In his 2000 essay, "The Origins of Political Correctness," Bill Lind wrote:
"We call it political correctness,The name originated something as a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend to think of it as only half serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It's the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
"If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out which it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back, not to the 1860's and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are obvious."
Seventy years after Nazi Germany's fall, people throughout the world still wonder why the German people so readily followed Adolph Hitler. What was Nazism? Populism plus Terror? Ascendancy of the right? Triumph of a demagogue? Or, was it simply a scared, frustrated people following someone who seemingly connected with them?
Historians generally agree that a flawed treaty of Versailles provided the seeds that ultimately lead to World War Two. Those who lived through post WWI Germany recounted runaway inflation, decadence previously considered unimaginable in a relatively conservative country and a nagging fear of Bolshevism. Limited economic opportunity completed the circle.
Hitler was a master positionist. He had no use for political correctness and correctly equated it to Marxism. He then combined the mystique of Nationalism with the rabble rousing appeal of Socialism and presto: "National Socialism."
National Socialism was essentially basic benefits, such as healthcare, retirement and unemployment insurance for all citizens, except the Jews. At the same time, it promoted the need for a strong national defense against all who threatened Germany. This was naturally welcomed by Germany's military hierarchy. The overall rhetoric promoted Germany's greatness and how the German people had been compromised by previous leadership.
Hitler identified the Jews as both "the Capitalists and the Communists who sought to destroy the German people." For those who have waded through Mein Kampf, it's all there! Most disturbing are some of the parallels drawn by G. Edward Griffin in his book, "the Creature from Jekyll Island."
These Jewish bankers, previously off the radar, thanks to political correctness, were fingered in a way never imagined. In many ways the initial stages of the "outside Wall Street" movement several years ago were eerily reminiscent of those tumultuous days in 1920's Germany. Trump has painfully reminded the country that while must suffered through the financial meltdown, a tiny fragment benefited greatly.
To compare Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler is both unfair and inaccurate. Trump is no Nazi. Nor does he harbor secret dreams of "Pan Americanism." Or, does he hate one individual group of people. What he has done however, is to identify political correctness as a cancer within America. And in doing so, revealed growing disparities that continue to mount in the country. His strong, albeit obnoxious voice has not gone unheard.
Much of this frustration stems from general disgust of our career politicians. As recent days have illustrated, the political class has misread the electorate. So has the mainstream media. It is, as if, there has been a wall that has separated them from those in the streets, attempting to live in this country.
This was how Hitler initially succeeded. He identified with the man in the street. Most career politicians have lost touch with the man in the street. Donald Trump may have found him.
Trump is talking about issues that mean something to "Joe Six-Pack." Eleven million illegal aliens in the country, many of whom are drawing benefits? The endless outsourcing of American jobs? A horrible trade deal that would siphon still more American jobs away from our shores. And finally, a real threat from Islam.
Opposition to all is seen as politically incorrect by establishment politicians and their media henchmen. In Trump's view, they are most relevant.
"Making America great again" are not empty words. Translated it amounts to Nationalism over Globalism. Trump concludes correctly that the United States is strong enough to go it alone. And, in doing so, our country will prosper. Then, as opposed to placating unreliable, undeserving nations, we will resume our place as the "example." In short, the needs of Americans first. While some abroad may not like us, all will respect us.
By changing the tax code and relaxing some of the more cumbersome regulations, more companies will want to do business here. For those still not convinced, there are other measures, such as protective tariffs. While this may prove unpopular with Wall Street, Main Street will see it as nothing short of a Godsend.
By fully developing our energy resources, we will create good paying jobs here at home. Not to mention enhance our overall national security. True, such a position won't win a lot of points with Tom Steyer and his pals. But we're talking about the needs of middle class America! Not wealthy hedge fund managers!
A strong military? I think the majority favors such, including nearly all Republicans. But Trump may be thinking on a scale never conceived. "Peace through strength" worked for Reagan. Why not now?
Trump is talking about a single payer health insurance system. Whoops! Doesn't this sound something akin to Obamacare? Maybe. But, he is going one step further: free health insurance for all." That certainly doesn't jive with contemporary Republican ideology.
