The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense


“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775


"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Cruz Wins Values Voter Straw Poll, But Can His Plan Get Him Elected?

The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense.

Here's the Nonsense:  Ted Cruz has the most appeal to people of faith and that will win for him in his 2016 presidential campaign.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Ted's an amazing guy, but does his plan have a flaw that could hold him back from success?

This weekend was the Values Voter Summit.  It attracts voters who put their values high on their list of priorities for the candidates they support.  They had a straw poll taken of about 1000 people and Ted Cruz won with a whopping 35% of the vote.  His nearest competitor was Ben Carson at 18%.  But does this win really say anything for Cruz and his chance of winning his 2016 election bid?  Probably not.

For the 3rd year in a row Ted Cruz won the Values Voter Summit straw poll.  While that's a nice record and a good group for him to have on his side, the win doesn't really say much for his 2016 bid for the presidency.  Values Voters would be people of conviction and values, many claiming they are people of faith.  And one of the key planks of Cruz's plan to try to win the GOP nomination is to court these people.  But it may be a mistaken concept.

In 2012 millions of voters stayed home and didn't vote.  They were fed up.  And for the most part, the pundits and media believed (and still do) that they were mostly evangelical Christians who didn't vote because they refused to vote for a candidate who was a Mormon.  

Let's take a minute here to clearly understand what that claim entails.  Mormons claim to be Christian, and in the sense that most Americans claim to be Christian they would be part of that cultural Christianity that includes most Americans.  Americans on the whole are cultural Christians, not theological Christians. 

 By evangelical definition, most Americans aren't truly Christian because they don't hold to and live by orthodox Christian theology.  To evangelicals, if your theology doesn't fit the orthodox definition of Christianity, then you are not a Christian.  

Mormon doctrine is not considered orthodox Christian doctrine.  Because of that belief by evangelicals, some were not willing to vote for Mitt Romney, although those who fall into that category seem to have been far fewer in number than the media led people to believe.  Most evangelicals, like any other group in America, were looking to elect a president, not a pastor, and to them voting for a Mormon was no different than voting for anyone else who wasn't an evangelical Christian.  They were not making religion a litmus test to determine who they would vote for.

What was far less focused on in 2012, and yet seems to have been a much bigger portion of those who didn't vote, was a high number of Ron Paul supporters.  They were upset that he didn't get the nomination and chose not to vote as a protest.  Many of those same people support Ron Paul's son, Rand, in the 2016 race.  And my guess is that in 2016 there's a fair chance that they won't vote again if Rand Paul doesn't get the nomination (something that appears to have less and less chance of happening as Rand implodes in his own campaign).

But the few million people who stayed home, whether evangelicals or Ron Paul supporters, or some of both, are not the key to winning in 2016.  Obama and the Democrats are working at a feverish pace to get the illegals in America to legal status so they can vote.  That will increase the size of the Democrat voting base far more than the votes lost by Republicans in 2012 when some evangelicals and Ron Paul supporters didn't vote.  

So, the key to winning for Republicans has got to be to get enough voters out to offset the actions of both the Democrats and the Rand Paul supporters who will throw a tantrum again and not vote.

Now, all that said, Ted Cruz is a favorite candidate of the conservative base.  He certainly is the most solidly conservative candidate running.  And Ted has set himself up so that he's attractive to supporters of candidates like Rand Paul and Donald Trump.  When and if either of those candidates drop out of the race, Cruz hopes to be the candidate their supporters move to.  

But at the core of Cruz's plan is the idea that he, as an evangelical Christian himself, will have the most appeal to evangelicals.  He takes a strong stand for religious liberty, which he believes is at the cornerstone of rights for Americans (and he's right about that).  He believes he can rally people to support him over that issue.

It is believed that he has so much appeal that it will attract two types of voters that he believes will give him the edge to win.  Those two types are the evangelicals who stayed home in 2012 and many of 20+ million evangelicals who never vote and aren't even registered to vote.

Cruz is hoping to enlighten and inspire the evangelicals who don't vote to change their ways, register, and head to the polls to save religious freedom.  He knows that if the majority of those 20+ million evangelicals register they would mostly register as Republicans and the sheer number of them would offset anything the Democrats are doing trying to get illegals to a legal status where they could vote.

It sounds like a pretty good plan... if he can do it.  

