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.
If you own a piece of land, a home or other property, material things that you have paid for, and in the case of a home and/or land, pay taxes on, and you are indeed paid up on those taxes and the government wants to come in and evict you, then that would be, in MY opinion, a fight worth fighting and a cause worth supporting.
Regarding Harry Reid and the claims that he and his Son are somehow involved in a business deal with a Chinese concern and the land in question being a part of the deal; I am of the opinion that this too is a matter for the courts to decide. We are, after all, a nation of laws and that is what the courts are set up to do; interpret those laws and then render a decision.
A person may not like the decision, that is why we have *appeals courts* and why the Supreme Court is the final authority on ALL decisions, but I have never seen or heard of a person anywhere that LOST a case in court that was happy with the decision.
A lot like you how never hear a convicted criminal say, “You know, I’m glad they caught me and took me off the street, I am a BAD man..”
And one other thing; to those that say the Law Enforcement Officers went too far in their response with SWAT Teams and so forth, unless you have ever had to face down an armed citizenry that is threatening your life, shut the hell up. Cops have combat gear and heavy weapons capability. Deal with it!
I am all for standing for what is right and just, but anarchy is not on MY menu.