WHO'S RUNNING AND WHO'S NOT RUNNING IN 2016? Part Two

In Part One, we took a look at potential candidates Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. Herein we look at three conservatives and one wild card liberal who swears she is not running. Uh-huh:

TED CRUZ

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is perhaps the most extreme character in this saga. He enters with one glaring disadvantage; he looks a lot like the infamous late Joseph McCarthy. But that may be the least of his problems. Cruz, who was educated at Princeton and Harvard, is considered even by some of his naysayers as brilliant. But his brilliance does not seem to enlighten him as to the rights of all Americans: He opposes all things gay; he was staunchly against renewing the Violence Against Women Act; has not shown much regard for the environment; sees very little reason to impose gun control on Americans, in any way; supports employers’ right to deny insuring birth control.  Cruz is an extremist, to be sure. Remember when he threatened to shut down the U.S. government unless Congress defunded Obamacare? Oh, and then there was that time that Cruz proclaimed that Saturday Night Live executive producer "Lorne Michaels could be putin jail under this amendment for making fun of any politician."

Ted Cruz

That’s when he twisted a proposed Democratic-backed campaign finance amendment so that it would infringe on artists’ First Amendment rights.  Good times, huh? Is Ted Cruz dangerous? You be the judge.

PROS: First Cuban or Latino to win the Senate position he holds; One of only three Latinos in the Senate, likely to garner a huge chunk of the Hispanic vote; Knows the political game and knows Washington, having served in the Bush administration; has some appeal to extreme right wing Republicans.

CONS: Born in Canada, is he actually eligible to run for President of the U.S.? ; not in good favor with traditional Republicans; comes off as more of a dictator than an elected legislator; has been compared to infamous dictators like Hitler; Americans are not known to elected bad boys or extremist rebels to be leader of the free world.

 
MARCO RUBIO
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), as far back as May, said publicly that he does feel he is ready to be President. Here’s my take on that: Anybody who’s relatively young and relatively new to the political game, who has to actually state that he is ready to be President, is going to have a tough time convincing the electorate.

Marco Rubio

Rubio, 43, may run, but if he does, it will probably be just for the national exposure and to set the stage for a future run. He probably needs to convince Republican stalwarts that he is the future hope of the party, and that will take some doing when many he must convince are, shall we say, in the Autumn of their days. He is pro-life, supports state’s rights to decide on marriage equality; voted no on re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act; reportedly has a concealed weapon permit, but does not carry a gun; believes that children of illegal immigrants should be afforded state tuition rates; supported a $2.3 billion cut to Florida public education. Oops.

PROS: Youth, vitality, personal appeal; ethnicity; willing to take legislative risks even if it means alienating some more extreme members of his own party.

CONS: Youth; ethnicity; inexperience. Probably lacks the necessary gravitas to be President.

RAND PAUL

So far, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is the only potential 2016 presidential candidate to visit Ferguson, MO in the aftermath of the killing of Michael Brown. While that speaks well for him, it may just be that he is already courting the black vote.  Good luck with that, Rand. He uses every opportunity to bash Hillary Clinton, so evidently he feels this is going to be a Paul/Clinton race. Is he a Tea Party guy or a libertarian? That depends on when you listen to his rhetoric. Paul is adamantly pro-life; says states should decide on marriage equality, but believes redefining marriage is a threat to society; opposes anything that gets in the way of the right to bear arms; believes raising the retirement age would alleviate the social security shortage issue; voted no on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. Shortly after he became

Rand Paul

a senator, he proposed eliminating foreign aid to all countries. Seriously. After he was roundly bashed about that, he revised the proposal, which went nowhere. Rand Paul is an enigma of sorts, in that he doesn’t tow the line for any particular party, and he does very little to ingratiate himself to his colleagues. Still, there are those that said he could be a formidable opponent.

PROS:  Appeals to those who support individual liberties; Works hard to spread his ideology coast to coast; has risen quickly in the GOP ranks;

CONS: Too many grey areas in his stands on critical issues; probably too laissez-fare for many voters regarding government controls; not exactly a media darling already; has made a number of anti-war statements that make him come off as an isolationist; stated the the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unreasonably infringed on private businesses’ rights; as with Cruz, Ameicans are not prone to electing extremists.

ELIZABETH WARREN

Despite one denial after another after another, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is the subject of one of the most aggressive presidential drafts in recent memory.  Ready For Warren is a political action committee that is feverishly raising funds to pay for Warren’s presidential bid. What they will do with all of that cash once Warren truly doesn’t run is anybody’s guess. The Boston Globe even reported that Warren had her lawyer send a letter to the Federal Election Committee disavowing any relationship between her and Ready For Warren. Despite

Elizabeth Warren

her protests to the contrary. Warren could still change her mind. And what if she did? She’s an extreme liberal who adamantly supports abortion rights, thinks churches should provide birth control, wants the minimum wage raised to $10.10 by 2016, wants to end tax breaks for rich people, pushes for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, and need I go on? She’s a left-wing American’s dreamboat. Except for weed, that is. She strongly opposes marijuana legalization.

