A Benefit of Being a Minority Party Member

The impetus for today's argument comes from the fact that I live in one of the most liberal (read: chock full o' Democrats) states in the Union, while maintaining a Conservative world view.  Most days, particularly election days, are far more difficult than they would be if I lived in a state that is more Red.  Texas for instance. Perhaps even Florida, or Idaho.  Nearly anywhere that isn't here, for that matter.

There are days, though, when it is almost worth all of that, just to see the look on people's face when politics are brought up.  Bernie Sanders' campaign had people beating the streets for him today, each wearing a bright, shiny new pin stating their support for the candidate that the Democrat machine wishes would simply go away.  Or die.  Whichever one makes it easier to foist Ms. Clinton on to the general public as their *official* candidate, much like the RNC did with John McCain in 2008.  Call it the lifetime *achievement* award for political parties.  Why either party would want to do that, I have no idea, neither candidate is viable in a general election, but I digress.

I had two separate encounters with Sanders' supporters today.  The first one came on my daily constitutional (the dated, noun definition), but my look of disdain as I saw their shiny pins kept them from engaging me.  The second occurred hours later, as I was leaving my place of residence.  There was a younger gentleman, and an older one, too.  Both of them were consulting (I'm assuming) voter lists.  Strange to me was the fact that they were intentionally ignoring residences that I knew contained minority voters, given the rhetoric that I always read/hear about in the media.  Because of this, I may have stared at them as they moved their way down the street a little longer than I would have done otherwise, which encouraged the older gentleman to call out to me.  His words were:

I hope I can depend on your vote for Bernie Sanders.

 I laughed at him before I said anything.  Immediately I realized how rude that might be perceived, so I responded with "No, sorry, you can't."  Not content to leave well enough alone, I couldn't stop my mouth from continuing on, when he looked back at me with an inquiring look upon his face.  It may also have been simple confusion, I didn't stop to ask.  I continued by saying "I wouldn't vote for him if he was the only candidate on the party.  He is by far the worst candidate running for President this election cycle."

The man looked as if I had mortally wounded him with my words.  He had no direct reply for me, but I could (just barely) hear him when he replied to his younger cohort "He must be a F*@%ing Republican."

It could have been worse, I suppose.  He could have accused me of supporting Ms. Clinton.  That would have been hurtful.

So while Massachusetts will be an afterthought come November (it's been 32 years since the state cast its delegates with a Republican Presidential candidate), but in the moment, with *contested* primaries for both *major* political parties, it's a more interesting place to be.  Even as a supporter of the minority party.

The Pope Says Trump "Isn't Christian"

Yesterday, the Pope took time out of his busy travel schedule to say this about Presidential *candidate* Donald Trump:

A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian.

My words of advice for His Holiness come courtesy of Ice Cube:

You better check yo self before you wreck yo self

 I understand that the Pontiff may have an exalted opinion of himself, but I would not think that he would be so full of himself that he would decide to cast Trump to the Lake of Fire all on his own.  Most traditional Christians would assume that God Himself would make that decision.  One would hope that the Pope has not elevated himself to that stature.

One might also question the hypocrisy of His Holiness when it comes to walls, considering that his place of residence, Vatican City, is surrounded by walls. 

While I may not believe that Trump fully understands how our Constitution works, the words he proffers with regarding to protecting the citizens he would serve (whether he believes them or not is open for discussion) is something that is not un-Christian.  It's simply understanding that our world is a changing place, and that a nation has a right to protect its sovereign borders.

If the Pope wants to himself in American politics, perhaps it would be best if he abdicated the Papacy, moved to the United States, and got involved in the political structure at the lay level.  If he's not willing to do that, then perhaps he should simply keep his mouth shut, instead of looking to influence our political nation from afar.

Tom Brokaw Obviously Misses the Limelight

I'll be the first to admit, I didn't think that Donald Trump would stick around in the Republican Presidential race.  I'll also follow that up by saying under no circumstance will I vote for him when given the opportunity, either in a Republican primary, or God save us all, the Presidential election.

