Rand Paul won the 2013 CPAC Republican nomination straw poll with 25% of the vote. Marco Rubio followed closely with 23%. Rick Santorum finished in a distant 3rd with 8% with Chris Christie close behind at 7%. Jeb Bush asked for his name to be left off the ballot.
Of all the those choices, Rand Paul would be my personal favorite with Rubio also being a decent choice. My one "non-pick" would easily be Rick Santorum. I would expect Rand Paul's name to be relevant for the next 2 years until the campaigning starts. Right now it could be all the recent hype involving him making him so popular in the polls, but I doubt that is the case. Rubio should be another valid choice as well. Jeb Bush still has plenty of time to decide whether or not he will decide to run. Who would all of you feel most comfortable as the GOP nominee; of those choices or other?
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Rand Paul’s Big Fight
I would just like to share an article that I stumbled upon while on Facebook. It was one that Rand Paul posted about how the Republican Party needs to change and how McCain and Graham (any many others) are too personal.
Paul's post was: "My battles aren't personal. They're political. The Republican Party needs to change. The Bill of Rights matters. The Constitution matters. I will stand for them. So should the GOP.", and then he posted a link to the article which I have for you above.
Paul's post was: "My battles aren't personal. They're political. The Republican Party needs to change. The Bill of Rights matters. The Constitution matters. I will stand for them. So should the GOP.", and then he posted a link to the article which I have for you above.
More Bush 2016 Speculation
For the past 2 elections, there has been mild speculation of Jeb Bush running for president. It was there in 2008. And it was even more expected that Bush would run in 2012. But he didn't. Jeb stated that he had no interest in seeking a bid for the White House. That was until now.
Jeb Bush stated last week that he wasn't sure if he would decide to run in 2016. More recently, he stated that there would be no "Bush Baggage" that would carry on over from his brother Dubbya. When asked the question whether there was any baggage and whether his brother's negative popularity would affect his run, Jeb said: "I don't think there's any Bush baggage at all."
To be honest, I don't agree with that. I believe that Jeb is saying that simply because you shouldn't go out and say something like "My brother ruined my chances". Towards the end of George W. Bush's tenure in the White House, the public opinion's view on the Bush Administration was abysmal. The public was ready for "Change". During his campaign, Obama quickly paved a path so that all of our nation's problems ran right back to George W. Bush.
George W. Bush certainly wasn't one of the most popular Presidents of the United States. He was often ridiculed and bashed by the media and citizens alike. For GWB to leave office on such a low note and to have Jeb Bush say that his brother's legacy will not affect his chances of becoming the president is clearly imprudent.
I personally was never a large fan of the Bush Administration and I often questioned their decisions and actions. There were some successes, but what was really implanted into the minds of the public was the amount of blunders that the administration made. For those reasons, I DO think that were will be "Bush Baggage" if Jeb Bush decides to make a go at the White House.
Jeb Bush stated last week that he wasn't sure if he would decide to run in 2016. More recently, he stated that there would be no "Bush Baggage" that would carry on over from his brother Dubbya. When asked the question whether there was any baggage and whether his brother's negative popularity would affect his run, Jeb said: "I don't think there's any Bush baggage at all."
To be honest, I don't agree with that. I believe that Jeb is saying that simply because you shouldn't go out and say something like "My brother ruined my chances". Towards the end of George W. Bush's tenure in the White House, the public opinion's view on the Bush Administration was abysmal. The public was ready for "Change". During his campaign, Obama quickly paved a path so that all of our nation's problems ran right back to George W. Bush.
George W. Bush certainly wasn't one of the most popular Presidents of the United States. He was often ridiculed and bashed by the media and citizens alike. For GWB to leave office on such a low note and to have Jeb Bush say that his brother's legacy will not affect his chances of becoming the president is clearly imprudent.
I personally was never a large fan of the Bush Administration and I often questioned their decisions and actions. There were some successes, but what was really implanted into the minds of the public was the amount of blunders that the administration made. For those reasons, I DO think that were will be "Bush Baggage" if Jeb Bush decides to make a go at the White House.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
McCain Calls Filibuster a "political stunt"
Rand Paul's recent 13 hour filibuster was praised and supported by politicians and regular citizens alike, but that does not include Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who clearly feel quite differently about the subject of constitutional rights.
McCain stated that the filibuster was nothing more than a "political stunt used to fire up impressionable Libertarian kids in their college dorms". I for one take great offense to that as I am a Libertarian. What bothers me is when neoconservatives such as McCain criticize Libertarians for being "too liberal" when they are simply following and supporting the constitution. What those neoconservatives need to realize is that in order for the Republican Party to stay relevant, they need to modernize. They need to appeal to those "Libertarian kids in their college dorms". Those kids are the future of the Republican Party.
