What Do The Trump Voters Want?

I'm totally honest here in the question above.
What exactly do the people who have been or are supporting one Donald J. Trump really want from their political savior?
Some interesting polling coming from the Donald's recent win in South Carolina over the weekend seems to contradict the issue that the Donald is really running on.
That is illegal immigration.
It appears that the majority, yes the majority, of those that participated in the Republican primary favor a pathway to citizenship and or legal status for illegal aliens.
Huh?!
So while the Donald is averaging about 30% of the vote in the three primaries that have been held, it is a minority within a minority. The majority of Republicans in a state like South Carolina favor some kind of legal status for those here illegally but have, basically, been working and earning a paycheck.
What is clear is that the vocal minority is angry. And voting for the Donald is what unifies the angry. The angry that want to close the border. The angry that want to bar Muslims from entering the United States. At least for a while. After that, well it gets pretty murky.
See in the beginning of the Donald's campaign, the Donald was trying to win over conservatives by having seemingly a Come-to-Jesus conversion to a solid conservative position on a variety of issues as noted in this post from Bookworm Room. 
Many people just liked that the Donald was taking on the sclerosis of the Washington Beltway GOP. Yeah! Telling it like it is! And to a point I agree. The Beltway GOP oversold what they could and or could not do in regards to the Dear Leader, President Obama. They have never admitted such and deserve scorn and ridicule. Even the writer of the link admits that was a attractive aspect of the Donald and why he got him.
But then the post compares and contrasts what the Donald has done and or said in the past, it is damning to a thinking person.
There is a meme going around Facebook as an example trying to prove that the Donald has been a registered Republican since 1980. There is even something that looks official. The only problem is that what the record is that the Donald has been a registered voter and could participate in scheduled elections. The Donald, by his own admission, has been like crap on his party registration. All over the place.
Let's not forget that the Donald has also, again by his own admission, given money to both parties. And more to the Democrats than the Republicans. The Donald gave money to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi that they used to retake control of congress in 2006.
When it comes to socialized medicine, the Donald is pretty much all in. He makes a lying claim that people are literally dying in the streets and that will not happen under a Trump presidency. That is right out of, well Bernie Sanders playbook.
The writer of the linked post does an excellent job on explaining the difference between eminent domain for the public good vs. a crony capitalist goal (of which the Donald is a YUGE crony capitalist).
There is much more, but for people that call themselves conservative, how in the name of all is holy can you support Donald J. Trump?
Is it really just about illegal immigration? Is that really all you care about? You really think that the Donald is going to do what he says? How? With congress? Good luck with that one. If not, are you down with a President Donald simply going the executive order route? Or is it that your anger is that of a form of political road rage? Not thinking but maybe going off half-cocked and spewing out because it will make you temporarily feel better?
Before you scream that I am for the Gang of Eight type of legislation, nope, not in the least. We do have to deport those here illegally and committing illegal activity. Period. But there is no way we can, or should, do anything sweeping. It all has to happen piece by piece. There is no magic bullet. Really, there is not. Unless you are willing to give everything one believes in up, then I get the support of the Donald.
Please do not try to claim that the Donald is a conservative. He is not. Your issue is one and it is a minority view within a minority of voters.
What the Trump voters want is the same thing that propels people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura to power. A magic fix to big problems that cannot just be waved away.

Conservatives Have Conservatives To Blame For GOP State Of Affairs

Guess what fellow conservatives?

There is a huge problem in our ranks and we have ourselves to blame.

Before ye call me a sellout, RINO, etc., etc., read on.

A case in point and what I will concentrate on is the Republican leadership in congress. 

Recently former Speaker of the House, John Boehner, all but handed conservatives a gift by giving up and leaving congress. Mind you, Mr. Boehner was not some hippy, left-winger. He was reliably conservative while moving up the leadership ladder. Something happened when Mr. Boehner attained the pinnacle of house leadership, the speaker's office. Mr. Boehner came in as House minority leader and acted as such when he became the speaker. It appeared that Mr. Boehner was more interested in cutting the deals no matter what rather than taking stands against the overreach of the executive branch. Sure, we are in divided government and at some level, deals will be cut. Conservatives simply wanted floor votes on a myriad of proposals that did not have a chance of even getting out of the then Democrat senate. But Mr. Boehner did nothing when the Republicans took control of the senate this year. 

As I noted yesterday, the GOP could simply have taken a page from the Democrat playbook of 1974-76 and sent the whole left-wing agenda to an impotent President Ford. He vetoed 66 pieces of legislation and was only overridden on 12. That's an over .800 winning percentage. Maybe it will end up the same but what the Republican base wants to see is less deal making and some back-bone. Count me in that group. 

But when Mr. Boehner quit, where was the great conservative to win over the disparate forces of the House of Representatives GOP caucus? 

NO ONE, but NO ONE wanted the job. The current Speaker, Rep. Paul Ryan, literally had to be dragged into the job. Where was Daniel Webster? Where was anyone in the Freedom Caucus? Huh? 

I'll tell you where they were. 

Hiding. 

Hoping that they would not have to try for a job that saw a pretty conservative fellow, Mr. Boehner, run out on the rail.

I fear that some firebrand conservatives realize that because deals have to be done, some disgusting, some just unpalatable, they do not want their fingerprints on it. Really, that is what we have to conclude.

You know who cut some lousy deals with a worse political landscape but turned out to be a damn good president?
Ronald Wilson Reagan.

So the dude literally dragged into the speaker's chair, Mr Ryan, cut a lousy budget deal that as he said the cake was already baked.
He is right. 

What was he supposed to do? Rip it up and start over? Maybe. Give conservatives more of a place at the table? Well, duh! 

By getting this out of the way, next year is going to be different. Conservatives will have a place and Mr. Ryan will make much more of a conservative effort to govern with the most left-wing president in our lifetimes. 

We conservatives expect a lot and were promised a lot over the past couple of election cycles. at a real level, we have been hosed. But we also are so damn tribal, we can't get a good, unifying governing majority. 

I hope my fellow conservatives think about all of this and don't think blowing up the place will make for a winning coalition. 

The Trump Train Rolls Along To The Cliff

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

O, Canada!

