Friday, November 27, 2015

Rubio's Cruz'n into 2016 finals, but who'll be his field trip buddy

Every once in awhile a person needs a good wingman to bring true success the adventure at hand, which helps explain why the position of Vice President is the most difficult for the Party nominee to choose.

Think about, until the turn of the 20th Century, most considered the position of Vice President to a “death sentence” to ones political career by ones Congressional brethren to willow away into obscurity. The prior century, Vice Presidential position was never considered the next step to the Presidency as that went to the Secretary of War. But at some point, it became a game of voter acceptance too show strength within the party and sometimes inside the halls of the Executive Mansion.

Presidential history has shown us that it is not unheard of for a President to choose a running mate from the opposition as Abraham Lincoln did by choosing Tennessee’s Andrew Johnson to help win Southern support. But could you imagine the path we may have taken had we stayed the course of having the Vice President be the runner up?
Kennedy having Nixon to kick around or having a sitting President demoted to Vice President with Eisenhower/ Truman tenure or a conspiratorial administration with Bush/Gore? OK the last one happened with Adams/Jefferson, but imagine the stalemate and gridlock we may have endured.

Many are looking forward to having President Bill Clinton back in the White House, even if it would be in the name of “First Dude” as the spouse to Hillary, yet there was a time when a former sitting President almost ran as the Vice President selection of the nominee who had a small political resume.

In 1980, Reagan was never truly sold on the choice of George HW Bush as the two butted heads throughout the 1980 campaign as competitors. Reagan eventually gave in after Gerald Ford (yes that Gerald Ford) demanded too much in return to ride along and the campaign had to twist wrists for Bush to except the Reagan platform, a platform that Bush had ridiculed on the campaign trail. Some historians like to sugar coat the political difference between Reagan/Bush by saying Reagan needed Bush and Texas to add to his California votes to beat Carter/Mondale.

Recently, even the losing campaign has pushed the notion of bringing in the opposite party as a running mate. John Kerry was rumored to have the “want” of his Senate pal John McCain to ride along with him in 2004, only to have McCain nix the option as he had his sights on 2008 and did not want to upset the GOP. Leaving Kerry to pick (but not happily) the over ambitious John Edwards and hope he could bring in some Southern votes as well, too which on election night Edwards couldn’t even carry his own state for the campaign.

It’s no lie that when Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, many Democratic constituents were upset that he did not choose Hillary Clinton to be his #2, but also felt relief that Senator Joe Biden was the pick. OK, both GOP and DEM alike felt safer that someone with Biden’s extensive resume would be behind the inexperienced Obama. However now with the current cast of inexperienced characters running for 2016 one has to look and wonder who can complement the eventual GOP and DEM nomination.

Some pundits have readied their bracketology of who will fall where by Summer of 2016 and it seems, at least for some, the anointed Hillary Clinton will chose Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, which seems more as political back scratching. Hillary’s resume speaks for herself, so whoever wants to share her pantsuit shenanigans their background does not need to be complete.

Fact is, just like Obama, the three juniors of Rubio, Paul and Cruz have little executive experience. Hell all four have little congressional experience if you look at their absentee/attendance file. So regardless if any of the three make it to Election Day they will need a strong VP to rub their shoulders.

I have stated on numerous social platforms that Senator Marco Rubio was the victor the past 2 debates and only getting stronger in his own self induced snail’s pace to 2016 glory, which has me shining my crystal ball to think about a Rubio presidency and who would be the ideal running mate.There are few Conservative pundits that are buying a Rubio presidency, but those that have seem to be pointing to South Carolina’s Nikki Haley to hold Rubio’s hand, yet I can’t swallow this idea. Yes Haley is still a Tea Party starlet, but she also has taken gut punch recently in the polls with her removal of the Confederate Battle Flag from the State Capitol as the latest slap.

The choice of Rubio to pick a fellow Senator is slim for the simple reason that the GOP has 24 seats to cover and 10 of those seats will be huge battles to keep, so money is already set aside for those races. One of those seats happens to be Florida’s seat that Rubio has given up to run his “win or bust” campaign. It’s obvious that Rubio will not pick Ted Cruz or Rand Paul for Senate seat reasoning, even though their seats are stable.

Besides, the observant eye has yet to see a grudge match between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, which leads many to see the “Trump n’ Cruz” slogans being printed come April 2016.
However I have my eyes on South Dakota’s John Thune to be high on Rubio’s list.

Thune was considered by pundits a likely choice to run in 2016 but he nixed those ideas quickly. He entertained the thought in 2012 only to wave it off it was by all accounts a “weak field” of candidates and the rumor mill for 2016 wasn’t even thought as I believed he has more to do as the Senate Commerce chair and the #3 rank in senate leadership.
Of course Thune does not carry the popularity of Cruz (52%) or Paul (75%) among his fellow Senators as he barely hits the 45% mark, but again he is not as outspoken as they are but his attendance/absentee record much higher. Basically he is in Washington DC doing his job, unlike Cruz/Paul who have been on the campaign stump since the day they were elected to office. Among the Conservative causes, Thune averages around 85% approval from those organizations as well.

If any other Senators have a glimmer of a chance to stand with Rubio, the names of Jake Flake, Kelly Ayotte and Tim Scott should be added to the mix.

Of course as the candidate lists dwindles down to less and less the notion of Rubio still standing has a greater chance and there will be many clamoring for him to pick up one of the fallen as a running mate. Governors like Chris Christie and Jeb(!) Bush still have a fighting chance to see their future political dreams come true, yet I do not see either wanting to play backup to nobody. So if there were a Governor of choice, it has to land with John Huntsman.

Then again, personally I would enjoy seeing the smartest (and most egotistical) man make his comeback. Yes a return of Newt Gingrich.

That’s it, slap the political tap on some Blithering Idiot Ale and keep the Merry in Christmas by spending your Holiday bonuses on the Freedom of Capitalism


Friday, October 30, 2015

2016 Presidential Campaign- The Human Zoo And The Jokes On Us

Yes Hell you need to turn up the thermostat because after watching the replay of the Wednesday night CNBC GOP debacle. err I mean CNBC GOP debate Hell has gotten a bit colder as I’ve come to the conclusion that I actually agree with Ted Cruz on the point of mistrust in today’s Media

Even though Cruz’s ire was cast towards that of the CNBC moderating crew, he really needs to be all inclusive to ALL MEDIA, not just one brand. It’s they, ALL MEDIA that’s racking up ratings with the past 4 debates (GOP and DEM alike) by averaging 15 million viewers so far. We’ve already been told that CNBC’s rating were around between 10 to 11 million but the excuse for the low number was due to the NBA’s season opener and Game #2 of the World Series, which is excusable as there’s a greater interest in those events then a bunch of guys talking about how they plan to change the US.

OK, maybe I’m not in full agreement with Cruz, who truly is so rehearsed in every step was simply waiting to mock the CNBC debate on the coattails of Donald Trump’s earlier statement that this debate was going to be “unfair.” Trump had stated CNBC “was going to be unfair” well before the event even started, some 6 hours prior to kick-off to be exact. Trump’s “unfair” debate accusation comes solely on the notion that he did not agree with the recent polling that placed him in second place which means he would not be center square on the debate stage.

Um, you can’t be the center square when there are 10 people on stage.

But let’s stop here as I have a confession to spout. This blog isn’t going to be about mocking the GOP candidates, but about the debate process all together. I had all intentions of writing a review of the first DEM debate a few weeks back but I could not subject the reader to a blog of non-interest as the debate itself was a complete sham and a waste of three hours, as most first “get to know me” debates are. However, it perfectly intertwines with the past three GOP debates in that the product and rules suck. And when I mean suck I mean all of it; from the rebuttal rule to the greeting/salutation remarks to uncontrollable behavior of the candidate and moderator. You can decide about the characterization of the candidate by yourself.

