Eating their young popular pastime

In the wild, some dominant maies kill or eat the younger members of the group – gorillas, lions and polar bears come to mind.

In the wild world of politics, the same thing can happen, as evidenced by Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham verbally eviscerating Young Gum-slingers of the GOP, Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio and Rand Paul.

The Old Hats took offense at the depth and overall show quality of the 13-hour filibuster Rand started in spotlighting the U.S. drone program. McCain and Graham blasted the support shown by other congressional neophytes to Paul’s  basic premise that the Obama Administration could possibly kill American citizens using military drones.

As in any familial grouping, the proven leaders hang together, while the youngster cavort in the sunshine and generally raise hell. McCain and Graham are political Siamese twins, closer than the two sides of a strip of duct tape. Both remember that drones were coming into vogue during Bush the Junior’s Administration and no one – not even the “evil” Democrats – questioned whether the U.S. would kill a terrorist operative with one of the flying buzzers on U.S. soil.

The premise is preposterous and wise Republicans know it.

Paul held his bladder for almost 13 hours and talked and talked and talked in a real filibuster (not the fake faux filibusters of recent years). He is now taking credit for getting Atty. Gen. Eric Holder to promise no drone would be used to kill a citizen on U.S. soil, which Holder stated in earlier testimony before a congressional committee.

For a while the administration was dodging the issues, not wanting to embolden possible terrorists with an absolute answer. That was a miscalculation on Obama’s party, but an understandable security move.

Again, because of their inability to understand the scope of a number of real issues facing this country, the Republicans are digging a hole from which it will be hard to climb out of by 2016. The party’s hopes of regaining the presidency are slipping down that precarious “slippery slope” because of no-can-back-up stances on other issues … guns, immigration, abortion and gay rights.

Paul is, of cowhile urse, considering a run for the White House. His 13-hours without a potty break “ensuring” the safety of citizens here in America via assassination-by-drone will be touted in campaign literature as an heroic effort   until after the next round of campaign debate blatherings hits the airways.

The senator is today’s darling of the Tea Party, but few of that ilk understand the narrow appeal of that party’s platform. In the 1800s, a popular party was the Know-Nothings; the Tea Party is this century’s “No” Party … no to possible economic growth, no to women’s rights and basic rights of other citizens, immigration and tax reform, no to defense cuts and no to compromise in any form.

That stance is simply not practical nor realistic. While Rubio is heading his conservative bets a bit on immigration (Mario Rubio? Hello!), the other Senate and House newbies are content with the regional appeal of their far right stances.

On the International Reality Chart, none of these youthful naysayers register above the 1.0 mark because they refuse to believe that the demographics of America is changing. In today’s politics, to win a national office, the ability of compromise on key hot button issues is a necessity of one’s opinion is going to matter.

Right now, these collegiate kids are enjoying the attention their pabulum-words are generating; they are trying to ignore the backlash within their own party.

But, that’s not the way to establish long-term credibility or assist your chosen party to make a difference in the future of America. It’s a lesson Paul, Rubio and Cruz have yet to learn.

Straight-ticket voting makes no sense

I’ve never understood straight-ticket voting. Folks who practice that form of “democracy” are saying that followers of one party have all the right answers. No party has all the right answers.

The Tea Party, for all its pomp and circumstance and pompous stances, is just a Republican offshoot, pushing a right-of-Atilla-the Hun philosophy with little regard for folks that really need help. Members of that party are for reduction of the national debt (with which I wholeheartly agree) and reducing the size of the federal government (again, I believe that is the right idea).

The Tea Party and those Republicans who lean so far right as to have their shoulder touching the ground are vehemently against abortion for any reason; we part ways on that issue. I believe that if you do not have lady parts, your opinion is not worth a “warm bucket of piss,” to quote John Nance Garner, the 32^nd vice president of the United States. (For years, the quote was changed to “warm bucket of spit,” but Garner disavowed that quote, saying, “I meant what I said.”)

As with any planks of a political platform, the means to the end may differ, but that’s where the art of compromise is supposed to come into play. The Tea Party, and most of the GOPers and Democrats, have forgotten the intricacies of that lost art. Compromise is what is supposed to grease the massive wheels of government so that the needs of the people are served.

After the last presidential election, where Obama handed the Republican Party their collective asses in their hats, the party has done a you-turn-back square dance move on a couple of major issues, the biggest to date including immigration. Republicans who, before the election, were against any compromise on immigration reform, are now four-square for some sort of immigration reform; without a bigger Hispanic voting percentage in future elections, GOP chances for winning the White House are somewhere between none and bahahahahahaha!

The far-right-wingers are proud of the fact that they are holding out due to principle, but in this case, principle on certain issues guarantees victory only at the regional level. Potential national office holders – if they espouse the nutty language and actions of several GOPers in the last elections – will win nothing but big headlines for their crazy antics and statements.

It is a political fact that in order to be considered a viable candidate, presidential contenders must cater to the demands of women, minority groups and young voters. Mitt Romney’s campaign strategists missed the important demographic shifts in 2012 and ….

The GOP hopes in 2016 are tied to Florida’s Jeb Bush, New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Florida’s Mario Rubio. Rubio and Jindal are not yet ready for prime time; a battle between Christie and Bush, if it really develops, will be a reality show worth watching.

The Republicans are actually in better shape for an interesting race than the Democrats. Right now the Democrat field is … Hillary Clinton. If she decides to run, other contenders will be fighting a climb-the-mountain-without-pitons struggle.

But, regardless of her present popularity, she is vulnerable. So many years in the public eye has left a lot of territory for an opponent to exploit. And, she does not have the warm-and-fuzzy personality and charisma of her husband.

Three-and-a-half years out, 2016 is shaping up to be a donnybrook of an election year, like 2012, but with some interesting intrigue in play and fewer nut-jobs in the mix.