Ever watched the movie, 'Idiocracy'?
I always thought it was a completely forgettable movie until the 2016 election cycle began and Donald Trump entered the race.
Now I'm convinced that America has made this film become a documentary, rather than a fictional satire of a future America.
How else do you account for the popularity of a Donald Trump? Or the polling success of a Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?
To paraphrase a line from the film 'Men in Black', our nation has become everything we've come to expect from years of government education.
My brother, who is as intelligent and as well-read a person as anyone I know, just declared Donald Trump the winner of last night's debate when NO ONE WHO ISN'T A TRUMP SUPPORTER thinks Trump won the debate last night. A good friend of mine whose judgment I usually respect just declared that she voted for Trump. More people think Hillary Clinton is dishonest than she is honest (and who, in the real world, would already be under indictment for improper handling of classified documents), yet she is the leading candidate for the Democrat nomination. Close behind her on the Democrat side is an unabashed Socialist promising to virtually shred the U.S. Constitution by giving away healthcare and college tuition.
We've become a nation of lazy, pampered, frightened everything-phobes, believing what blogs tell us rather than taking the time to research the issues ourselves, and as a result, this country is deteriorating right before our very eyes. And only a few of us can see it.
Trump insults everybody, and his supporters call it "plain-speaking" or "debate". Hillary lies about her previous lies, and can't just say she won't ever lie to the American people. Privacy advocates are all a-twitter regarding the FBI wanting data off of a terrorist's phone, creating grand conspiracies of Big Brother hacks of software the FBI hasn't even requested, nor wants to have in their possession. We're afraid of immigrants. We're afraid of responsibility. We're afraid of terrorists. We're afraid of guns. We're afraid of government.
We follow the base, crass, and crude who would divide us, while shunning the hope of the orator who would unite us.
Even the news media is getting involved. Apparently, if you've ever been elected to the U.S. Senate or served time in Washington, D.C., you're now part of "the establishment", even though your voting record and policies are as conservative (or more so) than Donald Trump's ever could or will be. If Trump, Clinton and Sanders are just saying the things Americans are thinking, then America as a whole is no longer thinking.
Idiocracy didn't take five centuries to come to pass. One decade after the film was released, we're living in it.
And it isn't a satire anymore.
I've really had it up to here with all these Trump supporters and Cruz supporters who think the way to get things done in Washington is with a hammer.
None of them - NONE OF THEM - know how our government works in the slightest.
None of them - NONE OF THEM - know electoral politics at the national level.
None of them - NONE OF THEM - know what drives the voters of the 21st Century.
And none of them - NONE OF THEM - understand the epic disaster that is about to befall the GOP in November if their guy is nominated in October. They're like the RMS Titanic approaching the iceberg; nothing to worry about - she's unsinkable!
I touched on this a bit in my last column, but it bears repeating and clarifying: neither Trump nor Cruz can win a general election against either of the two Democrat candidates currently running come November. Trump is way behind both Clinton and Sanders, and Cruz doesn't fare much better. Head-to-head match-up polls show only one candidate consistently beating both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and that candidate is Marco Rubio. Now, as my brother Doug pointed out today, these are early polls in February, and the vote won't be until November, but that is PRECISELY my point. Once nominated, there will be a 4-6 week period of merciless and murderous attacks from both the Democrats and their loyal minions in the press, digging up dirt, creating or simply passing on lies, and generally finding ways to discredit or at least minimize ANY Republican candidate - Marco Rubio included. If you don't think so, I suggest you review the collective works of the 2012 election and the attacks against Mitt Romney, an infinitely better man and leader than Barack Obama could ever hope to be.
Shouldn't the GOP nominee at least be ahead in the polls BEFORE the expected attacks come?
Shouldn't that nominee at least have more higher positive impressions than negative ones?
Shouldn't that nominee be someone people go to the polls to vote FOR willingly, rather than casting a vote AGAINST the other guy?
But let's not stop there. Why don't we elect someone who actually KNOWS the legislative process that has to be adhered to in a divided U.S. Senate? This clip courtesy of 'The Kelly Files' speaks volumes about how someone with Marco Rubio's intelligence and knowledge can work to get legislation through a Senate which requires 60 votes to pass a bill. Check it out here. Rubio is a man who knows that you cannot bluster your way or hammer your way through a body like the U.S. Senate, and he not only proves that in this one short segment, he answers his detractors accusations that he supported the so-called "Gang of Eight" amnesty solution to immigration reform (he didn't).
Bottom-line, people vote for for people they like.
I vote for people who know how things actually work, and who don't make promises they cannot possibly keep.
Let me leave you with this clip as well. One of the things I have really liked about Marco Rubio is his focus on the real enemy - Obama, Clinton and Sanders. He speaks of REAL hope, not the phony, vapid hope of Barack Obama. He doesn't get into the mud and attack his fellow Republicans like Trump and Cruz do. He tells you what HE'S for, and he brings this message of hope and promise to every event he has. Listen to his message after Iowa here.
That's someone I can vote for. That's someone I can follow.
In 2016, the desire by many Republicans to elect someone they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as not being part of the "Washington establishment" is strong. Otherwise how would clowns like Donald Trump and dishonest, smarmy used-car salesmen like Ted Cruz get any traction in a typical GOP primary?
I get the whole, "I'm sick and tired of politics as usual", and "There's not much difference between the two parties in Washington" mantra (there really isn't). But the desire by all too many Republicans in 2016 to find someone to represent them is going to blow up in their faces if they nominate someone like Trump or Cruz, and it comes down to this simple truth:
Winning the primary doesn't get you a win nationally.
I mean, the goal IS to get a Republican in the White House, isn't it? And don't tell me that an "establishment" Republican is no better than a Democrat in the Oval Office, because there has been NO real agenda moved forward on a legislative basis since the GOP gained majorities in both the House and Senate. Not a single, solitary GOP-sponsored bill has been signed into law in that time, and the only way Obama has moved his agenda forward is through the use of executive actions.
Think of the possibilities if conservatives hadn't sat on their butts 4 years ago when Mitt Romney ran for President.
And 2016 is shaping up as yet another electoral disaster for Republicans, all in the name of political purity.
If the trend continues through the primary season as it has thus far, GOP stalwarts will be celebrating the nomination of a Washington outsider in October, and wondering what happened (again) in November, all in the name of political purity. How can I be so sure about this? National head-to-head polls tell me everything I need to know.
Donald Trump is losing to Hillary Clinton (Hillary Clinton!) in EVERY national poll head to head. Here is someone a majority of people think is dishonest (and why everyone doesn't think the same way is beyond me), and she is beating the GOP front runner. Worse yet, if Bernie Sanders gets the Democrat nomination, he TROUNCES Donald Trump by a wider margin than Obama beat Romney. Ted Cruz fares better than the Donald, in that he splits the polling contest with Hillary (again, how pathetic do you have to be to have a 50-50 chance of losing to the most despicable woman in Presidential politics), but loses across the board to Socialist Bernie Sanders.
The point being that you have to get elected before you can serve.
Politically, Trump or Cruz might be what the GOP wants, but the COUNTRY doesn't. Some of their ideas may have merit to many in the USA, but neither Trump nor Cruz pass the first test of NATIONAL electoral politics.
You have to be likable.
George W. Bush wasn't a better candidate than either Al Gore or John Kerry, but he won by the slimmest of margins because he was both sincere and likable. Obama? White guilt played a big part, but he won against a truly unlikable opponent in John McCain, and a less warm opponent in Mitt Romney. Ronald Reagan against anybody. George H.W. Bush against the cold fish Mike Dukakis. Kennedy vs. Nixon. Bill Clinton over Bob Dole. The more likable guy almost always wins, which is why Trump and Cruz will not.
