If Hillary Says "No," Guns & Mental Health, Thorn Bugs and Eavesdropping on the G.O.P.,

If Hillary Decides to Sit it Out in 2016

In all likelihood, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016.  That’s what the polls and the experts say.  But it is also possible that she will not be.

Without giving any credence to Karl Rove’s recent ill-intended comments about her health, it cannot be denied that Hillary is 67 years old and prone to whatever health concerns people of that age face.  A spring chicken she is not.  While I believe she is a healthy person, I also recognize that she has had a strenuous tenure as Secretary of State, facing attacks from the right as well as defending President Obama.  It is not inconceivable that she may be tired of all this public involvement.  At some future moment, Hillary Clinton will make the choice of either devoting four or eight more years to public service or spending the eighth decade of her life enjoying herself and her soon-to-be status as a grandmother.

Her decision will probably be made while looking out of the window while sipping her orange juice on a rainy morning or on a sunny day.  The weather may affect it.  Personally, I feel that she will choose to run.  But if she does not, where will the Democratic Party turn?  

Recently, Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza wrote a piece covering all of the other Democratic possibilities for President.   Excerpts from it follow.  They are worth keeping in your back pocket, just in case.    Here are his thoughts, presented in order from the least to the most likely nominees should Hillary decide to become a baby-sitter.

Brian Schweitzer:  The former Montana governor said no to running for the Senate in 2014 because he wants to keep his eye on 2016, according to people familiar with his decision making. Okay. But the way he went about considering the Senate race raised questions about his readiness for a national stage.

Elizabeth Warren: Out of the women on this list not named Hillary, Warren has the most potential as a presidential candidate. She is beloved by the left and showed in her 2012 Senate race that she can raise a ton of money. (She brought in more than $42 million for that race.) So, why is Warren ranked this low? Because she has expressed no public interest in running.

Amy Klobuchar: We’ve written many times that no politician ever goes to Iowa accidentally. So, the Minnesota senator’s trip to the Hawkeye State next month means only one thing: She wants to be part of the great-mentioned when it comes to 2016. Klobuchar’s résuméis very impressive: a two-term U.S. senator and, before that, a county attorney.

Howard Dean: It’s been a decade since the former Vermont governor lit the Democratic world on fire with his remarkable if ultimately flawed presidential candidacy. While Dean hasn’t been an active candidate since then, he retains something of a following among liberals, and if there is a segment of the party looking for an alternative to Clinton, he could be it.

Martin O'Malley: On paper, the Maryland governor looks great. He’s built a governing record in the Old Line State — guns, the death penalty, gay marriage, etc. — that liberals will love. He’s handsome. And, he badly wants to be president. Like, really badly. But, as the New Republic’s Alec MacGillis noted in a recent piece on O’Malley: “For all his gym-rat, pub-rock credentials, O’Malley is not a very charismatic politician.” There is a “Democratic Tim Pawlenty” narrative building around O’Malley at the moment.

Cory Booker: The Newark mayor will — unless a political meteor strikes — walk into a Senate seat this fall. That will immediately make him the second most prominent elected African American official in the country — if he isn’t already. With Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) offering a unequivocal pledge not to run in 2016, Booker will come under heavy pressure to look at the race.

Kirsten Gillibrand: No politician has impressed us more in the last few months than Gillibrand. Her work on gathering co-sponsors for the military sexual-assault measure she is pushing has shown a keen understanding of politics and how to use pressure to get what you want.

Andrew Cuomo: The New York governor doesn’t talk much about 2016, but his work over the past state legislative session suggests he has an eye on building a  resume for that race. A sampling of his accomplishments via Real Clear Politics’ Scott Conroy: “A landmark gun-control law, his third on-time budget in a row, a boost in the minimum wage, new teacher evaluation standards, and a development-boosting initiative for economically distressed upstate New York.” 

Joe Biden:    Ah, God love him. The Biden profile in GQ Magazine captured everything that people love about Biden and everything that makes him a risky bet as a presidential candidate. And it’s the same thing. The vice president is a throwback to an age when politicians went off script, said what they thought and let the chips fall where they may. It’s part of his appeal, but it’s also why staying on message is so incredibly difficult for him.

Jack Lippman

                                                         

Ever See a Thorn Bug?

Here's my iPhone photograph of a thorn bug sucking on a night blooming jasmine leaf taken a few months ago.  It was about the size of the fingernail on my smallest finger.  Note its brilliant coloration and aerodynamic shape, akin to a modern jet fighter, which helps it in flight.  For more well-illustrated information on these pests, be sure to check out  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZv5knCNBl8

  Whether in nature or in jet fighters, aerodynamic principles govern flight



JL

                                                    


Guns, Mental Health and Legislators

 

Santa Barbara killer Elliot Rodgers (right) joins a long line of mentally disturbed murderers

Many of the perpetrators of mass killings over the past decades have had documented mental problems.  And if some had no such history, certainly their actions suggested that they were mentally ill, even if they had not been officially diagnosed as such.  Opponents of gun control repeatedly point out that guns are not the problem, but rather, the psychological make-up of the killers is, and the solution is not to cut down on the number of weapons in circulation (which they feel offer protection against killers) but to provide greater and better resources to identify and treat mental disorders.  That task, however, seems insurmountable to me.