PROS:  Provides Hillary-haters a viable alternative; relative newcomer to Washington, not tainted or jaded by political quagmire; forthright, determined demeanor.

CONS: Inexperience with the Washington insiders; Conservatives despise her and many are likely to launch hostile campaigns to discredit her.

Yes, yes I know I left out people like Joe Biden and maybe a few others. All in good time. Just be thankful Rick Santorum is not on the list. Stay tuned.

CALL ME CRAZY, BUT…

As is the case with many other Americans, I found myself paying more attention to the recent mid-term elections than any other mid-terms I can remember. I kept hearing Republican candidates insist that government spending was out of control, and if elected, they would make spending cuts “across the board.” So, we waited for some specifics on those across the board cuts. Would they cut entitlements? Would Social Security and Medicare take hits? Would veteran benefits be cut? Would salaries for U.S. military personnel be reduced? What? We never quite got the answers we were waiting for. Now the elections are over, and the GOP emerged victorious. As you can imagine, reporters are doggedly in pursuit of information about what will be cut. But the legislators are tap dancing around the question. Listen to Anderson Cooper fight the good fight to get Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) to get specific about planned GOP cuts. The interview starts at 1:41.

NBC’s David Gregory had similar challenges getting S. Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint to spill the beans on planned spending cuts. And Christine Amanpour didn’t get any further in her efforts with newly minted Kentucky Senator Rand Paul to ante up on where the cuts would be made. Watch:

It is bad enough that our elected officials won't come clean about their real intentions, but it gets worse. Just this week the Republican Study Committee (don't feel bad; I've never heard of it either) recommended cutting a welfare program that could save us $2.5 billion every year. Oh, but see, there was just one problem. It turns out that this particular program, called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) expired on September 30. I'm thinking the Study committee needs to go to detention. What do you think?

So…call me crazy, but it appears the GOP simply told many Americans what they wanted to hear – that the budget would be balanced (although all of us know this is not possible right now); that Social Security is safe, that Medicare is safe, that veterans are safe. Who or what is not safe? If we need to cut trillions, we can’t really do that by trimming the President’s security detail, watching out for overpriced Amtrak tickets and cutting Federal jobs, which would do nothing more than drive up unemployment. And we can't save much money by cutting programs that no longer exist. Is it just me, or were we just bamboozled by some disingenuous legislators?

2010: THE YEAR OF POLITICAL WHACK JOBS

In a world where Lisa Rinna’s lip reduction surgery and the Octomom’s home foreclosure are considered news, is it any wonder a whack job like Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell (right) becomes a high profile media figure? Her newest campaign ad begins with the line, “I am not a witch.” Hey, we’re living in a moment when the Governor of Arizona gets legislation enacted that allows a cop to stop a person if he thinks he or she looks like an illegal immigrant. That being the case, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that Nevada Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle had the balls to actually call her opponent and suggest he drop out of the race. Let's say this all together now: ANYTHING GOES.

Angle, (left) another big bowl of crazy like O’Donnell, recently had this to say about unemployment in her state: ''People ask me, 'What are you going to do to develop jobs in your state?' Well, that's not my job as a U.S. senator.'' I promise you she said that. Out loud. Really.

While all of this craziness is splashed across the headlines, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)(right) comes forward to say he believes unmarried, sexually active women and gays should not be allowed to teach in the public schools. (Apparently sexually active single men do not present a problem). I wonder if he has any idea how many empty classrooms there would be throughout the U.S. if this came to pass. And how many married, heterosexual nut jobs would end up as teachers?

Meanwhile, Rand Paul,(below, left) the Tea Party Senate candidate from Kentucky (who happens to be the current frontrunner) wants to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and give full control of the schools to the states. I can’t help wondering: If that would happen, how would
each of the states make up for the millions of federal dollars that are pumped into their economy for education? I guess the individual states would have to raise taxes – a lot. Paul also once said, "…a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination,even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin." Did he not get the memo that we passed a Civil Rights Act in 1964?

And then there’s good old Joe Miller, (below, right) the GOP Senate candidate from Alaska. Joe, who has been vocal (read: LOUD) about the importance of Federal government bowing out of people’s lives and spending less and less, turns out to be something of a hypocrite. It was widely reported that he accepted farm subsidies from the Federal government in the 1990s, and that his wife received Federal unemployment dollars after she left a job – working for Joe! Miller, it should be noted, is on the record in opposition to Federal unemployment insurance, which he says is not authorized by the Constitution. And still he wins the nomination. Am I missing something here? I don’t think so.