Oh, Canada, indeed as voters on Monday ended nine years of Conservative party rule and swept Justin Trudeau and the Liberals to power.
It was not even close as the third party, the Liberals, went from 34 seats to a staggering 184 out of 338 seats, a solid majority. And it was not just the ruling Conservatives that were vanquished but the opposition, far-left New Democrats that suffered losses as well. The New Democrats lost 59 seats and is now back to being the third party and has 44 seats. The Conservatives lost 67 seats and is a stronger opposition party than the Liberals were for this election. The Conservatives have 99 seats.
The Liberals meteoric rise from the ashes can be summed up in two words.
Justin Trudeau.
Mr. Trudeau is the son of the late Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the clan is essentially the Kennedy family of the Great White North. The Montreal-Toronto dominated media elevated Mr. Trudeau to a God-like status while it became clear he did a terrible job as PM. But he was an "intellectual" and let's face it, that trumps anything even and including strong leadership. Sure, Mr. Trudeau suppressed terrorism and kept Canada together, at the expense of making French-speaking Quebec a nation within a nation and forcing the nation to become a bilingual one. And his economic record was standard, liberal fare and proved to further alienate the economically stronger prairie provinces and British Columbia.
To be blunt, Justin Trudeau is not even in the same league as his father was. Justin Trudeau is but a dilettante much like the late John F. Kennedy, Jr.
But damn if he is not good looking and has that family name.
Very hard for the soon to be ex-prime minister, Stephen Harper, to go up against.
In comparison, one can compare Prime Minister Harper to Mitt Romney running up against Barack Obama.
No doubt that the Conservatives hurt themselves with some less than savory candidates that made rude comments against First Nation (Native Americans, Eskimos, Indians) people. Also, the economy is beginning to stagnate due to international pressures. Some Canadians saw Prime Minister Harper as wanting to be more like the neighbors to the South, the United States. Yet Prime Minister Harper is openly very much a Canadian nationalist.
But one aspect of a Canadian election compared to an American one is that it is not a popular-vote election. Because it is a parliament and a first past the post system, it is actually 338 separate elections. Think of it as a perpetual congressional mid-term. It is the leader of the majority party that usually forms the government. Even if it is not 170 seats in the case of this past election. Prime Minister Harper led two majority-minority governments before winning an outright majority prior to this election. Another aspect of Canadian elections is that the sitting prime minister can call for elections anytime before the fixed, four-year term ends.
With a 14-seat majority, Justin Trudeau has four years to see what he can do.
It maybe four long years for Canada.
Oh, Canada, indeed.

The Ultimate Friday News Dump; John Boehner To Resign As House Speaker

The Flaming Skull over at the Ace of Spades and Allahpundit's updates are proof of the ultimate Friday news dump.
That is that the speaker of the house, John Boehner, will resign as speaker and the house at the end of October.

The likely replacement will be the house majority leader, Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield).
Ahh, not so fast.
According to one of Allahpundit's updates, some conservatives may try to "Livingston" the likely successor, Mr. McCarthy.
The short history of what "Livingston" means is when Newt Gingrich resigned in the late 1990's, his successor was to be the then house majority leader, Bob Livingston (R-La.). But then it was exposed that he was having an affair and he stepped aside for the eventual winner, Denny Hastert (R-Ill.)
And there has been speculation, of course not confirmed, that Mr. McCarthy is a married man cavorting. And not just with any gal but another Republican congressman, Renee Elmers (R-N.C.)
If that is the case one of two things can happen.
Mr. McCarthy will be a conservative dream, held hostage in a sense, to be at the seat of power. Or he will try to be like a Boehner and seen as to willing to compromise. That will lead to either a drip of a possible McCarthy affair or an outright exposure that will lead Mr. McCarthy to stand down and also resign a la Livingston. And if it is with another member of congress, that congressman will probably resign as well.
So what other candidates are there out there?
One to watch is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Oh.), a solid conservative and one that I believe will unify clearly disparate forces within the GOP majority.
Of course there is Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N. C.) who started the latest round of Boehner hate by filing a motion to "vacate the Chair" of speaker. Bet on him to run no matter what. Why not? He has nothing to lose, right?
My guess is that unless there is a serious attempt to oust Mr. McCarthy, he will become the next speaker of the house. And before people get all upset, Mr. McCarthy will be on a short leash by conservatives. Look for a possible McCarthy speakership to be more confrontational with Democrats and the Dear Leader, President Obama. Whoever is the new speaker that will be the case no matter what.
It really is the ultimate Friday news dump for John Boehner to resign as speaker while Pope Francis sucks up the news cycle on his first visit to the United States ever.

Why Are So Many Supporting Donald Trump?!

As a conservative and a life-long Republican, I can not figure out nor understand the appeal of one Donald J. Trump and why in the hell he is the GOP frontrunner.
Before I continue, let me say that if anyone regularly reads this blog should know, I am not some establishment toady in the least. I don't need to go into my bonifides but check out more here to get the point.
One aspect of the appeal is the frustration that many of us have that the GOP leadership in congress is not exactly doing what we would like them to do. The GOP congressional leadership seems interested in proving to the the MSM and the leftywhore media that they can "govern". Hell, even work with the Dear Leader, President Obama. That is all true. They have done nothing to promote, for instance, legislation that would address the subject of border security. One thing the base and the majority of voters seem to want is strong, verifiable border security. We want a wall built once and for all. We want Border Patrol agents to do their job and arrest lawbreakers trying to enter this nation illegally. It's a totally winning issue with wide, bipartisan support.
Is congress, the GOP-majority congress, doing anything about it?
Yes, that is the sound of crickets chirping loudly as hell.
How about defunding of Planned Parenthood? Again, that is a winning issue as we see the blood on the hands of those who were caught selling aborted baby tissues and possible suitable organs. Games were played by the senate majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the senate essentially made sure that there was no possible way there would be 60 possible votes to defund the abortion provider.
I give but two examples that frustrate the base. There are quite a few others, but this inaction by a supposed Republican congress seems to have provided a lot of  the support that the Donald has gained in this campaign.
It appears that the issue du jour that animates the Trumpettes the most is illegal immigration.
Those that support the Donald loved it when in his presidential announcement that he would build an impenetrable wall and also have Mexico pay for it. Since then, like on everything else he is like crap-all over the place. What those excited about his seemingly tough stand on illegal immigration do not want to be told is that he does not oppose amnesty. That he would not deport the oft-reported number of 11,000,000 illegal aliens. For some sane approach to dealing with the illegal immigration problem, this from the editors of National Review is worth a read. I'm sure that the Donald will not read it because it might actually make him change his mind and support this strategy.
The Donald is a walking bag on contradictions.
On the one hand, the Donald claims that socialized medicine is awesome in Canada and Scotland. At one time in a past life, the Donald actually supported Hillary Clinton and her socialist-medicine power grab in the mid 1990s. Now during last week's GOP debate, he did take one conservative theme and supports being able to buy health insurance across state lines. But in the same breath he said that he will take care of those who do not have health insurance coverage and did not provide details.
That is kind of the Donald's style. Shoot off the mouth and seem like the tough guy in the room. Then when fleshed out in questioning, the Donald can not make his case.
I'm not sure what is worse. The Donald or his supporters.
Trying to engage with Trumpettes is almost as bad as engaging with lefties. Every discussion disintegrates into a Trumpette saying that if you're not with Trump then you are an establishment toady and really secretly for one John Ellis Bush, aka Jeb! Bush. There is this either or mentality the Trumpettes make and it is such a false choice.
It's not Trump vs. Bush. There are 15 other announced, serious candidates. There is really something for everyone. There is the establishment choice, Mr. Bush and a Tea Party favorite such as Sen. Ted Cruz. Or Gov. Scott Walker. There is the libertarian choice in Sen Rand Paul. There are unity candidates such as Sen. Marco Rubio or former businessman Carly Fiorina. They are but a few candidates. What the Trumpettes do is offer a false choice because their dude is anti-establishment. He's truth-telling. Of course when pressed, there is not any specific issue that they can articulate the Donald is truth-telling in the least.
If someone says that they are Tea Party and support the Donald, I don't get it. For the Donald himself admitted in the debate that he was in fact and indeed the biggest crony capitalist there is. He admitted, proudly, that he has bought off many a pol in both parties. The crux of the Tea Party and the frustration with big government are people like the Donald. The fact is the Donald has supported and continues to support eminent domain. That is when the government condemns an "blighted" area of property and deigns it a redevelopment area. Who has benefited by such decisions in New York City? Why of course, the Donald.
Please, Trumpettes, try to explain that to me.
A lot of the Donald's defenders say that he is conservative now. That Ronald Reagan used to be a liberal Democrat. The difference is that Mr. Reagan did not just one day go from FDR Democrat to Goldwater Republican. It was a serious evolution that basically developed throughout the 1950s/ In fact Mr. Reagan was still a Democrat and the head of Democrats for Nixon is 1960. By 1964, Mr. Reagan took the plunge and became a Republican. And a conservative Republican.
Just because the Donald talks tough on illegal immigration is not enough for me. I want my party to nominate the most electable conservative. I don't believe that is Donald Trump and I do not believe that is Jeb! Bush. We have a lot of time to go, but I will not get the support that Donald J. Trump has in his quixotic quest for the GOP presidential nomination.