Only one candidate on the GOP side wins in a head-to-head match-up against Hillary or Sanders up and down the line, and that is Marco Rubio. And the truly sad thing is that Rubio is really and truly just as conservative as anyone else running on the GOP side of the house, but too many voters allow others to define a candidate instead of doing the homework themselves. He's certainly as socially conservative as anyone could possibly want from a right to life standpoint. He's fiscally conservative enough (although who couldn't be better?). And truth be told, if you looked at his support for immigration reform instead of listening to the talking heads on TV and radio, he has never supported amnesty for illegals - just a legal pathway to citizenship. And while I may not agree with him on every issue, I like the guy. He's someone I think I could sit down with over a slice of pizza and a glass of vino and talk WITH regarding policy, politics or family.
I can't imagine getting a word in edgewise with Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. They'd be too busy talking TO me, instead of talking WITH me.
Either way, if the GOP continues their march over the cliff towards political purity, we'll never see a President Trump or a President Cruz - just a President Sanders.
I'll take a President Rubio any day of the week.
Look, Barack Obama has never been anything but a lightweight, petulant man too small for the office to which he has been elected.
From the beginning, he has displayed absolutely no leadership skills, no political skills except a glib nature and a ready smile that got him elected multiple times to increasingly more important offices in an era where voters prefer style over substance, and a petty nature where if you didn't agree with him, you were not worthy to negotiate with. And as his term progressed, this small man became even smaller; resembling more a pathetic, Captain Queeg-like persona than one worthy of the most powerful man in the world. When he couldn't get his way 100% on a given bill or policy position, he tried using executive orders to circumvent the legislative process, and the Supreme Court shut him down at virtually every turn.
Which pretty much explains his decision to NOT attend the funeral of Justice Antonin Scalia this weekend. Scalia's brilliance, in addition to his steadfast support for the intent of the Framers in their desire to limit government through the words of the U.S. Constitution, further weakened an already weak man in Obama. So naturally, instead of being a real President who would automatically, and without blinking an eye, honor the life and service of a Supreme Court Justice who had served his country honorably for over 30 years, Barack Obama has decided to do - nothing.
Maybe he's got a tee time this Saturday at Congressional.
For Obama, the worst thing is that he's playing right into the hands of Republicans who are none too keen on approving any nominee Obama might be considering for Scalia's replacement. After all, if you want the GOP-led Senate to at least CONSIDER your next appointment, you might want to try holding out the hand of compromise and friendship to those whose votes you're going to need, right? I mean, if this President thinks that simply nominating someone from a lower court who received approval from Republicans in the past is going to cut it, he's smoking some serious weed. Appeals court judges aren't the same as Supreme Court Justices, and Obama should realize that. And if he's planning on using that silly argument in hopes of having his media toadies run interference for him with the voters, he's worse than stoned - he's crazy.
Obama and his fellow Democrats have been on the wrong side of lame-duck appointments for years, and every day comes a new tape unearthed that shows more of them absolutely, positively denying a GOP president their nominee(s), so to claim that Obama has a Constitutional duty and right to have his nominee heard is just plain wrong.
The glib chatter and the ready smile are not enough to overcome the petulant actions of the boy-President any longer. He just hasn't realized what many of us already know.
Oh, and while he can't find it in his heart to travel a mile of so out of his way to honor the passing of a member of one of the three branches of government, he IS finding time to visit Cuba in the next month. I guess burning some more fossil fuels and propping up a Socialist cesspool (all the while adding another "accomplishment" to his resume) is more in keeping with his style.
You people screwed the pooch in November of 2012 when you refused to get out and vote for Mitt Romney, because the media told you that he wasn't conservative enough since he was an "establishment" Republican. You believed the DNC and their paid media pundits who claimed that Romney was a serial flip-flopper (he was less a flip-flopper than you new darling Donald Trump is). You sat on your hands because your views on a single subject on someone's personal decision in which you have no say (abortion) were so strong that you couldn't possibly vote for someone you perceived as "wishy-washy" on the subject.
And if less than 100,000 of you split across three different states had swallowed your stubborn views, taken the time to educate yourselves on the man instead of believing what the DNC said about him, and did the right thing to vote for him, we wouldn't be on the precipice of a looming Constitutional crisis, the likes of which this country has never seen.
