Posted on

Hang on to Yer Ass, Fred!

And so we gathered once again, the contestants at their podium, the proles at their TVs and computers. I saw threads last night in which viewers were settling in with wine and snacks to watch both events.

That is a very encouraging happenstance. It shows that we are still tuned in. While certainly not in the numbers we saw for the first two debates, this is still an election season in which voter interest remains high.

Here’s my primary take-away from last night. The candidate whose demeanor and delivery was, by far, the most presidential  was – drum roll – Rand Paul. Oh, I know, I know. Die-hards for the front runners, all over the country are hyperventilating right now. Breath slow. It’ll be okay.

In all debates, as poorly presented and crowded as they are, there is winning and there is “winning”. I have made it my personal mission to create better candidates by encouraging people to be better, more demanding voters. My biggest criticism of the latter being that we give our votes away too easily.

If you read my book, this will be redundant. If you read it and agree with it, you will finish this blog post nodding like a bobble head.

On the other hand, if you are totally in the bag for one candidate or another and only watched last night, hoping to see a train wreck, you will have difficulty getting your head around what I am saying. If your guy got in one gotcha line, you went to bed thinking he is the greatest thing since Clarence Darrow.

We’ll start with an example of “winning”. Since no candidate crashed and burned, we can eliminate a kill line by anyone. So that leaves:

  • TRUMP – Since his head didn’t actually explode on camera, most will say he did well. His clownish expressions on split screen, and his continuing inability to convey an idea like a person with a high school diploma, not withstanding. His exchange with Bush over being treated unfairly looked like Nervous vs Stupid with Bush playing the role of Nervous (and correct). This exchange should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump’s worldview is that of a self-centered child. But it won’t. “win”
  • RUBIO – Loudest applause at introduction. I am sure he pleased his de-hard followers. He behaved like Huckabee and other out-of-the closet liberals when he repeatedly misrepresented Cruz’s thinking on the Defense spending vote. I’ll give you a comparison. In a previous debate, Huckabee repeatedly characterized Christie’s Social Security as throwing old people under the bus. It was a stupid and deceitful argument. NO ONE in the republican party is suggesting we take a penny from old people. He knows this and by banging away at the lie (conservative Christian?) he shows his own position to be without merit. Rubio knows that when a legislator sees a rider in a bill that is so repugnant he cannot support the larger bill, in this case a defense spending bill, and votes against it, he is not against defending the nation. To say again and again that Cruz is anti-defense is not only an incredibly stupid position to stake out, it is dishonest. But he likely didn’t hurt himself. “win”
  • HUCKABEE – Go home. You needn’t stick around to see if you’ll get a VP or cabinet nod. You won’t. Which is not to say he doesn’t get some wood on the ball at least once every debate. But he is just too hokey and insincere for most voters.
  • GRAHAM, PATAKI, KASICH, SANTORUM – Ditto. Although someone might tap Graham as SecDef. But he doesn’t need to keep embarrassing himself by pursuing a candidacy.
  • CHRISTIE –  had his worst debate performance to date. It hurts to say, as he is one of my favorites (lean in and touch noses, right?). But his exaggeration about people being “scared to death” was both embarrassing to listen to, and in the long term, utterly unhelpful to his campaign or the security of the nation. Normal people (99% of the US) are by no means “scared to death”. We’re making the mortgage, going to ballgames, Christmas shopping, attending city council meetings, etc. If we were “scared to death”, we’d be cowering under our beds. It is a testament to our disdain for violent superstitious nut-bags and our overall emotional health that we are not any more than angry and concerned as we should be. Christie didn’t contribute to the debate by characterizing voters as chickenshit, and it is wreckless to try to inspire it. He may lose a point or two nationally due to his repetition of the line. People do get annoyed with silliness.
  • Bush – While last night’s debate didn’t feature a train wreck, Jeb is still experiencing a slow-motion train wreck. He was stiff, unconvincing and uninspiring. He is being over rehearsed. He also still looks as if he is apologizing when he is trying to make affirmative statements. The next time he shakes his head “no” while promoting a point, someone in his camp needs to slap him very hard.
  • Carson – He had a night similar to Bush’s. He did a very good job of remembering all his lines. And it was cringingly clear that he was trying to remember all of his lines. When taking the measure of a politician, you measure, among other things, intelligence and aptitude. On the former, Carson has no equal on the stage. While this might carry the day for a president, Carson has not shown real aptitude. A few days with the man discussing the human brain would likely be the equivalent of a pre-med degree. I don’t think Carson would struggle for a syllable in the discussion. BUT, he has yet to show an aptitude for statecraft. That certainly doesn’t make him unwise, just ill fitted SO FAR.
  • FIORINA – This is another disappointment for me. I believe Fiorina is eminently qualified to serve as chief executive. But, as I have said many times elsewhere, part of winning, in today’s political zoo, is to get into the news cycle and stay there. I am beginning to wonder if she has the savvy to do that. There is certainly ample opportunity for a candidate who is not risk-averse to blow open any campaign. But to date, she has demonstrated her ability to turn and memorize phrases and use them well. But if more emotion and thunder doesn’t come through, her fortunes will not change. Pleeeeeease Carly! Can you just put it all on the line, just once? But as in all the debates, her performance was composed and thoughtful. Real win.
  • CRUZ – He still has the delivery of a gay priest at Sunday mass. No biggie, but it may hurt him later in a close match up. His worst debate moments came last night when he went over time. Going over is not a major problem in itself, but to do so in such a petulant fashion, that on both occasions he was repeating himself anyway made it look like he was trying to have a CNBC moment and failing miserably. Still, in terms of exposure and red meat, he looked good. “win”

And that leaves RAND PAUL.  Last night was not only one of his best debate performances, but it was enjoyable to watch. More than any other candidate, he was relaxed. He has exhibited a bit of anger, born of impatience with nonsense, in previous debates. Not last night.

Paul didn’t appear rehearsed. He looked like he was listening when others were talking. Usually the others look like they are pretending to listen while planning their next big line. Trump usually looks like he is pretending to understand in the hopes the moderator won’t call on him.

He was the only candidate on the stage last night that didn’t go over the top with hyperbole. He came across like the cool-headed, dispassionate guy you want in the situation room when generals are laying out their argument. Overall winner.

A final word about Paul. This is not an endorsement, but fair is fair. As Huck lied about Christie and Rubio lied about Cruz, many have lied about Rand Paul. He is not an isolationist. What he is, is a man who is not going to throw out red meat on the subject of national defense. He is not going to formulate military strategy to fit popular opinion. He is not anxious to engage us in situations without considering the long-term results. Would that our last two presidents asked the same questions of his advisors that Paul says we should every time.

When it comes down to the use of the military, Paul is a very cool customer. I have no doubt, that in the event we face an existential threat, Paul would be the most likely of all the candidates to heed the advise of REAL military leaders. Don’t go unless you intend to utterly break the enemy. And if you do go, move the weight and the will of the entire country against the threat.

Ignorant candidates and more ignorant pundits have characterized this as isolationism. Ironically, it is his finest quality. Keep half an eye on Rand Paul.

 

 

 

Posted on

You are far more powerful than you may realize!

On the night of the Paris attacks, I posted an article in which I said I never wanted to be the idiot waiting for the shooter to deliver my bullet. None of us need to be that idiot.

This is a long-overdue concept. The key is in what the author of the link below calls changing the paradigm. We must start thinking of ourselves as the arbiters of our destiny, not only in the classroom or work place, but when we are in situations where we are threatened.

As a kid I used to watch the old films of Nazis loading Jews into rail cars and carting them off to their death. I would always ask why they didn’t do anything? In some of these pictures they outnumbered their guards 100 to 1. There is no way, if they rose up, the guards would have been able to control them.

In an active shooter situation, the targets have an even stronger advantage. In most instances, the shooter is after a certain person or type of person. A spouse, a person in authority, a religious target. They are, by their motivation and actions, excellent targets for counter-attack.

Read the associated link and start NOW to think of yourself as a combatant and not a victim, should you ever find yourself in an active shooter situation.

I’ll allow a qualified expert to explain.

Matt Jordan is a travel writer, political commentator and author of 16 20 24. Get your SIGNED copy here!

Find 16 20 24 on Amazon.

Find 16 20 24 at Barnes & Noble

Find 16 20 24 at Books-a-Million

Posted on

Duh. Yawn.

Sunday, 6 Dec 15

Well, that was a nearly pointless exercise. We got a 20 minute lecture consisting of NOTHING we didn’t know before.

There is one prediction I will make. If they pin the purchase of a weapon to the no fly list, watch how easy it will become to get on that list. You could be, for example, a writer who accurately describes BJ Bill’s wife as the most corrupt and self-serving First Lady and Secretary of State in American history and suddenly find yourself on that list.

Other than trying to tart up his failures to look like successes, BO said nothing of substance tonight.

Matt Jordan is a travel writer, political commentator and author of 16 20 24. Get your SIGNED copy here!

Find 16 20 24 on Amazon.

Find 16 20 24 at Barnes & Noble

Find 16 20 24 at Books-a-Million

Posted on

Pregame Thoughts on Obama Speech.

Tonight, the man who has actively facilitated the chaos in the middle east is going to lecture us. He will instruct us on how to react to subhuman scum who commit acts of violence in support of those scum Obama helped create.

The regime has also released trial balloons about his invoking “executive authority” to interfere in the exercise of our second amendment rights.

I will watch the speech and comment later. But if he does talk about deciding, in the style of a fascist that insulting the rights o honest people will help stop terrorism, religious or sociopathic, I will call for the complete disregard of his pronouncement.

