Was Romney Talking about Nikki Haley ?

Last week Mitt Romney issued a statement that he would not seek the nomination for President in 2016. In that statement made the following peculiar statement:

... I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started, may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee. In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case.

Many have perceived the comment to be a swipe at Jeb Bush. Perhaps it is.

I believe it's possible, however, that he may be hinting that a  plan to help organize a campaign for a lessor known candidate. I'm going to speculate that it might be South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley. The two have a bit of a history, and her endorsement in the South Carolina primary went a long way to diminish Newt Gingrich - who was the "Anti-Romney" candidate of the moment - at the time.

Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that her name hasn't been mentioned more frequently with respect to the 2016 nomination - especially since Hillary Clinton is the presumed Democrat nominee.

  You have to admit - she looks good by comparison....

Add a comment

Theatres Fear Litigation - Not NorK Terrorists

Every major Movie Exhibitor in the country has stated they won't show the movie, "The Interview" after threats of reprisal were made public by pro North Korean goons. Subsequently, Sony said they were going to "pull" the release. No big deal there - no one was going to show it.

Much has been made about how Sony and the U.S. Theatre Industry bowed to the terrorists and allowed them to dictate policy. (Minor disclaimer - in my "other life" I am a contractor who has done business with 3 of the major chains)

What most have failed to realize; is that the Theatre Industry doesn't really fear the possibility of an isolated attack. Such an attack would be a remote possibility, and the ability to inflict real damage would likely be small in terms of both life and property loss.

The real issue is the potential tort liability. Should such an event occur, even on a minor scale; the ensuing parade of ambulance chasing lawyers pursuing "justice" for any injuries incurred due to the "brazen negligence" of the Theatre for not providing adequate security after a "known threat" was ignored - could threaten to take down an entire Theatre Corporation. It's likely that insurers would deny coverage for an act of "war", and courts and politicians may even pile on - somewhat like they did during the gulf oil leak - when all legal limits of liability were discarded.

Before we accuse the Theatres of allowing the Norks to bully them; consider the liability issue.

Also consider what you haven't heard...

That is any Federal, State or Local Government saying they would "indemnify, save, and hold harmless" all Theatres from tort liability arising from showing "The Interview."

Final advice to Sony...

Fight the Hack with a reciprocal "Hack". Release the movie to public domain. Make it available for free download and torrent sites. Heck even throw in a couple of trailers for up coming movies. It would then be seen by 100's rather than 10's of millions.

Just my two cents...

Add a comment

Ferguson - A Missed Teaching Opportunity

The shooting death of Micheal Brown, and its aftermath can give some insight on the reflexive assumptions by parties on both sides of this tragedy. The irony is that many who take extreme positions on either side of this event don't realize they have significant common ground, but seem to consciously ignore it.

Many conservatives find it troubling that Blacks in Ferguson almost reflexively concluded that Micheal Brown was murdered in cold blood by an over zealous police officer who had little regard for the life of a young black man.

Many conservatives found it troubling that Ferguson residents were openly critical of the heavy handed military style tactics of the police in dealing with protests.

Add a comment

There will be No Ebola Travel Ban - and Why

There will be no Ebola travel ban. 

Grudgingly, we must admit there may be some logic to what appears to be madness. The irony lies in that this administration is absolutely incapable of speaking truthfully on this matter.

The major conflict with an Ebola travel ban is that it would push those who sought entry into the U.S. into the already profitable and booming business of illegal passage into the U.S. The current policy of border enforcement results in dozens of illegal entrants being detained and housed in close quarters, in over-crowded holding areas. Likewise, these illegal entrants often travel in tightly confined spaces in overcrowded train cars, trucks, and cars. 

If the Ebola virus were introduced into the current illegal entrant holding or trafficking environments, the resulting rate of infection could grow exponentially.

While the idea of allowing desperate Liberians access to U.S. medical services via the airways seems intuitively absurd, it at least provides some ability to identify, track, and control the people who enter the U.S. from Ebola affected regions of the world. In the event that these people are forced into the "illegal entry pipeline" that exists along our southern border; we lose all remaining ability to identify and track potential risks.

Ironically, the reason that a travel ban is ill advised; is that our border policy has been deplorable.

In other words, "We can't lock the front door - because we no longer have a back door."

and ...

"We are way more vulnerable if Ebola comes in the back door."

Of course, to admit this unfortunate reality would be an admission that the current "open border" policy, and the push for even more open border legislation; are flawed at their core - and that's not going to happen. 


Don't expect a travel ban, and don't expect a real explanation.

Add a comment

ObamaCare subsidy ruling - Dangerous for GOP

Many are heralding the DC circuit court ruling that eliminates subsidies from the ObamaCare policies issued via the Federal Exchange as a crippling blow to the law. Possibly fatal.

They are wrong. It's neither crippling or fatal. In reality it's a Democrat issue "Made to Order."


If the ruling is upheld, it will be almost instantly "corrected" with Senate drafted legislation that reverses the original wording. There is absolutely nothing even remotely underhanded about this tactic. The fact that it hasn't already been done is evidence that it's being held for its greatest campaign impact.

Once the corrective legislation is authored, Harry Reid will waive it about the Senate floor every day demanding Republicans "re-instate the health care of millions of Americans."

After a brief make believe battle - the Senate will cave - they always do.

Then it will go to the House. GOP Congressmen will tear each other to pieces arguing over this.  The media will hammer the airwaves with story after story of sobbing people showing their cancelled healthcare - all because the GOP won't pass the bill. This could make the shut down hysteria look like a Saturday morning cartoon.

Boehner will eventually cave and bring it to a vote. All the Dems will vote for it, enough GOP will vote for it to pass. The subsidies will remain, and the GOP will be in shambles as this issue causes the current fissures in the  GOP to become a full blown war.

You can bet that there are a bunch of elected GOP that are secretly praying the DC Circuit "En Banc" hearing quashes  this issue and it goes away - fast. 

Add a comment