That being said, he's said a few things that I don't wholeheartedly disagree with, especially in light of recent events in San Bernandino, CA.  While it would be wrong to condemn an entire religion, or all persons who follow such a religion, it should give pause to our foreign policy, and those whom we trust to bring within our borders and allow the privilege of citizenship.

The reason I even mention any of this, after pointedly avoiding it for the most part is Tom Brokaw.  I don't know who let him out of his retirement pad, but he was out making remarks comparing Donald Trump's *proposal* to what FDR did during WWII.  In response to the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor, FDR decided to imprison American citizens of Japanese descent.  There was likely not much of an outcry at the time (though I don't ever recall reading about German-Americans being interred, despite the fact they were attempting to destroy us, too.  It must really have been the bombing that was the trigger.)

To be clear, excluding someone from *immigrating* to the U.S., for whatever reason, is not in any way, shape, or form the same as imprisoning without cause U.S. citizens and nationals.  On the one hand, you have citizens of a foreign nation.  On the other, you have the U.S. Constitution, which is designed to protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of race, creed, or what a person's forbears' homeland has done to us.  For Brokaw to pretend to be ignorant of that fact, or to actually be ignorant of that fact suggests that he is a moron.  There's enough of that going around lately, without him spewing forth such nonsense.  It would have been enough to say something along the lines of "Donald Trump is an idiot, and he is proposing a plan that cannot be enforced."  Of course, such a statement does not generate millions of views on the internet, nor does it bring Tom Brokaw back to the forefront of the news cycle for more than a moment.  Instead, he takes a position that is at least as ignorant as he claims Trump's is, and for that is rewarded.  I hate our country sometimes.  

We now live in a world where anyone can get anywhere on the globe within 24 hours (or therabouts.)  We have lax border security, and don't seem to care whether or not the rule of law set up in our Constitution is followed.  Protecting our citizens should be every candidate's primary concern.  If Brokaw actually cared, he might have asked the governments of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates why they have not taken in any *refugees* or even offered any formal aid, according to a report by Amnesty International.

Of course, if those type of questions were asked, then we might have an entirely different debate.  One where the priorities of the nation, rather than of an individual candidate or *celebrity*.  Then again, we might not be the U.S.A. if we did things that way.

Congressman Alan Grayson Is Either a Moron or a Troll

On Wednesday, Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL 9th District) told radio host Alan Colmes if Ted Cruz is elected President, he “will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job” according to the Constitution.

Before we get in to the ridiculousness that is that statement, I think it is important to establish the fact that Grayson is not always the dumbest man in the room.  In fact, at points in his life, he has been fairly brilliant.  Like when he earned his Juris Doctorate from Harvard in 1983 (graduating magna cum laude.)  During his underclassman career, he finished in the top 2 percent of his class, and finished his bachelor's degree in only 3 years.  Later in life, he helped found IDT Corp., and served as its first president.

Of course, he hasn't always been brilliant, nor has he been polite as he began and continued his political career.  No one is perfect, though, so we'll just overlook his bitter partisanship, and chalk it up to bitter bitter butter corn due to losses he had suffered in that arena.

Before we fully delve in to the moronic statement that began this post, I'd like you to take a couple of minutes to listen to Rep. Grayson push forward a resolution to teach students about the Constitution.  It's quite obvious that Grayson should have pushed a similar resolution for Congressmen/women (along with POTUS and VPOTUS, members of the Supreme Court, etc.), but for whatever reason, he did not.  Perhaps that was an early warning sign of his fallibility on the issue.

Later in the interview, he would go on to say:

In a sense, I guess, Cruz is not technically that way — because technically he’s not even an America.  His mother was born here, so I guess like [President Barack] Obama, it's interesting to me that the people who had a problem with Obama’s birth certificate don’t have a problem with Ted Cruz, who literally was born in another country and renounced his Canadian citizenry.