Could this actually be done?
Yes. But, we must first initiate what would be the ultimate in "political incorrectness." In short, bid Cultural Marxism adieu!
We must reduce the size, scope and cost of the federal government. Under the present laws, this is impossible. Forget the career politicians. They are bought and paid for!The American people need to make a decision. Electing Donald Trump would be telling our political class, "your credibility is zero."
All posturing aside, could Trump's vision work? Absolutely; if the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments are repealed. And they should be! If you are not familiar with these amendments, it might be worthwhile to spend some time reviewing them. Politicians understand all three. Their worst fear comes from an America without them!
Herein lies the problem! Most of our career politicians do not want to reduce the size, scope and cost of the federal government. It comes down to weaning them from Socialism, which is no easy task. As former Idaho Congressman, Curtis Bowers coined, "Socialism amounts to big government."
In Trump's view, there would be money for a solvent social security system, a strong national defense and healthcare benefits for all American citizens; if no money were utilized for those living illegally in the country. And, if more revenue was gained from an increased number of Americans working here at home. This is what he means when he says, "without borders we don't have a country."
The Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham Neo-Cons are horrified with such ideology.They represent a strain that can be traced back to Leon Trotsky. While the original Marxist paradigm has been modified, essentially making a place for the privileged few, the overall orientation remains.
With the exception of Ted Cruz, Trump appears to be the only candidate in the Republican field placing Nationalism ahead of Globalism. True, correct implementation will be difficult. We will need to "unlearn" ideas that have become ingrained in society over the decades. This may be beyond many, if not most of our career politicians.
It comes down to determining the individual orientation. Adolph Hitler saw opportunity in selling the politics of fear and resentment to a frustrated, downtrodden society. He used fear of Marxism and resentment of the Jewish people as his primary motivators.
Trump's position on Islam is quite different. It equates with "looking out for American interests first." Even if it contradicts political correctness.
The rest is common sense. Are we nationalists? Or, are we globalists? It appears that our career politicians have answered that for us.
Trump is saying, "not so fast!"
Friday, December 11, 2015
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Cruz' Vision in Sync With Woodward's Model
For those supporting Ted Cruz for the Presidency, I would urge you to google Colin Woodward's 2013 article in
Tufts Magazine, "Eleven Americas."
Woodward's article is a separate subject for a different post. But it is highly significant in that it sheds light on the divide currently in America. A case could be made that the nation is more ideologically divided than in 1861!
Cruz represents the ideological end of one spectrum. There is nothing "gray" about him. He is black and white. Period. For the purist, he is the long awaited redeemer who will replace the "mushy milk toast," pseudo conservative with the real deal. The conservative base is tired of Mitch McConnell's and John McCain's. Definitive and decisive are wanted and needed.
What makes Woodward's article so pertinent is how it illustrates, county by county, the actual lines. Based on the map, "Greater Appalachia, the Midlands" and "the Far West" have joined "the Deep South" and "the Tidewater" regions. It comes as no surprise that these five regions have a "reddish" hue. Still in play is "Del Norte." A Republican candidate able to harness it, will take the 2016 Presidency.
The question that many ask "is Ted Cruz that candidate?" Maybe. But, winning the general election may not be his ultimate goal.
The thought of a Hillary Clinton Presidency brings shudders to most conservative hearts. It amounts to an "America no longer fit to live in." Which brings purists to the next question: "Would two Americas be so bad?"
Before someone says, it'll never happen, let's review a couple of valid considerations.
1) Most people could care less!
2) This isn't 1861. We have television. We have the Internet. Nobody will entertain the idea of an 1860's style blood bath!
Those who might are in Cruz' corner! They have secretly lusted for the opportunity to "get a piece" of their "blue" counterparts Never forget, we are likely talking about the planet's most war like people.
California is an interesting scenario. Some of it belongs to the Far West. A chunk of it falls into the Del Norte group. And, a sliver(with a larger population) is designated as "the Left Coast." The "Left Coast" includes Western Oregon and Washington and extends into British Columbia and ends at Juneau, Alaska.
