Rand Paul Puts Politics Over The Lives Of First Responders

I truly believe that Rand Paul is one of the biggest hypocrites to ever walk the halls of Congress. He claims to be worried about the deficit and the national debt, but only shows that when it comes time to help real Americans.

He did not worry about the national debt when he voted to significantly increase an already bloated defense allotment. He increased the military appropriation with no regard for the national debt (which it increased).

And he did not worry about the national debt when he and his Republican buddies gave corporations and the rich massive tax cuts. He knew that would massively increase the national debt (to the tune of about a trillion dollars a year), but had no problem voting for it.

But now that a bill has come to the Senate to provide for helping 9/11 first responders fight the health problems rising from their brave actions, Paul is suddenly worried about the national debt. The bill passed the House overwhelmingly, but Paul says we can't afford to help those first responders (unless we cut funding for other hurting Americans).

Paul's stand against helping 9/11 responders is worse than just hypocritical. It is mean-spirited and stupid.

Jon Stewart is a supporter of the 9/11 first responders (as we all should be) and he has fought for the funding to help them. After Paul's atrocious delay of the bill, Stewart went into the belly of the right-wing beast (Fox News), and blasted Paul in an interview with Bret Baier. He said:

“Pardon me if I’m not impressed in any way by Rand Paul’s fiscal responsibility virtue signaling.”

“Bret, this is about what kind of society we have. At some point, we have to stand up for the people who have always stood up for us, and at this moment in time maybe cannot stand up for themselves due to their illnesses and their injuries. And what Rand Paul did today on the floor of the Senate was outrageous.”

“He is a guy who put us in hundreds of billions of dollars in debt. And now he’s going to tell us that a billion dollars a year over 10 years is just too much for us to handle? You know, there are some things that they have no trouble putting on the credit card, but somehow when it comes to the 9/11 first responder community — the cops, the firefighters, the construction workers, the volunteers, the survivors — all of a sudden we’ve got to go through this.”

“It’s an abomination.” 

Which Candidates Are Ignoring One Job To Get Another ?

 There are five of the presidential candidates that currently hold a seat in the United States Senate -- Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, and Bernie Sanders.

Both being a senator and being a presidential candidate are time-consuming jobs. How well are these candidates doing both of those jobs? Are they ignoring their elected position to run for a bigger elected position, or are they doing both fairly well. It turns out that three of them are missing a lot of votes to campaign for their party's nomination (Rubio, Graham, and Cruz), while two are doing a very good job of being both a senator and a presidential candidate (Sanders and Paul). Here's the tally by NBC News:

Marco Rubio

• Announcement: April 13, 2015
• Missed Votes: 59
• Percentage: 42%

Lindsey Graham**

• Announcement: June 1, 2015
• Missed Votes: 39
• Percentage: 48%

Rand Paul 

• Announcement: April 7, 2015
• Missed Votes: 4
• Percentage: 3%

Ted Cruz

• Announcement: March 23, 2015
• Missed Votes: 57
• Percentage: 29%

Bernie Sanders

• Announcement: March 26, 2015
• Missed Votes: 7
• Percentage: 4%

It turns out that Rubio has missed the most votes (closely followed by Cruz), while Graham has missed the highest percentage of votes since declaring his candidacy. Both Sanders and Paul, no matter what you think of their politics, should be commended for missing very few votes while running for president.

(The caricatures above of Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham are by DonkeyHotey.)                                                                

Clinton Is Viewed Favorably By All Democratic Groups

The Pew Research Center just did a survey to see how the parties viewed their top candidates -- and Hillary Clinton came out smelling like a rose. It not only turns out that 77% of Democrats view her favorably -- but that holds true across all demographic groups. Perhaps most depressing for her biggest opponent (Bernie Sanders) is that 81% of Democratic liberals view her favorably (since he must do well in that group to be a credible candidate).

They also asked Republicans how they viewed their top candidates. None of them topped 55% in favorability. That means this is probably going to be a tightly contested presidential contest among Republicans (unlike Democrats, where Clinton still looks very strong).

