A Commercial for Republicans
The Republican Debate
Bush, Rubio, Fiorina and Kasich
Therefore, none of the other candidates, including today's poll leader, Donald Trump, are likely to be on final ticket ... UNLESS the Republican Party finds Bush’s positions on education and immigration too liberal for its right wing extremists to swallow, opening the door wider for all-important Florida’s other candidate, Marco Rubio, or if Kasich’s centrist leanings and ability to compromise are also found similarly offensive.
And while on the subject of Republican Presidential contenders, my favorite “conservative” columnist is Kathleen Parker. In a recent column, she commented that “Governance isn’t easy. And effective leadership doesn’t necessarily convey to the White House from the board room or the surgical ward or the gilded world of luxury hotels where women are "cherished" – and the ‘hair is real.’ Knowing nothing – or having no relationships with those you’re hoping to lead toward productive alliances – is hardly a recommendation for the job.” Read Ms. Parker’s entire Washington Post column (‘It’s time to ask candidates why they want the big job’) at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-important-debate-question-why-are-you-running-for-president/2015/09/15/1d563f46-5bdd-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html
She mentions in the book that her favorite song was a then-popular piece entitled "Cherish" and to this day, every time I hear that word, it carries that somewhat unsavory connotation of being background music at a posh Upper East Side house of ill repute. You might want to listen to the 1966 recording of it by “The Association,” which is probably the version the madam loved. If he gets the nomination, Trump might consider using it as his campaign song. Check it out at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD94tZgPuvc
"The Association" recorded "Cherish" in 1966
Historically, the Second Amendment was passed (as part of the Bill of Rights) to restrict Congress from passing any laws that would limit a state's ability to defend itself, i.e. to have an armed militia. Back then in 1789, this was important because there was a fear that a national “standing army” would be a danger to the governments of the individual states and potentially lead to a Federal government controlled by the military. In the case of United States v. Miller in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court supported this historic position by basically ruling that the amendment only applied to firearms that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia...."
Murdered TV anchor Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward
A Response to my "Bernie" Sticker
Occasionally … I wish it were more often … followers of the blog take issue with me. Here is a response received from Rachel Mintz in New York, prompted by my support of Bernie Sanders.
I expect your blog to get even juicier as we get deeper into this ridiculously long election cycle. You may see many more replies from me."