The GOP’s ‘binders full of’ White House contenders

First published April 2, 2015 on CNN.com

Has the Republican Party learned nothing from losing the past two presidential elections?

After a long and ugly 2012 primary battle that produced a battered, weak presidential candidate, the Republican National Committee vowed to improve and shorten the process.

Yet in 2016 the GOP looks poised for a repeat of 2012. The growing list of possible 2016 GOP candidates makes what should be a field of dreams look like an overcrowded fraternity house.

It includes: Govs. Scott Walker, John Kasich, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, former Govs. Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush, Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, former Sen. Rick Santorum, Dr. Ben Carson, Donald Trump, and Carly Fiorina, the only woman. I’m sure I’ve missed a few.

To date, the list is still very much speculative and a moving target, as only Cruz has officially announced his candidacy for president, and Paul and Rubio only are rumored to formally kick off their campaigns in April. Still, the question isn’t who’s running, but who isn’t, on the Republican side. Many are running again who never should have run the first time they chose to — because they’re unelectable. And some like Carson and Cruz play to fringe groups, and should run only for presidents of their own egos — because they don’t have a chance at winning the nomination.

Instead of sitting on the sidelines and helping the party win the White House with a small, electable candidate pool, Republicans are threatening to dive into 2016 like spawning salmon. This poses numerous problems.

First, a crowded GOP field will give the media lots of ammunition to mock our candidates roundly — because let’s face it, the party is gaffe-prone, not immune. Second, many GOP contestants may be tempted to hang on ’til the bitter end, like they did in 2012, failing to win primaries, yet unwilling to concede failure. And that would unnecessarily turn the process into a contentious, litmus test for conservatism.

With the recent announcement of his candidacy, you can bet Cruz will be the one injecting the divisive tone into the GOP contest. Not only will Cruz take joy in being the most “severe” and unelectable conservative among the group, he’ll shame the other candidates publicly for their lack of conservatism.

As he’s done during his first term as senator from Texas, Cruz will be the candidate of NO, not running for something but against everything — his conservative peers, conservative ideas, Obamacare and Obama (even though Obama isn’t running).

When the Republican nominee finally emerges in the middle of 2016, the public’s perception of him or her will be negative, like it was of Romney, because the candidate will have had to defend against accusations of being a RINO (Republican in Name Only) from ideologues like Cruz. This is a recipe for losing.

In contrast, Democrats are playing a wiser game. They might be the donkey party, but Democrats aren’t making asses of themselves prematurely hinting or flirting with the idea of running for president in droves. Potential candidates, who have ruled out running, such as former Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Sen. Jim Webb, are thinking very carefully about whether they have a chance against Hillary Clinton, the presumptive nominee, because Democrats like the White House winning streak they’ve been on and don’t want to screw it up.

Even though Hillary looked “unready” to lead during her email controversy press conference, she and her party are in a stronger position to win in 2016. While a few other candidates may decide to challenge Hillary, I doubt we’ll see tons of Democrats running for their party’s nomination just for the sake of running. Democrats know better and they like winning.

Democrats also realize that more candidates fighting for the nomination makes the whole process uglier, producing a nominee vulnerable to attack and weaker in the general election. I’m still trying to figure out what the Republicans’ presidential game plan is: Born to run — but never to win again?

Azealia Banks Would Make a Great Starbucks Race Together Ambassador

00_Cover

Black rapper musician Azealia Banks should help out baristas at Starbucks with their race war. We know she won’t serve any white drinks. In an interview for Playboy magazine alongside her nude photos, Banks describes herself as a “black” woman in fact “very black” who hates fat white Americans. In response to “racially charged events” that “unfolded across the country” (translation Ferguson), Starbucks announced its RACE TOGETHER initiative this week. Beginning March 20, 2015 Starbucks wants its employees “to stimulate conversation, compassion and action around race in America” with customers.

Basically, white Starbucks employees will racially profile black customers, asking them what it means to be black and assuming they like their coffee black, no sugar, no cream. At the same time, employees will serve up mountains of white blame to white customers alongside their coffee drinks topped with white whipped cream. Wow, that sounds like such an inviting coffee shop experience.

