If Clinton Is Eventually Pushed Aside Who's Up For The Democrats In 2016?

Jim Webb (google image)

Opening Quote:  "I learned long ago on the battlefields of Vietnam that in a Crisis, there is no substitute for clear-eyed leadership."- Jim Webb


If the democrats get nervous and decide not to board the Clinton Campaign Train then who are they going to ride with. Her success in early polls can be attributable to the fact she has 100% name recognition. In  fact I would argue it's her defining quality. President Obama proved elections are not won on name recognition alone.

But if not Hillary then who?

Okay I'm going to give you two alternatives that I believe are likely if Clinton has to step aside. Then I will tell you who I think democrats should go with. Also let me say these are not people who have a chance of overtaking Hillary like Obama did in 2012 but are only the last resorts if needed because she drops out. Dare I say there is no Barack Obama running this time for the democrats to dump Hillary for.

Let's take a look:
1) Former Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland
First of all this pick may come partially from the fact I live in Maryland so I have seen or have been subjected to his leadership and  policies up close. I know he is a candidate who wants to be President but to me lacks the "it" factor needed too win. However he is very liberal. The powerful left will be happy with his stances on the death penalty, guns, and the popular "gay marriage" debate.

2) Howard Dean
I have written in a previous post that democrats might take another look at Secretary of State John Kerry. However unless the US/Iran Nuclear Program Talks turn out  a lot better than it looks now  that just is not happening. So I think Dean still has the necessary support from "Liberal-Land" if an alternative is required. Remember he was quite popular for a time back in the day. To me what did him in was that video at a rally where he unfortunately got a little too "excited".

Where the rubber meets the road...

Okay now for who I think the democrats should support if need be. None other than:
Former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia.
Okay I know the left will refuse to give him the nomination because of his stance on the "infamous" Keystone Pipeline alone but I'm  a conservative so why would they listen to me in the first place. The fact is Obama has pulled the party so far to the left Webb in my opinion is the best chance for the democrats to win other than Hillary. Libertarians will be attracted to Webb's chances of getting both parties to work together for the good of the country. As a decorated war hero with foreign policy experience he may be attractive to undecided voters in the general election with the current dangers surrounding us. 

"I know how to make decisions and I know how to lead."- Jim Webb

Two final thoughts:
1) For the democrats who like the liberal O'Malley if memory serves me correct he was not very influential in getting his Lieutenant Governor elected as he left office.

2) I know a Assistant Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan does not sound like a democrat but remember Webb was against the Iraq War and Clinton and Kerry both voted for it.

In Closing...
"If I commit myself to something, I will commit my 100 percent."- Jim Webb


Related Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/if-not-hillary-clinton-in-2016-then-who/2013/07/21/aa368564-f209-11e2-ae43-b31dc363c3bf_story.html

How Many Foreign Policy Failures Can President Obama Have?

President Obama (google image)

Opening Quote: "Iraq's future will be in the hands of it's people."- President Barack Obama ( It seems to me ISIS from Syria and Iran's Republican Guard are in control.)


President Obama's foreign policy is a mess!  The policies are incoherent, inconsistent, or altogether nonexistent. Let me list just a few results:

1) US/Iran Nuclear Program- I know some supporters of Obama might argue the final verdict is not in but everyone in the world knows the President is not a negotiator. I would argue the "framework" agreement, no matter which copy (US or Iran) your looking at is already in shambles.

2) Vladmir Putin- The Russian "Czar's" total disrespect for Obama and the US can in no way be looked at as a success. (Ukraine, Crimea, etc.)

3) Israel- President Obama has been disrespectful to our biggest and most important ally in the Middle East. What is the President thinking?

4) Syria- Even  former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thinks our lack of leadership cost us here!

5) Iraq- Good move not solidifying a status of force agreement. I'm sure not leaving appropriate troops behind will not invite chaos like ISIS (JV team).

Where the rubber meets the road...

The above list could have went on and on but I think you can get the idea. I know I should have mentioned "Benghazi" but to be honest I don't want too think about it. It still makes me mad!
I am not so gullible too think every administration's foreign policy will not be without it's failures but some things I just don't get. For example:

1) Why has President Obama given more respect to our adversaries than our friends?

2) What is his thinking with Iran? Just think about it! Iran is one of the leading sponsors of terrorism in the world. However instead of trying to block their power and influence we leave Iraq too let Iran sweep in too fill the void.  I tell you watching Iran and ISIS fight it out over territory once secured by American blood is infuriating! Whoever wins we lose!