So here I am some many hours later reading about how awesome it was that Cruz slapped the media (again he slapped CNBC, not all) for producing a debate that turned into an uncontrollable free-for-all for the viewer. It’s easy for me to point out how the candidates are a group of knee jerk "reactionists" to everything another had/had stated.
RNC Head Reince Priebus is quoted as saying “While I was proud of our candidates and the way they handled tonight’s debate, the performance by the CNBC moderators was extremely disappointing and did a disservice to their network, our candidates and voters.”

Wait a minute there Reince. The prime time candidates aren’t innocent in this debate disgrace. Yes the moderators did a poor job of umpiring this anarchy but when you’ve got grown men acting like children talking over each other, crying that they deserve more rebuttal time because someone looked at them or insinuated their name without actually saying it is nothing to be proud of.

The same could be said for CNN’s Anderson Cooper allowing Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton to go way beyond their allotted agreed upon time only to keep cutting off Jim Webb three words into his statements. The campaigns agree on the terms of each debate with hopes that the moderators will be able to control the candidates. Well unless the moderators are allowed cattle prods and shock collars, all the candidates will keep running over each other to get added camera time.

Normally the candidates stand still and make little hay out of the debate program, but not with CNBC as from the moment the ending credits rolled, the prime time candidates have been sandbagging CNBC with Ben Carson calling all campaigns to voice opposition to the “Gotcha” questions and to step up to a higher level of debate.

Hm, ok Dr Carson let’s shake it up because hater gotta hate hate hate..

Damn you Taylor Swift!

But let’s play the game and crash the debate dynamics to end these shenanigans.

First and foremost let’s change the debate stage and only allow “5” candidates on stage at one time. We can keep the “polling ranking” to decide who’s on stage and when. It’s simple math; 5 candidates debate for 60 minutes. That gives each equal time of 12 minutes/each. Truly I believe let's go further and do away with the “poll ranking” and let’s go by job description. Wouldn’t be awesome to see all the Governors, Senators and business folk in their own respective categories to debate within their grouping?

Grouping like Governors Christie, Jindall, Kasich, Pataki and Bush debating policies they legislated in their states could give the viewer/voter a better idea of how they could fair governing the country.

Secondly, change the rules with two simple swipes; kill the rebuttal and kill the mic. The rebuttals are what’s truly destroying these debates as I’ve stated earlier and to do that you kill every mic till called on. They want to act like children, well treat them as children. Imagine a candidate able to speak without having to worry about another interrupting their talking point. Again, this would help the viewer/voter make a solid decision.

And finally, only one moderator, please!

Unfortunately simple changes like this need to be presented by the Media to the political party heads of Reince Priebus and Debbie Wasserman Shultz. The fact is the campaigns have to agree on the debate format before stepping on stage and we’ve already seen some wanting change by petitioning CNBC prior to the debate to shorten the time frame from 3 hours to 2 hours.

But ALL MEDIA is not to blame for the debate debacles, we the viewer/voter have a part. People want to see the candidates fight over whose better, but it also depends on what source people get their news from. If you’re a constant FOX viewer, yes you will complain about the moderators on CNBC/MSNBC as too liberal and vice verse. Same goes if you’re a Trump fan, you’ll think he won the debate (according to immediate polling he’s won all three thus far) and someone like Chris Christie was horrible. But were you actually listening or just discounting another candidate’s words because you just don’t like them?

Maybe that’s why I watch the debates twice; once for the initial view and the second for truly paying attention. By doing so, I can honestly say Christie has been better than the leading candidates these past two debates, as have been Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham. Yes I said Lindsey Graham and as much as I mock the Southern Bell, he does deserve a main stage soapbox over Kasich/Paul/Huckabee. But to get there, people really need to listen.

YAWN! No one will ever be happy with the moderators, whom go about their business until there’s that one moment the viewer doesn’t like the question and BAM! the moderator becomes a target on the dart board, or in today’s world a quick mock on Social Media. Talk about leading the public, as their family and friends are heavily guaranteed to agree with that opinionated Social Media post and repost on their own page.

The day after is usually a nauseating day for the average viewer as that network spends the next 24 hours debating and dissecting the previous night’s performance while the competing other networks are busy critiquing the highlights.

And now this current blog has become nauseating and I need a drink

That’s it, Slap the tap on some “Ass Kisser Ale,” pay your non-flat tax political tab and turn up the heat because it’s cold inside CNBC studios until the next scheduled debate debacle is viewed.


Friday, October 9, 2015

The Professed “War on Christmas” is just a “War on Words”

It’s pretty sad that we are weeks away from Halloween and we’re already hearing the grumbling of the dreaded “War on Christmas” by media and potential political candidate alike.

Of course, this professed “war” is nothing more than a grab to tug at the heart strings of many who believe all things Christian in the US has been stream rolled for the sake of others. That’s just bucket of spit because this so called “war” on the diminishment of Jesus’ birthday is a fa├žade when considering no one knows the actual date of birth for the son of God.

Yes I said it, his birthday was not on Dec 25, the date was chosen as symbolic and Pope Benedict XVI even agrees.

But this is not a blog about the birth of Christ but about the whining by many because people say “Happy Holiday” instead of “Merry Christmas.”

So let me ask “Why do we say Happy Holidays?” The chosen date of Dec 25 has more to do with other holidays celebrated in that timeframe. There are roughly 12 holidays celebrated leading up to Dec 25. We have Christmas, Omisoka, Shabe-Yalda, Kwanzaa, Yule, Id al-Fitr, Hanukkah, Wandering Goddess, Bodhi, and Winter Solstice. Saturnalia and I’ll even add Festivus for good measure.

Wow! Could you imagine a store clerk being polite and saying all those holidays to a costumer? Life would be easier if everyone wore a religious tag so everyone knows the proper greeting/salutation.

Please save me your pitchforks and screams of the lack of religion in the public school arena as that can be countered easily with a simple question; which religion should be allowed in public schools?

Remember public schools are for everyone, so you HAVE to accommodate all not just one. And you only have to look at the current cries of students learning about Islam or Quran during their Civics and History classes for validation.

Yet, I have no true issue with my child learning about religions/religious regions in public school. Too be against it only shows ignorance. If you want your child to learn about your particular religion you have two choices; Home School or Religious School.

This professed “war” would make more sense if it weren’t about greetings/salutations but against the true culprit……….. Consumerism!

We as a nation have corrupted so many historic events for profit. July 4th, Labor Day, Memorial Day has been turned into “50% off sale” days on everything from hot dogs to tickets to auto sales. Nope we must molest every holiday to make a buck. Is there any other religion that has been corrupted by money than that of Christianity?

Hey wait a minute, come to think about it I don’t recall ever seeing a Hanukkah candle sale advertisement in the 5 weeks between “Black Friday” to Christmas Eve, so why is Christmas the only target of commercialism?

It can’t be denied that more children today believe more in Santa Claus than Jesus Christ. But who do you blame for that? Well the simple answer for many would be Atheists before saying Coca-Cola or Macy’s come to mind.

I understand that over the decades, many have fallen out of religious belief and thanks to commercializing every holiday or historic day for money; it’s easy to see how more children believe in Santa then Jesus’ birth. But to add a Yule log to the fire of the argument, here’s a little story out of Sacramento this week that should make one think of this war of words.

Per an article on the website Woman’s Day on Monday 10/5, a Southern California mother was served legal papers threatening her with a civil lawsuit due to her son’s negligent actions towards his classmates. It seems her son traumatized eight of his fellow classmates by informing them that Santa Claus does not exist and that the parents are demanding he stay away from their children or further legal action will be taken.

Got that, this little boy told some classmates that Santa Claus doesn’t exist and now their parents are claiming he took away their innocence.

And yet people are worried about putting “Christ” back in Christmas when parents, religious or not, are pushing a fat man in a Red Suit is the joy of the season as a marketing ploy. So remember when you hear about the “War on Christmas” it’s ok to say “Happy Holidays” so not to offend your Jewish or Arabic friends while you’re shopping at Toys R’ Us for the “BOGO” on the latest Star Wards Episode VII toys.