The survey was done between May 12th and 18th of 636 Democrats and 506 Republicans. The margin of error for Democrats was 4.5 points, and for Republicans was 5 points.

Does Clinton Need Primary Competition? Most Dems Say No

Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat to officially declare as a candidate for president -- at least so far. And she leads any other potential candidates by a very large margin in all of the polls. But some, mainly my cohorts on the left, want someone else to enter the race. Some don't think Clinton is liberal enough, and others just think a competitor would be good because it would create more debate on the issues and give Democrats a choice.

I disagree. I don't think Clinton needs a competitor. She's more liberal than many on the left think, and far more liberal than anyone the Republicans could nominate. And keeping those Republicans out of the White House is the most important concern in the 2016 election. Clinton doesn't need a Democrat to debate -- she'll be busy debating the crazy views of the Republicans. And it looks like most Democrats agree with me.

The YouGov Poll questioned a random sample of national Democrats between April 18th and 20th, and they found that about 3 out of 4 Democrats (74%) would be satisfied if Clinton remained the only Democratic candidate for their nomination. I think most of think feel that she has paid her dues and deserves her chance to run -- and that she represents the best chance we have to keep an extremist Republican out of the White House.

And it does look like the Republicans would like to nominate an extremist. So far, only three candidates have declared they are running for the GOP nomination -- and they are all far right extremists (Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio). And that is fine with most Republicans (which is scary). About 69% of Republicans said they would be satisfied if those were the only candidates to be in their primary.

Americans Reject Libertarianism (Even Republicans)

Recently, Republican presidential candidate has been running away from his Libertarian roots as fast as he can. Why is he doing this, when it is pretty well known that both he and his father have long been Libertarians? For a couple of reasons.

First, he saw what happened to his father's numerous attempts to run for president in the Republican Party. Ron Paul probably milked as many votes as possible out of the Republican Party -- but it wasn't nearly enough to make him a contender for the nomination.

Second, he understands (like his father did) that running on the Libertarian Party ticket was nothing more than an exercise in futility. If you're serious about trying to be elected president in the United States, you must get the nomination of one of the two major parties (Republicans or Democrats) -- at least at this point in our history.

Third, while many with Libertarian leanings are posing as Republicans these days, they only make up a tiny percentage (about 13%) of the party (see chart above). They are outnumbered by at least three other groups in the party -- teabaggers, evangelicals, and establishment (business-oriented) Republicans. That's why Paul is trying to re-invent himself -- because he must appeal to these other groups to have a chance.

And Americans in general are much more accepting of libertarianism than the Republicans are. The chart below shows the segments of the population willing to ID themselves as Libertarians -- and as you can see, it's a pretty tiny percentage across the board.

These charts were made from information in a new YouGov Poll -- done on April 8th and 9th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a 4.1 point margin of error.

Clinton Vs. GOP Hopefuls IN Colorado, Iowa, And Virginia

The Quinnipiac University Poll recently looked at three states that are considered by many to be "swing states" in the 2016 election -- Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia. The GOP starts off behind the Democrats in blue state/red state electoral votes by a significant margin, which means these are three states that the Republicans really need to win to have a chance in the 2016 election.

And the results were mixed for the GOP. For instance, Paul seems to be doing OK in Colorado and Virginia, but does poorly in Iowa. Bush does well in Virginia, but not so good in Iowa and Colorado. Walker does fairly well in Colorado, but not so well in Iowa and Virginia. And Huckabee and Christie trail in all three states.

If the election was held today, I believe Hillary Clinton would easily be elected president. There's still a long time before the 2016 election, but the Republicans have a long way to go to catch up with Clinton (and will probably damage each other in the primary campaign next year, while Clinton will sail through the primaries virtually unscathed).

In Colorado, 1,049 registered voters were questioned between February 5th and 15th, and the survey has a margin of error of 3 points.

In Iowa, 1,089 registered voters were questioned between February 5th and 15th, and the survey has a margin of error of 3 points.

