On Friday my wife and I decided to contribute a little money to the Carly for President campaign. It is not much but maybe the media will notice when small contributors vote with their pocket book. She has been one of the most intriguing candidates for some time with her articulate answers. Her speech at the Reagan library might be a classic. On Thursday she was the most Presidential candidate on the stage. It is likely she will be in the final group next time. Sometimes the best man for a job is a woman. Time to bring the ‘A’ game boys or drop out.

If the Administration’s goal is to prevent Iran from developing or getting a nuclear weapon then you have to wonder why the countries with the most to lose are not at the table with the Iran. If the United States is abandoning their traditional role as the world’s cop then who cares what the United States thinks anymore? The omission of Israel and Saudi Arabia is intriguing. Even though Israel maintains that they “would not be the first country to “introduce” nuclear weapons to the Middle East”, there are plenty of rumors about how close Israel was to using nuclear weapons when they thought their forces were about to be over-run. So you would have to think that a “limited nuclear war” is still part of their war plans today. Saudi Arabia is concerned if not panic stricken over Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons.  Once upon a time they could afford to sit idly on the sidelines while the victims of terrorism was Israel or the United States but with Sunni-Shiite wars to the North and South of them. The idea that Iran might either attack them or black mail them is now a real threat. If we use the Camp David Accords as the model, then Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have to be the major players in reducing nuclear proliferation negotiations.

When President Obama says he wants to help the middle class by taxing the rich, I get worried. I cynically associate his idea to President Reagan’s nine scariest words, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” It is still fresh in my mind President Obama claims that the Affordable Care Act would allow me to keep my insurance plan if I wanted and that it would lower my health insurance costs. Since my health insurance costs are rising rapidly I think I have a very good reason to be skeptical of Democratic politicians when they say they want to help the middle class. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. What surprised me was this Rasmussen poll showed that there are a lot of people who are leery of the President’s latest claims. Here is one the more intriguing statements in the report.

One reason for the opposition may be that 66% of all voters think that if the president and Congress agree to a plan that raises taxes on wealthy Americans, it’s likely that middle-class taxes will go up, too. Thirty percent (30%) consider that unlikely. But this includes 33% who say a middle-class tax hike is Very Likely and just five percent (5%) who consider it Not At All Likely.

From the Rasmussen poll it looks like the President and the Democratic party have a trust issue with 66% of the population. This trust issue reminded me of this chart from a Gallup poll before the last election. The Rasmussen poll appears to confirm that the “the way federal gov’t works” is still a more important issue to most people than “wealth and income distribution” issue.

I have been trying to understand the scandal of Mr. Scalise talking to an organization related to the Ku Klux Klan. He apologized although the facts remain murky whether he actually talked to the group. What struck me as odd is the implication that politicians should not talk with certain groups of people. Is this any different than a politician talking at a Black Panther Party meeting? Should a politician who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman not talk to homosexuals who believe differently? Should Republicans talk to Democrats? We seem to be stuck on demonizing people rather than discussing issues. I call this Alinsky’s revenge on the American people. To help clear up this subject here is a quote from the Washington Examiner, Democrats try, fail to burn Steve Scalise.

Then Slate, the reliably liberal online magazine that no one has ever accused of carrying water to put out Republican fires, found two people who remembered actually attending the 2002 meeting. They confirmed what the organizer of the European-American Unity rally had said, that Mr. Scalise was not there.

The organizer, one Kenny Knight, had managed David Duke’s campaign for governor in 1991 when he lost in a runoff to the incumbent governor, and was a neighbor of Mr. Scalise, newly elected to the state legislature. He booked a meeting room in a suburban inn and scheduled a session of the European-American conference for 1 p.m. He told the Jefferson Heights Civic Association to use the meeting room in the morning and invited Mr. Scalise, a sheriff’s deputy and a Red Cross representative to speak to that group.

Mr. Scalise is remembered as having talked about legislation he would introduce in the upcoming session of the legislature. The sheriff’s deputy talked about a neighborhood crime-watch program and the Red Cross representative demonstrated the latest techniques to revive drowning victims. Riveting stuff, to be sure, but apparently nobody wore a sheet or burned a cross.

If this report is true that he was talking to the Jefferson Heights Civic Association then his actions look like an elected representative honestly trying to do his job. This idea Mr. Scalise was doing his job when he talked to the group is echoed in the article by Stephanie Grace, Scalise’s pitch to Duke supporters seems plausible, who happens to be the source for the “He told me he was like David Duke without the baggage” comment.

In fact, by 2002, Scalise may have been so used to the idea of dealing with Duke voters that he really considered EURO just another part of his constituency, even if it was a distasteful one. Maybe not so different in his mind from the League of Women Voters, which he cited in an interview with The Times-Picayune as another group he’d addressed despite the fact that they didn’t agree on everything — an insulting comparison that suggests he still doesn’t fully grasp how bad this all looks from the outside.

So according to Ms. Grace’s analysis we have a politician who doesn’t grasp how bad something looks from another person’s viewpoint and is willing to talk to people he disagrees with. For most politicians this is not a scandal but a common workplace hazard when your mouth is moving faster than your brain. Vice President Biden is the most humorous example of a politician with this same affliction. The intriguing question is whether Ms. Grace believes Mr. Scalise’s problem is that he does not agree with the League of Women Voters on everything or that he could have handled their disagreement in a more politically correct manner? Obviously in hindsight Mr. Scalise should have handled the situations better but having valid disagreements with constituents as different as the League of Women Voters and EURO is expected. It is also expected than he would find common ground on some issues with both of these groups. We expect politicians to help reconcile our differences and move us forward. Interestingly his predicament is similar to the one currently facing the American people. Does America believe Republicans should agree with Democrats on everything or does America want their politicians to handle their disagreements in a more politically civil manner and move forward?  With a choice between demonization or progress, I suspect America wants progress in a civil manner every time.

I watched the videos several times and I am convinced that the cause of Eric Garner’s death was not from the chokehold. The officer brought Eric Garner down to the ground with a chokehold but it does not look like he maintains it when the other officers assist in subduing Mr. Garner. It looks like the chokehold has been released when Mr. Garner is alive and saying I cannot breath. A likely scenario is that the officers knees in the back put enough pressure on Mr. Garner’s back to suffocate him. So now we are confronted with the situation that all of the officers assisting in the arrest share some of the blame for Mr. Garner’s death. Although I agree that this was an unnecessary death, I do not think the grand jury could recommend prosecution when multiple people were likely at fault.