Since Starbucks ultra liberal CEO Howard Schultz wants to force race discussions down customers’ throats, Banks can certainly help with that. Banks told Playboy that if people don’t like her “it’s always about race.”

“Because y’all motherfuckers [white Americans] still owe me reparations! [laughs] That’s why it’s still about race. Really, the generational effects of Jim Crow and poverty linger on,” Banks chortled.

Schultz should appoint Banks as Starbucks’ RACE TOGETHER ambassador, having her pop up as a barista in shops across the country. She’ll really get those race conversations going as she berates white customers for their whiteness and tells black customers to hate white people. Is that the sort of dialogue Schultz is aiming for? Fist fights.

Starbucks and Banks make a truly perfect pair. Banks is not only an expert on “racist conservative [fat] white people who live on their farms in middle America,” she is also apparently an historian on black Americans. She explained to Playboy:

“I could write a book about why black people shouldn’t be Christians. Young black kids should have their own special curriculum that doesn’t start from the boat ride over from Africa. All you know as a black kid is we came over here on a boat, we didn’t have anything, and we still don’t have anything. But what was happening in Africa? What culture were we pulled away from? That information is vital to the survival of a young black soul.”

Black people don’t have anything in America? Perhaps Banks doesn’t know President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Oprah Winfrey, American Express CEO Ken Chenault, Beyonce and many other highly successful blacks in America.

Never mind, let’s not allow facts to get in the way of emotions, hate and Starbucks’ goal to create a “more empathetic and inclusive society ” one cup of coffee and propaganda at a time.

Invoking the recent “racially charged events” as the impetus for Starbucks’ race campaign, Schultz gave credence to the left’s race baiting narrative of whites hating blacks . The subliminal message from Schultz is: whites need to understand blacks.

Starbucks’ CEO needs to get off his sanctimonious high horse and stick to selling coffee. Since when is it the job of Starbucks employee to force customers to talk about race, politics or anything other than whether it’ll be a tall or grande?

I hope Howard Schultz is ready for some lawsuits because encouraging employees to strike up conversations on race is a recipe for disaster and getting punched in the face. This is a prime example how the liberal media and Obama administration’s biased view of Ferguson has turned America upside down. Starbucks should be prepared to see race riots coming soon to their very own storefronts.

As for Azealia Banks, she said she “hates everything about this country.” I believe her and would remind her America truly is a the land of the free and the home of the brave and she’s free to leave the country where she’s making millions anytime.

A Personal Email Account, A Private Server and the Ruthless Ambition of Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton said she put “personal convenience” over national security when she used a private email account to send official government emails while she served as Secretary of State. What Hillary wants more than anything is to be the first female President of the United States. But how can the American people trust someone to hold the highest office in the land, when she is more concerned about what’s good for her personally, and then hides from public scrutiny when it comes to what’s good for the nation?

Following a women’s rights speech she gave, Hillary held a press conference at the United Nations where she unapologetically lectured reporters on her email controversy. She kept repeating the talking point that it was easier to use “one device” for both her personal and official emails. Never mind her spokesperson said last month Hillary abandoned her “one device” rule, and began using both an iPhone and a Blackberry. I guess as a 2016 pre-presidential candidate-in-waiting, who is no longer a Secretary of State, she doesn’t have anything to hide anymore.

What she really meant was that by not using a government email account — which records and archives every single email — Hillary controlled what she wanted the public to see and not see.

She reminded the press corps: “The laws and regulations in effect when I was Secretary of State allowed me to use my email for work. That is undisputed.” But the problem is, of the 60,000 emails she claims she sent, Hillary was the arbiter defining which emails were personal and which ones were professional. Recalling to the press that of the voluminous amount of emails she sent while Secretary of State, she determined about half were official State Department business. Continuing, she testily added the public didn’t need to see personal emails about her planning Chelsea’s wedding or those shared with her husband, former president Bill Clinton.