The problem is President Obama has approached his foreign policy like a "community organizer". The concept of cooperation can only trump competition when everyone plays fair. When you have "big bullies" on every block playing "cut-throat" competition is the only game in town. I'm not saying there is not a place for diplomacy. However credibility is a must. Obama does not have it. When you "draw a red line in the sand"-mean it. Unfortunately in the spirit of cooperation he has let the "bullies on the block" walk all over us.

Frankly his take on things might work for a tiny country in the middle of no where. However we are the United States of America. A superpower with responsibilities to the world. Don't get me wrong I am for being prudent and realistic but you cannot deny "American Exceptionalism" which Obama has done. Like it or not the world looks to us for guidance and we cannot lead from behind for our sake and the world.

Last thought...
Due in large part to President Obama's foreign policy failures America is seen as weak and in almost all cases perception is reality.

In closing...
"Al Qaeda has been decimated."-President Barack Obama  ( Today they hold more territory and power than ever.)


Related Article:  http://time.com/76868/obama-foreign-policy-cynicism/

                                                                                                           

So Can Marco Rubio Win The GOP Nomiation?

Marco Rubio (google image)

Opening Quote:  "The Hispanic community understands the American Dream and have not forgotten what they were promised- that in the U.S., a free market system, allows us all to succeed economically, achieve stability and security for your family and leave your children better off than yourselves."- Marco Rubio

On Monday Florida Senator Marco Rubio officially announced he's running for President. The son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio spoke too a crowd gathered in his hometown of Miami at the iconic Freedom Tower. The Tower, also known as the "Ellis Island of the South" holds personal meaning for Rubio as well as others in the Cuban-American community. Fleeing from Castro's Regime tens of thousands of Cuban immigrants were once processed by the federal government at the historic landmark.

In Rubio's speech he expressed that he was the candidate to defend the American Dream hoping to appeal to young, minorities, and less affluent voters. Trying too take advantage of his youth he said it was time for the new generation to take the reigns in the new century. Rubio felt it was time for older leaders with older ideas too step aside. He specifically mentioned how Hillary Clinton wanted too take the Country back too yesterday when it should be about tomorrow.
So the question is can Rubio win the GOP nomination?

Where the rubber meets the road...

Rubio is one of the most conservative members of Congress which should bode well for him in the primaries. However one of the "biggie's"- immigration remains a question mark. That being said I am hoping with him being Cuban-American he can lead the way for the Republican Party too connect with Hispanic voters. I believe, despite the immigration "barrier", the GOP must bring Hispanic voters into the party or winning elections will be more and more difficult. There are a great percentage of Hispanics that agree with Republicans on most issues but immigration continues too divide. Hopefully Rubio could help bridge the gap.

 As I have stated in a previous post the future is now so I hope he can at least be given a chance, but right now I kind of see Rubio stuck in the middle. Although he is very conservative I believe he would have a chance in the general election. Rubio is young, handsome and could pass as a democrat just looking at him. Remember JFK? Rubio has a Presidential presence about him. I have seen him speak where he came across as very "cool" which will be beneficial and the few times where he was a bit "nervous" I chalk up too youth. He will just get better throughout the process. So can Rubio win? Yes! I think the real question is can he lead?

In closing...
"You cannot give up on the American dream. We cannot allow our fears and our disappointments to lead us to silence and into inaction."- Marco Rubio


Related Article:  http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/politics/election-2016-marco-rubio-presidential-campaign/index.html

Who Will Be The GOP Nominee For President In 2016?

(google image)

Opening Quote:  "If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join the campaign."- George W. Bush

I realize it's extremely early but let's ponder who might be the Republican nominee for President in 2016. We certainly have a number of candidates to choose from seeing everybody and their brother seems to be throwing their hat in the ring. With so many possible contenders who do you think will eventually breakout as the front runner. Right now it seems to be Governor Walker from Wisconsin but I don't think it will last. Most polls show everyone under 20% so the nomination is essentially there for the taking.

I'm sure numerous contenders will have their day "in the sun" but who will be standing in the end?

Where the rubber meets the road...

Frankly I don't know! My guess is no one else does either it's just to early. That being said I will give you some of my thoughts:

Will it be...

Former Governor Mike Huckabee- No! He certainly knows how to win the Iowa Caucus which might give him some traction early. However after Huckabee's stint on the Fox News Channel, with a show which I liked by the way I just don't see the necessary "fire in the belly" to get it done.