And to top this blog off, I just found out today (10/8) was “Bring your Bible to school day” to encourage students to bring their bibles to school to celebrate religious freedom. But keep your Torahs, Quran, Bhagavad-Gita, Adi Granth and Tripitaka at home because you don’t want to offend one’s religious belief.

That’s it, Slap the political tab, pour some “Mad Elf” and stuff your stocking only after you pay your political tab.


Thursday, September 17, 2015

GOP Debate review #2- The Cheesy, The Pandering and Lindsey Graham Oh My!

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear about the second GOP Debate at the Reagan Library; yes Lindsey Graham, if you became President there would be a lot of heavy drinking throughout the land. But from one possible presidential fiasco to the reality of the debate fiasco to which close to 23 million viewed there’s much to crow about.

CNN obviously bit off more than it could stomach with the second GOP debate. But this is what was to be expected as all candidates shock off the first debate jitters and shined up their soapboxes for the invited guests in Simi Valley, but the quarrelling was much better as donations are becoming scarcer and TV time is the greater need.

Sure the “Happy Hour” of Santorum, Pataki, Graham and Jindall proved why they were second stage material. But a smaller stage was too be their greatest advantage to be heard except only Graham showed to have grasp that notion. Yes he spoke over and fought with Santorum, but his comedy act helped him get the attention.

After Graham’s drinking comment the “Southern Bell” moved onto to immigration and questioned Tapper about the need for a Northern border fence/wall by stating “I’ve never seen an illegal Canadian” to some snickering in the audience. Here’s the problem with his answer, it shows the ignorance he and many have with the idea illegals only enter from the South and Latino to boot. The Northern border is filled with farmlands and the Great Lakes when compared the barren land of Southern states. And those that enter illegally from the north are Asian, Czech and Ukrainian.

Unfortunately, these four will not be moving up to the main stage any time soon.

The biggest debacle for CNN was having 11 bombastic ego driven individuals act with civility while vying for support. Too say I expected Tapper to act more referee then bullied child is an understatement.

This is no knock on Tapper, whom I consider a fair interviewer much like his FOX counterpart Chris Wallace; however last night he tried to step away from any “gotcha” questions and seemed like a scared 4th grader reading a book review. Note to all Media please do away with this stupid “invoking” rule. This was CNN’s biggest mistake and caused the candidates to sound more like Horshack from Welcome Back Kotter then professional beings.

Plus the annoyance of the split screen only gave more airtime to Trump as it left me remembering the Bush 43 “watch” and Gore eye rolling/sighing moments of Presidential debates of the past. Maybe instead of this rule, they could’ve just tagged out WWE Style.

Was it me or was it not surreal that Jeb(!) admitted to smoking marijuana at the Reagan “Just Say No” Library? It is refreshing to see a politician give a little truth in a generation of recreational drug use. Sure Clinton said he didn’t inhale, Bush 43 never answered the question, Obama stated he tried marijuana and cocaine only to be vilified by Conservative pundits like Hannity, so now I wonder will they mock Jeb(!)’s drug admission?

I can go on about each individual performance, as many agree Fiorina proved her worth to play among the boys and well, she ate their lunch as well. And while speaking of lunch, Christie finally showed his weight by what once made him the man to be at the end of the 2014 Election cycle. Yes these two came out on top along with the “awakened” Marco Rubio. All three seemed to stay on their well practiced point of conversation be it Fiorina’s resolute attitude, Christie’s attack them not each other and Rubio’s fired up attitude.

I’m left to wonder what has happened to the 3 Prim Donnas of Paul, Cruz and Walker. All three were put on “future president” pedestals when they began their current positions even though they had not performed yet. And now they lay in limbo, never gaining traction among the gatherings. Speaking more of Cruz, is there nothing about this man that is not rehearsed and why is everything so damn dreary or smelling of Armageddon? I can only imagine his children hiding under their beds when daddy says “ok kids want me to read you a bedtime story?'

OK go ahead point at Walker and Cruz placement in the polls but actually look at their polling numbers and it’s a sad affair. Maybe if Cruz and Paul actually stayed in Washington and did something instead dragging their soapboxes around the country, collecting speaking fees, they might have records (meaning legislation) to run on instead of words words and more words.

So in the aftermath of the debate, Media pundits have tallied their scorecards and the majority stated that Carly Fiorina has proved she is the one to truly beat. I too have my scorecard and unlike the paid pundits, I believe mine has more truth: Fiorina- A, Christie – B, Rubio- B, Carson- B, Kasich- C, Trump- C, Paul- C, Huckabee- C, Bush- C, Santorum- D, Graham- C, Jindall- D, Pataki- D, Walker- D, Cruz- D

Yet this should have been expected by the well paid pundits that the first debate is considered dress rehearsal, get people to know who they are and by the time the second debate rolls around, boom everyone is on cue

But somewhere in West Texas, Rick Perry is sitting under an antelope head at his N*ggerhead hunting lodge saying “that could ‘a been me. Stupid smart guy glasses stunt.”

That’s it, Slap the tap on some Alimony Ale and pay your political tab


Wednesday, September 16, 2015


What difference does it make whether a President or candidate speaks/answers a question in any language other than ‘Murican?

So what on Earth am I talking about? Well it seems Donald Trump and that linguist maven Sarah Palin got their political panties all bunched up because a few weeks ago Jeb(!) Bush was asked a question in Spanish and he replied in Spanish.

Their reaction has made the Media rounds due to two things that are in the news at this time; A. the battle that legal and illegal immigrants should speak “English” when here and B. that Jeb(!) Bush showed off his bilingual skills and Donald Trump didn’t like it. Apparently Palin was so upset about Jeb(!) showing off his communication skills that she had to bless us with an interview just to say “…when you're here, let's speak American.”

Now let that sink in for a minute……

I have to be fair because we live in the Media sound bite world and many will charge Palin with speaking before thinking. So as a few many only heard Palin’s sound bite, she did correct herself with “I mean that's what's — let's speak English and that's a kind of a unifying aspect of the nation is the language that is understood by all.”

Yes she is correct; we speak English in the United States even though we do not have an official language. And it’s that huge consortium of folks who believe there should be an official American language even though our Founding Fathers had never wanted such and many of them were bilingual as well.

Kind of funny considering that most citizens cannot even speak coherent English, they speak fluent ‘Murican.

So why had our Founding Fathers not believed in an official language for their newly founded country? Simply because they had taken for granted that citizens already spoke English so there was no need for an official language plus believing that anyone who immigrated would simply pick up the language in adapting to their new home.

History also tells us that our Founding Fathers and citizens also consumed a lot of alcohol on a daily basis.

But there’s nothing wrong with being bilingual as many of our past presidents spoke many languages. Jefferson and JQ Adams were fluent in Latin, French and Italian while Hoover enjoyed speaking Chinese when strolling through the halls of the White House. Ben Franklin is reported to have routinely complained about German immigrants being too dumb to learn English and worried about how they will soon outnumber Americans. Sound familiar in today’s American society and the complaints of the Latino populace?

So yes, the push for all immigrants (legal and illegal) to learn English has been around since we revolted the English crown, but it seems the complaint is growing larger as more and more from around the world want to live the American dream.

Many are learning the English language, but their main problem is they cannot shake their “accent.” Again to be fair, have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone with a deep Boston or New York accent? If there is anyone who needs a class in phonetics it’s these folks. Heavy accents run throughout the Northeast and Southern United States. I talk to many people throughout the East Coast on a daily basis and their regional accents leave me scratching my head sometimes

Yes I’m from Pittsburgh, what you might call a Pittsburgher I prefer the term “Yinzer,” a city that recently was voted the country’s ugliest accent. No recount needed as the majority of “Yinzers” are proud to accept the honor, except me, I’ve fought my entire life for clarity.