Ace On The 40 Year Old GOP Civil War

Since 1976 when Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican nomination for president, the party has been at war with itself.
By and large, now most on both sides hold Mr. Reagan in high regard. Albeit for different reasons which I not write about here.
I read this piece yesterday by Ace at Ace Of Spades blog and it really is one of the best explanations of the war within the party of Lincoln.
There is no doubt that the war is exacerbated by Donald Trump and his announcement for the GOP 2016 presidential nod. Especially regarding illegal immigration, a clear battle line for both sides of the GOP coalition.
What Ace does is explain the sides, and takes both to task and essentially says that both need to make concessions for the 2016 battle with the Democrat presidential nominee.
I like how Ace puts it. The establishment he calls the Professional Class. But then quickly changes that to the Comfortable Class. On the other side is the Middle/Working Class, and shortens it to the Middle Class.
I would suggest that the establishment class is conservative instinctively and in temperament. But that is the Achilles Heel. It makes them not be aggressive in the right way. Take the now infamous Mitt Romney 47% comments to a private fund raiser. Unwittingly, Mr. Romney included a helluva lot of potential voters. They may not like the Dear Leader, President Obama, but they also don't like being lumped in with people that they themselves see as part of the Democrat coalition. Some may have stayed home in 2012. Some may have held their nose and voted for the Dear Leader, President Obama. Others may have held their nose for voted for Mr. Romney even after being eloquently dismissed as, well losers.
So what about that Middle Class of conservative Republicans?
There is truth in what Ace says about the willingness of the Middle Class to be loud and crude without actually thinking about how that comes off to others and or the mushy middle of voters. The roughly 20% of voters that decide national elections today in the United States.
That is why the Donald out of nowhere appeals to the Middle Class GOP voter. They like the fact that he is, at a level I do not agree with, telling it like it is regarding illegal immigration. And when called to the carpet, the Donald is not backing down. Never mind that the Donald is in no way, no how, a conservative. He is taking an issue of great importance and making it an appealing talking point. The fact is that not one GOP presidential candidate, announced or thinking about it, is pure as virgin wool on the issue. Most favor eventually making a certain number at the very least green-card holders. It is only to the degree and whether they want a big monstrosity like so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform or border security first then dealing with those that are already here. In fact, the Donald until he announced his candidacy was very much in the so-called "comprehensive" reform camp.
Here is the problem in a nut shell.

Instead, both classes are determined to WIN and destroy the other.

That above is Ace's words although I have said as much here and to anyone that will listen.
That is why when Mr. Reagan was defeated in 1976 he did not leave the Republican party. He transformed it. He moved it to the right. Even those establishment types now are to the right in comparison to the 80s.
I agree with Ace and his advice to both sides.
For the Middle Class, we don't have to fire rockets on every issue. Resentments do not win elections. Really, they do not. For all of the Dear Leader, President Obama's faults, in 2008 he ran a positive campaign and vaguely talked about the change and transformation thing.
For the Comfortable Class, stop lording over your lessors your college education. To coin a phrase, BFD. And put the money where the mouth is. Since 1992, we have tried it their way with the exception of George W. Bush. Bush 41. Bob Dole. John McCain. Mitt Romney. All except W. went down in flames. All ran those "respectful" campaigns and let the left destroy them in the process thinking somehow, the Marquis of Queensbury rules would win out. Insert laugh track here.
I leave you with these thoughts of Ace's. Remember this is Ace so yes, there is profanity:

In short, these two feuding classes, who obviously hate each other (every single Twitter war or comment fight soon resolves into the Middle Class vs. the Comfortable Class), need to get over the emotional fight they really love having and get their fucking heads screwed on straight and start fighting the fight they care less about, but which is more important to win. 