Justice Antonin Scalia is dead, and the U.S. Supreme Court might just have their majority altered for the next 20-30 years because YOU allowed Barack Obama to be re-elected.
How are you feeling right about now?
Actions have consequences. So, to, does inaction. You've left the U.S. Senate run by Mitch McConnell to be the barricade to stop Obama from cementing a liberal majority on the Supreme Court, and in case you've missed these past two appointments of his, he doesn't nominate old people. He wants 30 years or more of service from his nominees. Now it would be nice to go to bed tonight, secure in the knowledge that the GOP leadership in the U.S. Senate that you have elected would finally develop a backbone and do the right thing in denying Obama a moderately or severely liberal nominee to replace Antonin Scalia, but given the people you've chosen to serve in that once respected body, I have little hope of that happening. I hope I'm wrong.
Let's face it; Obama has tried to subvert the Constitution at every turn in the past 7 years, whether through the use of executive orders or attempting to have his various departments issue rules without Congressional consent or authority, and the ONLY thing that has stopped him cold has been the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, they've been the only reliable body of government to keep his liberal fantasies in check. So you know he's going to push to have a permanent appointee named and approved before his term of office expires.
I hope this is one time where the majority of Senators remember that their role is to advise and CONSENT, and in this case, withhold that consent until the next President is inaugurated in 2017.
The main thing is that this election just got very serious. For all you folks fed-up with the so-called "establishment" Republicans who are looking at outsiders who don't have a chance to get elected in a general ballot come November, it's time to realize that it was YOU who put us in this very dangerous position by not supporting someone who can be supported by those in the middle. Fringe candidates who appeal to the far right like Trump and Cruz are going to get swamped by whoever the Democrat nominee is in November, because the middle won't vote for people who aren't likable (neither Cruz nor Trump fit that bill), nor will they vote for someone who will be incessantly labeled as "extreme" for the 2 months following the primaries.
You don't have the votes nationwide to elect the extreme. So you'd better find someone you can live with, instead of someone who is so radically different they will never get the votes that truly matter. Otherwise, the Supreme Court will be radically altered for decades to come.
This election just got real, and you'd better take it a LOT more seriously than you already have been, GOP-ers.
I've always been one to love a good political debate, but that's something you just can't have with most liberals - especially Bernie Sanders supporters.
There have been a number of Bernie supporters over the past couple of days sharing posts on Facebook regarding how truly wonderful and inspiring the Socialist Senator from Vermont is. These posts come from some childhood friends / acquaintances I have from my youth in Massachusetts. They all swoon over how it's great that Bernie is going to give college tuition away for free to everyone who wants it. How he's going to give health care to everyone who wants it. How he's going to make those evil rich people pay even more of their money than they currently pay (they fund roughly 90% of this government's receipts already - but Bernie wants more). They rave about how everybody is going to be brought together and treated equally by Bernie - except for those evil rich people.
What they can't do is defend how Bernie's going to do it, or the rationale for doing so.
I've asked questions that I know my liberal friends have read, imploring Sanders supporters to tell me just how what he wants to do was ever envisioned by the Founding Fathers of this nation, or even how it would be possible under our Constitution. I've engaged those supporters with questions asking them how they can support someone who actually won't treat everybody equally even though he says he wants to, simply because he wants their money. I've asked them how he can call for a $15/hr minimum wage, yet pay his own interns $12/hr. "Interns are interns, they don't get paid" is the usual response, followed by my reply of "Slaves didn't get paid, either".
And the internet is suddenly filled with the sound of crickets chirping . . .
Worse yet, some of them actually claim that the Founding Fathers would support Bernie's goals of going after the rich, yet never quite get around to citing just where their sources are for that claim. Following that request, they do the typical:
They cut and run. Usually deleting the initial post.
Because when you ask someone on the left something that the bought-and-paid-for media talking heads don't have the intelligence nor the guts to ask them, they can only do one thing.
If you read my earlier article about "snowflakes" - those young Millennials who have never worked, who have had everything handed to them, who have never been pushed back when they have demanded something from family or society, then you know I have little respect for them, because they think they are the most entitled generation on Earth, simply because they occupy space and eat up oxygen on this planet.
They're locusts, devouring everything and providing nothing, and leaving desolation in their wake.
And they're the perfect Bernie Sanders supporters, as are those fellow liberals who have spent their entire lives looking for (and in many cases), finding ways to have government take care of an ever-increasing part of their lives. They may live in America, but they have no concept of what it is like to be an American as envisioned by the very Founding Fathers they like to use as a punch line. And they have no concept what their actions will foster, because they only care about themselves.
Nothing good can come from a November election pitting Donald Trump against Bernie Sanders.
America cannot survive a third Disaster-in-Chief following the last two we've had.
There is little to hope for when you logically consider the future following the election of one of these two extremist candidates; one so far to the left that California can't even see him, and one so unhinged that it's a wonder he hasn't been institutionalized by now.
On the plus side of a Bernie Sanders presidency, you have the fact that, with a likely GOP Senate still in place for the first two years or more of his potential term, Sanders would be hard-pressed to get any of his "more free stuff for everyone" agenda through Congress. And given that I'm pretty sure he has never read a copy of the Constitution he has already sworn to defend, he'll have an even tougher time of getting his way through the use of Executive Orders. But with every plus comes a minus, and that will be in the form of another term of office where gridlock and competing radical philosophies keep our government from truly reforming the way it works.
That being said, the ultimate disaster of a Sanders presidency is in his likely Supreme Court nominees. Some of those old folks on both sides are hanging on to see who will be picking their replacements, and it would be nice to see some liberals replaced with a couple of conservatives who actually believe in the Constitution and the limited powers of the Federal government. We can only hope that the U.S. Senate finally decides to show some testicular fortitude when it comes to approving potential President Sander's nominees and remember that there are two words in their job description - advise and CONSENT.
Bernie's disaster is the only positive for a Trump presidency. The Supreme Court would not be packed for decades with liberals (although who Trump might nominate is always a coin toss), and for the long-term health of this nation that will be a good thing.
Everything else will be a freakin' dumpster fire.
I've always been worried about what might happen with a GOP president and a GOP Congress in place, given their past abilities to turn electoral success into legislative disaster, and I'd still be worried about any Republican but Trump getting into office, given that years of frustration following the Obama administration would send anyone into an orgy of knee jerking legislation (especially on the social side), but a Trump presidency would be like letting your kid play with matches in a gasoline pit.
Why? Because as much as Trump knows business (although how anyone who has declared bankruptcy multiple times can claim to know business is beyond me), he doesn't know how to legislate. And while Congress knows how to legislate, they are clueless about economics and business. Remember, these are the geniuses who thought that cutting taxes alone would stimulate an economy and drive our deficit down. Also, Trump has never really had anyone around him to tell him "No", and there is a big difference between being the CEO of your own company and the head of the Executive Branch of the United States. Trump has never worked with someone who has veto power over his actions (in this case, the Supreme Court), and they have, rightly, intervened in the abuse of executive power lately.
And don't get me started on all the international incidents we'd be embroiled in within the first few years of a Donald Trump administration.
Ultimately, this is the fault of Barack Obama, who has managed to polarize this nation as no other President before him. Instead of trying to work together to become great again, he's managed to turn everyone into solidly for his agenda, or rabidly against anything he might propose, all in the name of building a resume he can look back on when he no longer matters. It's an us-against-them America we live in today thanks to this current Disaster-in-Chief.
Where are the Ronald Reagan's when we need them?
Why else would they be crying like little girls after hearing that Fox News has once again named their top anchor, Megyn Kelly, as one of the moderators of the next GOP debate?
It's interesting to see how these conservatives live down to the the opinions that many from the center and left have of them. With all the talk about the war on women (largely false) over the past couple of years aimed at the GOP, you'd think that Trump and Cruz supporters would shy away from complaints about her looks (she's apparently ugly without makeup according to them), her boobs (must be fake), and her ascension to the top of the Fox News food chain (who did she sleep with to get there). Kinda proves what many of us suspected - that many conservatives are really and truly stuck in the 20th century - and the early parts of it at that.