Governor Scott Walker- No! I do respect what he's been able to do in Wisconsin which is probably why he's leading many polls now. However in the end I see him as a survivor not the President.

Senator Ted Cruz- No! I like him a lot because he's a true conservative. However he is to disliked by many powerful republicans after the "shutdown" mess. As always America says they want change but Cruz is just to conservative. His loyal base will keep him around for awhile but his loyal base ultimately won't be enough.

Senator Rand Paul- No! Although I could be wrong. He's got fundraising skills, infrastructure in early states, and a plan. Paul means business and is playing to win. I must admit I like his "gumption" but I find him a little "strange". I can't put my finger on it but I just don't see him as President. Also foreign policy?

Jeb Bush- No! I know deep down he probably is who everyone thinks will eventually be the GOP nominee. Bush has money and the establishment behind him. However I will give you two negatives:  immigration and he's a Bush! I respect the Bush family but three Presidents in thirty years from one family. I just don't see America voting for that!

So are you ready for my early pick?

Senator Marco Rubio- Yes! I know what your thinking but it's early so why can't he be my pick? He may be young and inexperienced but if a community organizer who gave one good speech at a democratic convention be President why not Rubio? He's very talented, from Florida an important state, and I think ready for "primetime". To be honest the GOP can't afford to wait. If Rubio can hang on long enough maybe others will jump on the bandwagon. The future is now or at least needs to be!

Last word...
My guess for vice president:  Governor John Kasich from Ohio.

In Closing...
"Honesty, integrity, and accountability, the values, which should be the hallmark of this government, have instead been thrown under the bus by an arrogant majority, casualties in a misguided campaign to shield from accountability those who abuse this House."- Louise Slaughter

Related Article:  http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_GUNS?SITE=WIJAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT















   

Can Senator Rand Paul Win In Run For President In 2016?

Senator Rand Paul (google image)

Opening Quote:  "Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declares something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so."- Rand Paul

On Tuesday, April 7th, Senator Ron Paul from Kentucky announced his campaign to run for the President of the United States in 2016. He vowed he would never become part of the Washington "machine" when elected. In Paul's speech he touched on many topics:  low taxes, term limits, balance budgets, and a job for whoever wants to work. As for as the "hot" topic of the US/Iran Nuclear Agreement Paul believed any final version must go before Congress for approval. In polls the Senator seems to be doing as good or better as other candidates against likely nominee Hillary Clinton.
So can Senator Paul win the Presidency?

Where the rubber meets the road...

No! I will give you one reason Paul can't win the Presidency:  he can't win the GOP nomination. Some of Paul's earlier statements make conservatives nervous. He comes across as an isolationist with troubling views on foreign policy. It's not a good time considering ISIS and Iran's Nuclear Program.

I'll give him credit for attempting to change his old perceptions. However in reality it's going to backfire. While trying to appeal to the Republican establishment types he has irritated some early supporters like those who supported his father in 2012. If you remember Ron Paul was able to "stir the pot" back then. Unfortunately the changes in direction ultimately makes him look like a flip-flopper. Paul needs to build on his father's success not diminish it. In the end though it will come down to the importance of foreign policy issues this election that will make the difference. Paul won't win.

On the other hand...

Although I stand behind what I wrote above, Senator Paul's broad themes of cutting spending and getting the government out of the way will connect with voters. Also despite what I wrote about his flip-flopping I believe many will understand the reasons why he's doing what he's doing therefore still see him as "authentic" when it comes to their beliefs.

In closing...
"If you hear me out, I believe you'll discover that what motivates me more than any other issue is the defense of everyone's rights."- Rand Paul


"LIMITED EDITION"-"I vote! Do you?"-t-shirt-click here:  http://teespring.com/proud-to-vote


Related Article:  http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/politics/rand-paul-president-2016/index.html



 

What About This US/Iran Nuclear "Framework" Agreement?

(google image)

Opening Quote:  "A diplomatic solution that puts significant and verifiable constraints on Iran's nuclear program represents the best and most sustainable chance to ensure that America, Israel, the entire Middle East will never be menaced by a nuclear armed Iran."- Joe Biden

A tentative deal has at least on the surface finally been reached between the U.S. and Iran after what has thus far been an exhaustive process. June 30 is the date agreed upon for this "framework" to transform itself into a final deal. President Obama told America this "understanding" is historic and when all the technical difficulties are worked out Iran will be prevented from making themselves a nuclear bomb. Supposedly Iran's nuclear program will be confined to peaceful purposes only.
Really?