Many recall Tim Draper's "six California's." By their very voting patterns, it could be safely concluded that three would skew red, the other three, blue. When asking a friend(who happened to work for the agency) if three of the six Californias might exit, in the event that states began cutting their ties with the existing Union , he quickly predicted, "all six" would depart.
Really?
As he put it, "they would for two reasons. "Twelve Senators versus two" and "if they didn't, they'd be swamped with refugees." One-third of all current welfare recipients reside in the Golden State.
I see Ted Cruz somewhat akin to the South Carolina "fire eaters of the late 1850's. He has a message. He is a clear ideologue. His heart is in the right place. He understands that with issues such as healthcare, immigration, gay marriage, the environment and the size and scope of government, the regions of America simply have too many differences to stay together.
Is Woodward's model the roadmap? Probably! Keep in mind, there are several movements throughout the United States and Canada that have been around for a while. Google "Cascadia." Google the "North Star" movement. French speaking Quebec has been threatening to secede from Canada for the past century! Suddenly we are discussing a North American realignment!
"Yankeedom" picks up the Northeast, sans 95% of Pennsylvania. It not only expands west to include Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, but extends Northeast to pick up Canada's Atlantic provinces. Most of Ontario and Manitoba fall under the "Midlands" classification. Not surprisingly, Alberta and Saskatchewan join their "Far West" neighbors to the south.
What would be different about a new America? No 16th and 17th amendments? An amended 14th amendment, defining citizenship. A more literal view of the 10th amendment. A national right to work law. A ban on public sector unions? A English language amendment? An amendment defining marriage as a union between man and woman?
If this is the plan and Cruz is the man to lead it, I'm in. But initiating and maintaining are two different things! Therefore, once accomplished, a leader with proven Executive and Military experience, such as a Rick Perry, would be preferable.
In many ways, Cruz is like a street agitator, a rabble rouser. But his overall vision is the right one. His combination of clear logic and uncommon rhetorical skills are difficult to surpass.
Timing is everything. And a trigger, such as a close if not disputed election could make for a tipping point. Nobody knows for certain how 2016 will unfold.
Many aren't exactly welcoming that pivotal moment!
Tufts Magazine, "Eleven Americas."
Woodward's article is a separate subject for a different post. But it is highly significant in that it sheds light on the divide currently in America. A case could be made that the nation is more ideologically divided than in 1861!
Cruz represents the ideological end of one spectrum. There is nothing "gray" about him. He is black and white. Period. For the purist, he is the long awaited redeemer who will replace the "mushy milk toast," pseudo conservative with the real deal. The conservative base is tired of Mitch McConnell's and John McCain's. Definitive and decisive are wanted and needed.
What makes Woodward's article so pertinent is how it illustrates, county by county, the actual lines. Based on the map, "Greater Appalachia, the Midlands" and "the Far West" have joined "the Deep South" and "the Tidewater" regions. It comes as no surprise that these five regions have a "reddish" hue. Still in play is "Del Norte." A Republican candidate able to harness it, will take the 2016 Presidency.
The question that many ask "is Ted Cruz that candidate?" Maybe. But, winning the general election may not be his ultimate goal.
The thought of a Hillary Clinton Presidency brings shudders to most conservative hearts. It amounts to an "America no longer fit to live in." Which brings purists to the next question: "Would two Americas be so bad?"
Before someone says, it'll never happen, let's review a couple of valid considerations.
1) Most people could care less!
2) This isn't 1861. We have television. We have the Internet. Nobody will entertain the idea of an 1860's style blood bath!
Those who might are in Cruz' corner! They have secretly lusted for the opportunity to "get a piece" of their "blue" counterparts Never forget, we are likely talking about the planet's most war like people.
California is an interesting scenario. Some of it belongs to the Far West. A chunk of it falls into the Del Norte group. And, a sliver(with a larger population) is designated as "the Left Coast." The "Left Coast" includes Western Oregon and Washington and extends into British Columbia and ends at Juneau, Alaska.
Many recall Tim Draper's "six California's." By their very voting patterns, it could be safely concluded that three would skew red, the other three, blue. When asking a friend(who happened to work for the agency) if three of the six Californias might exit, in the event that states began cutting their ties with the existing Union , he quickly predicted, "all six" would depart.