Why I Support Marco Rubio For President

If any regular reader or casual reader of this blog knows, I have always supported Sen. Marco Rubio since he became a candidate for the United States senate in 2010.
While I have a little bit of concern I will address later in this post, I believe that Sen. Rubio is the best of the Republican candidates for president and totally support the Rubio candidacy. I so strongly support Sen. Rubio I have created this Facebook page, Californians For Rubio.
Why do I like Sen. Rubio so much?
For one, he is not ashamed to be a conservative and Republican. In fact, almost all the Republicans in the race, if put under Sodium Pentathol, know Sen. Rubio has proven time and time again that he is the best and most articulate spokesman for conservative ideas.
In many ways, Sen. Rubio reminds me a lot of a young version of Ronald Reagan. But unlike Mr. Reagan, Sen. Rubio is the son of immigrants. Cuban immigrants just before one Fidel Castro seized power and imposed communism and shared poverty. Except for the communist elite, of course. As the son of immigrants he has a real appreciation of the American dream.
So I know that there is a negative side that I can get out of the way now.
The fact is that as a federal elected official, Sen. Rubio has a little more experience than the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama. That is sort of true. But unlike the Dear Leader, President Obama, who served in the Illinois state senate and voted present a lot, Sen. Rubio was the speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and shepereded legislation thus was a leader. So yes, he does not have the long-term record that others in the race do, I think he has a stronger record of accomplishment than the Dear Leader, President Obama.
So, where does he stand on issues?
Sen. Rubio has a plan to fix our broken tax system. It is not an easy read, but here is the Rubio plan. There are critics on both the right and left. But for the average American taxpayer, it is as close to a flat income tax that we have ever had. A 15% bracket and a 35% bracket. For single tax payers, the 15% bracket is good up to $75,000. Married and filing jointly the 15% bracket is up to $150,000. Most Americans are in the lower bracket and will still have the ability to deduct their home mortgages. Again, it is a read, but worth it to understand why I like this plan.
Of course there would be deregulation across the board.
On the so-called social issues, Sen. Rubio is pro-life and in favor of traditional marriage. Again these are the social issues that the left wants to spend time talking about. And of course some people think Sen. Rubio was weak in saying that he would attend a friend's same-sex wedding. It does not mean he is endorsing it as much as being a good friend.
On the issue of illegal immigration, this is one issue where Sen. Rubio has waffled too much for my taste. But it is not fatal. And as president, Sen. Rubio would be able to craft multiple bills rather than a comprehensive bill that is what divides conservatives, Republicans and the majority of the American public.
On foreign policy, I know where Sen. Rubio stands and that he will call radical Islam and radical Islamics what they are. There will be no couching of words. There will be no undercutting our only reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel. There will be no cutting a bad deal or deals with Iran. And Sen. Rubio will take the fight to the enemy there, not waiting for something to happen here and then react.
Most important to me is that he is a real deal. He is not full of himself. It's not all about him. It's about what he will do as president and who he will surround himself with to carry out policies.
That is why I heartily endorse and support Marco Rubio for President.

Who Will Win The British Election?

No one party will be able to come up with the magic number of 323 that it takes to form a government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in today's national election.
This is a rarity in British politics as this is a full-term government. Most of the time a prime minister of the ruling party will try to pad the numbers in the House of Commons by calling a "snap" election when their polling numbers are considered awesome enough.
The scorecard for us Americans is of the major parties in parliament now.
The semi-ruling party is the Conservatives led by David Cameron. It is the largest center-right party in the U.K.
The opposition is the Labour party and is the largest left-wing party in the U.K. The leader of the Labour party is Ed Milliband.
To be honest, neither leader is all that. They come off as boring technocrats. One on the right and one on the left.
Ahh, but this election has three minor parties that can claim the balance of power.
Currently the junior partner in the coalition government is the Liberal Democrats, the center-left party in the U. K. It is led by Nick Clegg.
But two upstart minor parties could be big players in a future government as well.
The United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP, is essentially the British variation of the Tea Party. It is led by the colorful Nigel Farage.
In Scotland, the Scottish National Party has surged and may be on the verge of winning all 59 possible seats in Scotland, thus dealing a blow to the Labour party in hopes of forming a coalition government.
The seemingly unlikely scenario is that one of the major parties wins the requisite number of seats and the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II asks that party to form the government.
One scenario is one of the major parties, which ever one emerges with the most seats, will form a weak, minority government. If that happens, look for another election very quickly.
Then there is an outside chance that the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition will be able to form again. It is expected that the Liberal Democrats will lose seats in today's vote.
For the right, the nightmare scenario could be that for the Conservatives to form a government, and if the UKIP scores enough seats (it already has two, both former Conservatives.), a possible coalition between these two forces.
For the left, the nightmare is for Labour to grovel at the SNP to form a government. The SNP is running to have another referendum on the question of Scottish independence from the U.K. It would be hard for the Labour party to justify a government with a party that wants to leave the U.K. in about two years or less.
But here is what I believe will happen.
The grandest of coalitions will occur, with a little of the left (the Liberal Democrats), a little of the right (the UKIP) and the center-right (the Conservatives). Between the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the UKIP, they would be able to have a tenuous but sustainable government for about a year.
This is the best primer on all the possible outcomes.
Whatever the results are, it does appear that the U. K. is in for a rocky year at least and voters will be the ones to blame in a sense. Weak leaders are a reason the polls for the big parties are so close.
The government will be a weak one, but keep the U.K. from causing world-wide economic panic.
Remember, the magic number is 323.

Here are two good links for complete election coverage; Sky News and the BBC.

How Does A Conservative Vote And Participate In A Liberal City?