So we should be sympathetic to those immigrating here and trying to learn a new language, Lord knows I butchered many foreign languages in school to squeak by with a “C.”
But we, as a consumer, have been forced to deal with foreign accents for the longest time.

For instance, the majority of the time when calling customer service one will moan aloud “please let this person speak English, please…..” and when the person answers with a foreign accent you let out a big sigh and say “why am I talking to someone in a foreign land?” Blame the business.

American companies from industries of Credit to Electronics have moved their Customer and Technical service departments half way around the world for two reasons; cheap labor and time convenience.

It’s cheaper to contract a company in another country and normally as the consumer we make most of customer/technical service calls in the evening time. We’re ending our day and they are just beginning. These foreign companies have caught on and have told their employees to “Americanize” themselves by using American names like “Timmy” or “Susie” so we feel sympathetic into thinking this person just immigrated here and trying to fit in.

Why do you think he goes by “Bobby” Jindall and not by his real name of “Piyush?” Because when his parents moved to the US, they didn’t want him to be ostracized by other kids.

Yet I must turn to the Urban Dictionary to help those newly minted legal and illegal immigrants to fully comprehend what it means to live in 'Murica and speak its language. So pay attention as this may appear on your VISA application. Per the Urban Dictionary the term "murica" is the way how many people with extremely thick, American accents, pronounce "America". The term is used to denote extreme, extreme nationalism and patriotism, but not necessarily facism. It is generally seen as a derogatory yet humorous way to describe most Americans: fat, lazy, gunwielding, war loving, horse riding, saloon fighting, beer drinking, sex wanting or etc.

So grab a beer, gun, Big Mac and wave 'Ol Glory while screaming war songs against your homeland and you to may fit the 'Murican stereotype.

Again, there are way too many here in the good old ‘Murica that can take the simplest of issue and turn it into something that makes thinking before speaking overrated. But hey, that’s why I have a political blog to either fan the flames or piss on the campfire.

That’s it, Slap the tap “‘Junna goink dahn the sahside to Chupka’s for a bawdle of arn and wach the Stillers n’at” and pay your political tab. (Translation: You guys going down to the South Side to Chupka’s for a bottle of Iron City Beer and watch the Steelers game)

Pip Pip Cheerio

Thursday, September 3, 2015

The Democratic Debates have been scheduled but will anyone listen

So the DNC has finally decided to get into the “game” and released their 2016 Democratic Primary Debate TV schedule for all to view. But will anyone actually watch?

I ain’t lying when I say many were waiting with baited breathe to watch the first GOP PD, more for the fact to see how Donald Trump would stack up against the establishment politicians, minus the likes of Dr Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. Oh how the FOX News group gleefully circle jerked when the ratings came out, but don’t expect CNN to do the same with the first Democratic PD on Oct 13. I expect a limp response in the viewership only because the most hardened politico will be watching to either cheer/boo Hillary from the comforts of their living room while others will be watching the latest Dancing with the Stars.

It wasn’t long ago that many were wondering if the GOP had become extinct with their lack of candidates, sorry, lack of “brand” candidates. But they were smart by opening the door for a younger generation to take a seat. Well that and the creation of the Tea Party helped as well. Yet, it seems the political winds have turned and now it’s time to question the life of the Dems.

Look at this “gawd awful” Democratic list of candidates; Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley, and Lincoln Chafee. At least the voter will hear more than “Benghazi” or “Email gate” in the media.

Yes the Democratic roster deserves the moniker of “Boring Five” as there will be little on stage fireworks and one might expect CNN Sanjay Gupta to be backstage to check the contenders for heartbeats.

Ok maybe that’s harsh, there is life in these candidates but media is too focused on interparty squabbling and throat punches among the candidates, as we’ve seen in GOP debates of the past. The proof is there as media keeps poking Bernie Sanders to go negative on Hillary Clinton to equal that of some of their GOP counterparts. It all equals ratings.
I’ve mocked the GOP for having too many contenders and too many debates in 2012, but applauded them for at least slicing the debate schedule down even though the political short bus is filled to capacity. But as I mock/applaud them, I need to mock the DNC for scheduling only six sponsored debates for their lackluster candidates and the blame lies fully on DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

Wasserman Shultz should be removed from her chair as her record, well to simply say, it sucks. She’s fully responsible for the Democratic body chalk outline on the Capitol Building floor over the past few years. As well she is the reason for the debate schedule being sliced by 75% from the 2008 schedule. Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders have every right to be upset as it gives them less viewership to debate their policy beliefs against that of Clinton, Webb and Chafee.

Before we go any further, is it necessary to even put this show on the road? Just about everyone already knows Hillary will be given the soapbox for 2016 and the DNC only has them self to blame. Just look at the latest news about the DNC and Hillary Clinton banning together on a fundraising deal for example.

Yep, all indication shows that the DNC has flat lined and someone needs shock them back to life.

In all honestly, just like their GOP counterparts, there’s about 1 degree of variance between the five Democratic names, however no one would know because media is filled with sound bites of Clinton and Sanders playing nice with each other.

Let’s look at three issues that will dominate the DNC PD in October; taxes, immigration and same sex marriage.

Honestly someone needs to get the candidates a thesaurus to find a better term for “pathway” since it’s become a dirty word that equals amnesty, which all the candidates are for. But only two actually have a body of work to back up their belief.

As governors of their respected states, both O’Malley and Chafee extended “in state” tuitions to illegal immigrants to their universities.

Webb, while supporting some version of the failed “Dream” Act and along with O’Malley believes in Immigration reform to help business.

Same Sex Marriage
There seems to have been some sort of “evolution” of thought when it comes to Same Sex Marriage for a couple of the Democratic contenders. But as of today all are for it.

It seems both Webb and Clinton have suffered a reverse version of “John Kerry Syndrome” as they were once against it and now for it. According to AlterNet, Sanders has been supporting Same Sex Marriage for over 40 years while both O’Malley and Chafee put their states ahead of the game by passing same sex marriage legislation.

As O’Malley stated when he signed legislation in 2012 "The way forward is always found through greater respect for the equal rights of all. If there is a thread that unites all of our work here together, it is the thread of human dignity”

This is where the “Boring Five” vary or one would think so.

It seems O’Malley is the most progressive of the bunch because as governor he raised just about every tax he could from gas to alcohol to the wealthy, while the rest of the crowd agrees on lowering the corporate tax rate while taxing the wealthy.

Clinton has proposed closing the corporate loopholes to help cut middle class taxes with an added bonus of keeping capital gains below 20%, with Webb and Chafee adding talk about reforming tax codes to a simpler version

Meanwhile Sanders appears to be the most extreme in his plan. Of course he wants to cut taxes on the middle class but desiring higher taxes on the wealthy by doubling the tax on capital gains and dividends. Not to mention he is in step with Rand Paul to the beat of “Auditing the Fed.”

Of course I’ve only given a small snippet and the “Boring Five” will have more issues to answer come October. But does it even matter knowing full well that the DNC has already hand delivered the victory to Clinton regardless of polling, something they and Media have wanted since 2008?

It’s rather sad for O’Malley who was once considered the Democratic golden boy and anointed by Pres Bill Clinton as a future president or that Lincoln Chafee couldn’t even get a bump in polling by appearing on the Conan O’Brien show.

It truly does show why many Democrats are begging for “Crazy Uncle” Joe Biden to jump in and want to be “Ridin’ with Biden” in 2016. I can already hear the “pull my finger” jokes by late night’s Kimmel, Fallon and Colbert

That’s it, slap the tap on some Bristol’s Ale and pay your political tab before we get hit with a national consumption tax

Saturday, August 8, 2015

FOX News’ Award Winning Debate Performance

Thank you Roger Ailes and Fox News for what I believe to have been the best damn soap opera on television Thursday night. We expected dramatics and the viewer received a Vaudeville show.

