Donald Trump Enters the Presidential Race

A "primary" is a preliminary contest right?  It's not an outright war.  I'm just checking, now that the provocative Donald Trump has --finally-- officially entered a Presidential race.  The object of this preliminary primary contest is not to eviscerate your opponents, towards the end of being a lone victor hobbling across the bodies of the other 'slain' Republican contenders in order to cross the "primary finish-line" --hopefully, with the ability to still stand-- to face the Democratic candidate in the general election.

With the above image seared into your mind, might I offer another timely word of advice to the Republican field of primary candidates: Let us NOT do the work of the Democrat Party for them.  Think it would behove all of us looking for a viable alternative to the status-quo --of the past eight years-- to have our primary candidates conduct themselves, during the course of the primary, with a strong measure of decorum and respect for one another.  As I told my daughter the other day:  just because someone is LOUD and obnoxious, doesn't make them right.  Translation --in this instance-- those with the fabric necessary for true Presidential leadership will find their way to using words effectivly, in a constructive manner, towards the end of conveying the thoughts and ideas needed to alter the trajectory our nation has been set upon. 

One last thought: A true leader also possesses the ability to listen and to consider the input of others, otherwise we will find ourselves right back in the throws of Congressional grid-lock and Executive Order overreach.

7/20/2015  Why embrace real issues, with real solutions when you can embrace a media circus drenched with hyperbole?
7/24/2015  In keeping with the theme of "hyperbole" in my last comment:  I actually heard a meteorologist (on the weather channel) say the following in a weather forecast this morning, in reference to a tropical storm currently brewing in the Atlantic Ocean:  "This activity is a key signature of climate change.  When we have these types of weather extremes:  Severe drought (motions to California on the western coast of United States) with tropical storms simultaneously delivering large amounts rainfall in other parts of the country."  And this meteorologist made this statement rather mater-of-factly; he didn't even blink an eye.  Seems he's well-positioned on the "science is settled" bandwagon, happily purveying a political (profit-driven) agenda: non-manipulated/unbiased data, actual facts and the inherent chaos of Earth's dynamic weather system be damned (I, personally, have no issue with the notion that Earth's climate obviously changes; it's been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years and it will continue to do so for thousands more with or without the input of mankind (e.g., witness previous ice-ages and periods of global warming, long before man entered into the picture in any significant way).  To think that we, mere humans, can in some way control or influence nature is simply ludicrous.  To think that world-wide impending doom is charging towards us at the hands of nature, via  ""climate change"" -- previously referred to as "global warming"-- is simply profit-driven insanity.  The latter aside, are we called to be responsible stewards of the Earth with which we have been entrusted:  absolutely, but "gloom and doom" at the hands of nature is not imminent in anyway ... now man destroying himself or being subject to larger cosmic forces may be another story, but I digress).  I mention this meteorologists weather statement --issued as if it were a documented scientific fact and subsequent effect thereof of man-induced ""climate change""-- not only because his statement caught me entirely off-guard (the larger portion of the present CA drought happens to be man-induced due to the diversion of river waters natural flow in an effort to protect some species of "smelt" fish) but because I am sincerely wondering where "The Donald" happens to stand on the issue of ""climate change""?

Side Note:  Went home over the course of my travels these past several weeks, to visit with my family in Texas.  Upon my arrival, I was surprised to find that nature had once again, after several drought-ridden years, finally reversed her course a full 180+ degrees.  That is to say, where once ponds and lakes had dried up, or sorely receded, and the sombre brown-brush of parched dryness had swept over a sullen land:  a blanket of lush greenness, swaddled in an abundance of liquid gold now unfolded across the vast landscape.  For me, it was, despite the areas of significant flooding, a refreshing sight to behold.  Life was returning to a seemingly barren-struck land.  In talking with parents about the change in their own piece of the vast Texas landscape they had this to say [paraphrasing]:  "The drought took both of our stock ponds, killing the fish in them.  It also diminished our harvest and it was hard on the animals, but the upside is that the drought seems to have taken all of the plague of disease-ridden oak trees and the disease they carried right along with them ("Texas oak-wilt").  Also the swarms of west-Nile carrying mosquitoes seems to have died off as well.  We now have 1/20th of the mosquito population we had prior to the years of drought and thus far we have not heard of a single reported case of the west-Nile virus in the area.  And both of our stock tanks are filled to the top once again."  So with the latter insight from my parents, I am thinking, in some strange and mysterious way: Nature knew what she was doing all along.  Go figure?  Nature finds a way.