Really?
As he put it, "they would for two reasons. "Twelve Senators versus two" and "if they didn't, they'd be swamped with refugees." One-third of all current welfare recipients reside in the Golden State.
I see Ted Cruz somewhat akin to the South Carolina "fire eaters of the late 1850's. He has a message. He is a clear ideologue. His heart is in the right place. He understands that with issues such as healthcare, immigration, gay marriage, the environment and the size and scope of government, the regions of America simply have too many differences to stay together.
Is Woodward's model the roadmap? Probably! Keep in mind, there are several movements throughout the United States and Canada that have been around for a while. Google "Cascadia." Google the "North Star" movement. French speaking Quebec has been threatening to secede from Canada for the past century! Suddenly we are discussing a North American realignment!
"Yankeedom" picks up the Northeast, sans 95% of Pennsylvania. It not only expands west to include Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, but extends Northeast to pick up Canada's Atlantic provinces. Most of Ontario and Manitoba fall under the "Midlands" classification. Not surprisingly, Alberta and Saskatchewan join their "Far West" neighbors to the south.
What would be different about a new America? No 16th and 17th amendments? An amended 14th amendment, defining citizenship. A more literal view of the 10th amendment. A national right to work law. A ban on public sector unions? A English language amendment? An amendment defining marriage as a union between man and woman?
If this is the plan and Cruz is the man to lead it, I'm in. But initiating and maintaining are two different things! Therefore, once accomplished, a leader with proven Executive and Military experience, such as a Rick Perry, would be preferable.
In many ways, Cruz is like a street agitator, a rabble rouser. But his overall vision is the right one. His combination of clear logic and uncommon rhetorical skills are difficult to surpass.
Timing is everything. And a trigger, such as a close if not disputed election could make for a tipping point. Nobody knows for certain how 2016 will unfold.
Many aren't exactly welcoming that pivotal moment!
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Mike Huckabee's Path to the White House
This post should not be seen as an endorsement of Governor Mike Huckabee.
In listening to the Governor's statement yesterday, his entire strategy came in focus.
1. Push his opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership, while identifying those Republicans who supported it.
2. Win Iowa
3. Win South Carolina
4. Sweep the "S.E.C." primary, ultimately forcing Ted Cruz our of the race
5. Mobilize Evangelicals
Sound simple? It could work!
Huckabee has concluded correctly that New Hampshire is a lost cause for any Southern conservative. It is a "blue" state that may lose one of the last two "red" Senate seats in the Northeast in 2016. Jeb Bush and Donald Trump are campaigning vigorously there. Wise to write it off!
Huckabee won Iowa in 2008. No reason why he can't repeat his performance. It's more moderate. It's a caucus state. There are huge numbers of Evangelicals in the Hawkeye state.
South Carolina will not be a strong state for Jeb Bush. Lindsey Graham isn't well liked in the Palmetto state, even though he represents it in the Senate. I could see Graham endorsing Huckabee, however. Trump, Carson and Fiorina have limited penetration in South Carolina.
The "S.E.C." primary will include Huckabee's native Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia and Kentucky. The later has recently gone to a caucus format, enabling them to move up from their late May slot. To sweep these states will be difficult, but not impossible. It is Huck's back yard. He will court support from Senators Sessions, Corker, Pardue, Alexander, Cotton, even, God forbid, McConnell and Cochran!
This does not sound promising. In fact, it sounds like continuation of the status quot! But before we completely write off Huckabee, we should weigh some considerations.
Huckabee will mobilize Evangelical voters. He first, however, needs to bring them unanimously into his fold. This translates to defeating his biggest rival for these voters: Ted Cruz. If Cruz has not secured one state by March first, he will likely drop out of the race. To some, this would be the death knoll for the conservative movement. I say, not so fast!
Our people need to think less ideologically and more strategically. We have three freshman Senators vying for he top job. Are we certain that we want to go in that direction. Our current Chief Executive was a freshman Senator. Most will agree. It hasn't turned out too well!
