Republicans taking each other off at the knees. Democrat Sanders has the balls to call himself a Socialist and nearly upsets Hillary in Iowa then goes on to crush her in New Hampshire. Usually it’s the Democrats beating each other over the head to prove who is the most progressive forward thinking leader. This year the Republicans have been smacking each other around at some of the nastiest debates on record trying to prove who is the most religious, who is the most anti-immigrant and who can undo anything Obama did. The National Review trashes Republican front runner Trump and 7.4% of American Muslims say they would support him despite his Islamophobic comments. It’s been a truly amazing political season so far. The polls have fluctuated wildly and the candidates are out swinging in full force.
True to his crude bullying modus Trump says Cruz is a liar and questions whether or not he is even eligible to be POTUS due to his Canadian birth. Hmmm. Where have we heard that before? I am amazed that in an era where there are so many pressing issues that need immediate attention, that leaders of a political party would be trying to emasculate each other based on where they were born? Nonsense in it’s truest form. And let’s not forget the ever entertaining Sarah Palin. She decided to endorse Trump through a rambling and barely intelligible speech. At one point in her diatribe she blamed the actions of her wife beater son in law on President Obama’s lack of support for the troops..? Whaaaaaaat? Most people agree the colorful Ms. Palin was a huge contributing factor in John McCain’s loss 8 years ago. The woman may be one of the most polarizing figures in the country. How will this affect Trump’s run? So far there has been no obvious fallout. But then is anything she said all that much more incendiary than statements Trump has made himself?
Bernie Sanders says that due to the fact that Hillary’s campaign has received huge donations from PAC’s and rich donors. that she will be beholden to powerful interests. Maybe. I don’t think that is a given. She has made the point that just about every person running for high office in this country has received similar donations. It’s the way of the world and that is Bernie’s point. He has not accepted any money from any PAC or large contributor putting his faith in the small donations that Obama made legendary during the last elections. Many young people agree. How can we get big money out of our election campaigns if the candidates continue to accept large sums and the influence peddling they presume? It is noteworthy to mention that Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that he has not accepted any large donations and that his campaign is being entirely financed by himself. There have been some questions as to the validity of his statements but all in all his claims do seem sensible and legitimate.nI believe it is quite unavoidable that until ALL BIG MONEY DONATIONS ARE BANNED FROM POLITICS, NO PROGRESSIVE CHANGES OF ANY MAGNITUDE WILL BE POSSIBLE, regardless of how altruistic the intent, regardless of how fervent the ambition. Money can corrupt even the purest of endeavours. It seems fairly obvious that the absurdly titled CITIZENS UNITED legislation is one of the worst decisions ever made by any branch of the US government in our history and hopefully will be reversed in the near future.
So Trump decided to skip the FOX NEWS Debate because he didn’t like the moderator, or the questions she was asking him? Wow. So I guess candidates for public office now get to decide which questions they will accept in a debate? And this is a free and open debate? It is no wonder his rivals trashed his absence though I’m sure they were relieved to not have Trump jumping in all over their answers to questions.
And so this unusual political season rolls on. After Trump trashed Cruz as a liar Cruz questioned Trump’s “New York Values”, a tactical mistake that will surely cost him any shot to win the nomination. Trump says Cruz is a “guy nobody likes”
If all of this craziness wasn’t enough enter The Pope. Trump’s controversial plan to build a giant wall to keep out Mexicans and basically anyone else has come under fire from Pope Francis. Conservatives have been bashing the Pope over his climate change comments for several months.
His latest salvo against Trump, calling his plan something very “un-Christian” has once again sent the freewheeling Trump off on a tirade. His statement yesterday that, “For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President.” Really? Christianity is being attacked and weakened? By whom? ISIS? I’ve heard this statement echoed on several occasions. Attacked and weakened? The vast majority of the people inthe USA are Christian. Many of them are quite loud about it. How are they being attacked and weakened. I’m not sure wher e this concept came from other than to say it is an obvious attempt by Trump and others to mobilize a voting block. The United States is a country that has flourished for well over 200 years as a melting pot of many cultures and religions. The first people to arrive here were indeed Christians, and of many denominations, but this idea that the government would favor any one religion over another is completely contrary to what this country stands for. The Founding Fathers had very strong feelings about the separation of Church and State and any candidate that is attempting to cash in on religious fervor to gain votes simply can’t be trusted in my estimation. And was the Pope questioning Trump’s faith? Another slippery maneuver to move the emphasis off his plan and place it back on the Pope. Francis wasn’t questioning his faith. He was questioning his modus which in the final analysis does reflect on his acceptance of Christian values. I find it interesting that many of these politicians have extremely convenient Christian values and faith when it suits there ends, and they seemingly lose their religious zeal when it doesn’t.
The other day someone asked me what I think of Hillary. Tough question that requires a lot of thought. Qualified to be POTUS. I think so. She has great experience. Community Organizer, Lawyer, First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State. But along with Sarah Palin and a handful of others, she is a hugely polarizing figure at a time when maybe we need a unifying force in this country. Does such a politician exist anymore? Her involvement with lawsuits and various scandals is well known. Is she guilty of crimes? Maybe yes, maybe no. Has she been targeted by Republicans as a way of derailing her political ambitions? Well yes. They admitted as much themselves. So what do I think of Hillary Clinton? I think she has a politician’s tongue and bends things to suit her own needs. Of course they all do but in her case it’s a feeling I have and I think it is shared by many others in the electorate. She REALLY wants to be the First WOMAN PRESIDENT. I’ll have to wait and see what develops over the course of the next few months before I decide on her.
I was also asked what I think of the Republicans running for office. I think Jeb Bush may be the most interesting candidate. He has a good track record in Florida and he has some common sense no-nonsense approached to problems. Of course he is polling at about 3% so it obvious his party doesn’t think he is a good choice.
I think John Kasich is also a reasonable fellow who understands that maybe science does after all make a lot of sense and he also has some good ideas but again he is polling at around 2% so his party has little use for him. Marco Rubio is a young guy with energy and enthusiasm but his policy ideas are pretty weak. Rand Paul interests me in many ways but his party won’t nominate him. He may be too cerebral for the average bear. He is sort of the Bernie Sanders of the right. Has some really good radical ideas but will they fly? The rest of the Republican field are non-factors for me.
Our elections seem to be a battle between socially progressive and fiscally conservative ideals. It’s interesting that not ONE…not a single candidate can stand before us and say he or she embraces these two divergent viewpoints. There are many many people out in the world who have described themselves to me as just that. Progressive thinkers, based in science and intellectual thought, who adhere to a fiscally conservative game plan. Hmmm…does that sound like anyone running for POTUS? How about someone who MIGHT be running for POTUS? Maybe someone who is a sort of responsible, educated billionaire with a strong successful background and great experience governing a huge diverse populous? Did someone say Bloomberg? Rumours say it could be but that he is too right to be a Democrat and too left to be a Republican. Hey maybe that could work?
Regardless of who gets the nod in this crazy election season it is pretty obvious that we are all in for some high drama, some higher comedy, some double and triple talk and more than a goodly amount of entertainment. God help the Republic!