These few examples of the chaotic and often discriminatory mindset of contemporary politicians clearly illustrate the extreme social confusion in our country. Some elements of our culture that we accepted as standard are now being marginalized. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state, for example? Ultra-conservative radio entertainer Glenn Beck (left) is inching closer and closer to preaching when he talks politics. "People aren't recognizing his [Obama’s] version of Christianity," Beck said on "Fox News Sunday." His recent heavily-attended “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington D.C. was described by some as the closest thing to a religious revival they had ever seen. Blogger Dan Riehl interviewed one of the attendees: “He has a spiritual connection to us; you can hear his heart speaking,” said Susan Trevethan, a psychiatric nurse from Milford, Conn. “I believe he has been divinely guided to be here in this place,” she said. “He is doing the research. He is teaching us.”

You know, if Glenn Beck can become Jesus, maybe I can morph into, say, Brad Pitt? Come on.

Guess what other traditional American standard has been marginalized: Civility. It doesn’t really matter, for example, what your political party preference is, when it comes to respect for the office of President of the United States. Even in the worst of times, if Americans were not sold on their chief executive, they moderated their comments and actions in deference to the sanctity of the office. Not now. Now we have people carrying signs at rallies that show President Obama made up to look like Hitler. Just the other day, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh called Obama a “jackass” and an “ignoramus” live, on the air. At Tea Party rallies, Obama is routinely referred to as a socialist. That is particularly baffling, since many of the attendees are on Social Security and Medicare, arguably the closest programs we have to real socialism. And those programs have been in place and unquestioned for decades. Let’s review: When we abolish the Department of Education and raise their taxes, should we also eliminate Social Security and Medicare? I’m just sayin.’

The bottom line: The Americans who are sullying the political process, promoting the dissolution of Government agencies and departments, blurring the lines between religion and government, lowering the bar on respect for the presidency and generally questioning American standards without offering viable alternatives are radicals. They may point to others in the society as dangerous and un-American, but the truth is that these people are extremists.

I do not want extremists of any ilk or political affiliation making decisions for me. I do not want to see the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution construed to mean that people can carry guns into churches or schools. I do not want the 1st Amendment to the Constitution twisted to suggest that hate speech and bullying are protected under the law. I do not want to see white-haired, white-skinned male legislators enacting legislation that disallows a woman to have an abortion after she has been raped. I do not want to see a Governor use her power to endorse racial profiling. I do not want to see the widespread dissatisfaction with the flailing American economy become the rallying cry for the deconstruction of almost three centuries of American government.

What about you? What do you want?

WOULD YOU LIKE KETCHUP WITH THOSE LIES?

Even now, in 2010, sometimes I run across a person who swears up and down he was at Woodstock in 1969. I can’t prove him wrong, but experience now tells me that if every person who said they were at Woodstock was really there, the population in China couldn’t hold a candle to the 1960s most memorable music event. It seems people love to re-invent their past and make it seem more glamorous or heroic than it really was. Lately, there’s been a lot of that going around, and I can’t help wondering: Are these people delusional or do they simply believe the rest of us are idiots?

One of my recent favorites is U.S. Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal, (right) who more than once publicly stated that he served in Vietnam. Of course, he did not. And, of course, his PR machine found a good workaround for his gaffe. Now he says he “misspoke.” (Did we ever hear the word “misspoke” before about the year 2000? I think not). Blumenthal says he regrets what he said, and what he really meant to say is that he served in the military “during” Vietnam. Had Blumenthal “misspoke” once, we’d cut him a break, right? But reportedly, he said “in Vietnam” on numerous occasions. Blumenthal, who bears some eerie resemblance to another regretful guy, former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, is playing us. I don’t like being played. How about you?

Guess who else is playing us. One Mark Kirk. (below, left) Don’t sweat it if you’ve never heard of the guy, but he’s making headlines lately. Kirk, who is in the running for the Illinois Senate seat formerly held by President Obama, falsely claimed he was awarded the Navy Intelligence Officer of the Year Award - a prestigious honor that is given to only one individual a year. A little digging by his opponent uncovered the lie. And yes, I am calling it a lie. I may have cut the guy some slight slack, had it not come to light that this was not his only lie about his military service. Kirk also claims that he "command[s] the war room of the Pentagon," faced combat in Kosovo, and served in the Iraq war. Oh, and you’ll love this: he’s resorted to using Blumenthal’s “during/in” argument about Iraq, saying he actually served “during” Iraq, rather than “in” Iraq. Please. Just this week his latest fiction surfaced. Now he says he came under fire while flying aboard an intelligence reconnaissance plane in Iraq. But the best was yet to come: By week’s end, Kirk was digging himself in even deeper, when he told a group of newspaper people, “I simply misremembered it wrong.” Jesus, do we really want to elect a guy who says things like “misremembered it wrong?” Oy.

