Category: political challengers

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies political challengers

How Does “Unfair” Play?

Donald Trump, thin skinned, cry, 2016 Presidential, Hillary Clinton

“We’re being treated very unfairly.”

I don’t know about you, but this constant complaint from Donald Trump is getting a bit old.

Even if true.

Maybe I lost some patience for this shtick because my side in the political arena — the 85 percent majority for term limits, for example — has constantly had to bear with undue weights from major candidates, public officials, and other political insiders. This week I’m in Arkansas to help put term limits back on the ballot, after politicians lied to the citizenry in a legislatively referred measure, successfully fooling them to substantially weaken the limits.

It turns out that honest people have always been at a disadvantage in politics, because our enemies often feel free to lie, cheat, steal, etc.

My impatience is that, well, coming from a billionaire, the complaint seems . . . hollow. To the extent that wealth and fame lead to an unfair advantage over others, Trump has indeed parlayed both into a shot at the White House.

So to talk about how being treated unfairly smacks of narcissism. It is like going to the funeral of a good friend and having to listen to some whiner take the limelight to complain of his lumbago.

It seems inappropriate, in context.

But mainly it reminds me of Bernie Sanders in particular, and the socialist left in general. “Life [or The System] has treated us unfairly — so give us free stuff!”

Trump is not asking for free stuff. He is merely expecting us to forgive his ugly tirades — as in the current mess about the judge sitting on his Trump University case — and nasty escalations of name-calling.

He expects a free pass. And has so far gotten one.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Donald Trump, thin skinned, cry, 2016 Presidential, Hillary Clinton

 

Categories
Accountability ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers too much government

Bernie’s Problem?

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, war, foreign policy, blood stained, death, military, illustration

Sen. Bernie Sanders has a problem. With Hillary Clinton.

Asked about the Clinton Foundation, yesterday, by CNN’s Jake Tapper, host of State of the Union, Bernie re-questioned himself:

Do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorships?

And Bernie answered, “Yeah, I do.”

How many roads must mainstream media reporters walk down before they investigate and report on the myriad of ethical cracks in the Clinton Foundation?

To the most obvious conflict of interest in the history of the human race, add the fact that even after promising President Obama that the Clinton Foundation would at least be totally transparent with an annual report of all donations . . . well, Hillary welched on the deal, not revealing the donors.

While Bernie’s condemnation of Hillary’s ethical shortcomings was big news, less reported were the senator’s comments regarding whether Mrs. Clinton is “too quick on the draw, too eager to use military force.”

Bernie again was clear: “I worry about that. Yeah, I do. Her support for the War in Iraq was not just an aberration.” Sanders went on to cite Secretary of State Clinton’s role in pushing President Obama to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and to intervene in Syria.

Hillary’s judgment on issues of war and peace is questionable . . . especially when we don’t know whether or not a foreign leader or his cronies have written big checks to the Clinton Foundation.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, war, foreign policy, blood stained, death, military, illustration

 

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

#NeverTrump Red Herring

Bill Kristol, National Review, President

Neoconservative writer Bill Kristol doesn’t like the prospect of Donald Trump running as the Republican presidential candidate this year. And Kristol’s not just going to talk about it. He’s trying to get something done.

But instead of doing the rational thing and lobbying each and every delegate to the Republican convention, pleading with them to vote their consciences, not their fictional primary “commitments,” he’s trying to recruit an independent candidate to run against Hillary and Donald. (Donald isn’t worried.)

At first he mentioned, in fleeting, Mitt Romney as the type of candidate “coming soon.” But in discussing his mission, he kept the candidate’s identity secret. He was trying to create a stir of interest.

Yesterday it was leaked that Kristol’s Great White Hope is . . . David French.

Writer for National Review.

And the American people say, together, Who?

No matter Mr. French’s many virtues, the truth is that he’s the darkest of dark horses.

I’m sure his principles align somehow with Kristol’s. But be realistic: the Libertarian Party ticket sports far more plausibility — two former two-term governors, former Republicans of blue states.

It’s still possible that this newest story is just a leak to get us to a false sense of . . . well, whatever this is.