With the days leading up to the Aug 6 debate GOP officials practically begged the candidates not to attack each other and to focus on Hillary, Obama and Democratic policy. However, candidates accepted the gun powder handed out by the FOX News moderators and shots were fired in Yosemite Sam style.

There was guns, booze, fire trucks, hookers and, well, um, no wait that was the Bachelor Party but it was exciting and memorable.

In all honesty I truly enjoyed listening to all the candidates at both debates; however it’s always the day after, when Media has dissected every question/answer, every wince/sigh, every fidget/itch and every outburst to determine the winners/losers of the affair. And just as I expect the rebuttals of the night are glorious!

I find it interesting of the about face of FOX News many have done the morning after. Claims of ambushes and “Jeb loving” have been tossed on the very far Right websites and social media like this one on the Facebok Teaparty page:

The Liberal Left who is normally at the pointed end of the pitchfork by the Right has embraced and giggled at the current backlash but also defended FOX News.

Yes it’s fair to have constructive criticism about a moderator but the name calling being tossed at Megyn Kelly is way out of line, especially by Conservatives who normally save the name calling for Liberal moderators.

Kelly did her job, period. So suck it up and pull up your big boy pants.

As a moderator you want to get the candidate to further their thought/policy belief and she did what many had hoped, to get Trump to answer for his bold yet childish outbursts and how his actions have clearly begun to characterize a Trump Presidency.

Face it, you gotta have thick skin to be a politician, especially a President and Trump’s skin is transparent.

As expected, Donald Trump stated that he does not debate well and he proved himself correct. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with some of his statements, he hit a few things on the head but he threw himself under the bus as well.

When asked about his political donation history, he admitted it’s a broken system as he gives money too many politicians for future favors. Yet the joke was on him when he stated he gave to all those on stage only too have Marco Rubio speak first too say “Not me, he gave to Charlie Crist (he’s opponent)” as others chimed in afterwards.

Co-Moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump about his business bankruptcies of the past. Trump didn’t even let Wallace get the full question out before interrupting to say “he never filed bankruptcy.” Yes everyone should know that he has never personally filed, but his company have, 4 times to be exact.

Too me and (I’m positive for Wallace as well), the point of the question was simply how can you say that you can correct the US debt issue when in the past your own company had to file bankruptcy to correct its debt?

Many viewers jumped at this question as an ambush of Trump’s character, but they are wrong.

This is one of the problems I had with Mitt Romney in 2012; he never spoke of how he learned from a failed business venture, as if every venture was a success. I call bullshit on that, because there had to be some failure or misstep, not every venture was rosy, so what did you learn?

And this is the problem with Trump; he acts like Romney as if every business action was a success. Had Trump easily stated something like “my business partners and creditors advised bankruptcy laws are there for a reason to help re-organize business missteps and I followed their advice” I would’ve understood. But nope he had to ramble about a corruptive system. Mind you a corrupted system that he took advantage of 4xs in 15-20 years.

And this is why I say Trump is out of the GOP campaign by November because he can’t handle the heat when he can’t control the flame. He’s elaborated if he drops out of the GOP campaign, he’ll take his golden ball home and run as an Independent.

Pathetic golden spoon fed baby. Yet I see he will not lose much in the polling numbers and still be on top come the CNN 2 night affair come September.

If anything, Jeb(!) won’t drop in the polls either. Jeb(!) did just what he needs to do, take the Romney stance and play it low. Romney coasted thru the debates, never saying anything too controversial, explained his past actions and survived. Yes Romney lost debates to Cain, Santorum and Bachmann, but he ended up eventually winning the party candidacy as the last man standing.

I truly enjoyed the debate performances of Fiorina, Carson and Kasich as well. All will make gains in the polls and stay in the top 10. Well Fiorina should’ve been in the Top 10 on August 6th, but now has gained momentum even though her “not the only woman in the race” tagline is running thin.

If I were to guess what the Top 10 shall look like by the next polling data release, it should be:

1.Trump 2.Bush 3.Walker 4.Kasich 5.Huckabee
6.Rubio 7.Cruz 8.Christie 9.Fiorina 10.Carson

It’s not a stretch to see gains and losses after one debate that clearly had no real winner, no matter what a candidate’s flock states. It’s only August and it’s a long road to go full circle back to Cleveland in 11 months.

That’s it, Slap the political tap on some Fox’s Nob brew, pass the stale popcorn and damn you Jon Stewart just when people need their campaign laughs you go and retire! To quote Sen. McCain, Goodbye Jackass!


Wednesday, August 5, 2015

The Speed-O Campaign of Trump

While vacationing with family in Cancun last week, I came to a conclusion that a Trump presidential candidacy equals that of a Speed-O; it’s useless & unbelievably uncomfortable to witness.

Now I say this only because too many males of all walks of life, size and age were proudly (but humiliatingly) wearing a Speed-O and the only two English speaking channels to view were FOX News and CNN International. All of which was too much for the human mind to consume and damaging to the retina. Every time I turned around there was a Speed-O or Trump or (I swear) Trump wearing a Speed-O.

Regardless of one’s opinion of Trump of the 2016 campaign, either as a Republican or as an Independent, he'll be around for some time. Yes, it’s been floated of a possible 3 horse race in 2016, it just depends if the RNC hands over their candidacy to Trump or not. Personally, I believe he’ll drop out by the end of November in some sort of inglorious belligerent spectacular way.

But then again, I thought Rick “Spaz” Santorum wouldn’t last 4 months in the 2012 campaign.

What truly gets me is the reaction of people, both Media and Regular Schmuck that have fallen for Trump’s shtick in this race. They love the brash, tough guy act, but are they truly listening? I believe not because much of his words are no different from other past/current candidates, just he uses less words to explain.

For instance, despite his tough talk on Illegal Immigrants that has been disgustingly replayed since he announced, has recently come out for “Revolving Door Amnesty.” For those that do not understand the concept or have not paid attention to Trump’s actual words, he has stated this concept during a CNN interview with Dana Bash:

"You’re supposed to come in legally. I would get people out and I would have an expedited way of getting them back into the country, so they can be legal. Let them be legal." (Donald Trump July 29, 2015)

That’s not being tough, that’s opening a pathway to possible citizenship and/or green card visa work privilege. A concept not too far from that of Sen McCain and others in the GOP.

But to take that a step further, it’s a call to change the current H-1B Visa policy. Mind you, it was only a few days ago that it was reported that the US is on track to give out close to 30 million(!) visas between now and 2025, a mere 10 years away.

As we worry about US citizens losing their jobs to foreign shores like that of Nabisco laying off 600 employees at their Chicago plant to go to Mexico, the idea of new H-1B Visa acceptance is a push by big business. Those immigrants can be hired at lower wages and no benefits to be paid which equates to profits. It’s also a policy of current candidate Carly Fiorina as well, but unfortunately her voice in this race has become hushed due to lack of coverage.

Not to mention Trump's call to bring back manufacturing jobs from China has many Economists chuckling as,again it's about cheap labor and profit margins. Add to the debate that many manufacturing positions in the US are also becoming automated leaves me to wonder how he plans to force manufacturers to hire.

But hey, Trump's a golden spoon tough guy from Queens, New York and he'll take on ISIS as President.

The idea of bombing ISIS is one uttered by Trump and Company as well, however it’s a tactic being used as the US is leading the current coalition in airstrikes. The one issue with bombing ISIS as many love to regurgitate is they are not a country, but a group.

The plot to bomb ones enemy away is truly no longer an option. Think about, bomb the enemy's capital and they crumble. But when that enemy is a worldwide entity, one can bomb one area only to have that enemy pop up across the globe.

Yet Trump's true idea is of bombing the oil fields held by ISIS in the Middle East, followed up by using US military to protect those oil fields as US corporations rebuild them.

"If I win, I would attack those oil sites that are controlled and owned -- they are controlled by ISIS," Trump said. "I wouldn't send many troops because you won't need 'em by the time I'm done."(Donald Trump July 10, 2015)

Um, and how does that affect the current cost of oil?

