To Run Or Not To Run

Have you ever wondered why some candidates run?  Like Mitt Romney.  He's been running since the last time he ran and doesn't seem to have learned anything from the experience.  Is it just for the title?  One more addition for the trophy case?

Both Dole and McCain had an 'it's my turn' demeanor about them.  Obama probably wanted to be the first president of color for the historical value; he certainly has had no interest in governing.  Newt acts as though he's entitled.  Paul is frustrated because no one takes him seriously, insisting he can't win yet he continues to try.  I have no idea where Santorum is coming from.  The field leaves the Republican party in dire straights against a president who is so weak I could blow him over with my breath.  Yet unless something miraculous happens, he will win.

Now Jeb Bush, who is one of the many thought able yet declined, is worried about his party and it's candidates.  He feels that they are running on people's fears and emotions.  He's right but not for the real reasons.  People's fears?  Right.  They fear one of these guys might actually win.  Well, one will, be he Democrat or Republican.  Emotions?  It's frustration and disappointment that this is the best the country can come up with.  It's frightening.

Bush is wrong too.  The ideology of fear, hatred and division he feels the Republicans have pushed too long is what is being resonated isn't, unless he's looking at the candidates attitudes toward each other.  The nastiness of the super PAC ads is certainly causing division among themselves.  They want us to hate their opponent yet all I detect really is self loathing just as a superiority complex often hides an inferiority complex. That they have had to stoop to such a low in tactics says little for their vision or leadership abilities.  Fear.  As I said before.  One of them will win.

Asked if he might run as a consensus candidate Bush said absolutely not.  So he'll leave it to those who at least had the guts to get into the race to bumble along alienating their base as well as the independents they so sorely need.

The whole problem goes way beyond party loyalty.  It goes to the understanding of the political animal.  Why they choose to run and why they don't.  No matter who wins the Republican nomination, look for an inconsequential vice presidential choice.  Everyone touts Marco Rubio, but why would he want to tie himself to a weak presidential candidate while the others are sitting on the sidelines waiting for 2016?

Or are they?  Are they just too afraid of the challenge of the job and the personal persecution from the press that comes with it? It's much easier to sit on that sideline and criticize.  Heaven knows enough us do it. But then we're not politicians nor leaders, merely citizens looking for leaders. If  those who were thought to be the better men for the job won't step up to the plate we're doomed as a country.  That's a stance that encourages grabs for power, imperial presidencies,  shunning the constitution and eventually dictatorships.

We couldn't possibly be on that road.  Could we?

War And The Cultural Divide

Over the past year, thanks to the in your face reality brought to us by today's technology, we've watched time and again the slaughter of civilians by their leaders.  It is gut wrenching to say the least.  Even more so when we are shown the mutilated bodies of women, young children and babies.

Those leaders have fallen like dominos. Now it seems to be Syria's turn.  We've involved ourselves in some of the conflicts but not others.  Why is this?  Political expediency and self interest for the most part.

As difficult as it is to watch I wonder if we should have been involved in any of them.  None directly threaten our national security, not even the ones pending like Iran.  Iraq was entered into under false pretenses as was Afghanistan.  The pretenses being supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan - where he wasn't, but rather being sheltered by a supposed ally, Pakistan.

What happens in war?  People get killed.  All ages, sexes, religions and a myriad of other charateristics too numerous to list.  Entering into one should be one of the most difficult decisions ever made by our leadership.  Why is it then that the last time the government actually declared war as laid out in the constitution was in 1941?  Everything since then has not been a declared war but rather an armed conflict or as in the case of Korea, a police action.

If the constitution had been followed perhaps many of the conflicts could have been avoided all together and thousands of our young men and women would still be alive.  Let's face it, we have not accomplished much.

Setting aside Korea and Vietnam, let's just look at Iraq and Afghanistan.  Neither country nor any of their neighbors like us.  We've put into political power people who have never intended to live up to our expectations, but rather their own.

Take the recent burning of Korans.  They supposedly contained extremist inscriptions intended to incite those who passed them among themselves.  So they were confiscated.  What was to be done with them?  Put them in storage?  It would have been the only acceptable way to get them out of circulation and even at that Karzai would have found a reason to call his people to riot - and kill ours.

Well, that's what happens in wars.  People get killed.  The reasons for them escape us these days.  The people we're fighting for don't want our presence in their land.  All they want is our money of which we seem to have a bottomless supply.  They're making their own pacts with the devil as we sit haplessly by. We cannot appease these people.  We do not understand their culture, how they think or why we can't make them come around to our way.  It's really pretty simple.  They don't want to.

This is what happens when we have no set foreign policy, no set guidelines to follow on the road to war and no congressional debate to determin whether or not a war may be a worthy one. If there is such a thing. The President may be the commander-in-chief but he does not have carte blanch when committing us to war.  It's time we elect one who not only realizes it but respects it and will follow the protocol of the constitution.

Our military deserves no less.  What they don't deserve is an apologist.

Thumbs Up? Am I Crazy?

While  the presidential candidates are consumed with showing us why none of them should be nominated, it's refreshing to be able to reflect a bit on two members of Congress who are actually doing their job - for us.

An odd couple indeed, Senator Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat and Representative Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican have formed a two man coalition to get something done, especially when it comes to Medicare issues.

More important than the subject of their efforts is the fact that they are making one, together, including compromises, that work for all sides.  I was going to say both sides but realize there there aren't just two sides.  Congress just wants us to think that way.  It's the gray area in the middle that matters most.