What McCain also said, which REALLY gets me is: "I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me...and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights. And to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy - and even may demonstrate against it - is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant, is simply false". That is true John, but yet, that isn't how I believe you feel. McCain's views on foreign policy (including communism and anything to do with the Middle East) prove to me that this statement was said simply just to spark the argument.
During the filibuster, Paul asked the question (paraphrasing) "Will President Obama commence a drone strike on an American having coffee in a coffee shop?" Lindsey Graham's response to this was "I find the question offensive", going on to say how it "cheapens the debate". He then finished it off by saying "I do not believe that question deserves an answer". Of course it does! It is offensive...that's the point. It would be offensive if the President had the right to do such a thing. Graham might not think that it deserves an answer because it sounds so out of the ordinary. But nowadays, it might not. You never know.
I for one praise Rand Paul for standing up and filibustering for 13 hours. Even though Brennen was confirmed the CIA director, it certainly took a lot of courage, pride, and respect for the US Constitution to make such a passionate case for liberty...one thing that many politicians would not be able to do.
McCain stated that the filibuster was nothing more than a "political stunt used to fire up impressionable Libertarian kids in their college dorms". I for one take great offense to that as I am a Libertarian. What bothers me is when neoconservatives such as McCain criticize Libertarians for being "too liberal" when they are simply following and supporting the constitution. What those neoconservatives need to realize is that in order for the Republican Party to stay relevant, they need to modernize. They need to appeal to those "Libertarian kids in their college dorms". Those kids are the future of the Republican Party.
What McCain also said, which REALLY gets me is: "I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me...and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights. And to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy - and even may demonstrate against it - is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant, is simply false". That is true John, but yet, that isn't how I believe you feel. McCain's views on foreign policy (including communism and anything to do with the Middle East) prove to me that this statement was said simply just to spark the argument.
During the filibuster, Paul asked the question (paraphrasing) "Will President Obama commence a drone strike on an American having coffee in a coffee shop?" Lindsey Graham's response to this was "I find the question offensive", going on to say how it "cheapens the debate". He then finished it off by saying "I do not believe that question deserves an answer". Of course it does! It is offensive...that's the point. It would be offensive if the President had the right to do such a thing. Graham might not think that it deserves an answer because it sounds so out of the ordinary. But nowadays, it might not. You never know.
I for one praise Rand Paul for standing up and filibustering for 13 hours. Even though Brennen was confirmed the CIA director, it certainly took a lot of courage, pride, and respect for the US Constitution to make such a passionate case for liberty...one thing that many politicians would not be able to do.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
"I will speak until I can no longer speak"
I don't plan to give a lecture about the latest article that I just read, but to sum it up, it is Rand Paul standing up and "filibustering" John Brennan's nomination to become the new director of the CIA. Paul hits the point home once again defending our constitution and promoting our civil liberties. This article is worth a read.(Picture from Getty Images)
RNC Wants Democrats to Admit Spending Problem
Today, the RNC went far enough to plainly seek an admission from Democrats that they have a spending problem. While I find that to be a valid point, I believe that many Republicans (or even the system as a whole) struggle with the same problem as well.
"Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats simply do not believe that we have a spending problem" Reince Priebus stated. I agree. Ever since Obama has taken office, our national debt has grown over 6 trillion dollars with the help of a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and House of Congress for the first 2 years. This includes the costly Stimulus Package and the bailout of the auto and bank industry. Democratic Whip Hoyer stated: "Does the country have a spending problem? The country has a 'paying-for' problem. We haven't paid for what we've bought". I agree with him, but the two problems go hand in hand. Of course we don't pay for what we have bought. If we have paid for what we have bought, no one would be talking about a spending problem of the current administration.
Nancy Pelosi went on to say: "It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem". How is it a false argument? We have trillion dollar deficits that we as a nation simply cannot pay for while many political leaders still push for more spending increases. This does include many Republicans as well. The difference is where they want spending increases. Republicans need to realize that we cannot pay for our overseas ventures which includes war and intervention. Democrats need to realize that we cannot pay for benefits without hefty raises in taxes.
Priebus hits the nail right on the head by saying: "Every day families across this country are forced to watch their spending and live within their means. There's no reason that shouldn't be the case in Washington". There is no argument to that statement. A balanced budget is essential, and one of the issues that requires the least amount of thought. If a family has in income that is significantly less than their spending habits, what happens? Creating a solution to spending requires nothing more than common sense.
In my opinion, the 85 billion dollar deficit reduction is a slap in the face. Reducing 85 billion dollars from a deficit of upwards of 1 trillion dollars is very miniscule. If many cuts were proposed and passed, THEN that 85 billion dollars would add up to something larger, but right now, it is safe to say, the US Government most certainly does have a spending problem.
"Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats simply do not believe that we have a spending problem" Reince Priebus stated. I agree. Ever since Obama has taken office, our national debt has grown over 6 trillion dollars with the help of a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and House of Congress for the first 2 years. This includes the costly Stimulus Package and the bailout of the auto and bank industry. Democratic Whip Hoyer stated: "Does the country have a spending problem? The country has a 'paying-for' problem. We haven't paid for what we've bought". I agree with him, but the two problems go hand in hand. Of course we don't pay for what we have bought. If we have paid for what we have bought, no one would be talking about a spending problem of the current administration.
Nancy Pelosi went on to say: "It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem". How is it a false argument? We have trillion dollar deficits that we as a nation simply cannot pay for while many political leaders still push for more spending increases. This does include many Republicans as well. The difference is where they want spending increases. Republicans need to realize that we cannot pay for our overseas ventures which includes war and intervention. Democrats need to realize that we cannot pay for benefits without hefty raises in taxes.
Priebus hits the nail right on the head by saying: "Every day families across this country are forced to watch their spending and live within their means. There's no reason that shouldn't be the case in Washington". There is no argument to that statement. A balanced budget is essential, and one of the issues that requires the least amount of thought. If a family has in income that is significantly less than their spending habits, what happens? Creating a solution to spending requires nothing more than common sense.
In my opinion, the 85 billion dollar deficit reduction is a slap in the face. Reducing 85 billion dollars from a deficit of upwards of 1 trillion dollars is very miniscule. If many cuts were proposed and passed, THEN that 85 billion dollars would add up to something larger, but right now, it is safe to say, the US Government most certainly does have a spending problem.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Jeb Bush Supports the Right for Illegal Immigrants to Become Citizens
In an article that I recently read, Jeb Bush stated that he would support a pathway for immigrants who came into our country illegally to become citizens. I personally think that this is not a sensible solution for our immigration problem, but the statement isn't that surprising knowing Jeb Bush's past policies.
Jeb Bush married an immigrant which might cause him to sway more left on the topic of immigration than most conservatives. He was also a 2 term governor of the state of Florida which has a high immigrant population. Jeb Bush would need credentials of that sort in order to be elected where he was.
The little catch to this article is: Jeb "clarifies" his remarks saying that he still stands by what he said, except he would only support pathways as long as they don't encourage illegal immigration. That frankly doesn't make sense. If you grant citizenships to illegal aliens now, then what would be the incentive to migrate to the United States legally? If you create pathways for illegals, the numbers for legal immigration will most likely drop while the numbers for illegal immigration will rise. The immigrants will feel no need to pass through any sort of customs if the government will, in the end, give them citizenship no matter how they get in.
I remember Newt Gingrich said at one point during the 2012 elections said that he might also support pathways for illegal immigrants who had families saying that he didn't want to deport grandmothers and grandfathers. Honestly, it really shouldn't matter who they are. That is the cold hard truth. Immigrants who come here illegally should not have the right to enjoy benefits that legal immigrants do. Illegal immigrants should not have the right to pathways under no circumstances as they had the choice on how to enter our country.
Immigrants who enter the United States illegally should always be under the auspices that they will be caught and deported. That currently a factor. If the United States brings troops home from corners of the world that it shouldn't be involved in and secured our borders, our immigration problem would be more under control and our lack of foreign involvement would allow us to tackle our problems at home.
Jeb Bush married an immigrant which might cause him to sway more left on the topic of immigration than most conservatives. He was also a 2 term governor of the state of Florida which has a high immigrant population. Jeb Bush would need credentials of that sort in order to be elected where he was.
The little catch to this article is: Jeb "clarifies" his remarks saying that he still stands by what he said, except he would only support pathways as long as they don't encourage illegal immigration. That frankly doesn't make sense. If you grant citizenships to illegal aliens now, then what would be the incentive to migrate to the United States legally? If you create pathways for illegals, the numbers for legal immigration will most likely drop while the numbers for illegal immigration will rise. The immigrants will feel no need to pass through any sort of customs if the government will, in the end, give them citizenship no matter how they get in.
I remember Newt Gingrich said at one point during the 2012 elections said that he might also support pathways for illegal immigrants who had families saying that he didn't want to deport grandmothers and grandfathers. Honestly, it really shouldn't matter who they are. That is the cold hard truth. Immigrants who come here illegally should not have the right to enjoy benefits that legal immigrants do. Illegal immigrants should not have the right to pathways under no circumstances as they had the choice on how to enter our country.
Immigrants who enter the United States illegally should always be under the auspices that they will be caught and deported. That currently a factor. If the United States brings troops home from corners of the world that it shouldn't be involved in and secured our borders, our immigration problem would be more under control and our lack of foreign involvement would allow us to tackle our problems at home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)