Boehner is Just Plain Wrong

When the Democrats won the White House in 2008, they also had the House and the Senate. When it came to objectives, they got everything they wanted. In 2010, the Republicans took back the House but still the Democrats were able to achieve their objectives. Then in 2012, the Republicans were able to retake the Senate and still the Democrats were able to find ways to push through their agenda. So on the Sunday morning talk shows when Speaker Boehner claimed there was no way the Republicans could defund Obamacare or block the President's illegal executive amnesty for illegal aliens, he was just plain wrong. The Democrats proved time and again that if you want something bad enough, you can find a way to get it regardless of the odds. They are just better politicians and parliamentarians with better leadership.

The problem is that unlike the Democrats who spend time well in advance plotting, planning and scheming to find Plans A, B, C and D in order to achieve their goals, under Boehner's lack of leadership, the Republicans wait until the last minute, lay out a single often not well thought out strategy, and when it meets the first bit of opposition, they preemptively give up. They just don't seem to have the same desire to win that their opponents have.

Whether it is due to a lack of courage, commitment, laziness, limited imagination, or any number of other possible faults, the responsibility for the failure of the Republicans to achieve any of their goals or even block any of the Democrat's misguided and dangerous agenda items, rests squarely on the shoulders of the Speaker. It was a complete failure of leadership and it cost him his job as it should have.

Boehner isn't alone in his lack of leadership. Senate Majority McConnell probably isn't far behind him on the way out. Again, completely justified due to his abject failure to lead effectively. Hopefully, those elected to take Boehner and McConnell's place will have the ability to lead so that when the Democrats complain about the obstructionist Republicans, there will actually be some evidence to support their accusations.

Bill Maher is Right about the Clock/Bomb

I hate to admit it but I finally agree with Bill Maher on something. Ahmed Mohamed's clock does look like in his words, "...a f-ing bomb."

And this isn't about Islamophobia; it's about reality. In 2013, a white 2nd grader was suspended in a Maryland public school which went on his permanent record for this: a Pop-Tart chewed in the shape of a gun.

In the next Bond movie, if Daniel Craig is frantically trying to defuze the top picture, are you going to say, "Hey James, stop messing with that! It's just a clock!"

Or would you try carrying it through airport security in your as your carry-on?

Would you put you hands up in terror if a 2nd grader pointed the object in the bottom picture at you?

No? I didn't think so!

Really, Hillary?

Last week shows once again why Hillary's campaign is in a tailspin.

On Monday, in a speech at the University of Northern Iowa, Clinton said the following about campus sexual assault: “I want to send a message to all of the survivors, Don’t let anyone silence your voice, you have the right to be heard, the right be believed, and we are with you as you go forward.” This was an obvious effort to try to regain support from women which has plummet to 42%. What makes this so remarkable is her history on sexual assault victims. After all, she was the architect of the "Bimbo Eruption" strategy used to defend her husband, President Bill Clinton, against numerous claims ranging from unwanted advances by Paul Jones, assault by Kathleen Willey and a rape by Juanita Broaddrick. Perhaps the difference in her mind is none of the accusations against her husband were reported to happen on a college campus?

Then came the dust up about Trump not correcting an attendee at a town hall meeting when he claimed that President Obama is a Muslim and not an American in his lead up to his question. Hillary wasted no time attacking Trump for not correcting the man's assertions that Mr. Obama is a Muslim and wasn't born in the United States. What makes this so ironic is that during the 2008 Democrat primary, Mrs Clinton gave a lukewarm defense of Mr. Obama when questioned about his religion by CNN's Wolf Blitzer. In her response to Blitzer, Clinton said she had no reason to believe Obama is a Muslim - hardly a strong statement of support. Further, it has been widely reported that the 2008 Hillary for President Campaign was the source for the birther movement that claimed Obama was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to be president. 

What a deeply flawed candidate. What a troubled campaign. What a misguided party.

In the Debate, Attacking Trump Will Help But...

Ahead of tonight's second GOP presidential debate, I thought I'd share some thoughts on strategy for those wishing to unseat Trump as the frontrunner. Many, especially those in the Republican establishment, hope the other candidates will attack Trump. This tactic will help the attackers but unfortunately, it will also help Trump. The problem is that in these televised debates, barring any big gaffs, face time is everything. Therefore, for every minute a challenging candidate like Carly Fiorina or Jeb Bush attacks Trump, they are giving twice as much face time to Trump as they are getting - the time they are attacking him plus the time he is allowed to give a response. The end result is one step ahead for the challenger; two steps ahead for Trump.

A better tactic would be to provide better answers to the questions without attacking another Republican candidate. Once again Reagan's Eleventh Commandment, "Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican." is wise advice. The goal needs to be to prove oneself the better future opponent of the Democrat candidate not that you are better than Trump! However, the challengers can take a hint from "The Donald":  skip the politically correct BS and give better solutions to the county's problems than Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or any other potential socialist "Democrat" offering. In the real world where the majority of us dwell, giving better solutions than the magical world of make believe answers of the Democrat party is not that tall of an order.

Why the Appeal of Trump?

Don't interpret my attempt to explain Trump as me supporting Trump. I haven't made up my mind yet. There is still a long way to go until the Republican Convention and many debates in between so we will be a lot of opportunities to see what each of the candidates have to offer.
So here goes. I think the appeal of Trump is that he doesn't put up with the non-sense. I think he is the end of compassionate conservatism which is a bunch of crap. Nothing is more compassionate than the number of new jobs, economic growth and number of people, especially minorities, who entered the middle class under Ronald Reagan. What Trump refuses to do is allow the Leftists, especially in the media, to define the narrative about Republicans, Conservatives, or those in business. He doesn't stand for questions that start off with a false premise. The "I know all Republicans are racists but how will you be different?" or "Of course all Conservatives are anti-women, Hispanic, gay, science,..." or other more subtle implied lies. When a candidate allows those to stand or somehow tries to sound more middle of the road in response, it comes off as defensive or as a sign of lack of conviction.

I think Trump is the only candidate who has figured out what the Conservative voters have known for a while - Republicans have been doing political Tae Chi and the Progressives have been doing full on MMA. The other candidates better take off the gloves and discard the Marquis de Queensbury rules or we will lose and the rapid decline of the country will continue!

The Delusional Iranian Nuclear Deal

Apparently only the Obama Administration and a small band of "true believers" actually consider the Iranian nuclear agreement an actual deal. Hundreds of retired admirals and generals don't, most of Congress (just not enough to over-ride a presidential veto) doesn't, the Israelis don't, 81% of the American people don't and most importantly, the supposed partner in the deal, the Iranians themselves, don't think this is a deal. When asked about any aspect of the deal that could be considered beneficial to the U.S. (by definition, both sides of an agreement must receive some benefit in order to make something a deal.), the Iranians adamantly deny that it is part of the agreement. It baffles me how anyone can believe that there is an agreement when one of the parties doesn't agree to any of the terms of the agreement. That doesn't seem to deter the progressive, "we are just smarter than you are" crowd. Their delusion is complete.