In addition to those with diagnosed mental histories, there are many people in this country who are simply “angry” about something.  Difficult marital, family, financial, social and job-related situations can push an otherwise normal person “over the edge.”  Drugs and alcohol can too.  Keeping track of all of these folks and what’s in their heads is next to impossible.  It would be ideal if everyone in the country visited a mental health professional, shared their fears and anxieties, and walked out of the place with all A’s and B's on their emotional report card. But an exceedingly large number of otherwise normally functioning people would end up with lower marks.   And they are the ones we should be worrying about.

Keeping track of those millions of normal-appearing Americans of whom fewer than an infinitesimally small number might someday turn out to become killers would be extremely difficult, especially because there would be no documentation of whatever it is that is bothering them.  

Do you think that driver who exhibited an act of "road rage" toward you last week is under the care of a "shrink'?

Proponents of gun control know they have a difficult row to hoe, but most, at least at this time, would be content with thorough background checks of all gun purchasers, at gun stores, gun shows and privately as well.  This would catch some of those from who weapons should be kept, but not all of them. But the opponents of any gun control measures, even just expanded background checks, point out that a killer, if he cannot have legal access to a gun, can secure one illegally or use some other kind of weapon.

 

After I toss these ideas around in my head, I conclude that it would seem far easier to restrict the purchase of guns than to get involved in evaluating the mental and emotional state of millions and millions of Americans, however desirable that might be in the long run.  Restricting gun purchases may run afoul of the Second Amendment, but also, trying to document the fears and anxieties of that many American citizens might similarly be unconstitutional, amounting to an illegal invasion of privacy. 

Now, how do we get legislators at the state and federal level to come around to the conclusion at which I have arrived, and overcome their fear of being driven out of office by an opponent supported by the gun lobby.  After all, only five percent of an electorate need be switched to unseat a legislator who otherwise would be elected by a healthy 54% to 46% margin. That’s why they run scared when this subject comes up.  

And I haven't even touched upon the problem posed by the Supreme Court.

JL

                                                  

More on Guns


And speaking of guns, here is some self-explanatory material taken from the web site of "Open Carry Texas."   Initially, the NRA seemed to be against this group's activities, but I understand that they have come around and no longer object to these folks whose feelings of inadequacy can be reduced by their exhibiting their weapons in public.  Fortunately, some major restaurant and retail chains (even in Texas) have already announced that customers openly carrying guns weren't welcome.

Read this vital information from their web site:

Open Carry Texas (OCT) is an organization dedicated to the safe and legal carry of firearms openly in the State of Texas in accordance with the United States and Texas Constitutions and applicable laws.
 

Our Mission:
   1) To educate all Texans about their right to openly carry
rifles and shotguns in a safe manner. 

2) To condition Texans to feel safe around law-abiding
citizens that choose to carry them.
  3) Encourage our elected officials to pass less restrictive
open carry legislation. 

              4) Foster a cooperative relationship with local law enforcement
     in the furtherance of these goals with an eye towards
preventing negative encounters.

 

"Open Carry Texas" members in front of Texas State House.  (Note that some brought dates with them, even the guy in the wheelchair.)

(Yup, I guess you gotta have an eye peeled  for those "negative encounters." like the ones those guys in Florida who were carrying guns ran into.)

JL

                                                                    

Overheard in a Washington Restaurant Frequented by Republican Politicians:

“What can we blame the President for today?  We’ve milked Benghazi for all it’s worth, I think, and blaming him for the incompetence at the hospitals run by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs was working nicely until this week.  Unfortunately, we can’t get air time, even on Fox, for that anymore because of what’s going on with the release of those Taliban guys from Guantanamo in exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl.” 

“Then we’ll run with that for a while.  Doesn’t matter if Bergdahl’s supposed capture was sort of fuzzy. The big thing is that Obama freed five big time terrorists in exchange for him.  We can run with that for a while.  And when folks get tired of that, we can go back to Obama’s socialized medicine thing.”

“You know giving back five terrorists for one American wasn’t really such a bad deal.  The Israelis release hundreds of them to get one Israeli soldier back.”

“So don’t bring that up!  Point out that we stooped to negotiating with a terrorist group.”

“Hey, I checked and believe it or not, the Taliban isn’t on the list of terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda and Hamas.  We actually talk to them occasionally, as rotten as they are.

“Better not mention that either.”  Maybe after the elections, we’ll get them on the list.”

“Okay, then, we’ll just have to squeeze the Taliban prisoner release in with the VA, Benghazi and Obamacare things when we get interviewed on TV.”

“And if we get stuck for something to talk about, there’s always the IRS, Eric Holder, Fast and Furious, Solyndra and that climate change hoax.  There's always plenty of stuff we can blame him for.”

“Yeah, I almost forgot about them.  And what about starting talk about impeachment again?  That always manages to get folks riled up.  But hey, why are you guys suddenly all looking a little sad?”

“You know, if we end up controlling the Senate along with the House this fall, and get the White House in two years, what will there be for us to talk about on TV?  

 
Group of highly transparent G.O.P. politicians sitting around a restaurant table in Washington

None of those present could think of a single thing to say, other than “Please pass the salt.”  Silence reigned.

JL

                                                       
                                                    
                                                                           
                                                                                                             

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman