The Republican debate, no Trump.

I did not particularly like the format where there were lists of questions, and even clips for specific candidates which jumped subject matter and provided only limited and antagonistically focused responses by the participants.

The moderators inserted their own opinions as well: They called Climate Change a Science? Its now separated from long term weather prediction? If so why, what is the difference. Clearly a look for PC responses and an attack on those who do not respond properly.

They brought a Muslim America whose question implied ISIS was caused by America, and no one picked it up: "Muslim American- Hate crimes tripled, many attacks, "culture of hatred has only driving ISIS to radicalize..."  Bush missed it completely. Immediate change of subject prevented anyone else to respond. ISIS is not radicalized by anything we do, but the statement was accepted as if that is the case.

The moderators had clear control of the proceedings which were not a debate, were not focuses on issues, and really seem to lack coherence. Not a very good performance.

Cruz began as usual in excellent fashion preening himself as the most conservative Republican since Lincoln, and lambasting Trump comically in pretty impressive fashion.

He was specific on Obama Care specifying his plans as:
1. Permit buying of insurance across state lines.
2. Increase the availability and the tax exemptions to medical savings accounts
3. Separate employment from medical insurance without specific how.
On Immigration there was a donnybrook with Rubio as to who supported what when with the moderators placing inflammatory  clips in front of both participants.  Why the "Why don't you and him kill each other" approach?
Cruz convincingly showed that he was opposed to normalization of illegal aliens. That he was for controlling both the borders and the ability of illegals to work and get benefits within the country. That has been his position and I may be reading into it what I know from the past since the moderators where directing the conversation instead of promoting it.
On ISIS: He has an insufficient grasp of what is needed, explained carpet bombing as 1000 sorties or 2000 sorties a day not 30. Never promised ground troops. Will provide for growth in the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Ethanol - Cruz only: Pursue all of the above, gas, oil, wind, ethanol. Washington should have no mandates or support for everyone. No subsides for oil and gas, or ethanol.  The EPA's blend wall is to be deleted, which makes ethanol much more enticing. A flat tax law which eliminates all exemptions.

Rubio: engaging and with good ripostes, was at least once beaten by Bush to the punch. He accused Bush of changing his mind, and the replied, correctly, "So did you" He then made it worse by insisting he hadn't and both were clobbered by Rand.

Obama Care: don't recall what he said

Immigration: He denied what was obviously the case. He sold his voters out by being one of the "Gang of Eight".

On ISIS: Really the same as Cruz, both differing from Kasich only in K's reliance on other Sunni powers.  They (Rubio and Cruz) stress it less. The agree  about the use of Guantanamo (not sure Cruz was asked). They have taken over the position of Trump, using softer language.

Rand: as usual, excellent at protecting our freedoms, ignores our needs for a strong army and recommending we never stray from our borders.  He is the only one totally committed to fiscal responsibility.


Governor Christie, I have been evaluated by democrats and achieved with them some conservative goals. Whoopee! These two bozos killing each other over the meaning of words show you need a Governor, not a Senator.

On Terror: Let law enforcement decide if what you saw is significant or not, but if you don't talk, or if you denigrate the law enforcement you can't get there.
On Obama Care: An example of waste in Obama care, supporting Planned Parenthood, give me something more substantial, answer: than not killing thousands of humans? Beautiful response with a total change of subject hidden in it. Not a fiscal conservative!
On Hillary: Great points on Benghazi, she won't be indicted by Obama, I'll indict here during the campaign: The days of the Clintons in public housing are over!

Bush: Impressive in his affect when talking about veterans. He clearly wants to help them, and to clean up the Vet Administration.

Then switch to Puerto Rico? Why the scripted reading of questions instead of a debate on the large items in detail. Cover less, in more depth, show the positions of all the participants.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

The same 2 stories discussed in the last blog continued to dominate the news.  To these were added the death of Mandela, and the freezing of most of the East Coast last week, and the Middle East this week.