Understand that even if he declared, by imperial fiat, something that I favor, like outlawing the present  stupidity on our college campuses, I’d still call for it to be ridiculed and ignored. We have no goddamn king in this country.

But I’ll hold my fire until I see the speech.

Matt Jordan is a travel writer, political commentator and author of 16 20 24. Get your SIGNED copy here!

Find 16 20 24 on Amazon.

Find 16 20 24 at Barnes & Noble

Find 16 20 24 at Books-a-Million

Posted on

Children of the Beltway!

When political arguments slide to the level of utter childishness they become difficult to address. How do you employ reason against statements utterly devoid of logic, reason or honesty?

When you catch a child playing with matches who then tells you he was only burning them, one at a time, to prevent his little sister from getting them, you first have to stifle the smirk at his saying such a silly thing, if not admire the creativity. My little brother tried this at age six when he set fire to the kitchen trash can. Then you have to make your case for the seriousness of the situation, completely ignoring his silly excuse. If the child insists on maintaining the excuse, a greater punishment should be in order to discourage him from growing up to be a Mizzou student.

Reasonable adults presently face a similar challenge with a recycled meme, popular on the left, regarding nut bag Islamic terrorism. This week, Obama embarrassed the nation once again on the world stage. Along with a host of unsolicited apologies for the condition of American society, a condition that exists only in his imagination, our “president” reaffirmed his contention that terrorism is caused by climate change.

When hearing something so blatantly Orwellian (and not a little stupid), where to start a counterargument is almost bewildering. Language fails.

Fortunately we have writers like George Will. He has said on more than one occasion that there are  a billion people on this planet living without electricity. If there was ever a reason for becoming a terrorist, shouldn’t they look at their lives compared to ours and start blowing up climate change enthusiasts? How terribly unfair it is!

No, the religiously motivated scum that torture this planet are in no way motivated by the planet’s temperature relative to the global ideal (still an unknown value). Nor are they motivated by the number of storms that form over our oceans or the number of heat waves. All these things pretty much occur as they always have, which is to say inconsistently and mostly doing no individual any consistant harm.

No, the only link between terrorism and the climate exists in the imagination of American politicians. The two tend to become linked when worries about climate change wanes.[1. In a recent Gallop poll, climate change ranked at 11 of 13 of the top issues among Democrats and dead last among Republicans.] And that doesn’t sit well with Valerie Jarrett, she and her ilk need issues such as GW/CC to justify and advance an aggressive social agenda. Since phony religious terror is a much sexier issue, the solution is simple, pretend there is a link between the two.

It matters not how stupid the assertion is. The regime knows that the usual suspects in the press will line up to support it and (hopefully for the left) enough of their doctrinaire sheep will pretend to believe it. With luck they can get some weak-wristed college brats to hold some dramatic die-ins to hammer the point home.

But it may very well be one of the official arguments in our political future. With that in mind, would someone please pull Trump aside and teach him how to string two or three adult sentences together? If he is to be our nominee, he’ll need to sound about 400% smarter than he does right now to beat these left wing knuckleheads we face today.

Matt Jordan is a travel writer, political commentator and author of 16 20 24. Get your SIGNED copy here!

Find 16 20 24 on Amazon.

Find 16 20 24 at Barnes & Noble

Find 16 20 24 at Books-a-Million

Posted on

Nailed it! Again!

I love being right! Time after time, I see my words vindicated. I fell like an exceptionally good-looking Nostradamus!

The latest case would be the evolving discussions inside the beltway about mass data collection. As I said in 16 20 24, there was one and only one reason to have this data in the hands of the federal government. And that reason is not National Security!

When Congress finally mustered the testicular fortitude to shut down the data collection, I saw that as good news. Now, the politicians (even Obama) are realizing the truth sounds better then the lie. Yesterday, one of the intelligence professionals I admonished my readers to consult on the issue said exactly what I had written. William Binney, a former NSA Intelligence Officer, said that the previous system of collecting all that metadata created too much information to be of any use. The cost of this was in his words, “paralysis of analysis.” Even the programs designed to spot and develop patterns to be reviewed by analysts was left to produce millions of potential patterns leaving the end user overwhelmed and further behind the eight ball than he would be by just collecting sets of focused, purpose-driven information.

All those fighting to save this flawed program knew it was worthless as an intelligence tool. Now, they are finally admitting it because the voters are, each day, armed with more information like the paragraph above.

We’re not out of the woods yet. It is still too easy to get a warrant from the rubber-stamp FISA court. Real judges with real discretion should be issuing these warrants.

So what the hell did they want with reams and reams of information, too cumbersome to be of timely use? Well, that would be in Chapter 15. Happy reading.

Oh, I know, I know. I’m such a tease.

An interesting lecture (Binney).

Matt Jordan is a travel writer, political commentator and author of 16 20 24. Get your SIGNED copy here!

Find 16 20 24 on Amazon.

Find 16 20 24 at Barnes & Noble

Find 16 20 24 at Books-a-Million