Where the rubber meets the road...

First of all the two sides don't seem to be looking at the same "tentative" agreement. If this is the case how could even a "framework" be any kind of achievement. Iran is claiming once the deal is signed sanctions will immediately be lifted while the White House is saying sanctions will be phased out based on performance.

Iran also is suggesting they will in no way be subjected to "snap" or surprise inspections. Furthermore any conclusions reached by investigators can be disputed. Meanwhile the White House is telling us the investigators will be on Iran and their facilities like "white on rice".
Really?
Were the U.S. and Iran even at the same negotiation?
How big is Switzerland?

It troubles me that what President Obama seems worried about most is that if Congress interferes the U.S. will be blamed for the failure.
Really?
That is what most concerns our President?
I mean when was the last time Iran operated in good faith, and we will be blamed? Come on!

I am troubled with lifting sanctions too quickly. Once Iran solidifies economic deals it will not be that easy to just put sanctions back in place because doing so would also affect the other countries involved. I'm sure the U.S. will be blamed for that as well.

It seems I remember President Obama saying Iran must end it's program but they seem to be a long way off from that. I'm sure Iran really wants lighter sanctions but my guess is they really, really want a nuclear weapon. You combine that with Iran's history of untruthfulness and lack of cooperation, what kind of deal could really be reached. Also as President Obama might say I have a feeling our negotiators are the "JV" team on this one.

In conclusion...
"The world should be very clear about making sure that Iran does not get nuclear weapons, period."- Benjamin Netanyahu

For your "LIMITED EDITION" Tee click here:  http://teespring.com/proud-to-vote

Related Article:  http://www.timesofisrael.com/ex-iaea-deputy-deal-puts-iran-on-nuke-threshold-for-10-years-then-gets-worse/

Will Hillary Clinton Be Tough To Beat For President In 2016?

Hillary Clinton (google image)

Opening Quote:  "Take criticism seriously, but not personally. If there is truth or merit in the criticism, try to learn from it. Otherwise let it roll right off you."- Hillary Clinton

There's no doubt former Secretary of State Clinton will not only be competitive but difficult to beat for the Republicans in the 2016 Presidential election.. Most GOP opponents face major disadvantages according to polls. Sure at this point name recognition plays a role but the margins have a wide gap in general election match-ups.

Clinton definitely seems to have all but secured the Democratic Party's nomination. She is leading most possible opponents by fifty points. Furthermore if Senator Elizabeth Warren decides not to run the lead expands even further. It's fair to say three out of four democrats think Clinton is the best choice for the ticket. Will her email scandal eventually diminish her chances in 2016 if it continues to go unresolved?

Where the rubber meets the road...

Despite evidence to the contrary I don't think Clinton will end up running. Yes the "Email Scandal" is a problem with Senator Gowdy from SC on the warpath. He's upset about how the whole "Benghazi" ordeal went down and frankly so am I. I know Clinton all but said certain aspects didn't matter but it does! That being said the fact that previous Washington officials have done similar things when it comes to emails I believe Clinton could eventually get past it. Also all the money the Clinton Foundation has received from other Countries like China is certainly questionable but I'm sure she has prepared for that already.

 So your probably asking yourself why I think Clinton's not going to run. The truth is I believe the liberal media is not on her bandwagon. They are on her heels about her difficulties instead of finding ways to support her. Sure the media will not make it look obvious especially given she has the best chance of the democrats to win but they are not behind her. I don't know why exactly. Maybe it goes back to the way she ran against Obama or her dismissive attitude. I think it's because the media has been there and done that and want someone new. Whatever the reason there is some sort of "grudge" that I believe will not only keep Clinton from winning but she in the end won't run at all! Want to know my theory? Well I believe the real reason they don't want Hillary is because...get ready... drumroll please... she's a woman. Can you believe that. The powerful liberal left don't want her because she is a woman. Hillary is not the feminist that the left want to see as the first female President. Why? Blame Monica Lewinsky, that's what Hillary did remember!

In Closing...
"Always aim high, work hard, and care deeply about what you believe in. And, when you stumble, keep faith. And, when you're knocked down, get right back up and never listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on."- Hillary Clinton

One last thought... Okay, given the above quote forget what I said about Hillary not running, of course she will even if certain "powers that be" would prefer anyone else. First if she don't run for the democrats who in the heck will they put up? So despite the fact she is not a good campaigner, speaker, and lacks the "it" factor they will be pressure for her to run. But beware! Remember what happened in Iowa when "they" found out white people would vote for Obama? In case you forgot Hillary got dropped like a "hot potato"! It could happen again.