But that's where the question comes in.  Are enough Americans concerned about the threat to religious freedom to actually get out and do something about it?  Do they understand the impact that losing religious freedom really is to their lives, their future, and the future of their families?

Ted Cruz is a brilliant guy who can mop the floor with anyone in a legitimate debate.  (Please don't call the nonsense we've seen on Fox and CNN legitimate debates.  While CNN's was certainly much better than Fox's, both were not really debates and, as a result, the voting public is the one who lost.)  I think very highly of Ted Cruz and think he has a lot to offer our nation as a public servant. 

But getting people who've never voted to go out and register and then follow through to vote is a major task.  The Democrats are somewhat successful at it because they offer freebies that attract people.  After all, people love Santa Claus.  

That's not what conservative Republicans do, so people who aren't politically involved need other motivation to get involved.  

Evangelicals that don't vote, unlike other voters, don't get involved because they don't see the things of this world as important compared to their future in heaven.  They don't "waste" their time getting involved now because it doesn't matter to them.  Their focus is not on today or even this life.  Their focus is on where they're going to spend forever.

Now, some of you may think that's crazy, but whether you think that or not doesn't change their views.  And getting someone to change from that mindset to one that also sees the importance of being involved in the political process is, at best, extremely difficult. 

Yet without their involvement the chances of Cruz, or any other candidate who thinks they can rely on the evangelicals to turn out to vote for them, is questionable.

Could this be the mountain that Ted Cruz can't successfully climb?

While Cruz is somewhat known as a fighter and principled person, that doesn't mean he can inspire the evangelicals to action.  Those who aren't registered to vote are not angry about the threat to religious liberty like politically active Christians are (evangelical and otherwise).  

The thing that gets people motivated to take action more than anything else is anger.  Anger is an amazing motivator.  When someone is angry they are like a freight train that can't be stopped.  

Cruz to a minor extent and Donald Trump and Ben Carson to a much greater extent have tapped into the anger of the American electorate.  Trump certainly more than all of the others combined.  And part of the reason that Cruz hasn't tapped into it is that the uninvolved, unregistered evangelicals he's after are not, in many cases, angry.  They are content to wait upon the teachings in the Bible that promise them that one day Jesus will return and deal with the mess this world is in.  

So, the question for Cruz is how do you get those people angry enough to take action?

Stop and think about it.  Values aren't going to drive people to the polls in anywhere near the numbers that anger is.  The evangelicals certainly have the values that support religious freedom.  But if these people haven't been involved up to now, why would they suddenly feel their values are driving them to vote now? 

On the other hand, people who are really angry will take action when they usually wouldn't.  People who know me know that I don't get angry very easily.  I used to, but not any more.  It takes a lot for me to get angry, but when I do you better get out of my way.  

I think most people are that way.  When they get angry they are like a freight train racing down the tracks and nothing will stop them.  Their emotions are running high and they aren't stopping for anything.

Those are the people who are more likely to get involved and vote.  

And that's the difference between the unregistered evangelicals that Ted Cruz is trying to rally to get involved and the people who are actually getting involved.

That's where candidates like Donald Trump and to some degree Ben Carson have had more success than Ted Cruz.  Trump and Carson have tapped into the anger of the people.  The majority of angry people see Donald Trump as the catalyst for change.  And so that's who they line up behind.  

No other candidate is drawing the huge numbers from unlikely groups.  25% of blacks surveyed support Trump because they're tired of being deceived by the Democrat Party.  20% of Democrats have said they support Trump because they don't like where their party has gone.  Citizens who have never voted are registering to vote for Trump.  

I remember reading of one 92 year old woman in Tennessee who has never registered or voted in her life is now registered because she is supporting Trump because she doesn't like what America has become.  92 years old!  After all those years you'd think it would be impossible to get her involved, but Trump has done it.  

In another story young people just old enough to vote are paying money to hear Trump speak and standing in long waiting lines when they'd usually be spending their summer doing other things.  But they see in Trump something that is resonating with their anger.  They are angry that their future is questionable at best, but Trump gives them hope that America can be great again and give them opportunity.  Anger drives people more than anything else.

What is happening with Trump is not happening with any other candidate on similar levels.  He's attracting people from across the aisle, from groups that traditionally are controlled by Democrats, and people who aren't even registered to vote BECAUSE THEY ARE ANGRY!