After all, Kristol is a neoconservative. He has secrets and strategies above us mere mortals. Conspiracy buffs might contend that throwing another “right-wing” candidate into the mix is his way of splitting “the right,” allowing his real (if secret) favorite, Hillary Clinton, to squeak by. She is the one candidate he could count on to keep throwing money at the Pentagon — and dropping bombs overseas.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Bill Kristol, National Review, President

 

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore on Flickr

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom national politics & policies political challengers

The Primary Lie

Unbound, Curly Haugland, Sean Parnell, Republican, convention, Trump, book, pdf, Paul Jacob

Are we being lied to?

Donald J. Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for president. So presumes the news media and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, because all those delegates are bound to vote for Trump on the first ballot.

But what if Republican delegates convening this July aren’t bound. That’s the compelling case made by a new book, Unbound: The Conscience of a Republican Delegate,* written by Curly Haugland and Sean Parnell.

How does modern America get something so wrong, when it’s written down in black-and-white? Politicians don’t read the bills they enact and, apparently, politicos don’t read their party rules.

Except crazy ol’ Curly Haugland. The Republican National Committeeman from North Dakota reads and understands: convention delegates choose the nominee. In so doing, they are free to vote their conscience, unbound by primary or caucus votes, state party rules or even state law.

This information should anger voters. Political parties have a right to their own process, certainly, but not to pretend primary voters determine the winner, when they don’t.

Why the deception?

Well, the insiders and big-time consultants, with sway at RNC headquarters, make millions on TV ad buys. Not so for a nomination determined by core activists at a state convention, who aren’t susceptible to the expensive tricks of the modern political trade.

The media has a financial interest, too — in more readers, listeners and viewers. If primaries are known as merely “beauty contests,” they fear folks will tune out, along with paying advertisers.

Instead, tune in, turn on and download Unbound. Find out what the media and the RNC won’t tell you.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

=========================

* Published by Citizens in Charge Foundation, the book can be downloaded for free here.

 

Printable PDF

Unbound, Curly Haugland, Sean Parnell, Republican, convention, Trump, book, pdf, Paul Jacob

 

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies political challengers

President Johnson?

Gary Johnson, Williamn Weld, libertarian, party, president, election

An unusual year, far from over.

This week, the Libertarian Party holds its presidential nominating convention in Orlando, Florida. Next November, after all the votes are counted, the party’s likely nominee, former two-term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and his likely vice-presidential running mate, former two-term Massachusetts Governor William Weld, may finally be going to Disney World.

To celebrate . . . before moving into the White House.

Crazy? Sure. But this is the year for crazy.

Polls show Gov. Johnson garnering 10 percent support. With both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton drowning in their own negatives, plenty more votes are winnable to the right, left and everywhere in between Crooked Hillary and the Trumpster Fire.

Okay, sure, but . . . win the presidency?

One needs 270 electoral votes to be elected president and to win states to nab those electoral votes. In 1992, Ross Perot received 19 percent of the vote nationwide, without winning a single state.

But what if Johnson won his home state of New Mexico? In 2012, he got only 3.6 percent in the Land of Enchantment. If that grew ten-fold to 36 percent in a three-way race, he could prevail.

And, as explained at A Libertarian Future, if Trump carried enough swing states (say, Colorado, Florida, and Ohio) to keep Clinton from reaching 270 electors, the whole shebang . . . would be thrown into the House of Representatives.

Who trusts Congress to choose responsibly?

Yet, with the Libertarian ticket sporting this much horse-race relevance, more Americans might contemplate greater freedom and less Big Brother government.

Think liberty, America.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Gary Johnson, Williamn Weld, libertarian, party, president, election

 

Categories
Accountability ballot access general freedom national politics & policies political challengers

Delegates Unbound

Curly Haugland, voting, Republican, democracy, Donald Trump, illustration

An article in Politico calls Curly Haugland a “rule-mongering crank,” a “gadfly,” “stubborn” (twice), a “pain in the ass,” and a “pedantic curmudgeon.”

And merely in the first paragraph!

Who is this Curly fellow, you ask? Haugland’s a successful small businessman in Bismarck, North Dakota, and a member of the Republican National Committee. He’s also a no-nonsense member of the party’s Rules Committee.

