republican" Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
My problems with Mr. Kashkari is that he is essentially another Gov. Benedict Arnold and would not be all that different from the current occupant of the governor's office, Gov. Brown.
So, why would I vote for Mr. Donnelly, a certain loser in November?
Some of it is that he is the devil I know.
Basically, Mr. Donnelly is a one-issue kind of legislator. And the issue that he is heavily involved in is illegal immigration.
Mr. Donnelly cut his teeth in the so-called Minuteman movement of the mid-2000s. They were citizen volunteer patrols along the United States-Mexico border. They were controversial because some members bordered on being outright racists. But most who were members and or supporters are not racists. They are concerned about the problem of illegal immigration and the then George W. Bush administration lack of control on the Southern border.
Regrettably, they have been right all the way along about the damage illegal immigration has done especially along the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Mr. Donnelly rode his credentials and took on an embattled Republican assemblyman, Anthony Adams, and defeated him in the last closed party primary in 2010 and won election to the assembly with 57% of the vote. Mr. Donnelly won reelection in 2012 as well.
On most issues, Mr. Donnelly is standard conservative. For lower taxes, less government regulation. Against same-sex marriage and abortion on demand and so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Part of why in the end I daubed the ink blot on Mr. Donnelly's name on the ballot is that I find him to be a fighter. somebody that does have a set of beliefs about government and it's proper role in society. Someone not afraid to take on Democrats as well as even some fellow Republicans.
Mr. Donnelly also showed how a shoe-string campaign can be done and almost successful.
Here is a big difference between the two men.
Mr. Donnelly announced that he was seeking the GOP nomination on January 22, 2013. Mr. Kashkari announced his intentions on January 21, 2014, almost a full year later. Mr. Donnelly was busy trying to get support from all over California and of course among Republican rank-and-file voters and the activists that any candidate needs to work for the eventual candidate. Mr. Donnelly used the internet to promote his candidacy and this internet ad gave a lot of publicity for his campaign:
OK, maybe citing Mrs. Donnelly as the sexist girl in California may have been over the top in the polite circles of politics, but the point is, Mr. Donnelly got a lot of free publicity.
Mr. Donnelly was racking up endorsements from many county GOP committees, including the Los Angeles county party.
But, in a telling sign, the California Republican party convention in March did not endorse either Mr. Donnelly or Mr. Kashkari. In the past election in 2012, the state GOP endorsed candidates in the first "open primary" since passage of an innitive in 2010 that ended closed party primaries.
Mr. Donnelly was doing very old-school retail politics the best he could on limited funds and not gaining a lot once Mr. Kashkari entered the race in January.
Mr. Kashkari, again IMHO, came in late because the establishment could not bear the thought of losing to Gov. Brown by 30 points. I mean, even the guru himself, Karl Rove, made the lamest "endorsement" of Mr. Kashkari with this awe-inspiring quote:
"If the Republicans have to pick someone to lose to Jerry Brown, they’d be stupid not to pick Kashkari."
To people like Mr. Rove and his ilk, we California Republicans should lose, but gracefully, to Gov. Brown.
And yes, almost all of Mr. Kashkari's endorsements were from the usual establishment types such as Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, et al. But, congressman Darrel Issa, a strong conservative, endorsed Mr. Kashkari late enough in the game that probably helped him and made some fence-sitting potential Donnelly voters to switch and vote for the moderate Mr. Kashkari.
In the end, Mr. Kashkari did win the California Republican gubernatorial nomination in the open primary by finishing with 20% of the vote over Mr. Donnelly's 15%. That is good enough for second place in the open primary and he earned the right to fight with Gov. Brown in November.
That does not sound like much but if you limit the vote both men had among those who voted for a Republican candidate, both have decent numbers.
As of this writing, 1,467,947 voted Republican in the open primary. In and of itself it is a good number as not many more voted Democrat in the open primary. Of that number, Mr. Kashkari got 48% of the vote and Mr. Donnelly got 37%. The remaining 15% was scattered among four other candidates including a convicted sex-offender. That is another post in and of itself.
While I will end up voting for Mr. Kashkari in November, there could be some hard feelings that he needs to heal before then especially among conservatives and Donnelly supporters.
Look, I would vote for either of my two dogs over Gov. Brown. While I may not be Mr. Kashkari's most important backer, he will be a marginal improvement over Gov. Brown.
But I was able to vote for Tim Donnelly in the primary this past Tuesday because I do believe that the conservative wing of the party deserves to be heard and I helped that cause.
Mr. Donnelly was well on his way to being the Republican standard-bearer this November against the current governor, Democrat Jerry Brown.
And had Mr. Donnelly won the GOP nomination, he would have lost, and lost badly.
The reason that Mr. Donnelly is not the GOP standard-bearer is summed up in two words.
Neel Kashkari.
Mr. Kashkari is not a household name in California politics. And really, neither is Mr. Donnelly. But Mr. Kashkari came in late to be the moderate great hope in wresting the nomination from the clutches of the strong conservative Mr. Donnelly.
Before I explain why I voted for Mr. Donnelly over Mr. Kashkari, let me explain why I could not vote for Mr. Kashkari now.
Mr. Kashkari, IMO, biggest problem is that he essentially was one of the leading figures in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP.
Why is TARP so bad?
Because it is essentially a bailout of big banks that got in trouble for primarily signing off on many, many bad loans essentially to people to buy homes. People that, regrettably, should not have been encouraged to buy a home in the first place. Because of this, the federal government bailed out big banks and forced some to merge with others.
Ever heard of Washington Mutual savings bank?
