Jeb & Mitt

The Republican Party has taken a turn to the right. Many moderate Republicans have had to turn to the right to survive politically. Those whom refused have been vanquished by ultra-conservative forces. Two men, whom may very well run for President of the United States, embody the moderate Republican agenda. These men are Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. While Romney swung to the right during the 2012 Presidential campaign and primaries while he was Governor of Massachusetts he was a moderate common sense Republican. Quite a rarity these days.

If the Republican Party attempts to run an ultra-conservative candidate (such as a tea party backed candidate), they will certainly lose the general election against the Democratic nominee. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are the best chance the Republican Party has of recapturing the White House in 2016.

Governor Bush and Governor Romney have served in the highest echelons of business and have held one of the highest political offices in the United States that of Governor.

However only one can run for either to be successful. Both of them appeal to big business, posses similar philosophies, and can draw in voters whom are tired of Tea Party obstructionists and anti-modern views on social issues. Both are simply logical moderates with years of executive and business experience.

I believe Governor Bush is the best chance for Republicans to pull in swing/moderate voters and defeat the presumed Democratic nominee Hilary Clinton. Governor Bush has proclaimed, bravely (at least politically) his view on controversial issues such as immigration and gay marriage While Governor Bush didn’t come out firmly in support of gay marriage he did say that same sex couples along with rule of law must be respected. On immigration, well, Governor Bush is married to a Hispanic women born in Mexico and has strongly supported immigration reform. I say that gives him the advantage over any Republican when it comes to garnering the Hispanic-American vote. Unlike Governor Romney who said in the nineties he is to the left of Senator Ted Kennedy on abortion, Bush has proclaimed his views just a few months before potential nominees will announce their candidacies and cannot as easily cop out of them by saying his views have changed. Governor Romney was attacked constantly for ( in the 2012 Presidential Election) changing his values and views on issues he supported as Massachusetts Governor and Senatorial Candidate. Voters like firm leaders whom profess their views clearly and do not hide from them.

Jeb Bush has the powerful Bush name behind him. Much like the Clinton name the name Bush can be helpful as well as a hindrance. It can invoke emotions ranging from awe to disgust. A famous name associated with two US Presidents and a governor polarizes and garners instant support. The name Romney is simply not as powerful nor as polarizing.

Finally Jeb Bush is associated with political success. While his father, President George H.W. Bush did lose his reelection campaign to Bill Clinton, his brother, President George W. Bush served two terms as President and he himself served two terms as Governor. On the other hand Governor Romney lost his parties nomination in 2008 and lost the 2012 Presidential election to President Barack Obama. Voters can at times forgive but party leadership will rarely forget about a candidate whom has lost a Presidential election, and so the Romney name carries with it a mark of defeat. Something Jeb Bush certainly does not.

I do believe Jeb Bush will run for President. If so he can capture swing voters, appeal to the Republican base (once ultra-conservative candidates our knocked out of the race), and out fund most competitors. Other competitors such as Chris Christie are just to polarizing or like Rand Paul too conservative to win in the general election. Romney is just a non-starter, he and Bush occupy the same sphere and the weight of Bush is just to great. I do believe Jeb Bush will seek the Republicans nomination for President of the United States and if so has the greatest chance of delivering the White House to the Republican Party. Nominating Governor Romney again will be a great mistake and a waste of a campaign.

 

A Conservative congress. Progress on legislation?

Speaker Boehner & Majority Leader McConnell

The 114th Congress has already begun, just yesterday Congressman John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, was reelected as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Speaker Boehner needed 205 votes to win the speakership and won with 216 votes. For the past years Speaker Boehner has had to hold a possible revolt from the more Conservative elements of the GOP, namely the Tea Party. This year only twenty-four conservative Republican representatives went against the party line and voted not to elect Congressman Boehner as Speaker of the House.

Luckily for Speaker Boehner, the Republican Party, and the rest of the country Tea Party influence has been waning the past few years. The Republican National Committee during the 2014 midterm election cycle heavily vetted its congressional candidates and poured massive amounts of money into congressional primary campaigns to squash Tea Party backed upstarts whom threaten to taint the Republican Party with insensitive, ridiculous rhetoric and policy.

With that said I fear that this division within the Republican caucus right at the beginning of the 114th Congress may be, as it has been in past years, a preview of things to come. The Republican mainstream has had to take a decidedly right turn as ultra conservatives have routinely attacked any GOP members (including the congressional Republican leadership) whom sought compromise with the Democrats and to a greater extent President Barack Obama’s agenda.

Although the fire of the Tea Party may be dying down, grassroots conservative groups are still a forced to be reckoned with for the GOP. Speaker Boehner, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, may reject compromise in order to whip up conservative support for Republican’s in 2016 and retain the loyalty of rank and file members.