I guess my first question would be the other side of that coin:  why didn't he have a problem with Obama not being vetted during his 2008 campaign for POTUS?  He was a big supporter of Obama's campaign, and has been a big supporter of many of Obama's unConstitutional attacks on these United States.

It is well known that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, and there have been those who have argued that even if Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he maintains, his mother could not legally confer citizenship to her son.  The son who would grow up to despise her.  I'm not here to go down that road, again.  Obama's term is drawing to a close, and scaredy cat Republicans who have had had 8+ years to figure out what to do about that particular Constitutional crisis, and they've chosen to sit back on their laurels.

Rather, I'd like to enlighten Congressman Grayson to the particulars of the Constitutional requirements for a person to become President of the United States of America:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The Latin phrasing of this concept would be jus sanguinis (literally "right of blood") & jus soli (literally "right of soil"), and it is these concepts that are applicable to whether or not a person has the right to call themselves an American citizen.  As noted in the link above that detailed whether or not Obama may have been Constitutionally eligible to be elected President, determining exactly what 'natural born citizen' means is a bit difficult.  While Cruz would not qualify for American citizenship under jus soli, I don't believe (he was born in Canada), both of his parents are and were American citizens, which means that he would qualify under jus sanguinis.  This is a concept so basic, that Congressman Grayson shouldn't even need to take a Constitutional refresher course in order to understand it.

What it truly shows, I believe, is that Grayson is afraid that Ted Cruz is a strong enough candidate to defeat whomsoever the democrats put forth as their candidate in 2016.  On that front, I have an update for him:  unless some heretofore unseen democratic candidate emerges, a Republican will be elected President in 2016.  Grayson obviously has a bone to pick with all Republicans, but is doing his very best to scare voters away from Cruz.  That may work in some instances, but in others, it may draw people to him that might not otherwise had him as their first choice.  Persons such as myself, for instance.  Anytime someone so diametrically opposed to my belief system is so vehemently opposed to something or someone, it gives that item or person extra credibility in my eyes.  At the least, it will cause me to investigate the situation further for myself, to prove the moron wrong.

Another thought is that Grayson may be looking to get his name back out in front of the public eye, as he runs for the U.S. Senate seat that Marco Rubio is vacating at the end of his term.  I wouldn't think that insulting a Cuban-American would play well in many parts of Florida, but perhaps he is reaching out to those with prejudices against minorities (the very people he claims to despise) as he goes about his campaign.

However, it is also just possible that he's a moronic Troll.

Rand Paul Takes a Big Step Forward

Rand Paul originally caught the eye of most of the general public because of his last name.  Having a father who is Dr. Ron Paul, the godfather of the modern American Libertarian movement has its perks.  Of course, being so closely connected with such a man has its drawbacks, too, namely that such a close association leads many to believe that all of latter's opinions have been handed down.

In the area that is most important - the Constitution as the leading document that should be followed with the original intent of its authors and signatories, is a huge deal.  Limiting the scope of government is another.  On these issues, both Ron and Rand Paul are without peer, which has been a huge part of why they have been able to gain such a strong following amongst the Gen Xers and Millennials.  These are the voters that Paul absolutely needs if he is going to remain in the race for the Republican Presidential race.


Most times, it is a candidate that is on the outside, and not in the upper tier of candidates that comes up with a catchy, witty slogan, or admission to help push their campaign forward.  Think back to Clinton in '92 with 'I smoked (marijuana) but didn't inhale'.  Once he became a 'serious' candidate, the campaign phrase was "It's the economy stupid."  In '08, it was Obama's 'Hope and Change' that propelled him (Also, the Republicans nominating John McCain played a big part in it) to the Oval Office.

Paul's official campaign slogan is "Defeat the Washington machine. Unleash the American dream."