I know, I know; why would a conservative even live in a liberal city, right?
Well, unlike many on the other side, we conservatives can appreciate a good city despite it's politics. We can even find some agreement with political opponents if it serves the interest of the city on the whole. And some on the other side will work with those of us who self-identify as conservative to reach such a goal.
This past Tuesday were the municipal elections for my hometown of Pasadena, California. The Crown City. Home of the Rose Parade and the Rose Bowl football game on New Year's Day.
We had elections for mayor, several city council seats and two school board seats.
And let me be clear that there was no self-identified conservative running for anything. Yes, there was a Republican who ran for mayor, Bill Thomson. But in the six-candidate field, he was the only one. And because in this election the winner must win 50% plus one, that did not happen. And in one city council race, it did not happen either. Thus we move onto round two on April 21. Here are the election results.
The leader of the mayor's race is a city council member, Terry Tornek. He is an establishment type as he really has not many new ideas and is fine with the status quo. Sure, he pays lip service to some liberal issues such as raising the minimum wage to a "livable" wage of $15 an hour. And he speaks of supporting public safety employees (fire and police), a more conservative issue, yet offers no ideas to fully fund and staff such departments.
But I assure you that the second place finisher, another city councilman, is much more of a true-believer liberal.
That is Jacque Robinson.
She is totally down with the $15 "living" wage scam. She is one of those that does not think we have a problem in staffing and compensation for public safety employees. And she is definitely anti-police. But worse is, like Mr. Tornek, she has a large role in the $6,400,000 embezzlement scandal that is gripping our city. If you are interested in comprehensive coverage, there are numerous stories about it here.
Make no mistake, Miss Robinson will definitely move Pasadena even further to the left.
Since I am extremely concerned about public safety, I think that Mr. Tornek will address the problem much more favorably than Miss Robinson.
And if one does not believe that there are problems with the police and fire departments, one should read this article as well as this article in the Pasadena Weekly. The Weekly is not exactly pro-police so if they are disturbed enough about things in the department as well as the fire department, one should take it seriously.
Like I said, there are issues that neither candidate will address that I think are important as a conservative. So it is a tough one for me. But in having conversations with neighbors and police personnel, public safety is the issue I will focus on like a laser beam and as such, I will end up voting for the lesser of two evils.
I will vote for Terry Tornek for mayor of Pasadena in the runoff election.
For conservatives, we have to narrow down to one major issue that can unite the community. We can't go on some esoteric approach and run campaigns that are guaranteed to be losing efforts. Since conservatives can get behind support for public safety, we have to find candidates that will offer strong support for the most important services a city must provide.
Another way to determine who to support is to go to the website of a candidate and see who endorses the candidate.
In the case of Miss Robinson, it is a veritable who's who of every left-wing group one can imagine. And to be honest, a lot of endorsements are from a lot of people and groups outside of the city. And it should be noted that while she does have union support, two unions not supporting are the police and fire unions.
Looking at Mr. Tornek's endorsements, it is clear that he is focusing on people within the city and not any particular group or party. To me, a good sign. It shows that Mr. Tornek is more focused on Pasadena and our unique issues.
And while at the website, see what issues a candidate wants to discuss their position on. For instance, Mr. Tornek addresses that there are new kinds of crime and wants to work with the police department to address those crimes. And while overall crime has gone down, there has been a very recent uptick in crime including shootings and murders. On the other hand, Miss Robinson looks at the police as glorified social workers rather than the last line of defense between reasonable order and anarchy. And Miss Robinson thinks that she is also on the local school board as she wants the city to partner with the public schools in a way that is frankly out of the purview of the city council.
Before any conservative or Republican says why does it matter, a liberal Democrat is going to win anyway, we have to recognize we will not be taken seriously if we do not engage in the process. Also, in California all elected officials are supposed to be non-partisan up to state assembly and further up the chain. Thus a winning candidate can be held accountable to issues of importance to conservatives/Republicans who participate by voting and or even volunteering for the candidate closest to what we stand for.
That is how a conservative and or Republican participates and votes in a liberal city.

ROMNEY OUT OF '16 GOP NOMINATION HUNT!

Mitt Romney has decided that a third time is not the charm and is not running for president as he announced in a conference call to supporters moments ago.
After a time of back and forth whether or not it would be a good idea to have a Battle of the Moderates as Mr. Romney would dig into the former Florida governor Jeb Bush's supporters, Mr. Romney just said no. Not going to do it.
Hugh Hewitt broke the news before the conference call.
Look, I thought he would have made a better president than the current occupant of the White House. I think that he would be a better president than anything the Democrats will have to offer in 2016. But the reality is what Mr. Romney said. That it is time for new blood in the GOP.
I do believe that comment is meant as a subtle, or not so subtle, jab at Jeb. I mean, come on! Jeb, actually John Ellis Bush, is not new blood. He last ran for reelection as Florida governor in 2002. He left office in 2007. That is eight years ago and a lifetime in politics. Mr. Bush is running on issues that will not excite the base and even the average Republican voter. Check that. Mr. Bush is running against the base and the average Republican voter by his vociferous support for Common Core and essential amnesty for illegal aliens.
It will be interesting how the moderates move forward.
And the interest will start tonight as Mr. Romney is having dinner with the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie.
I wonder what that is all about?
Maybe the Battle of the Moderates is actually just beginning. I sure hope so.

How Not To Unseat A Speaker Of The House

Let's face it.
I am not a fan of Rep. John Boehner (R-Oh) as speaker of the house. I think that he way too often seems willing to accommodate the Democrats and the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
But I do have to admire the fact that he is a survivor and this past Tuesday survived an insurrection and was elected speaker for a third term.
While Mr. Boehner had a victory on Tuesday, it was illuminating on why conservatives at times can't be taken seriously.
The die was essentially cast shortly after the November midterm elections when the Republican house leadership were reelected with not one bit of opposition.
One of those that was expected to join the insurrection, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), ended up voting for Mr. Boehner holding his nose. In this press release, Mr. Mulvaney gives a reasonable explanation as to why he ended up voting for Mr. Boehner. And he points out that before the die was cast in November, someone should have ran against Mr. Boehner and Republicans could have had a secret ballot vote.
And what Mr. Mulvaney did not articulate on is that those opposed to Mr. Boehner could have rallied around one candidate. One solid conservative against the establishmentarian. And Tuesday's vote may have turned out very differently.
But, alas, we conservatives did not do any of that and it was a production of the conservative Keystone Kops.
First, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a likable fellow and solid conservative, announced that he would throw his hat in the ring.
Where was he in November? Did he oppose Mr. Boehner for the speaker ship then?
Then an unknown just elected to a second term house member, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) decided, hey, I'll throw my hat in the ring.
I will ask Mr. Yoho the same couple of questions that I have for Mr. Gohmert.
Then, out of nowhere came Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) and he ended up getting the most votes.
Same two questions for Mr. Webster.
But how did Mr. Webster come out of nowhere? The absolute least conservative of the three that announced got the most votes at 13.
The fact is that all it would have taken was for 29 votes to force a second ballot and then all hell could have broken loose.
It's not me making that point but California Rep. Tom McClintock who knows how leadership elections sometimes turn into unbelievable fiascoes.
Mr. McClintock was a member of the state assembly after the 1994 midterm elections in which the GOP actually became the majority party in the state assembly.
Not to go into the history of how a very close Republican majority, only one vote, led to several months of jockeying that did end up with a Republican speaker of the the Assembly. But these three names, Doris Allen, Brian Setencich and Curt Pringle were all players in the drama. Oh, we can't forget the puppet master of this problem, Willie Brown.
Would it have been better to end up with something like a co-speaker ship?! We don't know and thank goodness we don't have to find out.
And if anyone calls Mr. McClintock a RINO* or a weakling or in with leadership, they are out of their collective skulls.
Again, had conservatives thought this through, they should have gotten together before this came up in November. They knew that a vote would take place right after the election for continuity reasons in dealing with the lame-duck session of congress. Had they done that, I absolutely believe that they had a chance to find a solid conservative that could be acceptable to establishmentarians and Tea Party types alike and all in between.
Now some think a lot of this angst was fueled by conservative talk radio types. I do not think that they fueled it because many were making the same case in November that there was no backbone to challenge Mr. Boehner and the leadership at any level. All were reelected by acclimation. There were enough that thought to challenge Mr. Boehner publicly. And while it provided high drama, the sad fact is that it was a foregone conclusion.
The key is to have challenged right away. Even not having the votes then did put Mr. Boehner on notice that if he does not show some backbone, he would be challenged. And by the time this past Tuesday came, a strong candidate may have emerged and Mr. Boehner might have actually lost.
Conservatives need to know how to play the long game. By that it is to build up strength and to wisely pick and choose the hill to die on. Otherwise, as I noted, those that we like and respect start to look like the Keystone Kops and we forget why we oppose Mr. Boehner, et al, altogether.
There will be more battles ahead and the real test of Mr. Boehner as speaker will be how he keeps his caucus in line.
And conservatives can and will have another fight and many fights along the way. And hopefully, better leadership to be victorious.