Making her actions look even more suspicious, Hillary stated emphatically that again that she determined which emails were personal, and it took it upon herself to delete them. And oh, by the way, the private server owned by the Clintons and used to store her email account in her Chappaqua, New York home, “would remain private.” The more Hillary talked, the more messy and suspicious the episode looked, and the more questions were left unanswered.

For instance, how is anyone to know there were only 60,000 emails without examining the private server? Why use a private server you own instead of a commercial provider like Google or Yahoo or the government’s email, unless you’re trying to hide something? Did Hillary delete emails about Benghazi or other national security issues because they incriminated her — or even just made her look bad?

Despite her assertions that Secret Service agents physically guarded the server, how do we know foreign governments like North Korea, Russia or Iran didn’t hack it? The American people are to believe she never emailed Bill Clinton about national security issues?

“I fully complied with every rule I was governed by,” Hillary declared. (i.e. Take my word for it!)

Really? For a person who alleged during her husband’s presidency there was a “right wing conspiracy” out to destroy Bill, Hillary wants the American people to trust her judgment. That’s the problem in a nutshell, Hillary is the judge and the jury when it comes to determining which of the thousands of emails she sent while Secretary of State are “official” — outside the purview of any independent authority.

During her roughly 17-minute press conference, Hillary seemed annoyed and angry she had to even bother answering questions about her actions publicly: something as president she would be forced to do with regularity. (Although, President Barack Obama — who promised transparency — set a new precedent when it comes to secrecy and spin.) It appears Hillary knew in 2009 when she became Secretary of State that she planned to run for president again and she used a private email account she controlled. Why? Because she didn’t want any emails, official or not, getting in the way of her trying making history in 2016.

Looking clumsy at times in this news conference, as she frequently glanced down to read talking points, seething with agitation, Hillary left no doubt about one thing. She is ruthless. As a Clinton, she feels entitled to hover above the rules of law to grow her political puissance by any means necessary.  Her message to Americans, the Democrat Party and everyone else is “Deal with it!” Democrats should ask themselves are they really “Ready for Hillary?” I know the rest of us don’t want anything to do with her.

Will Jeb be Romney 2.0?

First published March 5, 2015 on CNN.com

Ben Carson suggested to CNN on Wednesday that prisons can turn straight people gay. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee called being gay a lifestyle choice, like drinking alcohol. I guess the next thing these two presumed 2016 presidential hopefuls will tell America is being black is a choice, too.

Like it or not, it’s no wonder Jeb Bush is emerging as the Republican Party’s 2016 frontrunner.

Of course, there is that awkward little name thing, something he seems fully aware of — despite only being in the exploratory phase of a potential campaign, Jeb has already declared he’s not just another Bush.  “A lot of people know my dad, they know my brother. As in everybody’s family, we’re all a little different,” he reportedly told a crowd in Las Vegas this week.

And he seems to keep trying to distance himself from his family. “Do you have brothers and sisters? Are you exactly the same?” he insisted. Yet Jeb is banking hard on the same vault of donors and operatives his father George H. W Bush and his brother George W. Bush used in their presidential campaigns. He’s already raising lots of money, asking donors recently not to give more than a still eye-popping $1 million to his super PAC. “They didn’t need to be persuaded,” Howard Leach, a Republican fundraiser for Jeb, told the Washington Post.

So, what exactly is in a name like Bush? Apparently, a whole lot of cash, which helps win presidential nominations and elections. And if Jeb wins the nomination in 2016, it will likely be less “joyfully,” as he promised last year, than ruthlessly. After all, we’re still more than 18 months from the election and Jeb’s locking in many of the same kinds of consultants that worked with his brother and father.

“Those who hold out can sense a distinct chill,” noted a recent New York Times article. Jeb’s campaign is seeking to hire “donors, advisors and operatives,” wrote the Times, with “deep connections to the Bush family’s past presidential campaigns and administrations.” Those same family members from whom Jeb swears he’s different?