In Virginia, 1,074 registered voters were questioned between February 5th and 15th, and the survey has a margin of error of 3 points.

Hillary Currently Leads All The Leading GOP Candidates

This is exactly why I think Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. The most important thing is to keep an extremist GOP candidate out of the White House (and they are all extremists -- even those touted by the media as being "moderates", like Bush and Romney).

Hillary currently leads all the leading GOP candidates by double-digits -- and that's before those Republicans start beating up on each other in the primaries. This is the kind of margin that could easily be called a "blowout", and could approach "mandate" status (especially if a bunch of Democrats could be sent to Congress on her coattails).

This is from a new ABC News / Washington Post Poll. It was conducted between January 12th and 15th of a random national sample of 1,003 adults, and has a margin of error of 3.5 points.

Here are some of the reasons they give for Hillary's large margin:

The poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds several reasons that Clinton leads all five potential GOP candidates tested:

•   She’s stronger in her base, backed by nine in 10 or more Democrats who are registered to vote, as well as by at least eight in 10 liberals and about six in 10 moderates.
  
  
•   As with Barack Obama, the recovery helps Clinton. About three-quarters of registered voters who rate the economy positively support her, and she leads overwhelmingly among those who say they’ve gained ground financially under Obama’s presidency. But she also leads, by 16 to 20 points, among those whose finances have just held steady
  .
  
•   Clinton has a strong advantage among those who see income inequality as a major problem, and she runs essentially evenly vs. these potential Republican nominees among those who think it’s a problem, but not a major one. She trails only among those who don’t think the income gap is a problem – just 16 percent of registered voters.
  
  
•   Women favor Clinton by 20- to 24-point margins, men by non-significant 2- to 7-point margins. She’s also strong among racial and ethnic minorities, adults under 40 and lower- income voters. 
  

Clinton Leads Possible GOP Candidates In Recent Polls

 (This caricature Of Hillary Clinton is by the inimitable DonkeyHotey.)

One of my favorite websites is that of RealClearPolitics. They keep track of all the most recent polls on a wide variety of political subjects. And recently, they started keeping track of how Hillary Clinton (the most likely Democratic nominee at this time) stacks up against the leading Republican possible presidential nominees.

The charts below show their findings of the most recent polls. The polls are listed from least recent on the left side to most recent on the right side of the chart. Probably the most important figure is on the far right side of the charts. That is the RealClearPolitics average of all the most recent polls -- and in the last couple of elections, that average has turned out to be closer to the actual outcome than any of the individual polls.

It's still a long time before we even know who the party nominees are going to be, but right now Hillary looks pretty good when paired with any of the leading Republican hopefuls.

Republicans Still Like Romney - But The Public Doesn't

Recently, there has been a fair amount of talk about the possibility of Mitt Romney running for president again on the Republican ticket. This is probably because of the failure of any of the other candidates to separate themselves from the rather large pack of possible candidates (or show they would stand a chance of competing with Hillary Clinton if nominated). I have already posted about one poll which showed that right now Romney would have a small lead among all the candidate (but even though he had a lead, he only got about 21% support).

Now there is a new poll showing Romney still has support among the Republican base. It is the YouGov Poll, taken between October 18th and 20th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults with a margin of error of about 4 points. They didn't ask who the base Republican voters would vote for, but instead asked them their opinion of Romney (and the other leading candidates). It turns out that Romney has a significantly higher favorable rating among Republicans than any of the other candidates do (an 8-9 point margin, slightly exceeding the survey's margin of error).

This would seem to say a Romney candidacy is a possibility. But should the Republicans nominate him again? The answer is probably NO. While Romney is viewed very favorably by Republicans, that does not extend to the general public. Look at the charts below, and you will see that Romney has an upside-down rating among the general public (36% favorable and 47% unfavorable). And almost every demographic group has that unfavorable opinion of Romney. Only one group (those 65 & older) give him a significant favorable rating. Two other groups, whites and rich people, are split in their opinion of him (with the difference being within the survey's margin of error).

