Day: February 8, 2013

The Explosive Nature Of Chris Christie: Further Reason Why Christie Will Never Be President!

This author has already written a post, with a myriad of reasons, why New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will never be President!

Christie has, this week, shown further why he is self destructing his potential candidacy.

After going on David Letterman and joking with Letterman about his weight, Christie blew up when the former White House physician for President Bill Clinton had the “nerve and gall” to question whether Christie was healthy enough to serve in the Presidency, and wondered if he might die from a heart attack or stroke, due to his poor physical condition.

Yes, Christie is the “poster boy” for heavy set people, with a good percentage of people in America being in that category. But these people are NOT thinking about running for President, which means his health matters more to us than anyone else who is heavy, unless such a person is a close relative or friend. But even if one fits into that category, such a person’s death, were it to occur, would have less impact than a President dying in office!

And then, Christie went ahead and called the former White House physician and yelled at her in a volume louder than his press conference, where he told her to “shut up!”

Forget his weight and health for a minute! It is Chris Christie’s explosive nature which is more worrisome, his inability to act properly in public moments, too willing to insult and yell at people who say things he does not like. This man reacts in a stressful manner to too many situations where Barack Obama, for instance, is a cool, calm presence.

Being temperamental, being uncouth, being belligerent, is not just bad in dealing with constituents, the media, members of the New Jersey legislature, and White House physicians. It is absolutely horrible and dangerous in dealing with foreign leaders! One cannot conduct negotiations with foreign leaders, whether friendly or enemy nations, in such a manner, as it could lead to unnecessary conflict and war!

So Chris Christie, you might be able to be reelected Governor of New Jersey, but you have proved further than even before that you are not fit, physically or emotionally, to be President of the United States!

So after another term as Governor, find another line of work! You will NOT be missed!

The Coming Battle For The Hispanic Republican Leadership: Marco Rubio Of Florida Vs. Ted Cruz Of Texas

Florida Senator Marco Rubio is gaining the spotlight next Tuesday evening, when he is commissioned by Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to deliver the Republican Party response to the State of the Union Address of President Barack Obama.

Rubio is young, good looking, charming, charismatic, and represents the Sunshine State, which sometime late in this decade will surpass New York in population and become the third largest state. In addition, it is a “swing state”, arguably the most important if the Republicans are ever to recover from their last two defeats for President, and losing the popular vote in five of the past six elections. And Rubio is clearly planning to run for President. So his response to the State of the Union Address will be crucial to his campaign to build up his image.

But as he becomes seen as the “savior” of the Republican Party, as Time Magazine terms it, he will have another Hispanic Senator, like Rubio a Cuban American, as a rival, who comes from a state much larger in population and in land area, and that is newly minted Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, second in land area to Alaska and second in population to California, and four and a half times the land area of Florida.

Cruz, just 17 months older than Rubio, clearly has his own Presidential plans in the future, and he is much more willing to be openly aggressive in his rhetoric and behavior than Rubio, who tends to be more gentlemanly by nature. Cruz is like a bull in a China shop, and does not care what anyone thinks, because he is an open Tea Party activist, while Rubio is only loosely connected to that right wing movement.

Rubio is diplomatic compared to Cruz, who is less than tactful in just a short time in the Senate, going on the offensive, not being a quiet freshman in the Senate. Cruz was born in Canada, but claims he can run for President, an issue which would have to be investigated further for its validity, particularly when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but has had his native citizenship questioned because his father was Kenyan. Cruz is an “in your face” type, and his arrogance is likely to cause him to have fewer friends in the Senate than Rubio.

So Cruz cannot help but wish that Rubio “falls on his face”, as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal did in delivering the response to the State of the Union Address in 2009.

The irony though is that both Rubio and Cruz represent only three percent of Hispanics, and their conservative ideology is highly unlikely to draw Mexican American support (almost two thirds of all Hispanics in America) or Puerto Rican support ( the second highest percentage among Hispanics with a little over 9 percent), something that they seem not to understand.

So it really does not matter what happens with Rubio and Cruz and their Presidential ambitions, as it is clear that the vast majority of Hispanics will continue to vote Democratic over the long haul. A sign of this is that even the Cuban American population, traditionally Republican because of Fidel Castro, is starting to move in the direction of the Democratic Party, at least among the younger generation which has no memory or experience in fleeing Communist Cuba under Castro control for the past 54 plus years!

1913: A Year Of Two “Progressive” Amendments To The Constitution, 16 And 17!

A century ago, as the Presidency of William Howard Taft came to an end, and as Woodrow Wilson was about to be inaugurated, the Constitution had two new amendments added within two months of each other—the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment.

Other than the original ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, never was the country to be so affected by constitutional change that transformed the nation, as with these two amendments.

President Taft, the so called “conservative” leaving office, supported both of these amendments, and they have have a massive impact on the nation ever since.

The 16th Amendment established the “progressive” federal income tax, at a time when we had seen the tripling of population, and the multiplication of social and economic injustice since the Civil War 50 years earlier. Without the federal income tax, there was no way that the nation could ever have moved forward and met its responsibilities to its citizens. The only problem was that over the years the wealthy would find all kinds of ways to manipulate the system, and so, today, the federal income tax is no longer very “progressive”. And also, there is a move on by conservatives and libertarians to repeal the income tax amendment, and have a national sales tax instead, a move that will not happen, but it if did, it would mean greater taxation based on consumption, and would hurt the poor and the lower middle class much more than the wealthy and upper middle class.

The 17th Amendment, the most democratizing amendment we had yet seen, called for direct popular election of the United States Senate, a move encouraged by muckraker David Graham Phillips and his book, THE TREASON OF THE SENATE, published in 1909. Instead of corrupt politicians in state legislatures choosing US Senators, an indication that the Founding Fathers did not trust the masses to choose their Senators, the decision was to allow the people to choose their Senators for a six year term.

How could anyone find fault with this, even with the recognition that often states may make “bad” choices for their Senators? Whatever we think about the choices, it is still better to have the people select their Senators, and in a sense, to be held accountable if they make an embarrassing, or disastrous choice. This is the power of the people, a movement toward direct democracy. And yet, there is a movement among conservatives to repeal this amendment, as well as the 16th Amendment.

Fortunately, it is very difficult to accomplish an amendment, and only the repeal of prohibition of liquor, the 21st Amendment effectively negating the 18th Amendment, has ever occurred.

We can look back on a century of the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment, and applaud what progressives accomplished a century ago!