Well prior to 2003, the price of oil fluctuated around $25/barrel and soon doubled within a year. By August 2008, the cost of oil hit $141/barrel. Yes those numbers rose because of other incidents in the Middle East but the main cause was the Iraq war in that time frame.

As oil prices have dropped, are we prepared to see oil prices rise again or are we in belief that the current North American output will stay at it’s current height even with the lack of refineries?

He's stated on Day #1 of a trump presidency he would Repeal Obamacare. (Yawn) Again identical words of the other candidates that are normally followed with creating State exchanges so a business in Iowa can buy health insurance in Missouri.

The main issue with Trump is he just talking and cannot answer how he would achieve his goals. Best example happened the other day during an interview with FOX News' Bill O'Reilly who asked "How are you gonna pay to build a border wall?"

After some deflection and repeatedly being asked Trump finally stated he would make Mexico pay for it.

Are they paying for this in Pesos or US Dollars?

And yet again, I revert back to the issue of oil because Mexico is the #3 oil exporter to the US. How would he control the price of oil if Mexico decides to cut production or exports to the US?

It's easy to talk tough and promote oneself, something Trump excels at doing, but can he walk his talk outside of a boardroom and the constant threat of lawsuits which he regularly spews?

Unfortunately it's the Media partisan talking heads that have truly pushed Trump's numbers to double digits. Those like Ann Coulter that once called him a "clown" when he floated the idea of a Presidential run in 2012 now bend over and throw roses at his feet.

"I think Trump is a clown, I expect the enthusiasm for him is based on two things: that the rest of at least the declared candidates aren’t exciting anybody, and there’s name recognition. And he has come out like gangbusters against the Obama administration like an establishment politician probably wouldn’t."(Coulter 2011 speech George Washington University.)

As the countdown clock for the Aug 6 debate winds down, RNC head honcho Reince Pribus has come out to say that the candidates need to focus on attacking Hillary Clinton, the Democrat establishment and President Obama, while doing everything they can not to attack each other.

Well there goes Trump's gamer plan as that's all he can do, besides telling everyone how rich he is.

That's it, Slap the Political tap, pack away your Speed-O, and pour a shot of I.C. Shore Whiskey every time Trump deflects by answering "I'm rich and build things" because we got roughly 10 months till the RNC Convention and seeing Trump pinatas hanging in downtown Cleveland.


Thursday, July 23, 2015

Early Primary Debate Prediction: Who Crapped in the GOP Bed

Yes I am a political geek and what was once a wonderful event for me to dissect and mock has now begun to look more like a mind-numbing marathon of spectacular stupidity that makes me wonder who is getting paid by whom to run for President in 2016 just to ruin another’s chance.

Truly I am saddened because it seems every Presidential cycle has become a low budget circus event of people looking to better their career and not actually want to serve as President of the United States of America.

Yes I know I’ve mocked the contenders and pretenders lately, but think about it; who is actually a contender and who is looking to pad their future speaking fee cost?

With the first GOP debate a mere two weeks away, many in the GOP are making their final push to get their soapboxes on the FOX News stage August 6th in Cleveland. When asked by MSNBC Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski about how he feels about the FOX News Top 10 format “Southern Bell” Sen Lindsey Graham simply stated “it sucks.”

Yet here’s the funny thing, the Bottom (not so) 10 aren’t staying home that Monday night as we’re being told by Media and the candidates, but they keep stating their being held out.

Nope these “not ready for prime time” candidates will be on stage in Cleveland as well, just they’ll be speaking at a special 60 minute “forum” on FOX News around 5pm that day. Actually it was supposed to be held at 1pm, but since FOX News is “Fair & Balanced” they decided to give the JV players a better time slot to help their campaigns and let them feel viable. As of today, your JV team looks like this; Kasich, Jindal, Graham, Pataki, Santorum, Fiorina, and Gilmore.

OK some may not know who this Gilmore person is. Well he is the former Gov of Virginia from some time ago and truly there are only a few outlets acknowledging his existence in this race.

Here’s the fun part of all this mess; there is a miniscule of percentage points separating the JV candidates of Kasich and Santorum from breaking into the #10 spot which is currently held by the bespectacled Rick Perry. Of course that depends on which poll or how many polls are put together.

It’s not the Bottom (not so) 10’s fault where they fall in this mess of a campaign race, some are well known names and others are trying to get people to know them. It’s the Media’s fault for drowning them out with constant sound bites of Trump played in constant rotation that quiets them.

So yeah, if I were any of the contenders/pretenders I would pitch a bitch as well, especially towards FOX and soak up any attention from the other outlets as much as possible. And most definitely take the path of Chris Christie and tell the interviewer you will not answer anymore questions about Trump as it takes away your voice!

Honestly I think being on the pre-game “forum” is a better choice. The candidates will have to deal with a less crowded field and (hopefully) be able to talk about their proposals, easily control the moderator and less chance of knocking another stage member of their soapbox. Because let’s face it, when it comes to the prime time slot, it’s all gonna be about one person.

Yes I am truly saddened that Trump will be center stage on August 6 looking more like a Circus clown ring leader than a viable presidential candidate. Many have joked about the number of candidates and reference the debacle of 2012 as a “clown show.” Yet with Trump, the Genius PR whore that he is, it truly has become just that.

I suspect about 2/3 of the questions asked will navigate around what has been stated over the past few weeks by Trump then actual policy questions that, I for one, want to hear candidates answer in their view and not explain his.

It was rumored after Trump announced that FOX News was saving a podium spot for him on Aug 6th regardless of polling or “official” candidacy status. Ain’t that a kick in the nuts?

And then there’s nugget of info presented by New York Magazine’s Gabriel Sherman in that Rupert Murdoch had given specific orders to “back off the Trump coverage” only to have FOX News honcho Roger Ailes become deaf to his boss. For Ailes, Trump equals ratings too which explains the amount of coverage Trump has received than the rest of the field in the past three weeks.

Who says the Media doesn’t pick the “winner?”

Hey many can say the same about MSNBC with Obama and now with Hillary, correct?
Although I believe ratings will be up for any debate that has Trump’s involvement eventually people are gonna begin to fall away from him and his boisterous bloviated character. Of course with every new Presidential debate there must be a drinking game to keep the viewer interested. So I guess Trump can claim an increase in alcohol sales to his presence then

With all the hollering about Trump leading this/that poll and the many in Media already planning the Trump coronation ceremony as the next President, let’s not forget that in 2012 we also had a “President Bachmann,” “President Cain,” as well after a good debate showing only to watch them fall shortly after.

In the end I will have to question the candidate’s sanity of chasing Trump’s backing once he drops out which I’m predicting comes at the end of this November. I got money on Sen Cruz’s to pucker up to Trump’s ass very quickly.

That’s it, Slap the tap and pour a frosty cold Alesmith Horny Devil and get ready to watch the shaking babies and uninterrupted ass kissing this TV Season by the contenders/pretenders of 2016.


Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Knee Jerk Reaction always wins the day- Part 1

Politicians and Media alike know not to leave a good tragedy go to waste.

If there’s one thing in today’s society that’s true, it’s that one incident can cause a shock wave of reaction across the land. Regardless of the event/issue, how “all” things Media portrays it will equate to a ratings knee jerk reaction around the social media water cooler.

I have many issues when it comes to politicizing someone’s death for one’s own personal gain, whether it’s the senseless murder of Ms Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant to Ms Terry Schiavo’s parents fight of removing her life support system to “American Sniper” Chris Kyle’s murder by a fellow member of the military. In the case of Mr. Kyle, the popularization of his death has pushed the issue of PTSD’s of returning members of the military to a greater light for many to understand. And now, Ms Steinle’s death is pushing the on/off again battle of Immigration reform to the top of the pile.

Well at least for this week, but whom and what shall be gained depends on the masses?