We must also remember that "no president has ever been elected when not carrying his home state. EVER! Trump is from New York. Fiorina is from California. Carson is from Michigan. Christie is from New Jersey. Do you think Republicans will win any those states? I don't!
Arkansans, Republican and Democrat, who lived in the state during the time of the Clintons and Huckabee will tell you how much MORE effective Huck was as Governor than Bill. True, Clinton is adored by the mainstream media. But he served at a time when Dems controlled 80% of the state house. Huck showed up the first day as Lieutenant Governor to find the door of his office nailed shut!
Huckabee was Governor of Arkansas when Arkansas was a deep blue state. That he accomplished more in four years than Bill did in twelve years is indisputable. The remaining seven years of his reign amounted to more of the same! His success came through creativity and ingenuity.
Where Bill saw "the natural state" as a "ward of Washington," Huck saw it as an "emerging industrial powerhouse." Have you been to Northwest Arkansas lately? Or Northeast Arkansas lately? Have you been to Faulkner county. Or Saline County? Point made! It wasn't like that when Bill ran things! Whether you favor Huck for the nomination or not, speaking as a native Arkansan, I am extremely proud of what he did for my home state!
Here is something else for Republicans to consider. Huckabee received 53% of the Hispanic vote in the 2003 Gubernatorial election. And, are you ready? 46% of African American votes!
Huckabee has always appealed to "blue collar" Democrat voters. The T.P.P. falls right into his playbook. Huck, Trump and Santorum were the first who came out against it. They were eventually joined by Perry, Paul, Carson and Jindal. Bush, Rubio, Graham, Kasich, Christie, Fiorina, Pataki supported it. Cruz was for it, before he was against it!
Support or opposition to T.P.P. could become a key campaign issue. Hillary mulled it over before eventually denouncing it. Huckabee and Trump gave concrete reasons why the deal was a stinker.
Many conservatives consider Huckabee too chummy with the establishment. After all, he did support David Dewhurst and Mitch McConnell's Senate bids.
McConnell's was a no brainer! His opponent was current Kentucky Republican nominee, Matt Bevin in the primary. Bevin is Tea Party, but lacked the resources to do what it took to win in November. The general election pitted him against Alison Lundergan Grimes. Grimes, a rising Democrat star, was considered "as toxic" as Missouri's Claire McCaskill. Those who know her refer to her as "Nancy Pelosi with a Kentucky drawl." It took McConnell's war chest to expose her.
Dewhurst is a master fundraiser and solid party man. Cruz was simply too much of an unknown. It might also be noted that Dewhurst is a native Texan. Cruz grew up on the East Coast. He was born in Canada.
Those who have watched Huckabee's Fox News program will admit that his style is disarming, actually somewhat folksy, if not smarmy. But, he impresses me as a man who could get things done in Washington. This he did in Arkansas when working with a heavily Democrat legislature. Better yet, he didn't do it in the manner that Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Rather than flip flop,compromising himself for the purpose of cutting deals, he did something truly exceptional. He appealed to legislatures' southern standards, convincing them that they were on the wrong team. Many switched parties as a result!
There are approximately 97 million Evangelicals in the United States. In 2012 only 29% of them turned out. Amazingly 22% of those who did broke for Barack Obama. It is a mathematical certainty that Huckabee can produce a greater turnout that Mormon, Mitt Romney. In fact, it's highly possible that he might get as many as 40%, even 45% of them to the polls. If he does, he will win the general election.
We must also remember that Mike Huckabee likely has more "dirt" on the Clintons than anyone in the GOP field. In his folksy, smarmy, matter-of-fact manner, he would, in the most subtle way, insinuate that Mrs. Clinton would be more appropriately housed in a correctional institution than in the white house.
The media is somewhat handcuffed by Huckabee's delivery. It would go something like this:
"Mrs. Clinton is a secular humanist and dedicated public servant, who has devoted her life to making a contribution in Washington, D.C.."
To the mainstream media, this amounts to a "benign, if not a mildly flattering" assessment.
To an Evangelical, it equates to, "a Washington insider who is an atheist and clearly symbolizes the current problem in America."