Let’s face it: These guys – and they are not the first to try to pull this type of stunt – are outright lying. But what about other high profile people who just say stupid things, even while staring right into a news station’s camera? Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul, for example, said right out loud that he doesn’t see anything wrong with business owners deciding who they will and will not serve or sell their goods to. Rand, we knocked that type of discrimination out more than four decades ago. And how about BP CEO Tony Hayward, who said he’d like his "life back,” while thousands of Gulf Coast residents were slowly and painfully watching their own lives whither away due to his company’s inept handling of the oil spill? Oh, and lest we forget young Miss Kristen Stewart,(right) an actress who compared being hounded by photographers to being raped, in the current issue of British Elle Magazine. Are these people lacking the sensitivity chip, or are they just so taken with their own selves that no one else matters? I seriously don’t get it.

Of course the greatest gaffe in recent memory came at week's end when veteran reporter Helen Thomas killed her decades-long career with a few ill-chosen words. Thomas,89, a veritable institution in the White House press room, had this to say when asked about Israeli/Palestinian relations:
Within days, her speaker's bureau had dropped her, a high school at which she was to speak had cancelled her appearance, a White House official had called her out for her remarks, and finally, her employer, Hearst Newspapers had "retired her." If ever again you doubt the power of words, please think of Helen Thomas.

Every one of the crazies mentioned in this piece has now come forward with “heartfelt” apologies. Heartfelt, or simply humiliated by all of the bad press? Call me a cynic, but I’m going with the latter. But listen – guess who I predict will not be coming forward with any apologies? That would be our old buddy George Bush, who this week said his administration did indeed condone water boarding of terrorists – and he’d do it again!

REBEL WITH A RACIST CAUSE

If you haven’t heard much about Rand Paul, get ready. You’re going to hear a LOT about him in the days to come. Paul, an ophthalmologist from Kentucky won the GOP primary Tuesday night and is now full throttle in the race to become Kentucky’s next Senator. He may have won under the guise of the Republican party, but Paul is the ultimate hero of the Tea Party.

Remember, the Tea Party would have us believe its tenets have only to do with fiscal reform. Uh-huh. Why then, is controversy swirling bigtime around Paul’s recent comments about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It seems he supports “most” of the Act, but one-tenth of it bothers him. He says he believes private businesses should not be subject to controls by the Federal government. He also claims he fully disagrees with any measure that would support re-segregating our society. Really? That is interesting, largely because if he had his way, apparently restaurants could still display “whites only” signs, and apartment complexes could decide not to rent to gay people. Paul can frame his comments however he chooses, but the bottom line is that not one political candidate in modern history has even remotely bashed the Civil Rights Act until now. He is treading on dangerous territory, and despite his comments to the contrary, what he is suggesting is clearly racist.

Who’s next on Paul’s hit list? Poor people? Illiterate people? Disabled people? To say Rand Paul is conservative would understate his views. Even Dick Cheney seems to be put off by Paul’s views. He backed the opposing candidate. By the way, Paul is so intent on reducing government in our culture, that he has publicly come out for eliminating the departments of education, commerce and energy. Oh, and here’s the rub: Kentucky has evolved into one of the most conservative states, and Paul has a shot at actually winning this race. Still, the Tea Party heartily endorses Paul’s candidacy. So, the question remains: If the Tea Party was founded for fiscal reform, why would it support a guy who could conceivably usher in a new era of segregated lunch counters? Is there some connection between all things fiscal and civil rights reform? Just asking. Listen to his comments on the Rachel Maddow show, and you be the judge:A couple of quick notes to Rand Paul: If I were a disabled person who went to work in that three-story building you mentioned: If the department for which I was hired is on the third floor, and you position me on the first floor because of my disability, I have a clear cause of action for discrimination. Further, if we roll back the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the point that business owners can choose their patrons, have you considered there may be a number of businesses that do not choose you as a patron? If those businesses are important to you as a consumer, and if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is deconstructed, on what basis would you argue for your own rights? Further, your Senatorial inexperience is showing: There will seldom be a piece of legislation that you support completely. You will have to make concessions and compromises as a U.S. Senator. In 1964, had you believed in “nine-tenths” of the Civil Rights Act, most likely you would have been compelled to vote for it.

Does Kentucky (or any state, for that matter) truly want a U.S. Senator whose views are obviously not fully formed? Is it possible Rand Paul needs to study the legislative landscape a bit more before attempting to become a legislator? Let’s hope so.