*-Republican In Name Only.

The Big Red Wave Came A Crashin Successfully!

I just love all of the surfing analogies to the recently concluded totally awesome 2014 mid-term elections.
Some quick observations.
Our Dear Leader, President Obama, is a kinda sore loser, isn't he?
Republicans were supposed to lose governorships. Yes, they lost one (Pennsylvania), but gained in Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland and Taxachusetts, er Massachusetts. And the GOP even kept the Maine's governor's office after an all out assault by the Democrat party to take it away.
The GOP not only recaptured the senate but did so with ease. The final total should be a 54-46 GOP majority in the senate.
And it appears that the GOP will have no less than 245 seats in the house with some outstanding races not called yet.
And the GOP now controls this much of the United States, in particular in congress.
Yes, it is a damn red map, isn't it?
But let's start at this map.
As Michael Barone notes in this analysis of the 2014 election, yes it does look very red. But the splotches of blue are some of the highest-populated areas of the United States. So while the map does look favorable for the GOP, there is still work to be done to make any inroads into many of these urban Democrat strongholds. These strongholds can still in a great year give the Democrats the White House. But for the foreseeable future, congress is more than likely be in the hands of the Republicans.
My message is that the GOP can not and should not rest on it's laurels. The party needs to go anywhere and everywhere to win elections. No city, county, sheriffs office, state, or nation should be written off.
So how about that senate?
Your humble blogger seems to have gotten the winners right on election night. I was off on the numbers, but the results seemed to be correct. Out of the five big races I commented on, the only one that did not pan out was the race in New Hampshire between current Democrat incumbent, Jeanne Shaheen, and former Massachusetts senator, Scott Brown. Sen. Shaheen won exactly by the margin I thought Mr. Brown would win by. But I noted that a drawback would be the accusation of carpetbagging could hurt Mr. Brown. And I think that it did.
One thing that was learned is that the polls were kinda sorta off. Many of the races won by Republicans were by larger margins than the polls were indicating right up to election day. Interestingly, it appears that Democrats were polled on average more than Republicans. But here is the thing. Polls are but a snapshot in time. There is something called election day. THAT is the only poll that counts. Really, it is.
How is it that Republicans have gained governorships in a year that they were supposed to lose? And as I noted above, in some damn unexpected states.
Take Maryland.
No one, and I mean no one, saw Larry Hogan as a serious candidate against the sitting Lt. governor, Anthony G. Brown. But things started shifting dramatically towards the end of the campaign. But almost all believed that Mr. Brown would still win and handily because after all, Maryland is a solid Blue Democrat stronghold. Not only did Mr. Hogan win, but rather handily. The result was 51% to 47% in favor of Mr. Hogan. And in a state like Maryland, this is a landslide.
And how about Massachusetts?
Once again, the state attorney general, Democrat Martha Croakley, er Coakley, proved that she is so bad a candidate, she lost state office again to a Republican and this time for governor and Charlie Baker defeated the hapless Croakley, 49% to 47%. Mrs. Croakley also lost to former Sen. Scott Brown in the special election to replace the late Sen. Edward "Teddy" Kennedy in 2010. As for me, I want her to move to California and run for any statewide office as a Democrat. It's the way we can win something in 2018.
The two above elections are what happens in a year in which there is a big wave and some candidates that would never win pull off good upsets.
And there are the wins to complete a through take over of a state and that is what happened in Arkansas.
The governor's office is now that of former Republican congressman, Asa Hutchinson as he defeated former Democrat congressman, Mike Ross, by the handy margin of 55% to 42%. Republican Tim Griffin was elected Lt. Governor. Another Republican, Leslie Rutledge, is now the state attorney general. The GOP controls the state senate, 24-11 and the sea change was in the house of representatives where the minority GOP gained 13 seats and are now in the majority, 64-36. The congressional delegation and two senators are Republicans. And Arkansas is now the last state in the old Confederacy to be in the Republican column. There are no Democrat governors in the old Confederacy. Only Bill Nelson in Florida and until the December runoff, Mary Landrieu, are Democrat senators in the old Confederate South. The Democrats basically are down to representing racial minority districts in state houses and in congress.
To be fair the Democrats took away the governor's office in Pennsylvania in one of the few highlights of the election night. But the GOP increased their margins in the state legislature.
And the Big Red Wave did ripple here in California as the GOP gained two, maybe three, congressional seats and have denied the Democrats super majorities in both houses of the legislature meaning they will not be able to raise taxes without GOP votes. And a couple of state office races were close giving hope that the GOP could be competitive in the 2018 elections.
So, how did our Dear Leader, President Obama, the titular leader of the Democrat party, take the election results?
Well, lets just say not all that well.
The day after the thrashing that his party took, losing the senate, ground in the house of representatives and even governorships and state legislatures, the Dear Leader, President Obama, said the following:

“To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too.”

No, sorry, you can't give the back hand and claim that people too bothered to vote count the same. In fact, those people may have not voted for the Democrats had they taken the time and effort. But give it to the Dear Leader, President Obama. His delusion went even further:

“The American people sent a message, one that they’ve sent for several elections now.“They expect the people they elect to work as hard as they do. They expect us to focus on their ambitions and not ours. They want us to get the job done. All of us in both parties have a responsibility to address that sentiment.”