As nominees go, Huckabee would arguably be a slightly stronger general election candidate than Ted Cruz. And, he is to the right of Jeb Bush. While he lacks foreign policy credentials, choosing his close friend, Marco Rubio as his running mate would shore up that void. And, Huckabee has Executive experience. He ran a small Southern state for eleven years and clearly was instrumental in turning it from blue to red. Not to mention from a "ward of Washington" to an "emerging industrial power house.!" In essence, from a loser to a winner.
Huckabee is not a career politician. Most of his life has been spent as a Minister and a Broadcaster. He is an excellent communicator. He is as warm and engaging as Barack Obama is cool and detached.
Even more importantly, Huckabee did not come from a privileged background. Americans are looking for someone they can identify with. Like Marco Rubio and Rick Perry, Huck came from a lower middle class household where living on a budget was a way of life. He would not be a candidate for Dems expected "class warfare" campaign certain be the fruit of a Trump or Fiorina selection.
Finally, unlike Cruz, Carson and Trump, Huckabee has been vetted thoroughly. This is critical when moving to the next round.
In short, there are many things to like about Mike Huckabee. True, the left abhors him. His standing firmly with Kentucky County Clerk, Kim Davis on her refusal to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, offended some of the more "trendy" Republicans. But it demonstrated Huck's conviction on a critically important issue.
Kim Davis also separated Huck from Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham and John Kasich, who took the "Neo-Con" path of "the decision has been made and the law is the law." Huckabee was dead right about two things: (a) per the 10th amendment, it was the state and not the federal governments call and (b) if allowed, where would it end? Never forget, this is also about the 1st amendment!
For this reason alone, I would rank Huckabee ahead of all four of the aforementioned.
In listening to the Governor's statement yesterday, his entire strategy came in focus.
1. Push his opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership, while identifying those Republicans who supported it.
2. Win Iowa
3. Win South Carolina
4. Sweep the "S.E.C." primary, ultimately forcing Ted Cruz our of the race
5. Mobilize Evangelicals
Sound simple? It could work!
Huckabee has concluded correctly that New Hampshire is a lost cause for any Southern conservative. It is a "blue" state that may lose one of the last two "red" Senate seats in the Northeast in 2016. Jeb Bush and Donald Trump are campaigning vigorously there. Wise to write it off!
Huckabee won Iowa in 2008. No reason why he can't repeat his performance. It's more moderate. It's a caucus state. There are huge numbers of Evangelicals in the Hawkeye state.
South Carolina will not be a strong state for Jeb Bush. Lindsey Graham isn't well liked in the Palmetto state, even though he represents it in the Senate. I could see Graham endorsing Huckabee, however. Trump, Carson and Fiorina have limited penetration in South Carolina.
The "S.E.C." primary will include Huckabee's native Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia and Kentucky. The later has recently gone to a caucus format, enabling them to move up from their late May slot. To sweep these states will be difficult, but not impossible. It is Huck's back yard. He will court support from Senators Sessions, Corker, Pardue, Alexander, Cotton, even, God forbid, McConnell and Cochran!
This does not sound promising. In fact, it sounds like continuation of the status quot! But before we completely write off Huckabee, we should weigh some considerations.
Huckabee will mobilize Evangelical voters. He first, however, needs to bring them unanimously into his fold. This translates to defeating his biggest rival for these voters: Ted Cruz. If Cruz has not secured one state by March first, he will likely drop out of the race. To some, this would be the death knoll for the conservative movement. I say, not so fast!
Our people need to think less ideologically and more strategically. We have three freshman Senators vying for he top job. Are we certain that we want to go in that direction. Our current Chief Executive was a freshman Senator. Most will agree. It hasn't turned out too well!
We must also remember that "no president has ever been elected when not carrying his home state. EVER! Trump is from New York. Fiorina is from California. Carson is from Michigan. Christie is from New Jersey. Do you think Republicans will win any those states? I don't!
Arkansans, Republican and Democrat, who lived in the state during the time of the Clintons and Huckabee will tell you how much MORE effective Huck was as Governor than Bill. True, Clinton is adored by the mainstream media. But he served at a time when Dems controlled 80% of the state house. Huck showed up the first day as Lieutenant Governor to find the door of his office nailed shut!