This tapped in to the anti-establishment sect of voters, but in order to capture the White House, he would need to grab a larger swathe of potential voters.  For good or ill, his campaign took a giant step forward when it made this announcement via Twitter:

Dr. Rand Paul ‏@RandPaul 5h5 hours ago

Download our new app in the App Store and use the selfie feature! Then, send us in your photos and we'll retweet you. #selfieswithrand

While there are a certain amount of potential downsides to unveiling such an app, the upside is huge.  It will garner him large amounts of free press, and will lead to large gains with young voters, to boot.

Whether it's enough to get him all the way to the White House is unknown, but it's a bold step that certainly help him stay in the limelight.
 

Ann Coulter May Be "Right", but She's Still Wrong

The impetus for today's argument comes from an e-mail I received which led to this article, authored by Ann Coulter, and the premise of which is that Fox News Network anchors (namely Bill O'Reilly) are ignorant fools.  On this front, she may be "right", I wouldn't know, as I don't watch Fox News (or any other news, for that matter.)  Her diatribe focuses on O'Reilly, who made this statement to Donald Trump regarding his plan to deal with illegal aliens:

The 14th Amendment says if you’re born here, you’re an American!

 Coulter rightly states that the 14th amendment was not intended to serve that purpose, but was intended to guarantee former (male) black slaves the rights to full citizenship in the United States.  She then 'strengthens' her arguments by cherry-picking 14th amendment cases to support her argument.

Her first cherry-picked case is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 in which an Indian man (John Elk) sued to be recognized as an American citizen, after he had separated himself from his tribe.  Elk lost, in large part because the Supremes (rightly) determined that the opening salvo of the 14th amendment was intended for former slaves and other black Americans, therefore, it was not applicable to him.  This case was decided on November 3rd, 1884.

In her next selected case, Afroyim v. Rusk, she cherry picks this one quote from Justice John Marshall Harlan II:

Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the ‘courts have stumbled on the subject,’ it would be prudent to remove the ‘doubt thrown over’ it. The clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the freedmen’s right of citizenship because of birth.

In her next statement, she makes light of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, a case that was cited in Afroyim v. Rusk in support of the majority opinion, which was to overturn  Perez v. Brownell which ruled that Congress, through various means, had the right to take citizenship away from citizens.  Afroyim v. Rusk (in 1967) determined that was not the case, despite the fact that Afroyim was born in Poland in 1893, and did not immigrate to the United States until 1912, and was not naturalized until 1926.  Despite this, the Court ruled that the citizenship conferred by the Constitution, and in particular the 14th amendment, could not be abridged by any Congressional action.

A slight digression, if I may.  In her argument, Coulter taunts O'Reilly with this barb:

I cover anchor babies in about five pages of my book, Adios, America, but apparently Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the scholars on Fox News aren’t what we call “readers.”

Perhaps Coulter ought to look in to the mirror on that charge, because the majority ruled in Afroyim v. Rusk that:

The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race (emphasis added.) Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.

So, Coulter cited a case which further proves what those who have suggested that Trump's idea may not pass Constitutional muster.  Whoops.  Maybe actually read the case, instead of just a blurb.  Or, don't grab a single quote and make it seem like that is the entire point of the decision, which it was not.  That's simply dishonest 'journalism'.

And to further clarify for Coulter and all others who think Trump is the cat's meow, here again is the opening line of the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

It does not state "all citizens", but rather "all persons", so unless Coulter and her ilk are arguing that children born of illegal aliens are not "persons", the case should be closed as to whether or not they would be considered citizens.  They simply are, and we are left to deal with the ramifications of that, until such time a new Constitutional amendment clarifies the issue.

Coulter quoted Justice Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in her article:

 In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”
The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”

Posner may be the most cited Justice, as Coulter claims, but he must have missed the Afroyim v. Rusk ruling, too.  Regardless, the fact that he is imploring Congress to pass a law that would stop awarding citizenship to everyone in the country (and he may be speaking of illegal aliens here, too, for all I know, who do not actually have citizenship, even if they are treated oftentimes as if they do.) should have clued Coulter and others in to the fact that it is the way of the land right now, through Court rulings.