Speaker Boehner

With the Republican’s controlling the House and the Senate by good majorities the burden of legislating now fall upon the shoulders of Republican representatives. There still exists ultra conservatives in both the House and the Senate whom will force party leaders such as Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McConnell to reject common sense legislation proposed by Democrats in order to whip up their conservative base. Though the threat of a loss to Democrats in the 2016 Presidential elections looms I fear that again the 114th Congress will be a do nothing Congress and that the Republican Party will remain the obstructionist party.

Whom to Represent and Whom not to Represent?

The United States prides itself on local representatives, that is members US House of Representatives, colloquially known as congressmen ( and congresswomen), whom prioritize there local interests once elected into Washington DC.

There exists a tension between local representative and constituents in the United States; should Congressmen and Congresswomen prioritize their congressional districts even if that means harming the greater national interests?

Many of my fellow Americans, perhaps, do not phrase that question in such a way. I find that the question congressmen and congresswomen must ask is; what gets me reelected? Unfortunately for our political process and us, the citizens of this nation, congresswomen and congressmen must overwhelming side with local interest instead of the national good. We get the representation we deserve, we deserve whomever we vote for and whatever polices we vote for.

Why bring this up now? Well that’s simple, I have for several years read about the problem of the quantity of tanks in the United States Army. O but don’t mistake me, the problem isn’t that the US Army is undersupplied with tanks, in fact it is quite the opposite. Congress, in their annual approval of the national budget (with this year’s budget being no exception) consistently approves the manufacturing of new tanks. The reason tanks are continuously approved for manufacturing, though the US Army no longer needs them, is related to the issues I outlined above.

While the US Army no longer needs tanks, it just so happens that a certain congressmen with a tank producing factory in his district has a strong incentive to keep said factories open. And so to get the federal budget passed funding for said tank manufacturing plant is written into the federal budget every year. At a hundred or so million dollars the American taxpayer buys the US Army tanks it no longer need.

The problem is that the American people expect their representatives to put their interests above all, even above the national interest. The tale of the unneeded tanks is just one example of where congressmen and congresswomen must cave to local interests and demand.

Such behavior harkens back to out split with Great Britain in favor of local representation. With that said I do believe that the balancing act that Congress performs all to often lean heavily for local interest while collectively harming the national one. Such practices create a bloated, nationally unnecessary, budget all to often bills filed with obscure statues to help one congresspersons district, such is the evils of pork barreled spending.

Developing a conscience while in elected office is difficult especially when the American people expect congressmen and congresswomen to vote the way they would vote. However developing ones own conscience is necessary to effectively bring our nation into the future and restore the integrity of the political process. If we are not unified in mind, purpose or law ; how can we expect to endure in these troubled time?

O Gerry, Stop Splitting Districts

America is becoming more and more politically partisan both the American People and our supposed representatives in Congress have become more and more determined to seek hard life left wing or right wing policies while rejecting all forms of legitimate compromise. While there are more than a few reasons that hyper partisanship has become the norm, I believe the root of the problems lies with the political technique known as gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the redrawing of congressional districts to gain a political advantage in elections.

Gerrymandering was invented by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, in 1810 he redistricted Massachusetts to account for populations changes. While the original intent behind gerrymandering is muddled one thing is certain: gerrymandering today is simply legal corruption used to reap massive political advantage.

I don’t believe many citizens of this nation are of aware of how gerrymandering works and how it effects them. Under the current political order every ten years, the time when population census take place state legislatures are allowed to redraw congressional districts due to changes in “ population” (at least in theory). In practice gerrymandering is used to create districts that keep the political party doing the redistricting in Congress. Far more than many Americans realize state legislatures are extremely important (or at least important once every ten years), if a political party controls the state legislature that party effectively controls whom in that state is elected to Congress.

For example lets say your the Republican Party of Arizona, you have noticed in the past few decades that Arizona’s population has become more and more Hispanic as immigrants migrate from Latin America to the United States. Before you know it your traditional white Republican voters become the minority in some congressional districts putting Republican Congress seats at jeopardy. In this instance the state legislature, Republican controlled, redraws the district cutting out Hispanic voters (whom currently votes Democrat) and packing in as much white Republican voters as possible. In this scenario the Republican in Arizona are able to hold on to their congressional seats thus benefiting the national party. ( Disclaimer I simply chose the republican party in this example Democrats do the exact same thing.

The process explained above is why congressional districts look like this

What is one to do to combat gerrymandering and the larger threat of partisanship? For one a non-partisan commission, perhaps crafted from a private organization, could be set up to divide congressional districts. However the problem is that non-partisan commissions quickly become very partisan, such is the political America realities. A second more viable solution is this: have state constitution amended to state that congressional districts must be divided mathematically. With todays technology it should be easy to create an algorithm that maps out a state and then divides said state into congressional districts into impartial bits.