Huckabee was Governor of Arkansas when Arkansas was a deep blue state. That he accomplished more in four years than Bill did in twelve years is indisputable. The remaining seven years of his reign amounted to more of the same! His success came through creativity and ingenuity.
Where Bill saw "the natural state" as a "ward of Washington," Huck saw it as an "emerging industrial powerhouse." Have you been to Northwest Arkansas lately? Or Northeast Arkansas lately? Have you been to Faulkner county. Or Saline County? Point made! It wasn't like that when Bill ran things! Whether you favor Huck for the nomination or not, speaking as a native Arkansan, I am extremely proud of what he did for my home state!
Here is something else for Republicans to consider. Huckabee received 53% of the Hispanic vote in the 2003 Gubernatorial election. And, are you ready? 46% of African American votes!
Huckabee has always appealed to "blue collar" Democrat voters. The T.P.P. falls right into his playbook. Huck, Trump and Santorum were the first who came out against it. They were eventually joined by Perry, Paul, Carson and Jindal. Bush, Rubio, Graham, Kasich, Christie, Fiorina, Pataki supported it. Cruz was for it, before he was against it!
Support or opposition to T.P.P. could become a key campaign issue. Hillary mulled it over before eventually denouncing it. Huckabee and Trump gave concrete reasons why the deal was a stinker.
Many conservatives consider Huckabee too chummy with the establishment. After all, he did support David Dewhurst and Mitch McConnell's Senate bids.
McConnell's was a no brainer! His opponent was current Kentucky Republican nominee, Matt Bevin in the primary. Bevin is Tea Party, but lacked the resources to do what it took to win in November. The general election pitted him against Alison Lundergan Grimes. Grimes, a rising Democrat star, was considered "as toxic" as Missouri's Claire McCaskill. Those who know her refer to her as "Nancy Pelosi with a Kentucky drawl." It took McConnell's war chest to expose her.
Dewhurst is a master fundraiser and solid party man. Cruz was simply too much of an unknown. It might also be noted that Dewhurst is a native Texan. Cruz grew up on the East Coast. He was born in Canada.
Those who have watched Huckabee's Fox News program will admit that his style is disarming, actually somewhat folksy, if not smarmy. But, he impresses me as a man who could get things done in Washington. This he did in Arkansas when working with a heavily Democrat legislature. Better yet, he didn't do it in the manner that Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Rather than flip flop,compromising himself for the purpose of cutting deals, he did something truly exceptional. He appealed to legislatures' southern standards, convincing them that they were on the wrong team. Many switched parties as a result!
There are approximately 97 million Evangelicals in the United States. In 2012 only 29% of them turned out. Amazingly 22% of those who did broke for Barack Obama. It is a mathematical certainty that Huckabee can produce a greater turnout that Mormon, Mitt Romney. In fact, it's highly possible that he might get as many as 40%, even 45% of them to the polls. If he does, he will win the general election.
We must also remember that Mike Huckabee likely has more "dirt" on the Clintons than anyone in the GOP field. In his folksy, smarmy, matter-of-fact manner, he would, in the most subtle way, insinuate that Mrs. Clinton would be more appropriately housed in a correctional institution than in the white house.
The media is somewhat handcuffed by Huckabee's delivery. It would go something like this:
"Mrs. Clinton is a secular humanist and dedicated public servant, who has devoted her life to making a contribution in Washington, D.C.."
To the mainstream media, this amounts to a "benign, if not a mildly flattering" assessment.
To an Evangelical, it equates to, "a Washington insider who is an atheist and clearly symbolizes the current problem in America."
As nominees go, Huckabee would arguably be a slightly stronger general election candidate than Ted Cruz. And, he is to the right of Jeb Bush. While he lacks foreign policy credentials, choosing his close friend, Marco Rubio as his running mate would shore up that void. And, Huckabee has Executive experience. He ran a small Southern state for eleven years and clearly was instrumental in turning it from blue to red. Not to mention from a "ward of Washington" to an "emerging industrial power house.!" In essence, from a loser to a winner.