With all due respect to the office sir, no that is not why voters turned to the Republicans. They turned to the Republicans to reign you in. They want to bring you and your party back to the center. They want you to stop with legalizing as many illegal aliens as you can questionably. They don't believe in the climate change propaganda and want policies that will lead to economic growth. Not in a pipe dream of a government-made green economy. They voted for people that said we will work where we can with the president, but to no longer be patsies. And they want at the very least major changes in Obamacare. Most would be willing to scrap the whole monstrosity and start again.
This election was about a stark contrast between the Republican party and the Democrat party. It showed that the GOP at least was listening to the public overall much better than the Democrats. The Democrats thought that they could win supposedly tight races by the spectre of the Republican "War on Women" and that they want to take birth control away and put 'em back in the kitchen and for sure barefoot and pregnant. And if that did not work, stir up Black voters with the spectre of Ferguson and a national effort by all police forces, at the hands of the Republicans of course, to use Black youth as target practice. And if that did not work, why they would suggest that because many GOP voters were not in favor of same-sex marriage to look out for a GOP win would probably force all sexual alphabet voters back in the closet or some kind of reorientation camp.
The reason for the lack of effort on accomplishment and fanning the fires of fear is because there are no accomplishments. O-Care is a continuous disaster. The economy may be recovering, but at such an anemic rate most Americans do not feel it at all. We look and are absolutely feckless in the face of the rise of the Islamic State and the unrest throughout the Middle East. Our relationship with Red China looks like we are giving up the store at any given opportunity. In other words, to coin a phrase, the American people feel in a malaise.
But the GOP has to deliver. It has to pursue the policies of seeking to streamline the tax code and seek changes that will be accessible to the middle class. It needs to fight the attempts of massive regulation that is keeping the economy from maybe having a stronger recovery. It needs to stop the government from legalizing millions of illegal aliens and must, must support border security first, then reform. It must have the confidence of the American people that it can govern.
But the fact is that the Big Red Wave was just that. And it crashed on the Democrats hopes and dreams. Hopefully it will restore hope in the GOP and the American experience.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Michael Gerson, The GOP Establishment And The Tea Party

One of The Washington Post's supposed conservative writers, Michael Gerson, just simply does not get the Tea Party whatever.
That is why he writes dreck like this.
First its the choice of establishment Republicans like Mr. Gerson to beat up on Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx) and rocker Ted Nugent. But the long knife is always out there for the former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin. Note this line from the column:

(save Sarah Palin, who finally lost her long, sad struggle with ideological delirium)

Actually, Mrs. Palin is much more in touch with many Americans than is Mr. Gerson, now a total captive of the Washington Beltway.
Well, right after that gem from Mr. Gerson, here is this paragraph:

No political movement can persuade a great democracy without displaying a measure of democratic grace. And any ideological movement that claims to be inspired by faith and morality is discredited by language that dehumanizes its opponents.

For a moment, I thought that he was describing the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the current Democrat party.
But no, Mr. Gerson is in his mind describing the current state of the Republican party as he sees it.
One of the reason's there is a Tea Party movement is because the feeling among many Americans that the politicians just do not listen to them about anything. That there is a disconnect between the people and the politicians. And the evidence is much more on the Tea Party side than Mr. Gerson's side.
Now I do agree with the fact that we do have to have candidates that can win in November. And yes, some Tea Party candidates have not been all that. And yes sometimes conservatives to show how much they are against the establishment will back clear losers to the bitter end. Yes, Christine O'Donnell comes to mind in Delaware.
But that does not mean that long-time incumbents should never be challenged. If that did not happen in Utah for example, there would not be a Sen. Mike Lee. In Texas it was an open seat that now Sen. Cruz was running for. The establishment GOP in Texas was lining up behind the Lt. Governor, David Dewhurst, against now Sen. Cruz. And not only did he win the two-stage primary (a candidate has to get at least 40% in the first round, which neither did) but easily win the election for his seat. In Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio was a little-known state legislator that took on the worst of the GOP establishment in that state, former Gov. Charlie Crist. Of course the establishment all lined up for Mr. Crist. But Mr. Rubio not only prevailed but won the general election in a landslide. Oh, and lets not forget that Mr. Crist is now a Democrat running for his old job as governor in Florida. Good luck to that.
As I look at it this time around, the same thing is happening but the candidates are not as good as was in the 2010 and 2012 election cycle.
But it shows desperation when the GOP establishment seems more hellbent on beating up the upstarts over the potential Democrat challenger.
One of the clear realities of the Tea Party movement is that there is not one unifying leader to it. Thus it does lead to some things being done right and some being done wrong.
And thus we see that while Sen. Cruz is right on the overall point that O-Care needs to be repealed, doing so will not happen until there are more Republicans elected. And they need two things at the federal level. To win the senate, which they should be able to do this election in November, and the White House, which is a good possibility in 2016. I would really like to see Sen. Cruz work to get Republicans elected who can lead to that. Until then, we will still have this abomination known as O-Care.
The problem is that Mr. Gerson does not get why people aligned with the Tea Party movement on the right and the Occupy movement on the left is that it is the very groups as the United States Chamber of Commerce and big money donors on the Republican side that do not want the real change the Tea Party seeks. The big money donors are pretty much our crony capitalists. They just want the federal government to help them out and not the American people as a whole. When the United States Chamber of Commerce seem more interested in legalizing 10,000,000 illegal aliens over having a strong economy where American citizens get the jobs, it is just wrong. These two groups have narrow interests that the Tea Party is against.
Mr. Gerson is totally right in what this little fight among friends is all about:

Republicans are sorting through what kind of populists they hope to be.

The problem is that big money and establishment groups within the GOP are not exactly prone to populist notions. They are almost always perceived, and usually rightly so, as always willing to cut a bad deal especially with Democrats. Democrats that are like Lucy Van Pelt pulling that football away just as Charlie Brown gets that foot up to kick it. In that sense, many of us see Sen. Cruz as one who will at least fight, albeit not always smartly.
So here is something I look at in one race. That for the senate seat in Kentucky.
The incumbent is Sen. Mitch McConnell and the challenger is Matt Bevin. I wrote about it here. I know some people will suggest that I am everything like a RINO* and sellout and all the bromides that some can muster. But Mr. Bevin is not a good candidate. He can't explain why he was for TARP before he was against it. That is a big issue for Tea Party people. He wants Tea Party support and some will sink with him to show how much they don't like Sen. McConnell. If he can't do well against Sen. McConnell, imagine if he does win the primary and how he will do against the Democrat candidate, most likely to be Allison Grimes? Look, Sen. McConnell's biggest problem? He can't explain things in simple English when he goes on the radio or especially television. He sounds like he is speaking Washington double-talk, gobbly-gook. That is kind of why he is being challenged. But in this case, I would have to go with Sen. McConnell. Because in the end, I want to keep this seat in the Republican column, and that only has a chance with Sen. McConnell. Really.
Unlike Mr. Gerson, there is nothing, not one thing, wrong with having a challenge. There is nothing wrong with the party having to have an open debate on the issues. But we must absolutely unify when the primaries are over and get the winning candidate elected. Whether it is an establishment or Tea Party candidate. We can't have whiners like a Charlie Crist. Or a Mike Castle in Delaware. Or a Richard Lugar in Indiana. We can't have losers act like losers and not support the Republican candidate. That, more than anything is why we will lose any given election.
Without the Tea Party in the GOP orbit, there will not be major victories. With the establishment not being with Main Street instead of Wall Street, there will not be GOP victories. With people like Michael Gerson, we will be a minority party when we should be the majority party throughout the United States. The key is how to work together to get to those wins. That is what primaries are for.