Coulter, earlier in her article had said this:

Still, how could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I really don’t think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed with passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens’ kids citizens.

Put differently: Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be important to Americans in 1868. You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

I'm not going to waste time making up scenarios to answer Coulter's attack, because it's not necessary.  I'll just present two other cases that used the 14th amendment as their bedrock to make a decision that had nothing to do with its original intent.

First - Roe v. Wade, first argued on December 13th, 1971 and finally decided on January 22nd, 1973, used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to infer a right to privacy, in order to legalize abortion in the United States.  Tell me, Ms. Coulter, was that the intent of those who created the 14th amendment?   I would beg for any scenario in which that might be held to be even partially true.  Yet, despite the fact that it was not the original intent of the amendment's authors, it was cited, and has withstood (right or wrong) for 42 plus years.

More recently, the Supremes decided in OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL that gay marriage would be the law of the land, again through the due process clause of the 14th amendment.  Again, I'll ask (rhetorically), for any scenario where Ms. Coulter or any other right or wrong thinking person might think that in 1868 our nation would have wanted to confer upon its citizenry the right to gay marriage.  In 1,000,000 years, you couldn't come up with such a scenario.  Yet, that is what occurred this past June, through an activist Court.  The same activist Court that would be in charge of the decision regarding any future attempt to remove the citizenship of so-called 'anchor babies' (a derogatory term, if someone had asked me, even if it happens to be factual.), notwithstanding the fact that the Supremes have already ruled that citizenship, once conferred, cannot be revoked by acts of Congress.  However, as I noted in an earlier post, ex post facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution.  So there's that.

I don't necessarily disagree with what Coulter's thought process is, regarding the original intent of the 14th amendment, however, it simply is illogical to presume that we as a nation are going to en masse support original intent.  This is a Nation that cannot even grasp what was intended by the 1st and 2nd amendments, let alone all the way up to the 14th.

A Constitutional amendment, if written correctly, could prevent future children born to illegal aliens from gaining citizenship, and it is something that political leaders in our nation should look in to.  However, it does not correct the 'problem' that already exists with regard to those citizens that are already in this nation.  With regard to the illegal aliens already here, it's a lot like gun laws:  simply enforce what's on the books and do it immediately.  Then, if Trump or another leader wants to build a wall or protect our border better, more power to them.  Until such time, we must deal with the decisions that have been handed down, whether right or wrong.

Does Donald Trump's Immigration 'Plan' Pass Constitutional Muster

Alleged Presidential candidate Donald Trump recently unveiled a plan to deal with America's illegal alien (*immigrant*) problem.  Certain aspects of it, such as building a wall along the entire U.S. - Mexico border would simply take cajones to carry it out, along with the resources.  Trump's plan is to bill Mexico for the cost, but even if it came at the expense of the American taxpayer, in the long run, it is likely that Trump is right, and it would be cost justified.

However, where Trump may run in to a bit of a problem with the Constitution is the portion of his plan where he wants to ship out persons born in the United States to illegal aliens back to the land of their forebears.  The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution may have something to say about that. 

It reads, in full:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

For the purposes of refuting Trump's plan, the main focus is provision one of the amendment.  As has been previously discussed, this amendment was part of the "Reconstruction Amendments" that designed how life in the American South would play out.  At its core, it was created to ensure that black males, many of whom had previously been slaves, would get a *fair* shot at Constitutional liberties within the United States.

It's highly likely that those that passed the amendment did not foresee a time when it would be used to protect illegal aliens and their children.  In fact, given the prejudice that existed at the time, it probably wasn't considered because those who would have been in position to become illegal aliens (namely, Mexicans) would not have been considered people.   However, the drafters of the amendment did not specifically state that, and so the clause 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside' sits there, and gives Constitutional protection to everyone that it applies to.

