Republican presidential hopefuls steer clear of Nevada ranch fight
GOP presidential hopefuls are largely steering clear of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s fight with the federal government.
The showdown, which left armed militia members and feds staring each other down last week, has captivated talk radio and cable news shows, turning Bundy into a conservative cause célèbre.
Yet Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and former Arkansas Governor and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee are the only big-name GOP stars to have spoken out on the dispute so far.
Tea Party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has been silent, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have also not commented on Bundy, who has been fighting the federal government in and out of court for more than 20 years over his refusal to pay grazing fees. SOURCE
In regards to the Cliven Bundy event in Nevada I am not going to say too much either way about who is right and who is wrong. Truthfully, I don’t know and neither do any of the multitudes of bloggers and sensationalists that have knocked out volumes about this stand-off, its causes and its outcome.
I do know that at this time nothing has been settled, one way or another.
I DO believe that there is a lot of *politics* being played out on the grand stage of life and as with any theater, it’s all in the interpretation.
Is it wise for politicians to stay quiet over this dustup in Nevada? Some seem to think so.
All three offices did not respond to calls for this story.
GOP strategists suggested that Bundy’s case is far too risky for most candidates eyeing the presidency, particularly given the possibility of armed conflict with federal police.
“The Republican Party’s very sympathetic to Cliven Bundy’s property rights, states’ rights argument,” said strategist Ford O’Connell, who worked on John McCain’s 2008 campaign. “But many Republicans also prize the rule of law above all else. Right or wrong, Bundy had his day in court and lost.”
A strong belief in the *rule of law* is why I am having difficulty with all the reasons why, from both sides.
We know Mr. Bundy has had his day in court, and we know that he has been ruled against. Even though this is *public land* it is MY understanding that the BLM and U.S. government can indeed charge Bundy for grazing rights. The courts seem to think so.
Bundy and his family may have been grazing cattle on this land for 150 years, but as I understand it, they don’t OWN the land, they aren’t even leasing; it is PUBLIC LAND and again, as I understand it, Bundy and family are basically *squatters*.
If Mr. Bundy did indeed hold title to this land and the federal government was seeking to remove him, from HIS land, then that could, and should be called a LAND GRAB, but if the land is NOT privately owned then Mr. Bundy is, in MY opinion, subject to paying fees or being evicted from property that is NOT his.
On the other hand; if Mr. Bundy were the LEGAL OWNER of this land, or if he were a lessor paying to graze his cattle on the land in question, and if the Federal government were to come in and attempt to illegally evict him, that would be, in MY opinion, a fight worth fighting and a cause worth supporting. Continue reading