Long before Trump was an issue in the party (or even “in” the party), Mr. Haugland was urging Republican leaders to do something anathema to Washington-types: follow the rules.

“The rule says, specifically,” Curly told CNBC, “that it’s a vote of the delegates at the convention to determine if there’s a majority, not a primary vote. . . . The media has created a perception that the voters will decide the nomination. Political parties choose their nominee, not the general public.”

The entire electorate chooses the president, of course, but it seems fair enough that parties choose their own nominee. They might be wise to do it through primaries including the broader public or through state conventions reserved to party members or any number of ways. But however done, it should be by the rules.

And without taxpayer money.

Delegates have been free to vote their conscience throughout the history of the GOP, from just prior to the Civil War, when Lincoln gained the nomination at a contested 1860 convention, until today. It’s been a rule. The only exception was in 1976, when President Ford’s campaign worked to change the rule, binding delegates to block Ronald Reagan’s insurgent candidacy. Coincidentally, the leader of that ’76 effort was Paul Manafort, who today is running Trump’s convention effort.

Curly Haugland’s beef isn’t with Trump, but with the media and the RNC leadership, for not telling folks the truth.

No telling if GOP delegates will vote their conscience in Cleveland, but thank you, Mr. Haugland, for speaking truth to power. Republican delegates may be listening.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

P.S. If you missed the first two commentaries in this series, here they are:
Fat Lady Score – It’s a time for choosing.
Listen to Whom? – People in political parties have rights, too.

Printable PDF

Curly Haugland, voting, Republican, democracy, Donald Trump, illustration

 

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom national politics & policies political challengers

Listen to Whom?

political parties, elections, party, Republican, Democrat, corruption, illustration

It’s a time for choosing, I concluded yesterday, for Republican voters — between the so-called “establishment” Republicans endorsing Donald Trump’s candidacy and those, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and both President Bushes, who have declined to endorse.

Sen. John McCain’s admonition that, “You have to listen to people that have chosen the nominee of our Republican Party,” raises the imperative question: Who gets to choose?

Moreover, who should choose?

I’m a big fan of democracy — not pure democracy as a form of government, of course, but voting as a wonderful mechanism for people to control their government, and therefore, to protect our rights, our republic.

Yet, the Republican and Democratic Parties are private associations of citizens. We have a right to vote on who serves in public office, but not a right to decide who is nominated by a political party to which we do not belong.

“Without borders,” Mr. Trump has argued, “we don’t have a country.” To which a Republican friend recently added, “Without borders, we don’t have a party.”

People in political parties, as in any association, have rights, including who they nominate and how. Parties should be independent, not government-controlled.

Nor should political parties be advantaged in law, or their primaries and national conventions subsidized by taxpayers, as they are now.

Trump has railed that the GOP nomination process is rigged. Like most public-private partnerships, it is! But not the way you might think . . . as I’ll delve into tomorrow.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

political parties, elections, party, Republican, Democrat, corruption, illustration

 

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

Fat Lady Score

Donald Trump, Statistics, popularity, strategy, Hillary Clinton, president

You’ve heard the news: Donald Trump is now the Republican Party’s “likely presumptive nominee” for president. It’s a very modern-sounding term.

His 16 opponents have, one by one, suspended their campaigns. In coming weeks, as the billionaire businessman wins uncontested primaries, we’re told he’ll be “awarded” enough delegates to reach the magic number of 1,237 — a majority.

For weeks, Mr. Trump had been yelling that the Republican National Committee was rigging the process to block his nomination. Now, RNC Chair Reince Priebus and a host of establishment Republicans have endorsed Mr. Trump, including former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 nominee, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“You have to listen to people that have chosen the nominee of our Republican Party,” John McCain told CNN. “I think it would be foolish to ignore them.”

McCain raises several interesting issues, worth considering over the next few days.

Let’s consider foolishness, first. There is a pragmatic argument against Trump as the nominee. While polls show Trump losing to Hillary, with 28 percent viewing him favorably against 65 percent unfavorably, a Politico story argues that, “A generic Republican might have been a favorite for the White House.”