It's the anger candidates must tap into if they are to succeed and America is to be saved from the collapse that is befalling us.  And if Cruz is going to tap into those unregistered evangelicals, which is critical for him to succeed, then he has to find a way to inspire them to anger about what is happening.  If they don't listen to him and just want to sit back and wait for God, he will have no chance at the nomination.  

At this point I'm sure some people are saying, "But Trump didn't do well in the Values Voter Summit straw poll!"  Don't think that people of faith won't support Trump.  Sure, he may not have done well in the Values Voters Summit straw poll, but on the other hand, well-known Christian Duck Dynasty star Willie Robertson just backed Trump at the Oklahoma State Fair (you can read about it here), so people of faith are not disregarding candidates based on their faith.

Trump may not attract many of the people from the Values Voter Summit, but the majority of Americans aren't those people.  Trump referred to Marco Rubio as a clown at the Summit and it's reported he received boos from the crowd.  Maybe he deserved it, but Trump fights like a Democrat and that's why they can't handle him.  

And I'm not so sure that the 13% of the people at the Summit who voted for Rubio in their straw poll have any clue anyway.  Trump is right that Rubio is a kid.  He's a young, immature establishment Republican and if those who voted for him at that Summit can't see that, then they need to do more homework before they should be voting in November 2016.  (Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch has just written a very good piece you can read here about Rubio.)  Rubio's no conservative and has been dishonest with voters so I don't know why someone who's been deceptive is even being considered at a summit named the Values Voter Summit.  

Cruz is an excellent person to serve our nation, but he is no longer my first choice for 2016.  I am not convinced he is electable for a host of reasons.  But this isn't about my reasons why I think that.  It's about the underlying motive that will drive people to the polls.  And I don't think appealing to the values of a nation whose majority populace are narcissistic and immoral is a winning plan.  

The candidate who taps best into the anger that Americans have is the one who will drive them to the polls.  When people are angry they take more action than any other time.  Happiness, duty, or anything else won't drive a person like anger does.  The real question for Ted Cruz is whether he can inspire that kind of anger within the unregistered evangelicals.  Without it can he really win?






Sunday, September 20, 2015

Would GOP Establishment Prefer Democrat Win Over A Non-Establishment GOP Candidate in 2016?

The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense.

Here's the Nonsense:  When the GOP leadership had the candidates sign loyalty pledges it was a way to guarantee that all Republicans would work together to win in 2016.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The GOP leadership hoped the loyalty pledge would run Trump out of the race.  When it didn't work, and nothing else is working, they are starting to panic.  They are considering desperate measures if they can't get their candidate nominated.

With GOPe (GOP establishment) candidates having a hard time getting traction against the likes of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson, the GOPe leadership that control the party have tried everything they can think of to stop their support.  This is especially true of Trump because he's in the lead and tearing down the establishment and political correctness at every turn.  

While this is not unusual for the GOPe, one has to wonder just how far they'll go to stop non-establishment candidates from winning in 2016.  Are they so against the candidates supported by the grassroots voting base that they would actually prefer a Democrat win if a GOPe candidate can't get the nomination?

Garth Kant at WND is reporting that the GOPe is so concerned that it's being suggested that if Donald Trump were to get the nomination they should run a 3rd party candidate like Mitt Romney to kill Trump's chances of winning the White House.  

President George W. Bush's chief media strategist, Mark McKinnon, is reported in the WND article to have said about the possibility of Trump winning the nomination:

"The Republican establishment completely freaks out.  They get together and say, this is unacceptable, but it looks like it's going to happen.  So we go off, and we create a new Republican Party as an Independent candidacy and draft somebody who's tanned, rested and ready to go and with a lot of money, somebody like Mitt Romney."

Yes, this is from the same GOPe that demanded Trump sign a pledge that he wouldn't run as a 3rd party candidate if he didn't win the nomination.

But should we be surprised?  Absolutely not.

These are the same people who Steve Deace wrote about in the Washington Times back in 2014.  He told us how the GOPe mobilized Democrat voters in Mississippi's open primary to save Senator Thad Cochran from losing to a conservative challenger.

These are the same people who the Tea Party has reported work tirelessly to destroy non-establishment Republican candidates.

These are the same people who Guy Benson wrote about on Townhall.com where he said Mitch McConnell vowed to crush Tea Party candidates in 2014.

If the GOPe were to run a 3rd party candidate neither the GOPe candidate nor Trump (or any non-establishment Republican candidate) would win.  