To get up to speed, by now all know that Ms Steinle was murdered by a five time deported illegal immigrant Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez at scenic Pier 14 in San Francisco. Sanchez states he accidently shot Ms Steinle while shooting at seals with a gun he found on a bench at the Pier. A gun we have later found out belonged to an unnamed and obviously irresponsible federal agent.

Honestly I was expecting some pundit to link the gun to Obama’s failed “Fast & Furious” program.

Now as the case builds against Sanchez, many have taken the path of politicizing this sorrowful event for gains, even though after Steinle’s death the family had requested that her death not be politicized, with her father, Mr. Jim Steinle, stating “We’re not dwelling on that. That’s not going to bring Kate back.”

And now a few weeks later, when grief has turned to anger, the Steinle family now wants to see action at all level of government, as they feel it was their inactions on Immigration reform that caused Kate’s death.

Appearing on the July 13th episode of Bill O’Reilly’s Fox Show, Mr Steinle simple said "We feel the federal, state and cities, their laws are here to protect us…But we feel that this particular set of circumstances and the people involved, the different agencies let us down.”

Now Bill O’Reilly has had many soapboxes to stand on over the years; from his ongoing War on Christmas and now “Kate’s Law.” To me at least, “Kate’s Law” seems rather hastily thrown together as most reactions are and very vague in detail.

Let’s explain Kate’s Law. Right now it is not a “Law” but a petition that anyone can sign, created by O’Reilly to be sent to Speaker Boehner and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell that would impose a five year prison sentence on an illegal immigrant who was once deported and was apprehended again illegally.

"We, the undersigned, respectfully ask Congress to pass Kate's Law whereby undocumented aliens who are deported and return to the United States would receive a mandatory five year sentence in a federal penitentiary upon conviction"

Don’t get me wrong, I’m for Congress to finally do something on Immigration and I have harped many times about wanting more Border Patrol money to secure our borders. But imposing a five year federal prison sentence on illegal immigrants for those that have returned after being deported sounds awesome but not economical in the least of sense or cents?

It’s a reaction that sounds tough and tugs on the heart strings but solves nothing about illegal immigrants in the country. It will not stop anyone from crossing open borders or living here illegally on expired work visas. It does however place a massive toll on the prison system and the taxpayer checkbook.

Currently there are an estimated 11.6 million illegal immigrants in the US today with roughly 51% of that number being from Mexico. It costs roughly $12,000/person to deport, so if we deported just the Mexican population (5.9 million est.) it will cost taxpayers an estimated $70.8 billion in total cost.

“Kate’s Law” is petitioning a five year federal prison sentence for any illegal immigrant apprehended in the US after being deported. So the taxpayer math again is a monstrous account as it costs around $25,000/person to house, feed and clothe in prison.

In 2013, Border Patrol agents apprehended 420,789 border crossers and if sentenced to just one year in federal prison, it would’ve cost $10,519,725,000. Yet under the petition we’re talking 5 years, it now balloons to $52,598,625,000 just for apprehending less than half a million illegal immigrants.

The clincher is that prison cost will swell with every additional person caught. So why give them free housing, clothes and food for five years?

Those are some large numbers and when we keep hearing people clamoring to reduce the spending of government, well the numbers only add up to a growing debt.

Sorry but building a “southern wall” is only the smallest of fraction in security. Illegal immigrants and cartels have proven tunnels can be built with or without a wall to cross under. Not to mention the cost of building such a wall will be astronomical. For instance, between 2006 thru 2009, Customs and Border Protection spent $2.4 billion to complete 670 miles of single layer fence. The Mexico/US border stretches over 5,250 miles. Do the math on that one.

But let’s add this little nugget. The construction sector is the largest employer of illegal immigrants and guess who’ll help build the vast majority of fencing along that border?

Just Google Golden State Fence Company and see how they were fined around $5 million for hiring illegal immigrants to build the border fence outside of San Diego and around military bases as well.

We have to look at the cause for so many illegal immigrants crossing the border; JOBS!

We can keep this conversation going and talk about the expired HB1 Visa workers, how companies exploit the current loopholes and are the driving force behind the last attempt of Immigration reform for their own better good, meaning profits. But no one wants to talk about that, because there is a stereotype many have imbedded in their mind of what an illegal immigrant looks like and these corporation exploited workers are earning regular paychecks and paying their dues to society. Yet they’re still illegal and no one cares.

That’s it, Slap the tap on a Rebel Rouser Double IPA and pay your political tab. Oh wait I said “Rebel” I guess there’s another politicized knee jerk reaction that’s bubbling over for someone’s gain.


Wednesday, June 17, 2015

For Today’s Political Media It’s “Rabbit Season……”

I’m not sure but too me watching all Media trying to cover the current roster of Presidential candidates is like watching the opening of the Banana Splits Show from my childhood. Complete mayhem, dysfunction and mockery that have the kids either laughing or scratching their heads.

OK now that I just post-dated myself, the nature of Media stumbling, bumbling, hobbling around trying to find the best “story” to fill space during the next long grueling 19 months is going to be painful for the audience to bear and want to comprehend. Well for those following the partisan path of “they drool, we rule follow us to the cliff” of modern day politics life will be normal.

And for those keeping count at home, the current candidate tally is Republicans 12 Democrats 4 of announced candidates with 4 Republicans still waiting to mark their territory. But of course those in waiting are still trying to do their current day job as Governor.

Yet these past few weeks of “filler” reporting has become very nauseating to a few, comical to some and downright pure political disgust by the rest that care. “Filler” reporting, well more like “spackling,” does help rile up the Party supporters for their tomato throwing on Social Media.

All the talk about Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees has created pitchfork style moment for those on the Right and rightly so. Of course, I am no fan of Hillary but to me, if someone’s gonna pay me $200k to blabber in front of a group of people, you’re damn right I’m gonna cash that check regardless of my name and resume.

So who’s to blame for these outrageous speaking fees? Well according to Forbes Magazine, a New York Times bestselling author can command a minimum $40k per speech and if you’re a politician, well the speaking fees can reach 6 digits which easily can explain President George W Bush requests for $110k to President Bill Clinton’s $200k-$500k per speech. Of course all that cash isn’t just to talk as the fee covers hotel, travel, food, and entertainment costs.

Heck, President Reagan once earned $2 million in 1989 for eight days in Japan.

So no, I don’t blame Hillary for being wrong in accepting checks for speaking engagements, just as I don’t find wrongdoing knowing that Jeb Bush earns $50k and Donald Trump has demanded up to $1.5 million per speech. Nor is it wrong that Dr Ben Carson actually earned around $4 million more in speaking fees in the past 16 months then Hillary did.

Are there any complaints from the Liberal peanut gallery?

Speaking fees are the least of the partisan Media’s issue, as they like to make more of an issue over something by the opposition that there really is nothing to bitch about while overlooking their own for the same nonsense.

A silly story by The New York Times about parking/speeding tickets of Sen. Marco Rubio and his wife is a pathetic reach that falls in line with Mitt Romney’s dog traveling on the family truckster roof or President Obama eating dog meat as a child in Indonesia. It’s irrelevant to anything of need but needed by all Media to fill space for talking heads to complain and grovel about.

It’s also not unusual to be looking into the personal finances of a candidate, as all Media loves to do as it’s to show “responsibility” and “error” of the candidate’s character. Yet the cry of Sen. Rubio just paying off his student loans by any means is no different than the Obama’s mentioning that they had paid off his student loans at the same age as Sen. Rubio. That’s what happens when you decide to pick a degree that keeps you in school and internships for a good part of your early career.

Now if the partisan Media or normal Media wants to have fun with scandal why not look at Sen. Ted Cruz requesting money from donors in an email that sounded more like whining then his usual vigor.