In Kimberly Strassel's recent Wall Street Journal column, The War on Wyden , it's obvious Mr. Wyden is taking his lumps from fellow Democrats.  He's been called a 'useful idiot' by Paul Krugman, to wanting to help Mitt Romney get elected to no longer being a Democrat not to mention he was taking away a key argument from the Democrats.  It's obvious to me that Mr. Wyden gets what his party does not.  Without effort and compromise, nothing gets done.

Mr. Ryan, too, has taken his lumps and is often dismissed as being little more than a numbers wonk.  The description is probably more accurate than not but it should be worn as a badge of honor rather than derision and I think that's just how Mr. Ryan feels.

So here we are. Two men out of the entire House and Senate doing what they were all elected to do.  I wish I could be more positive when I say it's a start, but I can't.  It's only two men.

Unless the tea party adherents realize they must do the same rather than digging in their heels and the remaining Democrats are willing to follow suit nothing will move forward.  Especially when leadership won't bring bills to the floor for a vote or if they do they're filled with extraneous rubbish.

This stubborness is shared by both parties as well as a payback mentality when the majorities change hands.  It's what the people are so angry about.  Even the President does it.  His way or no way.  Until this behavior is changed we will forever muddle on just as we are now.

Can two men as diverse in nature as Ryan and Wyden light the way?  Perhaps.  One can hope.  Because at the moment there is no light at the end of the tunnel.  Just a dark dead end.

Religious Values And The Presidency By What Standard?

Remember back when JFK was running for President?  One of the biggest fears was that he was a Catholic.  A rather moderate one at that.  He certainly didn't adhere to all it's dictates especially when it came to fidelity.  That's another story.

Now we have another Catholic running for President.  More than one actually, but one is young, personable and extreme in his beliefs.  Yet according to the polls people are flocking toward Rick Santorum.

I'm not one to tell a person what he should or should not believe. In this blog, what I say is strictly opinion.  I don't disparage anyone who doesn't understand or doesn't agree with my point of view.  I certainly don't claim to know what's right over and above all others.  Mr. Santorum does when it comes to his religious beliefs.  It makes me wonder how much of that would carry over to his presidency should he be elected.

In this country we not only have freedom of religion, but freedom from religion should we so choose.  When a candidate is talking more about constitutional amendments to change what he and his followers believe to be true I view it as an intrusion into my right to disagree - especially when it comes to religious beliefs.

Just like the contraception issue.  I don't agree that a religion running a business that hires those of other faiths should be exempt from providing what private sector businesses are required to provide.  What I do question is whether contraceptive devices should be covered at all.  It's not a health issue to my way of thinking; it's a choice therefore not subject to insurance.  But then I must admit the definition on 'insurance' has changed a great deal over the years.

Many are afraid of Mitt Romney, not because he doesn't seem to articulate a vision nor how to attain it, but because he's Mormon.  I have one reader who has pointed out why she fears his religion but would he adhere to that particular issue any more than Kennedy let this Catholicism interfere with his governance?  My guess is he would not.

But Mr. Santorum worries me.  He gets so exercised when he talks of these issues I cannot help but feel they weigh disproportionately on his mind as a candidate.  He has a lot to defend as we will begin to see more and more now that he is the flavor.  He'd be better off leaving his religious, conservative beliefs out of the mix.  The fact that they are already out there may make it too late anyway.

One thing about having the heavily conservative states lead off the primary season tends to skew actual public opinion at the outset but by sheer force of early results people are swayed by wins rather than what the candidates really are.

Or maybe the country as a whole is suddenly getting tub thumping religion on a grand scale.
Time will tell.  I just don't think my religious beliefs should have any bearing on who I support for president.  It should depend on how he stands on the issues that are important to the country as a whole.  My bedroom is off limits.

There is No Free Lunch - Nor Insurance Benefit

Finally, we have a prime example of what happens when government oversteps and what we need to know before we let any more all encompassing government programs become law.  Especially when no one reads the bill and the "Secretary shall" is the most often used term.

Fortunately the Catholic church is a large enough organization to have some clout.  Whether you agree with their premise or not, it is an intrusion by government into not only a relgious organization holding specific beliefs but also into private sector business.

I am of course talking about the contraception flap.  What many of us may not realize is that anyone who has health insurance has been paying for benefits they neither want nor need for years.  Many of those so called benefits have nothing to do with health care at all but rather are lifestyle enhancements.

It started with state insurance commissioners demanding certain benefits be included in all policies.  I first became aware of it when we were mandated to have maternity benefits.  I was in my 50s at the time.  I neither wanted nor needed them yet was forced to pay for those who did.

Things went from bad to worse.  Some states require that hair transplants be covered as well as viagra.  Neither have squat to do with a persons well being.  If you claim it's an esteem issue than there would be no stopping it.  That's what government mandates can and will do.

Keep the government out of health care.  If their is sufficient a demand for a benefit, insurance companies will come up with packages to cover it.

In the same vein we need to keep government out of investing in 'green' companies like Solyndra.  They obviously won't keep politics out of it or they'd have never invested, as they like to call it, in a company already failing and about which they had been forewarned in the first place.

Re-electing Obama will only bring about more of the same, not less.  When it comes to companies being able to plan for the future, government mandates are a huge problem.  If Madam or Mister Secretary shall mandate the payment of contraception in this administration, there is nothing to say that in a following administration under a different party or even the same party but different leadership it has to remain.  How can you plan insurance coverage around that without it getting prohibitively expensive?

Maybe the Catholics will win this one.  They seem to be digging deeply enough to find even more flaws than those already exposed.  Obama, I suspect, will dig his heels in as he likes to do and pronounce it will be his way or the highway.

Actually, the highway(s) need more help than insurance companies anyway.  Maybe he should start putting his money where his mouth once said he would - into infrastructure.  At least we'd then be able to drive to a hospital!