The Republican vote would be split and the election victory would go to the Democrat candidate.  

But the hatred of the GOPe for those who do not bow to their altar of power is so great that they are willing to lose to the Democrats rather than align themselves with the grassroots voting base.

Think of it.  The same grassroots voting base that has kept the GOPe in power for years is hated so badly that the GOPe are willing to help the Democrats win to keep the grassroots from getting their candidates into power.  

They are not willing to work together with the base for a common goal.  Why?  Because they don't have common goals with the rest of us.  

Just like the Democrats, the GOPe want big government and all that goes along with it.  They know that if the Democrats win, they will still be in positions of power and influence as the minority party leadership.  But if the grassroots candidates win, the GOPe will be out of power.  They'd far rather have limited power under the Democrats than no power with the grassroots determining who is in office.

This is not just a love of power, it's an outright wholesale sellout of our nation to a Democrat Party that has been taken over by progressives and their communist agenda.  

Did you get that?  The GOPe is willing to sell out America to a communist agenda to retain power instead of joining the American people to bring our country back from the brink of destruction.

These people are not our friends.  These people are the ones who have caused a revolt by the grassroots voting base.  They are the ones who have promised over and over again to do the will of the people and continually go back on their word and support the Democrat agenda.

The grassroots are fed up.  They will no longer accept business as usual from the GOPe.  The entire reason outsider candidates like Trump, Carson, and Cruz have gained popularity is because of the actions of the GOPe.

The American voters are so fed up that they want someone from the outside who will tear the system down.  In fact, I believe they would rather see the Republican Party lose if they have an establishment candidate than elect them once again to continue their madness.  That's why there's more enthusiasm for the upcoming elections than we've seen since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.

But unfortunately a lot of voters are uninformed and supporting candidates who they think are not tied to the establishment when in reality they may very well be.  

While Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham are obvious establishment candidates, it's clear that many others like Marco Rubio and Scott Walker fall into the same category.  Even the new rising star Carly Fiorina has aligned herself with the establishment in the past and, as I wrote here, has some serious issues to address before anyone should throw their support behind her.

At this point the candidates who are unquestionably anti-establishment are Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Bobby Jindal.  All others, some of whom seem quite interesting, have questions to answer to prove themselves worthy of consideration.

Don't be deceived.  The fight has yet to really get under way.  The battle for 2016 is going to be nasty and hard to win.  We have enemies on all sides and we must be involved NOW.

This is not something you can afford to wait on.  You must be getting all the information you can now so you can make an informed decision to get the right candidates nominated in the primaries.  This means you need to be educating those around you, too, because most people won't do the homework required to do their civic duty responsibly.  

This is the crossroads many of us have been warning about for years.  Now is the time because if 2016 fails, there will never be another chance like you have now.  With the impact the American people are having on the system, if you lose this time there's no way either party is going to allow you the ability to do it again.  They will take action to restrict and restrain your ability to vote your conscience like Americans can still vote today.  

In the 2014 midterms the voters didn't get involved early enough and by the time they did, the GOPe already had the nominations all sealed up with GOPe candidates.  It was too late to get anyone else on the ballot.  America's future will be determined in the primaries, not the general election. 

The primary voting starts in only a few short months.  It's time to get educated and involved.



Sunday, September 13, 2015

Attacking Voters Is A Big Mistake

The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense.

Here's the Nonsense:  The Republican establishment, pundits, and media are letting the Trump supporters know how stupid they are.  That's going to drive them away from Trump, cause him to leave the race, and move those voters to support other candidates.

Here's the Hose Sense:  The foolishness of attacking the voters is unfathomable.  It's a great way to create even more resentment and certainly won't drive voters to other Republicans.

Anything they can do to get Trump out of the race is what we're seeing.  Attacks, innuendo, even setting up a stupid online ad that accuses Trump of cheating on his golf game are all things people are trying to weaken Trump's poll numbers and drive him from the race.  One of the most common comes from pundits and "conservative" media who are saying he's not conservative.  Even the GOP establishment's chosen one, Jeb "Common Core & Amnesty lover" Bush, is trying to claim Trump isn't conservative.  It's quite funny considering that Jeb is about as far from conservative as a Republican gets.  They are all using the same tactics trying to get rid of The Donald.