7/28/2015  The 'damage' due to "carbon-footprints" has absolutely nothing on the potential for damage due to nuclear weapons in our much more immediate future. (i.e., Iran nuclear deal). The time for a serious embracing reality-check is long, long overdue, people.  Let's blow away the smoke and shatter the mirrors already.

9/2015  "Like" him or "leave" him, Donald Trump has been a lightening rod for focusing attention onto the presidential primary races.  Perhaps Donald Trump's entering the race has served a useful end in drawing the attention of the usually uninformed, low-information voter into the media-fray surrounding this candidate --and by default drawing attention to the other candidates, Republican and Democratic alike.  I mean viewer-ship for the Republican Primary debates has clearly broken all sorts of records, evidence that people who normally don't tune-in to the politics surrounding elections are actually listening this time around.  Perhaps the mere exposure potential voters receive to thought, information and ideas exchanged in the ensuing media dialogue will open their hearts and minds to consider another perspective and in the process of doing so these voters might glean new insights about candidates and issues important to them.  Thanks to Donald Trump, 2016 could actually be the year of the informed voter.  How exciting is that?!

CBS News Media Bias Revealed via internal e-mail ...

 My three daughters watched the last Republican Debate, on Foreign Policy, with me the other night. It was rather interesting to hear their comments as the various candidates spoke in turn. I was most impressed with my eldest's command of the issues and she's just 13. All three girls noted (all on their own) that Michelle Bachmann did not seem to be getting many questions at all. Then, I happened to come across this story that backs up what my children observed:  "Michele Bachmann accuses CBS News of bias". 

I think the authors of the above story were being diplomatic in their titling of the piece.  In my humble opinion, the evidence clearly shows bias on the part of CBS ...and by their own hand no less.  Now the reason for this bias is another matter entirely.  Was the bias merely due to the fact that Michelle Bachmann was a woman running in a field of men ... the old "glass ceiling"... or was the bias due to the fact that perhaps a segment of the liberal left sees Bachmann as a very real threat to the re-election of Obama?  It is interesting to me how history does indeed repeat itself  ...( i.e., the 18th and 19th Ammendments to the constitution) and now Obama becomes president before a woman does.  Is it finally time for a competent woman to become President of the United States?  I have to wonder, as do my daughters.  My oldest used to say she wanted to become President of the United States when she grew up, but as she grows older she seems to be increasingly turned off by the accpeted political practices in our country.  I guess, I can't blame her?

Image Source

I find Michelle Bachmann to be a very intelligent, articulate individual with a rather impressive command of the issues facing our nation. She is also one of the few candidates with business, government and foreign policy experience ... the "trifecta" so to speak. Bachmann's position on the Senate Intelligence committee gave her the ability to rattle off detailed facts, dates and names with an impressive command to which no one ... save Newt Gingrich perhaps ... even came close to matching. I have to wonder now if CBS's now documented (by their own hand, via internal email) intent to minimize questions to Bachmann was intended to keep her trailing in the polls by not allowing her to shine in an area where she surely excels and could have really wowed potential voters? ... Just goes to show that you can't sit back and rely on this biased media to give you the full picture: They have an agenda of their own and it isn't just to inform any longer as it once was in days long since gone by.

"C" Seems to be an empty field right now?

I believe this election primary for Republicans is about two things: 1) Finding a candidate who can beat Obama and 2) Electing the president who is best for the country and can get us OUT of this sinking ship that we are now in. The problem is, I'm not yet sure that there is candidate who meets both criteria. I think that there are two candidates who could fill the bill for criteria #2 (B), but I'm not certain that these candidates would not be able to pull off #1 (A). And I happen to think that the one candidate who is capable of beating Obama will not necessarily be the best president for the country.  Thus far, I don't see any candidate falling into the overlap of (C).  

I would venture to say that voters and the media have underestimated Michelle Bachmann.  Let us hope, however, that voters do not make the mistake of underestimating Barack Obama and his powerful, extremely well funded PR machine.  Four more years of Obama may not be what this country needs, but that doesn't mean that easily swayed, emotional and uninformed voters (wanting "more") can't make his re-election a reality.

... A side thought:  My eldest thinks that perhaps Obama should put his $60++ million of funds raised for his relection campaign toward a better use by donating the money to the U.S. Treasury in an effort to pay help off the National Debt which has skyrocketed during his 3+ years in office. 

Well, you can't say that we don't live in interesting times, can you?