The news for Romney goes downhill from there. Every single demographic group (even the elderly, the whites, and the rich) say they do NOT want Romney to run for president again. And by large margins, every single demographic group, by large margins, thinks Hillary Clinton would easily beat Romney if he was the Republican candidate.

I personally don't think Romney will run, and after the 2012 fiasco, I seriously doubt the teabaggers (who control the GOP) will let him get the nomination again. Even though no clear favorite has emerged yet, I just don't think a Romney candidacy is viable (at least not in 2016).

Rand Paul Is Right About The Militarization Of Our Police

(These images of police are from Washington's Blog.)

Regular readers of this blog will know that I don't care much for Rand Paul. I think he's a despicable person, and most of his policies would be disastrous for this country and its citizens. But as the old saying goes -- even a blind horse finds an acorn sometimes. Paul recently wrote an article for Time magazine decrying the militarization of America's police forces. He thinks that was a mistake, and as much as it pains me to say so, I agree with him. Here is some of what he wrote in that article:

There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.

This is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism. The Heritage Foundation’s Evan Bernick wrote in 2013 that, “the Department of Homeland Security has handed out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns across the country, enabling them to buy armored vehicles, guns, armor, aircraft, and other equipment.”

Bernick continued, “federal agencies of all stripes, as well as local police departments in towns with populations less than 14,000, come equipped with SWAT teams and heavy artillery.”

Bernick noted the cartoonish imbalance between the equipment some police departments possess and the constituents they serve, “today, Bossier Parish, Louisiana, has a .50 caliber gun mounted on an armored vehicle. The Pentagon gives away millions of pieces of military equipment to police departments across the country—tanks included.”

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael Brown.

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.

Clinton Numbers Look Better Than Other 2016 Hopefuls

It is just an electoral fact that voters most likely will vote for a candidate they know (familiarity) and like (favorability). Considering this, the Gallup Poll questioned 1,013 randomly chosen national adults between July 7th and 10th on their familiarity with and favorability for the top 16 presidential candidate (5 Democrats and 11 Republicans). The poll has a margin of error of 4 points.

The numbers should make Hillary Clinton feel good about her chances of being elected president (assuming she decides to run). Here numbers are far better than those of anyone else. About 91% of the population is familiar with Clinton (26 points better than her closest possible GOP opponent), and 55% view her favorably (about 22 points better than the most popular Republican). In fact, Clinton was the only candidate to score above the 50% mark in favorability.

The pleasant surprise for Democrats is that Joe Biden, while he didn't come close to Clinton's numbers, was able to outpace all the Republicans in both familiarity and favorability. He scored 15 points better than the closest Republican in familiarity, and 5 points better than the closest Republican in favorability. Both of those numbers exceed the margin of error of the survey.

2016 Presidential Preferences Of Mississippi Republicans

I have been posting on the early preferences for the 2016 presidential race as polls question voters on the races this year in each state, and toss in as an extra question the current choices for the 2016 presidential race. Now it is Mississippi's turn.

Harper Polling surveyed 570 likely Republican primary voters in Mississippi between April 3rd and 5th. The survey has a margin of error of about 4.1 points.

Frankly, I was a little surprised at the results of this poll. Mississippi is one of those states where the Republican Party is under complete control of the teabaggers (with 57% saying they supported the ideals of the Tea Party, and only 21% saying they opposed them) -- so I would have expected a teabagger candidate (like Cruz or Paul) to be the early favorite. But that's not what the poll showed. The current leader among Mississippi Republicans is Jeb Bush (a conservative for sure, but probably the most moderate conservative among the candidates).

And while other state polls have shown the candidates bunched together with no real leader, this poll shows Bush as a clear leader -- with a 17 point gap between him and the second place finishers (Cruz and Christie). That's a much bigger lead than can be accounted for by the margin of error.

Of course this poll was taken before Bush came out in the last few days and blasted the Republican Party's stance on immigration reform. The teabaggers don't want immigration reform. They just want to station thousands of troops on our southern border to keep minorities out, and to deport as many minorities as possible. Bush's stance on immigration reform is courageous (considering his party membership), but I'll bet it is going to cost him a lot of support.

Rand Paul Wins Straw Poll Of The CPAC Extremists

CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) has just held its annual meeting, where the most extreme right-wingers in America gather to wallow in their far-right ideology and various forms of bigotry -- and this year they added to their normal courses of racism, misogyny, xenophobia,  and homophobia by refusing to allow atheists to set up a booth.

As usual, they invited various right-wing candidates hoping to capture the next GOP presidential nomination to speak before them. And after listening to those speeches, they hold their own straw poll to anoint the far-right's preference for the nomination.

This year 2,459 conference attendees cast a ballot in the straw poll -- and the leading vote-getter was Rand Paul (with 31%). He finished far ahead of any of the other possible candidates -- with Ted Cruz (11%) and Ben Carson (9%) finishing in second and third place. Here is the list of candidates who got at least 1% of the vote:

Sen. Rand Paul...............31%
Sen. Ted Cruz...............11%
Dr. Ben Carson...............9%
Gov. Chris Christie...............8%
Rick Santorum...............7%
Gov. Scott Walker...............7%
Sen. Marco Rubio...............6%
Gov. Rick Perry...............3%
Rep. Paul Ryan...............3%
Mike Huckabee...............2%
Gov. Bobby Jindal...............2%
Sarah Palin...............2%
Condoleezza Rice...............2%
Mitch Daniels...............1%
Gov. John Kasich...............1%
Gov. Mike Pence...............1%
Sen. Rob Portman...............1%
Sen. John Thune...............1%
Donald Trump...............1%
Allen West...............1%

(The caricature above of Rand Paul is from the inimitable DonkeyHotey.)

Another Very Early Party Presidential Poll

Another presidential preference poll has been done. This one is the CNN/Opinion Research Poll. It was taken between September 6th and 8th of 452 Republicans and 448 Democrats (with a 4.5 point margin of error for both parties).

As you can see from the chart above, there is still no real favorite in the Republican race. Chris Christie has a tiny lead, but both Paul Ryan and Rand Paul are within the margin of error -- with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio not far behind. Since polls this early usually rest on name recognition, the two candidates that should worry are Rick Perry and Rick Santorum. Both of them should be familiar with almost all Republican voters, but they still trail badly.

It's a different story among Democrats, where Hillary Clinton remains the prohibitive favorite (with more support than everyone else put together). With Clinton being such a shoo-in for the nomination (if she decides she wants it), it speaks well of Biden, Warren, and Cuomo that they have any support at all -- and just shows how much respect they each have among Democrats in general.

In a magazine interview last Sunday, Clinton was asked whether she wrestles with whether to run for the presidency or not. She replied:

"I do, but I'm both pragmatic and realistic. I think I have a pretty good idea of the political and governmental challenges that are facing our leaders, and I'll do whatever I can from whatever position I find myself in to advocate for the values and the policies I think are right for the country. I will just continue to weigh what the factors are that would influence me making a decision one way or the other. I'm not in any hurry. I think it's a serious decision, not to be made lightly but it's also not one that has to be made soon."

And when Bill Clinton was asked Fareed Zakaria of CNN about whether Hillary would run, he said:

"I think she would be the first to tell you that there is no such thing as a done deal, ever, by anybody. But I don't know what she's going to do."

Personally, I would be shocked if she didn't run -- and even more shocked if she didn't win (both the nomination and the general election).

Is Rand Paul Stupid Or Just Lying ?

Those are the words of Rand Paul (the leading candidate right now for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016). He's talking about the greed of the victims of Hurricane Sandy, and how their greed is keeping the American military from having enough money to defend this country (because he's mad at the New Jersey governor).

Frankly, I'm amazed that he can say such a stupid thing without hanging his head in shame. Up beside our bloated military budget, the money spent to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy are a drop in the bucket. Let's look at that defense budget that doesn't have enough money.