What it all boils down to is that these people are actually attacking the voting base that support Trump.  Somehow they think that by attacking the base, calling them stupid, and trying to belittle them that they will drive them to abandon Trump and move their support to the other candidates.  

They've got a problem in doing this.  The base are angry.  No, not just angry, but REALLY, REALLY ANGRY!!  And they are no longer willing to sit back and take abuse from anyone.  

Any attack on the base will not cause them to move their support to another Republican candidate.  In fact, if Trump isn't in the race they will most likely either not vote or take their vote to an independent because they will no longer support people who attack them.

It's no different than a company selling a product.  If a company wants you to buy their product and their competitor is far outselling them, the worst thing the company can do is attack the customers who are buying the competitor's product.  That will not win the customers, it will drive them away.  

It's simple to understand, but the GOP establishment, the pundits, and the "conservative" media don't either.  If, for some reason, Trump is not the nominee, his supporters are not going to move their support to another Republican candidate after being attacked like this.  They will either stay home or take their vote to an independent.  It would assure a Democrat victory.  

John Nolte at Breitbart has had an ongoing debate with Jonah Goldberg about this.  Goldberg has written numerous articles attacking Trump's supporters and calling Trump just about every negative you could think of.  He has questioned Trump's conservatism and even suggested that Trump's supporters aren't really committed conservatives.  (Nolte's most recent response to Goldberg can be seen in its entirety here.)

Nolte has made it clear that Trump is not currently his top pick for the nomination, but he is determined to defend and support Trump's supporters and their right to make their own decisions.  Here's is a lengthy and very worthwhile excerpt from his latest response about Goldberg's attack:

But if you think that I’m going to get the vapors over Trump hurling flurries of sucker punches to keep his opponents off balance after I’ve sat here for three decades watching us lose like losers; after three decades of watching our useless and corrupt mainstream media openly express their admiration for the degenerate behavior practiced daily by Obama and Reid and the Clintons — think again.

Trump doesn’t just fight. He fights like a leftist. He fights like Obama. He fights like the mainstream media. And so far he is winning. (I explore the appeal of this in much more detail here.)

This from [Jonah] Goldberg, I think, explains not just his blindspot but the blindspot of many who agree with him. And I’m not talking about an ideological blindspot. Goldberg is a rock-ribbed conservative. The blindspot is his inability to give Trump supporters credit for being just as pure:

[Goldberg writes:]
To wit: I don’t think Trump is a conservative. I don’t think he’s a very serious person. I don’t think he’s a man of particularly good character. I don’t think he can be trusted to do the things he promises.

That is exactly how Trump supporters view The Establishment. In fact, it is a PERFECT description of a Republican Establishment that for two decades has grown the size of the federal government, refused to secure the border, attacked the Tea Party, surrendered to Democrats, and appeased our evil media at almost every opportunity (see a full list of GOP sins at Conservative Treehouse).

With that in mind, there is nothing NOT conservative about supporting Trump.

Trump supporters believe, and for good reason (Trump has been consistent on these issues), that Trump will…

1.   Defeat an existential threat to the Republican Party and by extension America by finally securing the border. For good reason (history, evidence), they don’t trust the others, or at least not as much.
2.   Kill terrorists.
3.   Lower middle class taxes.
4.   Simplify the tax code.
5.   Fix the Veterans Administration.
6.   Finally annihilate the feckless, dishonest, cowardly, insulting, snobbish, appeasing, corrupted Republican Establishment — and with it all their toxic cronies and parasites in the grifter Consultant Class and mercenary Chamber of Commerce.

Getting the big conservative things right and burning the diseased village to save the village sounds conservative enough for me.

Nolte makes good points.  Trump may not be everyone's perfect definition of a conservative, but I also have no doubt that very few people have truly looked into his plans for America.  It's well worth the time to do so.  I did back in July and wrote this post to share some of his plans for America.  

Trump is an agent of change, which is what the voters are demanding.  They want to tear the system down and believe Trump can do it better than anyone.  Trump's plans for America appear to be solid ideas that could greatly help America.

Given the support Trump's attracting from not just Republicans, but independents, Democrats, people who don't usually vote, he has a good chance of doing just what Reagan did by attracting those who don't usually vote Republican.  Even minorities are showing an unusually high level of favor for Trump (25% of blacks support Trump.  In the last 10 elections the highest a Republican has ever gotten was Bob Dole at 12%, Romney got only 6%. And he has a 34% favorability rating with Hispanics.).