Now, if Trump were to be elected, it is possible that he might be such a strong leader that he would be able to convince 2/3 of the members of Congress, or  the same proportion of states to call for a Constitutional convention to create a new amendment that says that children born to illegal aliens are themselves illegal aliens.  That could happen.

Of course, Congress cannot pass an ex post facto law, so the children born to illegal aliens that are already in the country would maintain their citizenship.  There's not a legal way around that.

The more dramatic, and certainly harder to swing and connect on solution is that you deport all of the illegal aliens, regardless of whether they have legal, resident children living within the United States.  While that's going on, deport all of the other illegal aliens, and especially those that have committed crimes other than breaking our immigration laws.  The parents of legal children would have the option of leaving their children behind, or renouncing their child's U.S. citizenship when they return to their native land.

Of course, such a proposal would automatically label you as a *racist*, and make it impossible to accomplish the stated goal.  Trump's *plan* may garner him some political points, but the reality is, it can't be done legally.

7 Year Old Thoughts About Al Gore

    Back in 2008, when I was morally and wholly opposed to nearly every single person from all parties who were running for the office of President of the United States of America, I penned the following.  Please read along, and rejoin today's thought in bold below:

    I had fully expected that 2008 would be Al Gore’s breakout year for the Presidency.  I thought that he was following the path that Richard Nixon took following his loss to JFK in 1960 (a loss that in modern times would have been every bit as controversial as Gore’s loss to Bush in 2000) as best as is possible in this era.  He stepped away from the political arena, grew a beard, filled out like a lumberjack of yore, failed in business, succeeded in film and even won a Nobel Award.  Along the way he managed to not get into too much trouble with anything he said (outside of the whole global warming farce, but there are enough people that believe him that it doesn’t matter that it’s a complete and total fabrication) and just stayed out of the way.  I was genuinely surprised when the early announcements for the Democratic ticket came out and his name wasn’t involved.  As time went on, I expected that he was looking to make a dramatic entry into the race, but that also never materialized.  Finally, I just forgot about the possibility of him running for the Presidency this campaign season.

    That was until the past couple of days when some friends and I were discussing what might go down with the Democratic nomination; most of them were convinced that Senator Obama had the charm to schmooze his way to the superdelegates that are going to be necessary to win the nomination, I was of the opinion that having a former President as a spouse to twist arms at the convention would go a long way to making Senator Clinton their candidate of "choice".  Because as much as party leaders may want her to beg off and get out of the campaign, I simply can’t see it happening.  She knows this is her one shot to become President, and make history in doing so.  If you think she doesn’t want that more than anything in the world, well, we’ll have to disagree (and why should she give up the dream, as previously noted, she’s not that far behind, and more importantly, if Lawrence B. Lindsey’s computations are correct, she’s basically dead even)

    Then we stumbled onto something:  What if there was no clear cut winner? What if with all the wrangling neither candidate could come up with necessary delegates to seize the nomination?  What if there were a brokered convention?  What might go down on the second ballot?  And just like that, Al Gore was back (perhaps against his will.)

    Isn’t it possible that Democratic leaders, tired of the infighting and bickering that has gone on in their primary and just plain sick of the 2 candidates they are left with might decide to think outside of the box and reach back to the glory days for a candidate who might actually be able to unite the party and fend off John McCain’s bid for the White House.  Who else could they turn to except dull, boring (but suddenly the brightest star in the Democratic sky), dependable Al?  It’s so easy to forget about him, because often times he could have been the male counterpart to Dr. Lilith Sternin-Crane.  To say that he was often robotic would be an understatement, but that’s beside the point.  He could be the one man that returns a Democrat to the White House (mind you, I’m no fan of Senator McCain, I just find him slightly more palpable than the current field of candidates), as he would do better amongst Democrats (McCain is running into the 20-something percent range of likely Democratic voters, depending on which current candidate snags the nomination) and might even convince a larger share of Republicans to cross party lines.  Certainly he would fare better with independents than either Clinton or Obama.