Why is it that Trump and Cruz supporters are whining about this petite powerhouse of a journalist?
Maybe it's because she holds the feet of candidates to the fire, and asks the tough questions they don't want to answer.
And the thing is, she doesn't play favorites. Despite all bleating to the contrary, she very pointedly showed clips of Marco Rubio stating what could be very different viewpoints regarding so-called "amnesty" for illegal aliens (so-called, because Cruz and Trump supporters like to falsely equate a legal path to citizenship as "amnesty" no matter how many hoops and fines illegals might have to go through in order to stay here). Rubio dug in and explained his position, showing Kelly where it differed from the Democrat's position on amnesty. Whether you believed it or not is up to the viewer, but that question rightly allowed Rubio to clarify what he perceived as a misconception some in the GOP have with his stance on illegal immigration.
After the first Fox News debate, Trump had his usual hissy-fit and boycotted the second one, using Twitter to denigrate Kelly and Fox News in the most childish manner. And yes, Fox was wrong to issue that silly press release when Trump announced he wouldn't attend if Megyn Kelly was going to moderate the next one. During the second debate, Cruz whined about being treated unfairly, and either mockingly or actually threatened to leave the debate if he wasn't treated better. The audience reaction showed that Cruz was being a jerk.
Not a peep out of Rubio supporters, because he took the question like a man.
Now Cruz and Trump supporters are whining about Fox News using the same three moderators in the next debate, and using the argument that Fox News is no longer conservative. In this case, they're right. Fox News has never been conservative in their news coverage, only in some of their choices for opinion show hosts like Sean Hannity. In everything else, Fox News lives by their slogan, "Fair and balanced".
But Trump and Cruz (and their supporters) don't want fair and balanced. They want to be coddled and pampered. Maybe, as Megyn Kelly herself suggested when some of the GOP contenders were mulling over being able to pick and choose moderators and the questions they would ask, they might like a little back rub or shoulder massage during the debates as well. Who are these spineless wimps who want to be our next Commander-in-Chief, and the people who support them?
There is only one Megyn Kelly, and she runs rings around people like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
And their supporters can't stand it.
The aftermath of following the Iowa caucuses continues . . . .
Three GOP contenders (Huckabee, Paul and Santorum) and one Democrat contender (O'Malley) are out - with the field sure to winnow further in the next week - and the circular firing squads are in full campaign mode on both sides.
Career politicians are basically stupid, as are the people who keep making them career politicians.
If there is a benefit to these campaigns, it's that light gets shined on the more unsavory people who want our votes, and sometimes that light illuminates some pretty ugly details which with voters can choose to respond. Not enough light was shined on Barack Obama 8 years ago, and even when it was shined on him, voters had a terrible alternative (McCain) in 2008, and conservatives petulantly sat on their hands in 2012 when Mitt Romney was the GOP nominee.
The light this week is on Texas Senator Ted Cruz and his sycophant followers.
Early in the evening of the Iowa caucuses, CNN reported that Dr. Ben Carson was heading home to Florida following the vote there, presumably based on a question from a reporter to someone in the Carson campaign. They even speculated that Carson might be dropping out of the race because he wasn't immediately heading towards New Hampshire the next morning. Cruz supporters immediately jumped on the report, and Rep. Steven King (R-IA), an influential Cruz supporter, tweeted out that Ben Carson was, in fact, dropping out of the race, and that any Carson supporters who followed him should change their vote to Ted Cruz.
But the speculation wasn't true.
That didn't stop Cruz supporters in numerous precincts across Iowa from repeating the false report in their caucuses, even AFTER the Carson campaign stated flatly that their candidate wasn't dropping out. Rep. King never tweeted out a correction to his earlier tweet.
The erroneous report now took on the form of a lie.