Attacking those who support Trump is a sure-fire way to undermine the election process.  Trump certainly represents far more conservative solutions than many of the establishment candidates.  





Monday, September 7, 2015

10 Things Carly Needs To Explain Before Voters Decide Whether To Support Her

Here's the Nonsense:  Carly Fiorina has been really impressive on the campaign trail.  I think she'd be a great president.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Yes, she's sounded good and impressed many of us, but now we need to get her to explain some things so we can determine if she's worthy of support.  Anything less is irresponsible on our part as voters.

Many of us have been impressed with Carly Fiorina's performance in interviews and in the first presidential debate.  She doesn't hesitate with answers, sounds strong on many issues, stands her ground, and, probably more than anything, is attracting the attention of voters because she's from the outside. 

Voters are not looking for someone to do business as usual in Washington.  They are fed up and want change.  After decades of promise after promise by the GOP, voters are ready to tear down the system and are most attracted to outsiders with no ties to or love for politics as usual.   

But is Carly a candidate voters should get behind?  Do we really know much about her?  Or is she another example of the stupidity of voters falling for someone because they say or do something to attract attention and immediately voters think that's enough to qualify them for the biggest job on the planet?

In looking for more information about her, I came up with an inexhaustive list of 10 things Carly needs to explain before voters decide whether to support her candidacy.  If you do your own research you may come up with even more questions.  

A little research raises some concerns, but you can't judge somebody based solely on their past.  The fact is that people do change and if we aren't willing to allow them to do so, then we are the fools.  Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat, but he changed.  That doesn't mean that everyone who claims to have changed really has, but we should seek answers as to why they've changed and if their answers are satisfactory, then we should accept them.  

So, let's take a look at some things Carly needs to explain (in no particular order) before voters could decide whether to suppor her.

1.)  Ann Coulter has gone from liking Carly to hating her as a candidate.  The Washington Examiner has reported that any love Ann Coulter had for Carly is long gone.  Coulter has been upset with Fiorina for standing against repealing birthright citizenship.  

Yahoo reported that she said, “It would take passing a constitutional amendment to get that changed. It’s part of our 14th Amendment. So honestly, I think we should put all of our energies, all of our political will into finally getting the border secured and fixing the legal immigration.”  NBC also reported her saying she didn't support deportation, amending the Constitution or challenging the 14th Amendment.

This raises a question regarding Carly's lack of understanding of the Constitution.  She needs to answer this:  Since the 14th Amendment says nothing about birthright citizenship, why are you so convinced you need a constitutional amendment to stop giving citizenship to someone just because they happen to be on American soil when the child is born?  

Her comment about deportation is not uncommon among candidates.  We are a nation of laws and if we ignore them we are no better than the current people in power in Washington who ignore the laws they don't like.  She needs to answer why she doesn't support deportation and have a better answer than telling us it's too expensive.  The average illegal household that is deported saves American taxpayers over $700,000.  It wouldn't cost anywhere near that to deport them.

2.)  Newsbusters reported that she supported Senators Marco Rubio, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John McCain, Michael Bennet, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, and Bob Menendez's Gang of 8 bill that included amnesty and said, "I applaud and salute the Gang of Eight's proposal. Let's move forward and vote on that."

Her support for the Gang of 8 bill raises significant concern.  The question Carly needs to answer is why she supported it and does she still feel the same way.  And, if she's changed her position, then what caused her to change it and why.

3.)  Fox News reported that Carly supported TARP and said it wasn't enough.  This was the disaster at the end of the Bush administration that sent America spiraling into recession.  In defending it George W. Bush made the stupid statement, "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."

Any person with even a modest understanding of our economy knows that TARP was a disaster from which we've still not recovered (And yes, Obama's continued spending and bailouts have been a major reason we've not been able to recover, but it doesn't change the fact that TARP is what sent us spiraling into recession.).  

So, Carly needs to tell voters if she still feels the same way and why.  And, since we've never recovered and it's looking like the economy is on the threshold of getting a whole lot worse in the near future, she should tell us if she'd advocate another TARP-like bailout.

4.)  CNN reported that in 2011 Carly stood with establishment Republican leadership and Obama in opposition to the Republicans who were against raising the debt ceiling without real spending cuts.  

She needs to tell voters if she still feels the same way and why.  She also needs to explain whether she'd advocate raising the debt ceiling again, as we're about to see the GOP leadership do yet another time this fall, and if she does believe it should be raised again, why this continued added debt is good for America.

