Why Christie or Kasich Must Run

I am faced with a dilemma that any honest liberal faces. We are about to witness the coronation of the next Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America. Hillary Clinton seems to have the nomination sewn up and we are still over a year away from the Democratic Convention. We haven’t even seen a caucus or primary and it feels like we won’t see one. At least we won’t see any credible opposition. Martin O’Malley is far from compelling. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have virtually no foreign policy chops. Jim Webb is remotely interesting but hardly a guy “you wanna have a beer with”. To beat Hillary’s celebrity, we need someone with a winning personality and I’m not sure Webb is that guy.

So what is wrong with Hillary? Not a genuine bone in her body. Political to the core. And, most importantly a proven liar and obfuscater. And there, my friends, is the dilemma. How do we vote in 2016 when the candidate who says she wants to be our “champion” (a manufactured poll-tested line if there ever was one) is so full of crap?

We have to vote Republican. There are only two men on the horizon, who have not yet declared, for whom a vote from me would not kill me. They are Ohio Governor John Kasich and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Here is why:

Kasich passes the “beer companion” test. He’s likeable with a good sense of humor and a strong streak of self-deprecation. He makes a very strong case for his own candidacy — just watch his appearance on Meet the Press from this week. He’s been in and around Washington long enough to know how the place works. He balanced the budget under Bill Clinton. By his reckoning, he has turned around Ohio and as a Governor, he knows how to run stuff. He appeals to blacks. Let me repeat that — he appeals to blacks. I am thoroughly fed up with conservative candidates who make zero attempt to court the black vote.

Christie also has the “beer companion” quality. His record in New Jersey is mixed. The Jersey economy not doing as well as he might like. But he is a straight shooter in a collection of manufactured sound bites and manipulative language. His recent statement about Hillary’s opposition to big money in politics while she rakes in big money is a perfect example of his ability to call out hypocrisy. His willingness to lose a vote for the sake of honesty is admirable. Case in point: his recent trip to New Hampshire where he proposed changes to Social Security and his assertion that we need to take a new look at entitlement programs. Most conservatives will spout this when it comes to the poor (cutting food stamps, for example) but few will broach the middle class and wealthy getting their priorities straight. Christie will.

Above all, I am so tired of being lied to. My radar may be off — it has been in the past — but I feel Kasich and Christie will tell it like it is. They are WYSISYG candidates, not molded by consultants and “thought leaders”. I want a presidential candidate who will tell me the truth and not pander. They are few and far between and I think Kasich and Christie qualify.

Christie and/or Kasich must run because ABH (anyone but Hillary) is not good enough for me. I want to vote in 2016. I consider it my responsibility. But if the Republican party cannot put forward a sane, measured and transparent candidate to oppose HRC, for the first time in my adult life I may need to skip the election altogether.

What do you think? The bar is open.


Let’s Argue the Hypothetical

MSNBC truly crossed the Rubicon this week.

In South Carolina, after what should have been a routine traffic stop, a white policeman shot a middle aged black man in the back as he was running away. He fired at the man eight times, hitting him at least five. Our best guess is that prior to this, the two men had scuffled and the cop’s Taser was used. Scott, the middle aged black man, may have tried to grab the Taser. The whole circumstance might have actually gone in the cop’s favor had he not picked up the dropped Taser, yards from the dead suspect, and then dropped (planted) it next to the man’s body.

As luck would have it, a young man walking by caught most of the relevant stuff on video and handed it over to the police. Officer Slager was fired and arrested and charged with murder. Justice served, case closed, right?

Wrong!! Since we can’t get into a huge racist conspiracy stew over what happened, MSNBC (and no doubt other liberal outlets) are getting into a stew over what MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED! Yes folks, the TV is now full of 24 hour conjecture on what might have happened if the video had not come to light. Chris Hayes, who is rapidly becoming a white version of Al Sharpton, rushed down to SC to provide on the ground coverage, backed by MSNBC resident race-baiter and former daytime hostess Joy Reid. At this point, I wouldn’t put it past these pot-stirrers to inspire a riot down there. The rallying cry would be “you didn’t act racist but that’s only cos you got caught on tape. You’re really racist.”

Is it any wonder we have crumbling roads and bridges, thousands born out of wedlock into poverty with little hope of achievement and a dying middle class? We waste our precious time and resources on utter foolishness.


SC Representative Jim Clyburn has said some slightly nutty stuff over the past 48 hours but I heard one thing from him that did make sense. He wants young folks to have their cell phones with them and at the ready to video anything cockeyed going on with the police. Until cop-cams become mandatory across the country, I do believe it is in the best interests of the citizenry to have their own cam at the ready — and for cops to know they’re never really alone with their suspect, as Slager seemed to think he was.

What do you think? The bar is open.


Gay IS the New Black

What I say is true. The sooner politicians and conservatives, in general, realize this, the better.

I’ve been told that blacks like me should be offended by this development. True enough, blacks don’t DO anything to qualify as black. It is an “accident of birth”. The nature/nurture mix of homosexuality is not settled science. So there is some logical truth to saying that the civil rights of black and gay are a false equivalency.

That said, so what? ¬†Like blacks, gays don’t hurt anyone by being gay. Defenders of the original Indiana RFRA law present us with their own false equivalency. On Face the Nation¬†former Senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum asked should a gay printer be forced to publish flyers from the Westboro Baptist Church that declare “God hates fags”?

Here’s the problem with Rick’s logic. The Westboro Baptist Church is expressing hatred toward gays. A gay wedding does not express hatred for Christianity. In fact a good number of gays are as God fearing and God loving as their straight counterparts. So, the REAL truth is “Christians of conscience” CHOOSE to be offended by gay marriage. Being a baker, florist, photographer or caterer doesn’t mean YOU have to copulate with someone of your own gender.

What further bothers me about the debate is this notion of religious conscience and freedom of religion. Do you REALLY think there aren’t atheists who find homosexuality repulsive and disgusting? Do they get to refuse services related to a gay wedding? I suspect not. So let’s get this straight. If I find homosexuality an “abomination” I can only act on my “conscience” if I attend church on Sunday’s? Is that it? Only the religious have a conscience?

99% of commerce arrangements work out naturally. Most folks regardless of orientation don’t want to do business with folks who don’t like them. In the rare case where a consumer insists on doing business with a particular merchant, that merchant needs to realize times have changed and you don’t get to refuse service based on who the customer chooses to love.


I find it ridiculous that an angry vindictive gay consumer can bring a small company to its knees over this. Penalties should be capped, perhaps with a small fine. If a gay wedding cake upsets you that much, cough up a $100.00 fine and put your money where your “conscience” is.

Second, there is a difference between a “gay wedding” cake and a “gay” wedding cake. A merchant should be able to refuse to put two copulating figurines on a wedding cake. One would hope the baker would have the same reaction to two straight figurines copulating on a wedding cake. A blanket refusal to serve a group of people is different from refusing to provide services that current mores dictate are indeed offensive.

That is really the crux of the debate. Gays embracing traditional marriage has largely gained acceptance in this country and our laws should reflect that. Our laws evolve to reflect societal values. If Adam and Steve ask for a tasteful cake for their wedding just like Adam and Eve do, bake the damn cake and get over yourself. Or pay a fine. But you don’t get to say no because your “conscience” aligns with some religion.

What do you think? The bar is open.