1.       The continuing sage of Obama care.

2.       The continuing dance with the Iranians.

3.       The Cold spell

4.       The death of Mandela

Obama Care

I did not fully understand the reason for the Atomic Option.  Besides making it possible to nominate and appoint Obama appointees, the nuclear option clears the way to pack the DC Circuit Court of appeals which is defined as follows in the Wikipedia:

While it has the smallest geographic jurisdiction of any of the United States courts of appeals, the D.C. Circuit, with eleven active judgeships, is arguably the most important inferior appellate court. The court is given the responsibility of directly reviewing the decisions and rulemaking of many federal independent agencies of the United States government based in the national capital, often without prior hearing by a district court. Aside from the agencies whose statutes explicitly direct review by the D.C. Circuit, the court typically hears cases from other agencies under the more general jurisdiction granted to the Courts of Appeals under the Administrative Procedure Act. Given the broad areas over which federal agencies have power, this often gives the judges of the D.C. Circuit a central role in affecting national U.S. policy and law.^[1]

It has been the path to the Supreme Court for Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg and Kagan. Packing the court makes the appellate process for challenges to the Obama Care excesses so much more difficult. 

In the meantime, the Obama front end seems to have improved to the point of accepting information and probably storing it without too many errors.  Unfortunately, the back end (database management, searches through the various government departments for the status of an applicant in order to evaluate whether he/she receives government support) seem totally undeveloped, or developed so poorly that they have been uncoupled from the front end.

As a result, applications are not being routed to Insurance Companies electronically, and money is not being accepted to seal the deal with these companies.  On January 1^st, millions will be out of insurance and the next and first serious crisis will occur as some start dying because of that law.

Cathleen Sibelius has asked the companies to permit late payments, permit use of doctors which are no longer under contract with the companies, and accept people who simply claim to have insurance.  We’ll see how that works out.

The continuing dance with the Iranians.

The White House added to the list of companies and people on its Iranian Black list, and the Iranians declared that they were abandoning the talks and left for Iran.  They also reacted angrily about prospective sanctioned being considered by the House. The State Department announced that the Iranian’s move was just a short pause to determine the next steps.  The Kabuki dance continues.

The Cold spell

A very cold period has gripped the US and Europe over the past few weeks.  6 inches of snow in Jerusalem is unheard of in recent history.  But we seem to create funny cartoons showing disasters caused by global warming only when Hurricanes, Tsunamis, and other warm weather events happen. 

The death of Mandela

Mandela was a great man whose heart could forgive the people who sent him to jail for 27 years, and even made it possible to work with them to create a peaceful transition to democratic rule.  I hope South Africa has the lack of more leaders like him in the future. They certainly lack them in the present

The last week

There are two stories which captured my attention during the past week:

1. The continuing saga of Obama care
2.      The continuing dance about making a deal with the Iranians.

 Obama Care

Reid’s use of the Atomic option (removing the ability to filibuster from all presidential appointments other than to the Supreme Court) shows one of the main differences between Republicans and Democrats.

The first threat to use this option was in 1841 by Senator Henry Clay.  In 1990 Senator Ted Kennedy tried to eliminate it, and in 2005, the Republican senators threatened the same.  In each of these cases, it was abandoned because bipartisanship was the basis for Senate work. If the majority party (50+the VP or 51) could not even get 9 or 10 of the minority party on an action, then the action was not taken.  Actions need to be palatable to both sides.

Reid’s removal of that safety will make Obama’s job of dictating the future of Obama Care easier.  He will be able to appoint judges to all levels of Federal courts except the Supreme Court.  He will be able to appoint anyone to any position requiring Senate Confirmation with a minimum of fuss.

In particular, the panel that will control Obama Care costs can now be appointed without any interference of the Republicans in the Senate.  This is probably one of the main reasons to use the Atomic Option, to eliminate arguments on specific appointees by just rolling over the opposition.

Of course, no party rules the roost forever, and what goes around, comes around.

Iranian Negotiations

The past 2 weeks saw the West engaged in another round of bazar negotiations with the Iranians.  They seem bent to achieve “Peace in our Time” while driving the world closer and closer to a Nuclear Holocaust.

Some Israel supporters talk about bunker buster bombs they got from the US, as if these would be able to penetrate deep under mountain bunkers created by the Iranians.  Such bombs exist in the range of 30,000 lbs., but what kind of airplane could carry them?

The US has the B2 a bomber built for carrying such enormous bombs. As far as I know, the Israelis lack such bombers. The F15 has a max takeoff weight of 68,000 lbs. given its own weight and that of the fuel necessary to take it to Iran, it seems unreasonable as a platform.  Cruise missiles from submarines are similarly not usable.  It leaves only the option of tactical nukes as a means of eliminating the full nuclear capability threat of Iran.

I hope my analysis is wrong, but given the Wests relentless drive for some face saving accord, a nuclear confrontation is brewing, and no one can know its ultimate results.