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.