I am not sure the Republican Candidates are fully aware that they are running for the office of President after President Obama leaves the White House as he has had his two terms. They will be running against likely Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. That is the other point, Hillary may not be the Democrat Candidate, Bernie Sanders is looking stronger every day. Further, Hillary may not be eligible to be President after the prosecution of her for the e-mail imbroglio results in more than an inconvenience and more of a felony indictment and convictions on numerous counts followed by her being disbarred and incarcerated, even if it is a luxury prison with full spas, golf course and other facilities making it more like a Club Med Resort; perhaps called Club Fed. What, you thought important and privileged people such as the Clintons or other politically connected criminals served their time in lock-down did you? Even if pardoned for her improprieties before the trial or simply having these criminal acts which may have threatened United States operatives, secrets or other damaging intelligence has been tried thus saving the American public from such a dreary and lengthy series of even more Hillary Clinton without make-up and self-sleep-deprived concerned about a future less predictable than a Presidential election could ever be.
From the little we have watched of the debates, it appeared that the so-called second tier candidates, better described as the hidden gems and chipped glass candidates as there are a couple of those who belong and are ready for prime time but are being kept in the basement more likely because they are ready and the Republicans want a puppet they can control and not a President who is in control. This is why they are so concerned about a Trump win and less concerned with actually winning the Presidency. Do not get us wrong, we also fear a Trump Presidential run but because we fear a Trump as President, though there could be worse, don’t ask us how. The questions which they all need to answer are simple and obvious to all except the moderators and the people writing their questions, or is there a higher conspiracy of silence on these topics. First off, how would you defeat the Democrat candidate if it is Hillary, if it is Bernie? Second, will you repeal all of Obamacare? Will you include the records gathering and other privacy invasions included in the original thousand plus page legislation and the other initial provisions hidden in other legislation some of which entitled the Federal Government through the IRS to gather medical data from every hospital and doctor’s office by the IRS and also allow them to share the data with corporations and other agencies? Would you, and if so, how would you go about making efforts to rebuild the relations with the more traditional allies, which ones, and exactly how? Asking them questions different than those placed at the feet of the Democrats in their debates is unfair and will remain that way but as long as there are going to be hardball questions, how about a little substance with the spiteful venom. As is said, inquiring minds want to know, and that holds for the Democrats as well as we want to know what their plans are and no more simpleton slogans like ‘Yes we can’ and healing the Earth as the Earth can take care of herself.
Another idea which would work for weeding out the candidates would be for the primaries not to be stacked-up and front-loaded as they are. It is a bit ridiculous that the candidacy be all but over after ‘Super Tuesday’ which this election year falls on March first. Even if none of the candidates have the required number of delegates, by the end of April it is all over but the shouting and streamers, confetti and balloons, please don’t forget the balloons as their refusing to dislodge as electrostatic cling is holding them against the ceiling and delegates screaming for them to be dislodged is often the only surprise and entertainment of these conventions. There used to be some drama in the nominations until people started complaining about the candidates being chosen in some dark backroom filled with cigar smoke to the point of being unhealthy as was that system. Then came the race to be the primary which ‘put the candidate over’ which meant that states were jockeying to place their primary date in the vital spot so as to be the one remembered for placing the name of the future President on their party’s ballot. This led to the leap-frogging until they all hid an agreed upon wall, nobody was to go earlier than March first, which happens to be the first Tuesday this year. When one considers the candidates and Presidents we have had since popular vote won the nomination, perhaps those smoke-filled rooms was not such a bad method as at least we got some of the best Presidents from cigar smoke-filled rooms. While we are at retrofitting political election processes, could we return the elections for Senate to the individual states and allow them to at least have the control even if by now not using the primary selection process would be a difficult sell, though as long as selecting Presidential candidates is on the ballot, the rest is just gravy which is proven by the far smaller number of people who vote in primaries in off year elections.
That brings us to our conclusions which the election processes makes so evidentially obvious. Not all change and placing things before the people is necessarily the greatest of ideas and the wisest of all approaches. Where we might trust a room with one hundred randomly chosen farmers more than we would trust the United States Senate in making decisions for our personal lives, we have our doubts about their deciding trade matters or approving cabinet positions and other appointments as they would not have sufficient knowledge in such areas, though they would prove to have greater common sense. It might not be a bad thing to add in one more requirement for the office of President as it would give every President a greater understanding concerning matters of military preparedness, the military requirements in budgetary matters and in the use of troops. Here are some observations from one of our staff who happens to be a veteran of the United States Army. It is understandable that there should be reductions in the military’s funding in times of need but their funding cannot be made the money pot which other programs are given increases while the military is cut. The military is an essential service even if it is not the preferred way to settle differences. A strong and well-armed military makes those other avenues more likely, not less likely. There should be a baseline minimum for military spending of something around ten percent of the budget. This would work in two ways. First and foremost it would guarantee sufficient if not ample funding of the military and allow for future planning with an assurance of the funding being provided. Secondly, this would put a damper on excessive spending knowing that for an additional nine billions dollars allocated elsewhere the military would necessarily add another ten million in defense spending.
The guaranteed spending level would allow for a steadily predictable level of force in personnel with quality salaries could be maintained. Any military project given the approval of the Congress and signed by a President must be carried forth reaching a minimal number set in the initial legislation and must not be cut or diminished at the whim of another Congress or President. The example which has been most evident was the cancellation of the full production of the F-22 Raptor which was the fighter jet which would provide the United States Air Force with fighter superiority even over that of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter which is being sold to other NATO and allied nations. Some areas require a superior vehicle such that any superior training would be maximized with a worthy and superior weapons and delivery systems. Lastly for the sake of brevity, the United States military is not a food delivery force or a nation building force, it is a nation destruction force which is trained to be the point of the spear should national security or treaty require there to be something subdued or destroyed. Protecting civilians sent to nation build would necessarily be placed under military control for use of force, not civilian. When the military is to be used for any conflict resolution, the mission must be spelled out with objective requirements and definition of victory where the military hands over the rest to a civilian force and the military mission is ended allowing for a residual security force which also is not a food delivery or nation building force but a security force. The American military is the most efficient use of force to break and destroy things and only the engineering battalions build things; build things like bridges so the rest of the military can continue destroying and breaking things. Yes, there will be casualties, that is why it is called war.
Beyond the Cusp