According to defense spending figures from the Swedish International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the United States spends nearly $700 billion a year on its military budget. That's more than four times what the nation spending the second most spends (China at about $166 billion). In fact, it would take all of the nations from 2nd place to 12th place added together to equal the spending of the United States -- because the United States spends about 40% (or more) of all the money spent in the entire world on military matters.

If there's one thing the United States doesn't need to do, it's spend more money for the military. We spend too much as it is, and no one can convince me all that spending is necessary just for self-defense. Consider this. According to Global Research, the United States has between 700 and 800 military bases in other countries (several times the number of countries in the world (and since those are 2007 numbers, the number is probably larger now).

We simply don't need anywhere near 700-800 foreign military bases to defend ourselves. In fact, half that number would be too many. Those bases aren't for self-defense. They are for intimidation, to force the rest of the world to bow to our corporate power -- and let those corporations rape those nations to enrich a few hundred people who already have too much money (and don't pay nearly enough in taxes).

And we don't need to be spending nearly as much as we do to keep the military-industrial complex running. Many times the money spent is on items the military doesn't need or want (like continuing to spend money on two engines for the F-35, after the military has already decided that it only needs one and has decided which one they want). We are throwing money away on military spending -- money that could be spent helping the people in this country.

But spending money to help hurting Americans offends Republicans like Rand Paul. He and his cohorts would much rather throw more money at the military -- because it is easy to scare voters into thinking it is needed (even though we long ago passed the amount that's really needed). The only people stealing and wasting taxpayer money is the U.S. Congress, not the victims of hurricanes (and other hurting Americans). And it's people like Paul doing it.

In fact, Paul's statement is so outrageously untrue that I doubt even stupid people would say it in public, and liars would be embarrassed to tell that big a whopper. That makes me think he must be both stupid and a liar. Nothing else would explain it.

GOP Loves Paul Ryan - But Americans Don't

(The caricature above is by the inimitable DonkeyHotey.)

There are already several Republicans jockeying for position in the upcoming battle for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. It may be early, but all of them would like to be the frontrunner when the race starts to heat up -- because a frontrunner usually has an advantage in gathering votes and in collecting money for the campaign. So far, it looks like the frontrunner may be Paul Ryan. And that makes some sense, since he was the Veep candidate on the GOP ticket in 2012.

A recent Gallup Poll decided to test the early waters, and see just where the major candidates stand with Republican voters. The poll was conducted between June 1st and 4th of 1,529 nationwide adults -- with a 3 point margin of error. There were 703 Republicans (and Republican leaners) surveyed -- with a 5 point margin of error. The poll showed that Paul Ryan had the best favorability rating of any of the candidates mentioned. Here are the GOP numbers (with the first numbers being those who view the candidate favorably, and the number in parentheses being those viewing the candidate unfavorably):

Paul Ryan...............69% (12%).....+57
Marco Rubio...............58% (11%).....+47
Rand Paul...............56% (13%).....+43
Ted Cruz...............40% (8%).....+32
Chris Christie...............53% (25%).....+28

I don't know why Jeb Bush wasn't included in the list of possible candidates, but he wasn't. I doubt he could have matched Ryan's rather lofty numbers among Republicans though. Lately, he has been all over the map on the issue of immigration reform, and that can't be making the GOP teabagger base very happy (most of whom are against any real reform).

If Ryan wants to be the Republican candidate in 2016, this poll seems to show he would have a very good chance of winning the nomination. But just winning the GOP nomination doesn't get you to the White House. You then have to convince a majority of American voters to cast their votes for you -- and that is where Ryan would have a problem. His numbers drop a lot when all voters are asked to rate him. Here are the numbers for the general public:

Chris Christie...............52% (20%).....+32
Marco Rubio...............37% (22%).....+15
Paul Ryan...............40% (32%).....+8
Ted Cruz...............24% (18%).....+6
Rand Paul...............34% (19%).....+5

Note that Ryan's net favorability drops sharply when Democrats and Independents are added to the survey -- from a +57 to a +8 (a drop of 49 points). That's not good. But nearly all of the possible Republican candidates show a pretty big drop in their favorability -- all but one, Chris Christie. Christie's favorable percentage remains about the same when the general public is surveyed -- and his net favorability actually rises by 4 points (1 point more than the margin of error).