    Which leaves me wondering:  if the remaining primaries matter all that much.  Senator Clinton is likely to win handily in PA, Senator Obama will capture some more states, and the delegate disparity will stay relatively even.  Then comes the arm-twisting and other such maneuvers on the convention floor and in the hallways.  Will Al Gore be the beneficiary and emerge triumphant and take the seat that he believes rightfully should have been his?  I certainly hope not, but it makes for an interesting election if that’s the route that is chosen.

     I had written that mostly as a joke, because I could see where the election was going, and I feared for our country.  Then I happened to stumble upon this article that seems to suggest that the now 67 year old Gore is not wholly opposed to the idea of another Presidential bid.  His competition for the Democratic nomination is lame, on its best day, and he is a big name politician that harkens back (in a mostly good way) to the Bill Clinton regime.  Mrs. Clinton seems to never be more than a day or two away from the Big House, and Bernie Sanders is without question the George McGovern of this election cycle.  VP Biden's campaign is over before he has even announced it.

If Gore ran, and if he were to secure the Democratic nomination, it would be a political comeback along the lines of Trickie Dick back in '68.  I await further developments from Camp Gore.

Republicans Are Aiming At the Wrong Target

Living in Massachusetts, one thing that nearly never comes up is a person's thoughts on a GOP campaign of any sort, let alone a Presidential debate 15 months in front of the next election.  As a conservative/Republican it made my heart flutter to hear this conversation in this liberal bastion.  That one of the participants was a proponent of Chris Christie was disheartening, but still, the conversation occurred, and it's a bit of progress.

I mention this only because many of the Republican candidates for nomination have set as their target Hillary Clinton, and I have to ask this all important question:  Why?  Clinton makes John McCain and/or Mitt Romney look wholly electable.  In fact, the only *Republicans* who might have a problem with Clinton if she were to be the Democrats' nominee would be Jeb Bush or Chris Christie.  Any other Republican running for the nomination would mop the floor up with Clinton, because she has absolutely nothing to stand on, outside of the fact that her husband was once President.

Unless of course we're counting the multitude of scandals that are waiting to bring her down.

While many of the Republican candidates have done a better than expected job of getting their message out, stating how they would compare to Clinton in a theoretical showdown.  First off, any polling data that is 15 months out is beyond irrelevant, especially when you consider that data is being collected during the summer time, when 98% of the populace is paying exactly 0 attention and their choices are based solely on whoever's name happened to pop up on the news that day.

If the GOP is collectively going to go after a candidate vying for the Democrat's nod, then they should focus on Bernie Sanders (a candidate who is actually resonating with voters at the moment), or Joe Biden.  Sure, it'd be fair to note that Biden is essentially the Chester A. Arthur of the 21st century, but it's also important to note that Arthur served as President of the United States of America for over 3 1/2 years.  Yes, it took a would-be assassin's bullet and the bungling of his doctors to kill Presdient James Garfield, but strange things happen in politics.  Even an Al Gore run at the Presidency would be a bigger threat to Republicans recapturing the White House in 2016 than Hillary Clinton.

The biggest reason is Clinton's own belief that she is too big to fail, despite the fact that she proved in 2008 she could, and did fail spectacularly, as Obama beat her down for the D's nomination.  She has a John McCain sense of entitlement, based on the belief that each of them has spent so much of their lives in *public* 'service' that they deserve pretty much whatever they want.  They're both morons, and fools to boot, which is further reason for Republicans to spend their energy away from Clinton.

Perhaps last evening's revelation that the FBI may be criminally investigating Clinton will be enough to forestall any time being wasted in tonight's "debate" on the Clinton candidacy.  If she continues to be the bar that Republicans aim at, they will fall short in their attempt to gain access to the White House.