Such is the woes of American political realities. Hyperpartisan gerrymandered districts leads to the election of hyperpartisan congressmen and congresswoman whom must pander to their partisan voters lest they be voted out of office.

Gerrymandering is simply one problem that must be fixed in order to return our nation to greatness and reinvigorate its political process.

Victory Together or Defeat Alone

It’s a turn in tack for the United States. The United States sits at a crossroad, I believe the path we follow will determine the future of the United States. We are a prideful patriotic people long accustomed to a great smashing victory against an evil but rationale enemy. ISIS, along with any other non-state actors, is not a rational enemy whom we can defeat in a head on battle. Barack Obama earlier this week, in a startling departure from his previous war policies, laid out a new path for the United States.

President Obama has laid out a plan to destroy ISIS and disrupt terrorist activity from the deserts of the Middle East to the shores of North Africa. Yet we all know that such a task cannot be accomplished in a single presidential administration nor by a series of strategic airstrikes. With his popularity plummeting and Americans sick of a lack of leadership in the world President Obama has laid out a plan that will send Americans back to the Middle East.

While I am no Dove it would seem that since September 11^th 2001 the United States actions against terrorists have been primarily reactionary in nature. Terrorism is used by groups whom lack the power to fight through conventional and legitimate means. They use the terrorizing of civilians and suicide attacks to strike fear into the heart of industrialized nations, a glaring example of course is the United States.

Americans must lead but not alone. Europe besieged as it is by economic and political crisis must help the US in the fight against terrorists in the Middle East. If Americans truly want victory in the Middle East we must accept the fact that victory is decades if not centuries away and that the age where a super power could unilaterally act is long past.

We Can’t Have Our Smashing Victory

It’s a turn in tack for the United States. The United States sits at a crossroad, I believe the path we follow will determine the future of the United States. We are a prideful patriotic people long accustomed to a great smashing victory against an evil but rationale enemy. ISIS along with any other non-state actor is not a rational enemy whom we can defeat in a head on battle. Barack Obama last night, in a startling departure from his previous war policy, laid out a new path for the United States.

President Obama has laid out a plan to destroy ISIS and disrupt terrorist activity from the deserts of the Middle East to the shores of North Africa. Yet we all know that such a task cannot be accomplished in a single presidential administration nor by a series of strategic airstrikes. With his popularity plummeting and Americans sick of a lack of leadership in the world President Obama has laid out a plan that will send Americans back to the Middle East.

While I am no Dove it would seem that since September 11^th 2001 the United States actions against terrorists have been primarily reactionary in nature. Terrorism is used by groups whom lack the power to fight through conventional and legitimate means. They use the beheading of civilians and suicide attacks to strike fear into the hard of industrialized nations, a glaring example of course being the United States.

Americans must lead but not alone. Europe besieged as it is by economic and political crisis must help the US in the fight against terrorists in the Middle East. If Americans truly want victory in the Middle East we must accept the fact that victory is decades if not centuries away.

Rick Perry: A Probable Presidential Contender

Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, was a Republican Presidential Candidate whom would ultimately lose the race for his party’s nomination to Mitt Romney in the 2012 Republican primaries. It is commonly believed that Rick Perry has his eyes set on the presidency.

Governor Perry was lampooned by his own party for two (Primary reasons) seeming uniformed and (more importantly not being conservative enough, a man not ready to lead the United States of America. Furthermore Perry did not come off conservative enough to gain the votes required to emerge as his party’s nominee for President of the United States.

For the past two years Perry has attempted to reinvent his public image. Who he is trying to be seems simple (and may prove effective) a zealous defender of American conservatism.

This new image has already shown. As we have seen during the border crisis which involves underage immigrants slipping over the Mexican-Texan border, Perry is attempting to come off as an uncompromising conservative whom will not allow for US sovereignty to be violated.

Such a persona has manifested itself in several ways. For one Perry issued his famous quip “I appreciate the offer to greet you at Austin-Bergstrom Airport, but a quick handshake on the tarmac will not allow for a thoughtful discussion.” After refusing President Barack Obama’s invitation for a handshake on the tarmac immediately upon Obama arriving in Texas via Air Force One.

Perry as stated above must appear to be a fully entrenched conservative. The issue wasn’t Perry not wanting a photo-op, he would go on to release several of those, instead (as all far right Republicans know) Perry must be publicly against Obama on all issues (ranging from simple photo-ops to the implementation of a national healthcare system) in order to have a shot at a presidential run.

For a guy whom appears to detest so called photo-ops Perry is sure good at setting one up. It wasn’t long after refusing Obama’s invitation that he released this picture.

The above picture is simply an example of Perry’s tough guy conservative persona. Perry as stated above cannot positively associate himself with Obama, lest the Republican voter base catch wind.

I undoubtedly believe that Perry will seek the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 2016, will he win such a covet prize, that remains to be seen.