This was following another lie from the Cruz campaign in the form of a campaign mailer sent to Iowans telling them they were potentially committing a "Voting violation" if they didn't attend their caucus and vote, insinuating that their friends and neighbors had already committed the sin of not voting in past caucuses. It was a tactic used in a similar fashion in previous elections, and Ted Cruz figured if someone else used it, it must be alright to use it again.
Two lies. One apologized for, even though it was done way too late and could have been corrected easily before the caucuses ended in this era of electronic media, and one unapologetically defended by the candidate himself, simply because someone else had lowered themselves to use it. Even Cruz supporters today are blaming CNN because "they started it". I don't know about you, but I learned that defense was useless back in kindergarten.
It just shows that Ted Cruz cannot be trusTED.
If there was any good news following the Iowa caucus (in addition to Donald Trump not winning it), it was Cruz declaring victory by droning on endlessly for 40 minutes with a hand-held microphone and cliff notes. He ended up looking as low budget as he did phony and smarmy. Phony, because if after all this time you can't articulate the joy of winning using your own campaign talking points without relying on notes, you show the world your message isn't yours, but is one carefully crafted to appeal to certain groups you wish to attract and not offend. Smarmy, because you had to lie in order to win.
Light sometimes is the best disinfectant in politics. Hopefully it rids us of this disgusting creature soon enough.
How else to describe Marco Rubio's night last night?
Finished a strong third place just a percentage point behind Donald Trump, and just 5 points behind winner Ted Cruz, then went out and gave a very impressive, positive and uplifting speech completely off-the-cuff that put everybody else's speeches to shame - even those that were prepared in advance. The other thing that impresses me about Marco Rubio?
He knows who the enemy is. That would be Hillary or Bernie, and he doesn't care which. As one political commentator noted this evening, Democrats are scared to death that Rubio might be the nominee, because he and his family break that old white male stereotype every time they step on stage.
What a contrast on the GOP side, with Trump seeming to re-enact that movie scene from 'Singin' In the Rain', when all former silent film star Don Lockwood (played by Gene Kelly) could repeat was "I love you, I love you, I love you" because he had no useful dialogue. You could tell that Trump wasn't prepared to lose tonight, and he was not a happy camper. To reverse a tactic he's used on Jeb Bush this campaign season, Trump had very low energy - very low. I'm thinking he's regretting skipping that last Fox News debate right about now.
Trump was followed by the longest, most self-centered and self-serving speech by Ted Cruz since - the last Donald Trump rally. And what's up with the hand-held microphone, Ted? And why did you have to refer repeatedly to prepared notes? And could you have mentioned your website one more time please? We didn't catch it the first few times you called it out in your victory speech. Maybe you could use one of those average $67 donations you mentioned to rent a podium mic.
On the Democrat side, I now know why some people refer to Mrs. Clinton as "Shrillary". When she gets worked up, her voice takes on a pitch that caused my dog to start howling. Ironic to hear her check off all the separate constituencies whose rights she says she's going to protect (women, gays, workers, etc), then in the next sentence claim that Republicans are the ones trying to divide us and tear us apart.
Martin O'Malley and Mike Huckabee have suspended campaigns that were never going to go anywhere in the first place, and look for more on the GOP side in the coming days. Bush and Kasich likely will continue past New Hampshire, but it will be largely a three man race following South Carolina, into Nevada and the SEC primaries of Super Tuesday. Huckabee's 2% won't give anyone a boost on the Cruz / Trump side, but look for Bush, Kasich, Christie and a split of Rand Paul supporters to help Rubio in the coming weeks. Ben Carson's votes will be the key. Whoever they go to will go a long way towards securing the nomination.
On the Democrat side, if Bernie Sanders gets a double-digit victory in New Hampshire, he can make the early primary season a living Hell for Hillary. Below 10 percent, however, and the air of inevitability for Hillary will begin to remove the oxygen from his campaign.
But either way, while Ted Cruz had a good night at the polls, Marco Rubio had the better night with his performance.
Hi! I'm Dave Richard, your host. I hope you enjoy your visit. We'll be talking about current events, politics, the occasional sports (I'm a HUGE New England Patriots fan, so get over it), and some "Get off my lawn!" issues.