And if consultants don’t abide by Jeb’s rules of loyalty and decide to work with other 2016 Republican aspirants? “Swift rebuke follows,” the Times notes, pointing to the example of IMGE, a technology company that reportedly fell out of favor with the Bush campaign after one of the firm’s founders indicated IMGE was hoping not to be tied to a single candidate.

None of this is to suggest that Jeb Bush doesn’t have appeal as a candidate — I like some of the things he did as Florida governor, like his record of cutting $19 billion in taxes and supporting school choice programs. (Although I’m not a fan of his willingness to grant illegal immigrants amnesty in any shape, fashion or form.) He seems more equipped to lead America and get things done than some others in the already cramped horse race like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who seems more concerned with telling people off than sounding presidential.

Then there’s Rick Santorum and Huckabee, caring Christian men, but both too consumed with running for president of morality than bringing the entire country together after years of Obama supposedly dividing us on race, religion and sexuality.

But what troubles me a little about Bush’s early attempts at “corning the market” is that he’s relying on the same consultants that have cycled through the last 20-plus years of elections — some of whom worked for Romney’s campaign. This raises the question of why, if Jeb doesn’t want the public to view him as just another Bush running for president, he seems to be relying on the Bush network of consultants?

The same playbook that helped get his brother and father get elected president isn’t going to work for this Bush. The demographics of the country have changed, but it seems unlikely the Republican Party and its operatives have changed with it.

The truth is that any Republican candidate who wins the nomination will have to refrain from business as usual. He (let’s face it, the GOP won’t nominate a woman) will have to hire minorities and women in meaningful campaign positions and have a strategy to aggressively compete for minority votes. This is something Romney didn’t do nearly enough of.

Jeb is only in the “pre-presidential” phase, ruminating over the idea. But he appears to be assembling a lot of the same old (white) faces of recent losing Republican campaigns we’ve seen before. As a black conservative who would like to see a Republican in the White House again, I hope Jeb isn’t Romney 2.0.

Blacks’ Loyalty to First Black President Got Blacks Nothing

Obama is proof that when blacks elected a black Democrat to the White House based only on his “blackness,” blacks get ZERO! In the past six years Obama has been president blacks have lost economic ground. The unemployment rate remains in the double digits and since the black president came to town, black wealth came down. Way down!

Today the average black family has no liquid retirement savings. Nada, rien (as the French say), none. That’s right. But the average white family has $5,000 in liquid retirement savings, which is an increase from $1,500 they had in1998. An analysis from the Urban Institute crunched data from the 2014 Federal Reserve and found black America is in bad shape financially. In 1983, whites accumulated eight times the wealth of blacks. The average white household had over $100,000 in wealth compared to a slim $13,000 for blacks.

“By 2013, the median white family had 12 times the wealth of the median African-American family,” observed the Urban Institute.

But how can black Americans be expected to save, invest and create wealth under the first black president’s leadership, when the jobless rate for blacks has been persistently stuck in neutral. As of February 2015, black unemployment was 10.3% almost twice the national average of 5.7% –and more than twice that of whites at 4.9%. In 2010, the black jobless rate soared to over 16%, the highest since 1984.

Over 90% of blacks voted for Obama during both the 2008 and 2012 elections, and what do they have to show for it? High unemployment while the overall unemployment rate declines. In the summer 2012, when black unemployment was 14%, then-chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Emmanuel Cleaver, encouraged blacks to overlook that and vote for him again. Cleaver even joked that “if we had a white president we’d be marching around the White House.” But he said the Congressional Black Caucus and its black Democrat members, who are supposed to advocate on behalf of blacks, give deference to Obama purely because he’s black.

Apparently, the only benefit blacks received voting for the first black president twice is feeling good knowing they voted for a black man– because “black America” isn’t feeling any love from Obama. Obama should start proving “black lives matter” by showing blacks some a record of success instead of failure. Blacks have been– without fail– Obama’s most loyal constituents and what have they gotten in return? Victimization speeches and lies from Obama on racial profiling and black crime. That narrative doesn’t create black wealth but it does create phony race wars that only –in turn—create wealth for hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. For their loyalty, black checking accounts have low balances.