*RINO-Republican In Name Only

This Tea Party Candidate Can Not Be Supported

Matt Bevin is running for the Republican nomination in Kentucky for the senate seat currently held by senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell.
Mr. Bevin is being supported by the Tea Party.
But two reasons come to the surface that make me believe Mr. Bevin is not the candidate for Kentucky.
Before I continue, anyone that has read this blog with any regularity knows that I am a solid conservative. I supported Sen. Marco Rubio in 2010 before anyone knew who he was. I thought that Christine O'Donnell in Delaware was getting a raw deal in her race against then congressman Rep. Mike Castle. I backed Sharon Angle in Nevada and she actually ran a great campaign.
The point is that this is not the kind of post I want to write. I am a Tea Party Republican.
But what are Mr. Bevin's two sins?
Let's start with his support of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP. TARP essentially bailed out the big banks that over extended themselves during the housing boom and essentially lended money to anyone with a pulse. Mr. Bevin was the president of am investment firm known as Veracity Funds. And in a letter to investors, it appears that Mr. Bevin signed it and in the letter it supports TARP. This link to Breitbart explains the now tortured reasoning Mr. Bevin is giving in signing the letter. The bottom line is that Mr. Bevin was for TARP before he was against it. Here is an excerpt from that letter. The excerpt that I believe damages Mr. Bevin's credibility:

Most of the positive developments [in the market this quarter] have been government led, such as the effective nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the passage of the $700 billion TARP (don't call it a bailout) and the Federal Reserve's intention to invest in commercial paper. These moves should help to stabilize asset prices and help to ease liquidity constraints in the financial system. We have yet to see significant improvement in lending spreads (for the most part the opposite is true), but are hopeful that the groundwork has been laid.

OK, the letter essentially says that the wonders of TARP is what has been the positive development in that particular quarter. At the end of the paragraph it essentially says that thanks to TARP, the groundwork is laid to see improvements to lending spreads.
When one puts a signature on any letter, at least they should take a cursory peek at what was written. I think that Mr. Bevin is speaking out of all sides of his mouth. First he refers to the document as an "investment commentary" then as a prospectus. Now he denies both claims. According to this article from Breitbart, Mr. Bevin claimed that he had to sign the disputed document by law. However, if you read on, Mr. Bevin did not sign a similar letter in 2009.
Yes, this is in the weeds but goes to credibility as to what Mr. Bevin really believes and if he does deserve the support of the Tea Party folks. If Mr. Bevin is really going John Kerry on the Republican voters of Kentucky, being for something before he was against it, then as a supporter/member of the Tea Party, I could not support Mr. Bevin.
The second reason is this wonderful commentary as to Mr. Bevin's opposition to same-sex marriage. 
Yep, Mr. Bevin essentially said that same-sex marriage could lead to parents marrying their children for some kind of tax benefit.
I give you the particular paragraph from the Janet Meffered program:

If it's alright to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage-because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there's other repercussions and things that come with it-so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on that certain things to that child financially and otherwise.

UGH!
Really, why did Mr. Bevin go there? To make the sheer suggestion that say a mom could marry her daughter for tax purposes. And otherwise? Why did Mr. Bevin have to add those two words? And otherwise.
What the hell does that mean?
I think it is open to interpretation. But one is already being done by the left. And that is suggesting that incest could be what he meant.
This is where inexperience comes to rear it's ugly head.
This could be Mr. Bevin's Todd Akin moment. And because of it, Sen. McConnell will probably cruise to winning the GOP nomination.
Republican candidates have to grasp this in discussing same-sex marriage. And that is don't go down the road of "because of this, fill-in-the-blank will occur". Why not do that? Because the leftywhore media and the Democrats, I know redundant, huh?, will make that candidate sound like a total whack job.
Mr. Bevin actually had a great point about the tax benefits same-sex couples would have equivalent of married couples. As a supporter of the flat-tax and no deductions, it would eliminate the tax code being used for social engineering. And it is done by the right and the left. It's really pretty bipartisan if you ask me. Taxes should only be an evil necessity to fund the government, period. That is a better argument.
Another point that Mr. Bevin could have made is that he is not in favor of redefining marriage. Because same-sex marriage does redefine marriage. The proponents have to be honest about that. All that Mr. Bevin could add is that the traditional definition of marriage, one man to one woman, has been the bulwark of Western society for roughly 2,000 years. And there is the inconvenient truth that Utah was not admitted to the Union as a state until it stopped polygamy. And a revelation came to the then president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that stopped polygamy and then Utah became a state.
I believe that if any candidate is running to try and stem the tide of same-sex marriage, they should speak with a bit of eloquence and no throw in bromides that will turn off the great middle that any candidate needs to win a general election. Then mere suggestion that same-sex marriage can lead to parents marrying children is beyond a bromide. The reason is that opponents have tried the worst-case scenario and people, even some conservatives that do favor same-sex marriage, find it out of bounds. And if we want to win elections and maintain principles, our side better damn well do so but with a lot more savvy.
The things are that the Tea Party is about curtailing excessive government spending and intrusion into our lives. When a candidate claims he opposed one of the fundamental reasons for the Tea Party's being, TARP. and it turns out that is not true, it seems like said candidate is going to be stuck spending a lot of time on defense. That would be Mr. Bevin. When a candidate expresses opposition to same-sex marriage and goes into one of the most bizarre reasons why, it sounds more that said candidate is not always opposed to big government. That would be Mr. Bevin, again.
If a Tea Party candidate is having these problems in the primary and somehow wins the GOP nomination, unseating Sen. McConnell, realize that this will be the left's number one seat to take. And it will be easier because of what is happening now.
I must admit, I am not a big fan of Sen. McConnell. He is way too cozy in the Washington Ways. Seems to always be willing to cut bad deals with the Democrats. But on one issue, Sen. McConnell was spot on and that was his principled opposition to so-called campaign finance reform. Especially the dreaded McCain-Feingold debacle. I would have no problem giving Sen. McConnell a primary if the candidate actually knew what he was talking about. Mr. Bevin does not.
The Tea Party has to realize this. What is more important is to have a credible candidate in November. And like it or not, Sen. McConnell is a credible candidate and Mr. Bevin is not. I don't want this to be a waste of time, money and energy.
Therefore I can not, in good conscience, suggest to people in Kentucky to vote for Matt Bevin for the Republican nomination for senate. And I am not endorsing Sen. McConnell. But Matt Bevin is one Tea Party candidate I can not support and should not be supported.