Yes Sen. Cruz took to the internet the following week to ask (or beg depending on how you read it) for donations because campaigning has been hard on his family and he’s tired of the “pizza diet.” Hey Teddy, you’ve been campaigning ever since 2011; maybe if you stayed in DC and did your job, you wouldn’t have to be away from the family so much.

Or how lately, Sen. Rand Paul has been using his grandstanding on every issue since his announcement as a pitch to remind people to send him money. It must be hard to stay on top of his current soapbox off so many issues, because I surely do not remember him chest thumping about having the CIA release some 28 pages of a 9/11 report prior to April’s announcement.

See that’s all too easy to mock and why would Media want to do any footwork on the correlation between a Presidential campaign announcement and a book release/book tour. Which leads me to wonder if it’s a pre-requisite for a potential candidate to have a book deal/book release prior to announcing their future presidential intentions?

According to columnist Claude Brodesser-Akner over the past 60 years, every winning presidential candidate first published a book before/after announcing.

It makes sense that if one is being patted on the butt by Partisan Media as “you can be the guy/gal to win it” one would need something out there to mug the camera about, especially in the four States of Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina and New Hampshire. Coincidence or not that these four States are the only ones to hold primaries/caucuses before March 2016?

Former Gov/Fox TV Host Mike Huckabee released his latest book God, Guns, Grits and Gravy in January 2015 and immediately went on a 43 city/14 state/3 week book tour that just happened to spend the first 3 days in Iowa with Rep. Steven King.

Not to be outdone, Sen. Marco Rubio’s American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone also released in January 2015 with a book tour that took him right into those major primary States of Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire immediately.

How about Sen. Rand Paul, a person who seems to have a new book released every year since taking office in 2011? His latest Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America was released in May 2015, just a few weeks after he announced his presidential plans.

Not to be outdone, let’s not forget about Hillary’s Hard Choices release way back in April 2014, because she’s been silently running for President since she left the State Dept back in 2012.

For all you E-book lovers, Jeb Bush released a partial read earlier in 2015 and the “Southern Gentleman” Lindsey Graham released a free book just this past weekend.

It’s rumored that Ted Cruz’s long awaited book is to hit the shelves in late June 2015, while Gov Piyush Jindal’s thoughts are scheduled to be for sale this October 2015. All the while Martin O’Malley has been shopping a finished manuscript of his Maryland governorship with no one making an offer.

Both Rick Santorum and Carly Fiorina have released books in 2015 that were more personal than political in nature, but none the less, it’s a grab to bring a more humanistic persona to electorate then the norm of economics, foreign affairs and lack of morality in society.

Both announced their campaign agendas a few months after being published.

The only hopefuls not having anything recently published or at all are Lincoln Chaffee, Chris Christie, Bernie Sanders, Rick Perry and Scott Walker.

As you can easily tell the stupidity of it all, but hey I’m beating Media to the punch, because as long as the 2016 Presidential campaign has been viewed thus far the next rabbit hole for Media to step into will be critiquing the candidate spouses. At least Sen. Lindsay Graham will be in the clear on that topic.

That’s it, slap the political tap for a frosty “Sweet Baby Jesus” beer and pass the gluten free Eucharist chip bowl because this blog jumped the political shark around paragraph 12.


Monday, June 1, 2015

It’s Presidential Primary Debate Season; Considered Yourself Warned

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends come inside come inside.

Yes it’s that time again when all the hopeful/wanna be/ has been Presidential candidates attempt to sell their souls for your heart, mind and checkbook to stay afloat among an overcrowded cast of characters to be your next President of the United States.

That’s right one and all, beginning this August some of your favorite Cable News talking heads will be pre-empted for one night a month for the next eight months so pundits can get paid to analyze everything from the tie of a candidate to on stage water consumption and possibly even what the candidates actually said.

To be fair, only the Republican National Committee has actually scheduled their televised primary debates as the Democratic National Committee will not hold a single televised debate till... um... till.. Uh, well there are no dates listed yet just a notation of “*tentative date, not confirmed” per the website.

The DNC’s so-called scheduling issue is simple to explain; it gives them plenty of time to borrow the Carnival House of Mirrors prop so all can watch Hillary Clinton debate her past, current, and future self to millions across the country.

OK, that’s not fair to the DNC, but then again it’s all cheers for the RNC as they realized (thanks to a 2013 Autopsy) that 2012’s 27 scheduled televised primary debates was just overkill to the voting public. Not to mention the murder of the networks ratings and advertising budgets.

Anyway, a few weeks ago I pondered aloud about how would the RNC fix their “candidates” issue for the upcoming primary debate cycle?

By “candidates” issue I mean the claustrophobic field of individuals who will inform the viewers they’re the right one to represent the GOP, why the others suck, and then by the end of the cycle backtrack to endorse the victor as the true candidate of choice even though they had stated prior that the individual sucked.

Personally, I don’t see a problem with having too many candidates, truly I never did. My complaint has always been about the quality of the candidates. Seriously, I know I’m being a political d*ck about this, but two-thirds of those running for President in 2016 know full well their chances are slim and are looking at their future to bank more contractual money either in television and/or print or a power trip when they return to their day jobs. The other one-third actually have legitimate claim to move about the country to spew their will amongst the people.

As of today, there’s a possible GOP candidate count of 20 individuals lining up, trying to be heard amongst the many, hoping to get equal amounts of face time in the Media. And the primary debates are the best place to meet the candidate, right?

Wrong! Well for 2012 it was wrong but for the moment in 2016 the problem is fixed.
RNC head honcho Reince Pribus had mentioned over the past year or so about a “political bracket” style debate calendar, having different candidates at different debates to give everyone a chance to be heard. As time passed he did the next best thing imaginable. To take the pressure of candidates and their Big Money backers banging on his door, he decided to let the networks decide who gets to play and who gets to stay (out).

Respectfully both FOX and CNN were granted the first two televised debates, with each running a different type of debate docket fully supported by the RNC. Hey, it says so on their website!

FOX has chosen to only invite the Top 10 polling candidates to their August 6 televised debate, while CNN decided to allow all to speak during a two event broken down by polling numbers.

I love this idea! Yes that’s right I said I love this idea for many reasons, however I believe CNN did the best for the candidates. I can also understand FOX’s one night event, as primaries do not do well in ratings, so with the abbreviated commercial breaks for a night, bills don’t get paid. And of course, they don’t want to upset the ratings of their coveted much bragged about 800p-1000p slot.

I gotta wonder which poll/polls will be used, because if they use the latest Quinnipiac Poll there is not a true front runner among a group of candidates.

Well to be fair, according to the Q Poll “Don’t Know/Undecided” actually leads with 20%, with Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker are all tied at 10%. Funny little side note about “Don’t Know/Undecided” as it was in 1976 Iowa Straw Poll that helped propel Jimmy Carter as the Democratic candidate, because he was polled at #2 and his campaign capitalized on it by saying he was the true winner.

But that was Iowa and I’m talking the current Q poll which has Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Chris Christie, and Carly Fiorina completing out what would be considered the “Top 10” candidates that would fill out the FOX debate if it were held today.
Sadly, it leaves John Kasich, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, Piyush “Bobby” Jindal, Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham staying home.

But look hard at the list of GOP candidates. Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Carson, Fiorina, Huckabee, Santorum, Graham and Pataki have all announced their intentions with Bush, Walker, Christie, Perry, Jindal, Kasich and Trump waiting it out.

In my opinion, only those that have announced deserve to be on stage for the FOX one night stand, if one is to be “Fair and Balanced,” or CNN’s first night event. Those fence sitters need not apply or wait till the next day.

Yes I know August is still a few months away so the favorability of a candidate can go up and down. And I just realized I broke my cardinal rule of never writing more than the average person can read during the average bowel movement, so thus we end my excitement of Political Plinko.

Then again, it would better for the viewer if these debates were played out on the set of The Price Is Right when considering the amount of money being hedged by bid money donors.

That’s it, slap the political tap on the Bishops Finger and pay your political tab before a candidate knocks on your door