5.)  Recently Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller raised an important concern.   He writes, "Just as Carly Fiorina was starting to impress, she decided to play the victim card."  He then goes on to tell how, when asked whether she is running for the vice presidential spot she plays the gender card and challenges those who raise the question by saying that no one asks a man if that's what they are doing.  

But she is wrong, as Lewis points out.  He gives many examples the same question being raised of men in the campaign.  Carly, however, has decided to try to use gender to her advantage in this situation to intimidate those who would ask such a question.

Interestingly, it looks like she also played the gender card when Megyn Kelly got into a battle with Donald Trump.  She threw support behind Kelly and either did it strictly because they are both women or because she didn't do her homework about what happened.  (I've written about Kelly and Trump numerous times in recent weeks.)  

Carly claims to be a conservative, but a conservative doesn't consider gender, race, ethnicity, or anything else that's not substantive when it comes to a decision.  They look at qualifications and the minute any candidate raises something like this, it should be pointed out that this is nothing but pandering to some people based on something that's superficial.  

So, Ms. Fiorina needs to explain why she would use her gender to challenge the person asking the question when the same answer has been sought of numerous other candidates who all happen to be male.

6.)  Back in February of this year, National Journal reported that Carly believes humans contribute to climate change.  During his 2008 run for the presidency, John McCain was promoting a cap-and-trade solution to climate change and Carly was working with his campaign.  The San Francisco Gate reported Carly saying, "John McCain will create a cap-and-trade system that will encourage the development of alternative energy sources."

So, she's bought into the lies about climate change.  She needs to be explain whether she still believes in it and why.  Also, she needs to explain how a cap-and-trade program would benefit us and not bankrupt us.

7.) The Right Scoop reported that Carly was against conservative efforts to defund Obamacare in 2013. She felt that since Romney lost the election to Obama that conservatives should not delay or defund Obamacare.  Dr. Ben Carson has said that Obamacare was "the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery." 

Carly needs to explain how not stopping it is good for America and why she wouldn't fight it.  There's no excuse for any politician supporting Obamacare and not fighting to stop it.

8.)  The Wall Street Journal reported that Carly said she would have voted to support Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court.  

This makes me wonder if her gender card is being shown again because it makes no sense that any Republican should support the appointment of an extreme liberal judge.  Or does she hold John McCain's view that a president should get the appointees he chooses with no challenge from the Senate, even though it's the Senate's job to scrutinize and make sure appointees are good for America?  

The court already loses too many decisions to leftists who don't hold the Constitution with regard.  Carly needs to answer why she would support such a nomination.

9.)  The San Francisco Gate reported that Carly is against using abortion as a litmus test for SCOTUS appointments.  

Over 50 million babies have been killed in America since the passage of Roe v. Wade.  The question for Carly is how anyone could NOT have abortion as a litmus test for a SCOTUS appointment.  A civil society cannot stand for the murder of the innocent, otherwise we're no better than Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.

10.)  Even though she is against the Iran nuclear deal, Carly needs to explain why, as reported by the San Jose Mercury News, while she was in charge at HP they used Redington Gulf, a wholesaler, to circumvent sanctions the U. S. had against Iran.  And why an HP subsidiary in Russia bribed officials for contracts, as reported by USA Today.

She's running for president and is claiming to stand against our enemies.  She claims to have integrity.  She needs to answer for the actions HP took under her direction that went against America.  Would she, as president, do some back room deals that twisted the laws to get deals through that could endanger America and our allies?  How can we be sure she can be trusted?

Those are 10 things voters should demand explanations for before considering supporting Carly Fiorina.  Sadly, too often American voters don't do homework or seek answers to important questions.  In fact, they rarely know of issues that should be asked about because they do no research on their own.  They simply listen to pundits, the media, and talk show hosts and draw conclusions.  And that's how we end up with the kind of people we already have in office.




Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Krauthammer Exposes His Establishment Bias Against Carson

Here's the Nonsense:  While Charles Krauthammer may not prefer a Ben Carson presidency, at least he makes nice comments about him.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Charles Krauthammer is far too intelligent to make statements without serious thought behind them.  His comments about Carson are laced with backhanded slaps at Carson and those who would support him.