That was my bank when the crap hit the fan back in 2008. WAMU, as it was better known, was knee-deep in the mortgage problem. To cut to the chase, WAMU filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the feds made a marriage of sorts by merging their assets with JP Morgan Chase bank. WAMU is no more and I am now a customer of Chase.
And to top off his helping craft the TARP scheme, Mr. Kashkari also supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, also known as EESA. That is essentially companion legislation to TARP.
Bottom line is this.
Mr. Kashkari believed that the federal government had to save the American banking industry.
I, and many conservative and Republicans did not. I should point out that even some Democrats were not supportive of the legislation.
Yet in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Kashkari said that he was a "free-market Republican."
Really?
A free-market Republican would never have done what Mr. Kashkari did to be the power behind the largest government bailout ever. A free-market Republican, note he did not say conservative, would have let the chips fall where they may. Yes, the economy would take a large hit. But new banks would have emerged from the damage that at a level they themselves created.
So, I find Mr. Kashkari would not have a problem using big government to obtain a certain outcome. Something that a conservative Republican would not.
Yes, Mr. Kashkari is very much a "libertarian" on the left's two favorite social issues.
Mr. Kashkari supports same-sex marriage and abortion.
And just to infuriate people like myself, Mr. Kashkari also so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Where have I heard this before? Where, oh where?
Ahh, that would be the former governor of the once Golden State, one "Republican" Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
My problems with Mr. Kashkari is that he is essentially another Gov. Benedict Arnold and would not be all that different from the current occupant of the governor's office, Gov. Brown.
So, why would I vote for Mr. Donnelly, a certain loser in November?
Some of it is that he is the devil I know.
Basically, Mr. Donnelly is a one-issue kind of legislator. And the issue that he is heavily involved in is illegal immigration.
Mr. Donnelly cut his teeth in the so-called Minuteman movement of the mid-2000s. They were citizen volunteer patrols along the United States-Mexico border. They were controversial because some members bordered on being outright racists. But most who were members and or supporters are not racists. They are concerned about the problem of illegal immigration and the then George W. Bush administration lack of control on the Southern border.
Regrettably, they have been right all the way along about the damage illegal immigration has done especially along the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Mr. Donnelly rode his credentials and took on an embattled Republican assemblyman, Anthony Adams, and defeated him in the last closed party primary in 2010 and won election to the assembly with 57% of the vote. Mr. Donnelly won reelection in 2012 as well.
On most issues, Mr. Donnelly is standard conservative. For lower taxes, less government regulation. Against same-sex marriage and abortion on demand and so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Part of why in the end I daubed the ink blot on Mr. Donnelly's name on the ballot is that I find him to be a fighter. somebody that does have a set of beliefs about government and it's proper role in society. Someone not afraid to take on Democrats as well as even some fellow Republicans.
Mr. Donnelly also showed how a shoe-string campaign can be done and almost successful.
Here is a big difference between the two men.
Mr. Donnelly announced that he was seeking the GOP nomination on January 22, 2013. Mr. Kashkari announced his intentions on January 21, 2014, almost a full year later. Mr. Donnelly was busy trying to get support from all over California and of course among Republican rank-and-file voters and the activists that any candidate needs to work for the eventual candidate. Mr. Donnelly used the internet to promote his candidacy and this internet ad gave a lot of publicity for his campaign:
OK, maybe citing Mrs. Donnelly as the sexist girl in California may have been over the top in the polite circles of politics, but the point is, Mr. Donnelly got a lot of free publicity.
Mr. Donnelly was racking up endorsements from many county GOP committees, including the Los Angeles county party.
But, in a telling sign, the California Republican party convention in March did not endorse either Mr. Donnelly or Mr. Kashkari. In the past election in 2012, the state GOP endorsed candidates in the first "open primary" since passage of an innitive in 2010 that ended closed party primaries.
Mr. Donnelly was doing very old-school retail politics the best he could on limited funds and not gaining a lot once Mr. Kashkari entered the race in January.
Mr. Kashkari, again IMHO, came in late because the establishment could not bear the thought of losing to Gov. Brown by 30 points. I mean, even the guru himself, Karl Rove, made the lamest "endorsement" of Mr. Kashkari with this awe-inspiring quote:
"If the Republicans have to pick someone to lose to Jerry Brown, they’d be stupid not to pick Kashkari."
To people like Mr. Rove and his ilk, we California Republicans should lose, but gracefully, to Gov. Brown.
And yes, almost all of Mr. Kashkari's endorsements were from the usual establishment types such as Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, et al. But, congressman Darrel Issa, a strong conservative, endorsed Mr. Kashkari late enough in the game that probably helped him and made some fence-sitting potential Donnelly voters to switch and vote for the moderate Mr. Kashkari.
In the end, Mr. Kashkari did win the California Republican gubernatorial nomination in the open primary by finishing with 20% of the vote over Mr. Donnelly's 15%. That is good enough for second place in the open primary and he earned the right to fight with Gov. Brown in November.
That does not sound like much but if you limit the vote both men had among those who voted for a Republican candidate, both have decent numbers.
As of this writing, 1,467,947 voted Republican in the open primary. In and of itself it is a good number as not many more voted Democrat in the open primary. Of that number, Mr. Kashkari got 48% of the vote and Mr. Donnelly got 37%. The remaining 15% was scattered among four other candidates including a convicted sex-offender. That is another post in and of itself.
While I will end up voting for Mr. Kashkari in November, there could be some hard feelings that he needs to heal before then especially among conservatives and Donnelly supporters.
Look, I would vote for either of my two dogs over Gov. Brown. While I may not be Mr. Kashkari's most important backer, he will be a marginal improvement over Gov. Brown.
But I was able to vote for Tim Donnelly in the primary this past Tuesday because I do believe that the conservative wing of the party deserves to be heard and I helped that cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)