Yet, most of the opposition to Trump isn’t pragmatic, it’s a matter of hardworking, grassroots Republicans who sincerely believe his positions don’t fit the party’s principles, or that his behavior has fallen short. Agree or disagree, but those are worthy considerations.

It’s a time for choosing. More tomorrow.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Donald Trump, Statistics, popularity, strategy, Hillary Clinton, president

 

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
Accountability ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

The Most Hated

Ted Cruz, John Boehner, Paul Jacob, hated, MOST HATED MAN , term limits , Bob Novack

I’ve been robbed!!!

By Ted Cruz, no less.

Yes, without so much as a passing “Howdy-do,” the Texas senator stole my cherished public mantel, simply waltzed in and snatched what was once my own special place in our nation’s capital.

You’ve heard it on the news, I’m sure. In a speech at Stanford University, former Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner lit into Sen. Ted Cruz, referring to him as “Lucifer in the flesh.” And a “miserable S.O.B.” to boot.

Boehner vowed never to vote for Cruz, adding: “Over my dead body will he be president.”

Back in January, former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, a 34-year Washington fixture, attacked Cruz, arguing his nomination would lead to “cataclysmic losses,” and that, in Washington, “Nobody likes him.”

Can’t. Ignore. Ugly. Truth. Must. Face. Facts. Unmistakably: Sen. Ted Cruz is today . . . the MOST HATED MAN IN WASHINGTON.

Once upon a time, back in the day, I was hated. A LOT. The most, arguably.

In 1995, I was running U.S. Term Limits, battling Republican congressional leaders (an oxymoron), who were playing games to block term limits. At a news conference, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, never a friend of term limits, went on a tirade. One of his more colorful slings was calling us “cannibals.”

Which turned out to be a great name for our softball team.

After the Speaker’s temper tantrum, the late, great Bob Novak told me I was “the most hated man in Washington.”

Now? Well . . . campaigning in Indiana, Sen. Cruz responded to Boehner’s attacks succinctly: “What made John Boehner mad is that I led a movement to hold Washington accountable.”

Yeah, sounds familiar.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Ted Cruz, John Boehner, Paul Jacob, hated, MOST HATED MAN , term limits , Bob Novack

 

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Categories
Accountability folly ideological culture incumbents moral hazard political challengers

What’s Principle Got to Do with It?

Maryland Primary, Chris Van Hollen,Donna Edwards, super PAC, the National Rifle Association, NRA

Today’s Maryland Primary features a competitive race to replace Democrat Senator Barbara Mikulski, a 30-year veteran. Two House members, Chris Van Hollen and Donna Edwards, are seeking the Democratic nomination.

“[T]his is a contest between two candidates,” National Public Radio’s Kojo Nnamdi notes, “who agree on 99 percent of the relevant issues.”

The campaign got interesting, however, with an attack ad first run by a super PAC, Working for Us, and then by Rep. Edwards’s campaign. The ads hit Van Hollen for a special deal he had made trying to get his 2010 DISCLOSE Act passed. The legislation aimed to force non-profit groups to disclose their donors to the government.

Fearing the hostility of the National Rifle Association, Van Hollen cut a backroom deal exempting the gun rights group, along with several other powerful liberal organizations.

Whatever one thinks of the DISCLOSE Act — and I’ll proudly disclose my contempt — shouldn’t we all agree that drafting laws that apply to most groups except those with political clout is flat-out wrong?

Rep. Donna Edwards, an original co-sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, wasn’t amused by Van Hollen’s sell-out. She withdrew her support.

I don’t agree with all her principles, but I am glad she has some.

In Washington, it’s lonely for the principled. President Obama came to Van Hollen’s defense. So did the Washington Post, praising Van Hollen (editorially) as a “leading champion of gun safety,” and via Glenn Kessler’s Fact Checker column, which twisted logic to award the Edwards ad three Pinocchios. Democratic congressional leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, also lauded Van Hollen and attacked Edwards.

Washington: city of celebrated sell-outs.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Maryland Primary, Chris Van Hollen,Donna Edwards, super PAC, the National Rifle Association, NRA

 

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!