This shows me that the Republicans do have a candidate who could give Democrats a run for their money in the 2016 presidential race. But it's not Paul Ryan -- it's Chris Christie. Fortunately (for Democrats), Christie has a poor shot at winning the GOP nomination. He's shown a willingness to work with Democrats, and actually has moments of rational thinking -- both of which are considered sins by the GOP's teabagger base.

Medicare "Vouchers" Dies An Ugly Death

In the last Congress, Paul Ryan came up with an odious idea. He wanted to dismantle the Medicare program, and replace it with a voucher program that would put seniors at the Mercy (non-existent) of the private insurance companies. It would have made American seniors pay a lot more out of their own pockets for medical care. In his latest budget proposal, he once again included the "voucher" program for Medicare -- and it passed the Republican-controlled House.

Fortunately, the Ryan budget plan was disposed of quickly when it got to the Senate (on a 40 to 59 vote). But Ryan's ridiculous idea of replacing Medicare with a voucher system (which is not popular with the general public) fared much worse than his budget as a whole.

Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) decided that even though the Ryan budget stood no chance in the Senate (or with the president), all senators should have to take a position on Ryan's idea of dismantling Medicare and replacing it with vouchers. She introduced an amendment to get a recorded vote on the matter by every senator. Her amendment said (according to C-SPAN):

To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect Medicare's guaranteed benefits and to prohibit replacing guaranteed benefits with the House passed budget plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program.

And the idea of turning Medicare into a voucher system went down to a crushing defeat. Every Democratic and Independent senator, and almost all Republican senators, voted against the idea. The amendment was approved by a vote of 96 to 3. That should end any idea of vouchering Medicare in this Congress. The three senators voting for the plan to dismantle Medicare were:

Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)
Mike Lee (R-Utah)

There are quite a few senators that do a poor job of representing the people of their state and the country, but these three are in a class by themselves. The voters of Texas, Kentucky, and Utah should be deeply ashamed of sending these idiots to Washington.  

Strange Bedfellows

The picture above is of "hemp" plants. They are more commonly called marijuana (or cannabis) plants -- and all varieties are against the law. Here in America (and many other countries) the plant is just considered to be a drug, and possession and sale of it is considered to be a serious violation of the law. But what most people don't realize is that the hemp plant has a variety of uses -- including paper, clothing, rope, medicine, construction materials, animal feed, and many other uses. It was grown as a cash crop in the early days of this country, even by some of our Founding Fathers.

One acre of hemp can produce as much paper as over four acres of trees can produce, and that paper is of equal or better quality than paper made from wood -- and while it takes many years to produce that four acres of trees, the hemp plant can be grown in a few months. It is obvious that hemp could once again be a valuable resource for this country -- if it was legal to grow.

And that's just what some senators want to do -- legalize the growth of hemp for a variety of uses. And those senators are some that almost never agree on anything. They are Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), teabagger Republican Rand Paul (Kentucky), and progressive senators Ron Wyden (Oregon) and Jeff Merkley (Oregon). McConnell said:

“I am proud to introduce legislation with my friend Rand Paul that will allow Kentucky farmers to harness the economic potential that industrial hemp can provide. During these tough economic times, this legislation has the potential to create jobs and provide a boost to Kentucky’s economy and to our farmers and their families."

Now the bill is not being introduced to legalize the recreational use (smoking) of marijuana. It is to give permission to grow a variety of hemp that has much less THC (the active ingredient in marijuana that produces a "high" in smokers). I don't doubt that at least two of the senators introducing the new bill in Congress (McConnell and Paul) would love to keep the smoking of marijuana illegal in the U.S. (even though it is the most harmless of all drugs, including legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco).