Get "Limited Edition" Tee! Click here:  http://teespring.com/proud-to-vote



Related Article: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/lara-brown/2014/12/04/the-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-shouldnt-run-in-2016

 

                               

Could Texas Senator Ted Cruz Win The GOP Nomination For The 2016 Presidential Race?

Ted Cruz (google image)

Opening Quote:  "Voters are hungry for principled, conservative fighters, because the threat to our liberties from Washington has been better."- Ted Cruz 

On Monday March 23, 2015 Texas Junior Senator Ted Cruz officially entered the 2016 Presidential Race. He like the other possible contenders have been campaigning for months but Cruz is the first to make it official. Sen. Cruz made the announcement to a welcoming crowd at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

 In his speech this presidential hopeful praised America and it's people. He vowed to stand up and lead the fight to make America great again. Is it possible he could get the nomination?

Where the rubber meets the road...

No! I think there are a couple of reasons Sen. Cruz will ultimately fall short of winning the nomination. First, despite the fact it is extremely early he has a disadvantage when it comes to name recognition. So far most people associate him with the "government shutdown" a few years back when his uncompromising stance angered democrats and republicans alike. This also reminds voters  of his lack of experience although that may no longer matter given President Obama won.

 The second and most important reason he will fail to get the nomination is Cruz is looking for the Christian Right as his base. Yes he will have some Tea Party supporters but the evangelical's votes are going to be spread out. It's obvious Sen. Cruz is counting on Christian conservatives given his kick-off speech took place at the institution founded by Rev. Jerry Falwell. It is understandable given that Cruz's father is a pastor and his in-laws are missionaries. But the cultural conservative realm will be crowded and votes will be hard to come by. Former Senator Rick Santorum emphasizes his faith and former Governor Mike Huckabee used to be a Baptist preacher.

 So in the end despite giving a valiant effort Sen. Cruz will come up a tad short. However he is very smart and impressive and this experience should set him up to run next go around or if I am right the time after that. I believe a Hispanic Senator from the great state of Texas sounds like a perfect vice presidential running mate. We shall see!
By the way did I say he was smart? When he gave his kick-off speech at Liberty he delivered it without a monitor. Impressive!

In Closing...
"We are seeing a great awakening. A national movement of We the People, brought together by what unites us, a shared love of liberty, and an understanding of the unlimited potential of free men and women."- Ted Cruz

Get this "Limited Edition" Tee! Click here:  http://teespring.com/proud-to-vote



Related Article:  http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/ted-cruz-great-president-reasons/2015/03/30/id/635304/

Will Bergdahl Be Executed For Desertion And Related Charges?

Sgt. Bergdahl (google image) 

Opening Quote:  "Every army in the history of the world has always had some deserters, usually much greater than we have today, because once again every soldier who's joined the Army since 1973 is a volunteer, and the numbers are very small and they are almost completely for--people desert almost completely for personal or financial reasons."- Bryan Hilferty

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl was held captive in Afghanistan for five years. The Army is now charging him with desertion and related charges that could imprison him for life. The military announcing the charges awoke passions among Americans from when he was initially released. Bergdahl's freedom came with the price of five detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Where the rubber meets the road...

The White House has been using the "no man left behind" excuse which makes the term "hogwash" come to mind. Maintaining the belief that if Bergdahl voluntarily left his post and went for a stroll in Afghanistan it was still "our" duty to free him is ludicrous. I mean Susan Rice was at it again when she was talking "honor and distinction" while Bergdahl's unit members were telling how he left willingly and they had to look for him, thus putting lives at risk.
If found guilty will Bergdahl be executed?
No, President Obama and the White House are not going to execute someone that cost a swap of five Guantanamo Bay detainees.

What I can't figure out is...
Why in the world the President would want to make the exchange in the first place?
Did he really want the potential future terrorists released that bad?
Was the fanatical left putting the pressure on the lapsed campaign promise that stressing?
In any event why the "rose garden ceremony"?
I mean the White House had to know most of the desertion talk and such.
Didn't they know whether or not the Army would back their play?
It comes down to either incompetence or ignorance. Pick one!

In Closing...
"These deserters were our undoing. I shall have a good deal more to say about them before I finally lay down my pen, and I shall not hesitate to call them by their true name, the name with which they will forever be branded before all the nations of the world."- Christiaan Rudolf De Wet

Related Article:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bowe-bergdahl-desertion-116391.html