Fox News contributor Dr. Charles Krauthammer just can't help himself from attacking conservatives. His GOP establishment views are on full display again, this time in a Breitbart article where he is quoted using backhanded slaps at Dr. Ben Carson.  

Krauthammer, who for some reason people think is some brilliant political pundit, but seems more often than not to be wrong, is quoted as saying on Fox News' Special Report:

"If you were in bizarro world and had you to create an anti-Donald Trump, it would be Ben Carson.  Who knew that this was the summer of Carson?  He's slowly creeping along.  No one hears about him.  And, you know, yes, of course this is the outsiders.  Of course, Trump, Fiorina and Carson represent the anti-establishment.  But you have got to give Carson his due.  He is the ultimate gentle, soft-spoken family doctor.  Who cannot like the guy?  And he doesn't pretend.  He doesn't attack.  He is just very soft-spoken."  

Did you notice the sly way Krauthammer slipped in some slaps against Carson?  First, he says that if you're in "bizzaro world" and want to think of an anti-Trump candidate, it would be Ben Carson.  

Dr. Krauthammer slips in the idea that if you think Dr. Carson or Trump are legitimate candidates, you must be in bizarro world.  He didn't just say that Carson is a good alternative to Trump, he qualified it by referring to people who think these are legitimate candidates are in bizarro world.  (Don't forget that Krauthammer hates Trump and has had a feud with him for some time and has been trying to undermine Trump's candidacy.)

Then, once he's slipped in the idea that Carson as a challenger to Trump is something out of bizarro world, he goes on to use the classic method of "praising him while backhandedly slapping him" with a subtle reference to Dr. Caron as a family doctor.  He doesn't acknowledge that Carson is a cutting edge pediatric neurosurgeon with a record of innovation and success in his medical specialty that few physicians anywhere in the world can rival.  No, he refers to him as a "family doctor," which anyone who knows doctors would understand is a slap in the face to Dr. Carson.

Krauthammer is a doctor and he fully understands how to insult someone in medicine.  I'm sure this was no slip-up, but carefully chosen to undermine Carson's credibility.  

Since Krauthammer clearly knows that Dr. Carson is certainly one of the most respected physicians on the planet with a reputation of being the finest of humans beings, he knows he can't directly attack him without serious repercussions.  So, he uses a backhanded slap and then tops it all off by later saying about Carson, "I don't think in the end people will want - I'm not sure, but a man with no experience in the White House."

Krauthammer thinks we need experienced politicians in office.  That's typical of the inside-the-beltway mindset.  And where has that gotten us?  

Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are experienced and that's gotten us nothing but failure.  I seem to remember that most of our nation's founders were not politicians.  And I think they did a pretty good job setting up and running the greatest nation in the history of the world.  

America was created to be a nation run by the people, not to be controlled by an elite few.  Elitist thinking is how people like Barack Obama think and whose true colors came out when he said:

"Ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs."

That's the progressive thought process that controls the Democrat Party and the GOP establishment who lead the Republican Party.

So, once again we have a Fox News personality supporting the GOP establishment by attacking a conservative.  Very simply, he's carrying out the Fox News goal of making sure conservatives are undermined so the GOP establishment candidates have the best chance to win in 2016.

Krauthammer is unprofessional for such an attack and it reveals his true colors.  Dr. Carson is rapidly rising in the polls and his support is growing.  His thoughtful responses to questions and life experiences give him a huge advantage over many candidates and he should not be taken lightly.  Whether you agree with him or not, he deserves respect. 

But this is nothing new for Fox News.  While my writing against Fox has caused reactions within conservative media that are both cowardly and uninformed, I will not back down from my stand on what Fox has become as I made clear in a recent post.

Other contributors on Fox are guilty of the same level of unprofessionalism.  George Will, who they also try to pass off as a conservative, continues to attack Trump and his supporters yet never seems to mention that his wife works for establishment contender Scott Walker.  He has a right to his opinion and may even disagree with his wife's choice, but he has an obligation to tell people of his wife's work.  Not doing so just shows a lack of integrity.  And each time he speaks he clearly makes an effort to build up the GOP establishment candidates.

When people disagree with candidates or prefer other candidates it's nothing new and we shouldn't be surprised.  But what should concern us is how they show their disagreement or preference.  Backhanded slaps at a man of Dr. Carson's stature just shows how low the attacker is.  And people like that should not be encouraged nor supported.  All it does is encourage more of the same behavior.