However, I can't help but think this bill, if it became law, would make the prosecution of federal (and possibly state) laws against the growing of marijuana much harder to prosecute. All hemp plants contain at least a small amount of THC, and it could be more difficult to prove in court exactly why the plants are being grown. When arrested, all marijuana growers will claim their crop is not being grown for recreational use --  and it would be up to the government to prove otherwise. Currently all the government has to show is that a hemp plant was being grown (regardless of its THC content).

This is a good bill -- both because the hemp plant could be a valuable resource for this country, and because it would make prosecutions for growing hemp more difficult. What really needs to be done is to legalize the growth, sale, and use of ALL hemp plants. It would create many new jobs (in an economy that desperately needs them), it would provide a new tax base that both star, and local governments need (not to mention the federal government), and it would stop the criminalization of hard-working Americans who are committing no real crime that hurts anyone.

This bill is just one more step toward ending the insanity in this country.

GOP Split Will Be Evident On Tuesday

(The above image is by Stuart Carlson at carlsontoons.com.)

There is currently a big split in the Republican Party. While most in the party's establishment wing have moved far to the right to try and please their large teabagger element, it has not been far enough to please the tea bagging extremists. This split has gotten so bad that Karl Rove, on behalf of the party establishment and business interests (Wall Street), has set up a super-PAC to fight against the teabaggers in upcoming election primaries -- in the hopes of getting GOP candidates more acceptable to general election voters.

And that party split will be very obvious on Tuesday night. After the president gives his State of the Union address, it is tradition for the party out of power to give their response. But on Tuesday night, the Republicans will be giving two responses -- one from the right-wing establishment Republicans and another from the extremist teabagger Republicans.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has been chosen by the Republicans to give the "official" Republican response. But for the third year in a row, the teabagger element has decided that the official Republican response will not be extreme enough for them (even though it is being delivered by a solidly right-wing politician). They have chosen Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky to deliver the teabagger response to the president's speech.

This will mark the third year in a row that the split in the Republican Party has been highlighted by two responses being given. In 2011, the teabaggers chose Rep. Michele Bachman to give their response, and in 2012 they chose Herman Cain to do it.

The GOP can claim to be unified, but if they were really unified there would be no need to give two separate responses to the State of the Union message. They are in the midst of an internal party war -- being waged between the right-wing and the extreme right-wing for control of the party. And it is a war of their own making. They funded and created the teabagger groups in the hope of organizing opposition to President Obama. Now they find they cannot control the monster they created -- and that teabagging monster has taken over the party in many states.

It is still too early to tell which of the party's right-wing elements will emerge as the winner, the right or the extreme right, but it will be interesting to watch in the next few elections (especially the party's primaries).

Can Rand Paul Really Be This Dumb ?

I knew Rand Paul was far from the brightest bulb on the Republican tree, but I'm starting to think he's the bulb that's completely burned out. Just look at his latest proposal for congressional Republicans. He is encouraging them to let the tax cuts for the bottom 98% of Americans come up for a vote -- and then vote "present" (because a cut for the top 2% is not included), so that the bill passes with only Democratic support. He says voting "present" will show the American people that it's Republicans who are really the party in favor of tax cuts. He said:

“And then the Democrats are the party of higher taxes and we’re still the party of lower taxes. And we have elections over that and people decide which party they like best.”

Either he's a complete idiot, or he thinks that most Americans are idiots. Why would anyone think the Democrats are the party of higher taxes, when they would be the only ones voting to give almost all Americans a tax cut (or extend the current tax cut)? The Republicans would be viewed as the party who refused to vote for the tax cut because it didn't include cuts for the rich -- which would just further brand them as the party of the rich.

I really don't see how such a move could possibly help the Republicans in a future election. A significant majority of Americans have said they want taxes raised on the richest Americans in poll after poll. That's one of the issues that helped the president win the November election. However, I don't have a problem with Paul and his fellow Republican politicians continuing down this road defending the rich. It has cost them one election. Maybe it'll do damage in 2014 as well.