Black America has atrophied economically, as Obama appeases every liberal constituent under the sun, but blacks.

DC Mayor Bowser Appoints Black Director to Help Her Address Black Concerns

Just when I thought Democrat elected lawmakers in Washington, DC, the District of Corruption, couldn’t do anything stupider, they surprise me. Celebrating black history month, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser announced February 4, 2015 that she appointed Rahman Branch to be the city’s first Director of the Mayor’s Office on African American Affairs. It’s a full-time paid job, probably in the six figures, to . . .(wait for it) address the needs of the shrinking black community in DC.

Never mind, DC is no longer “Chocolate City” where blacks accounted for 70.3% of the population in 1980 and today only make up a little less than 50%. Why do district taxpayers need to pay another black person to address the needs of black residents in DC?

Isn’t that why Bowser was elected, because she was black? It wasn’t because she was the most qualified candidate.

Let’s face it: David Catania was a more qualified candidate. As a Councilmember, Catania actually spearheaded numerous education reform efforts in DC, something Bowser claimed was her passion. Yet Bowser never led education reform efforts; she only supported and followed Catania’s. She did advocate for students to be able to ride city buses for free. Catania drafted a detailed economic plan for the city. I didn’t see one from Bowser.

Instead, as a DC Councilmember, she took credit for business development projects in her Ward 4, like the new Wal-Mart store on Georgia Avenue, NW, which she had nothing to do with. The abolished National Capitol Revitalization Corporation or the DC’s Office of Economic Development initiated that along with other projects.

But Catania was white and the vast majority of black voters in the District will never vote for a white mayor. It’s the truth. No white mayor has been elected to govern DC since 1967. White candidates need not apply. Why? The majority of black DC residents are registered Democrats, who would rather cast an uninformed vote for a black candidate’s skin color than one for a white candidate’s qualifications.

“We see income gaps growing we’re not satisfied with how fast we’re closing educational gaps, and we know that we have to invest in good jobs and affordable housing, said Bowser, explaining why she hired Branch to be the babysit blacks in DC.

Like all the other black mayors before her . . . being black herself, Bowser should be able to connect with “her people” and address the economic disparity between blacks and whites in the city. Why did she need to hire Branch to direct the new office on black affairs? How does Branch’s resume of being a black man and the former principal of Ballou High School in Southeast Washington, qualify him to address the concerns of blacks anymore than our newly elected black mayor?

Branch’s yearly salary will probably be at least $100,000. Acting Director of the Latino Affairs Office Jakeline Reyes Yanes earns $105,000 a year. Acting Director of the Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs Office, David Do, earns $99,000 a year. There’s also a Director of the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgender Office and a Director of the African Affairs Office–not to be confused with the new African American office. In the interest of fairness and reality, it seems Bowser needs to create a Director of Caucasian Affairs because that’s the growing demographic in DC

I thought the Mayor’s job was to manage the city and address all the needs of ALL residents. Isn’t it the mayor’s job to ensure all residents–regardless of color, creed or religion– a quality of life and access to opportunity? (Oops, I forgot that’s a Republican platform that a rising tide lifts all boats.)

“There’s a need for this kind of office because the growth of DC and the expansion of DC and making sure every resident of DC plays a part in that is really what the community has requested,” said Branch justifying is new position.

As a resident of DC, I don’t remember the mayor asking black residents if we “needed a Director of black affairs” to tell us what to think and help address our needs. The last thing DC or any predominately black city needs is more black ambassadors doing nothing to “help the so called black community.” So called “black advocates,” working on behalf of blacks, tend to help themselves to a paycheck either legally or illegally. Many of DC’s former convicted black councilmembers have shown us that.

When will liberals like Bowser stop talking down to her black people like we’re a monolithic group of dummies? More importantly, when will Bowser stop wasting hard-earned taxpayer dollars on minority outreach offices doing the job we hired her to do?