Huckabee is not a career politician. Most of his life has been spent as a Minister and a Broadcaster. He is an excellent communicator. He is as warm and engaging as Barack Obama is cool and detached.
Even more importantly, Huckabee did not come from a privileged background. Americans are looking for someone they can identify with. Like Marco Rubio and Rick Perry, Huck came from a lower middle class household where living on a budget was a way of life. He would not be a candidate for Dems expected "class warfare" campaign certain be the fruit of a Trump or Fiorina selection.
Finally, unlike Cruz, Carson and Trump, Huckabee has been vetted thoroughly. This is critical when moving to the next round.
In short, there are many things to like about Mike Huckabee. True, the left abhors him. His standing firmly with Kentucky County Clerk, Kim Davis on her refusal to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, offended some of the more "trendy" Republicans. But it demonstrated Huck's conviction on a critically important issue.
Kim Davis also separated Huck from Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham and John Kasich, who took the "Neo-Con" path of "the decision has been made and the law is the law." Huckabee was dead right about two things: (a) per the 10th amendment, it was the state and not the federal governments call and (b) if allowed, where would it end? Never forget, this is also about the 1st amendment!
For this reason alone, I would rank Huckabee ahead of all four of the aforementioned.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Is Marco Rubio the Most Electable Republican?
For all the bigots, birthers and ideologues out there, I hope you're ready for Hillary!
At this juncture, perhaps the two most qualified candidates for the Republican nomination have dropped out. Leaving conservative faithful's choices that are, at best, risky. My definition of "risky" amounts to "easiest for Hillary Clinton to defeat!"
Donald Trump isn't the one! Even if he secures the nomination, it will be difficult for him to lure sufficient women and Hispanics to collect 270 electoral votes.
Carly Fiorina is a smart, somewhat colorful player. But, she is rich. Extremely rich; the result of a multi-million dollar parachute, courtesy of Hewlett-Packard. Did anyone review Barbara Boxer's Senate attack ads? You could expect more of the same from the superbly hypocritical Hillary. Remember Bank of America CEO, Ken Lewis? For those who don't, he ran his company into the ground, exiting with a cool 65 million! Americans are tired of millionaire CEO's turning in less than stellar report cards while exiting with buckets of cash!
And for God's sake, forget Ben Carson. Not because he got it right about Moslems! He just doesn't have the experience for the top job. A cabinet position? Absolutely! But this is no game! We must get it right.
The key is to win. The media is in the tank for Hillary. Opponents can expect nothing short of the most biased coverage in election history. And make no mistake! She will be the nominee. Bernie Sander's accomplished his objective: to slide her ten degrees or so to the left. Joe Biden still might get in. But, if he does it will be only because something extraordinary, such as an indictment comes down within the next 30 days.
Ted Cruz has secured a place in the hearts of conservatives. He has truly said all of the right things. But where is he realistically? Those who know him will attest to his intellectual brilliance. Same could be said about Dr. Carson! But, we're talking about accomplishments, real accomplishments! Shutting the government down or threatening to do so doesn't qualify.
There are the Karl Rovers who continue to relish the idea of a Jeb Bush Presidency. But, the anti-Bush syndrome is so high at this moment that something amazing will need to take place. On paper, Bush did a reasonably good job in Florida. He is slightly to the right of his brother and father. As Rick Perry once said, "if his last name was Smith, he would be a shoo in."
Mike Huckabee has Executive experience and is in touch with "blue collar" America. But, he has no money. True, he could gain some early momentum by winning in Iowa. And he likely has more "dirt" on the Clintons than any candidate. But, it still might not be enough to win those purple states.
Marco Rubio may be the most electable Republican option. And, his retreat from the "Gang of Ocho," modifying his position is encouraging. Where Cruz is a decided Ideologue, Rubio appears to be a pragmatic. His positions on certain issues such as Climate change, Common Core and Obamacare are carbon copies of Cruz' positions.
Worrisome are his stances on globalization. The "I-Square" proposal is a stinker. For those not familiar, it would triple the number of international student visas while expanding the guest worker program. Too many benefactors would be from Islamic nations who are exporters of terrorism. Bad idea, Marco!
John Kasich is perceived by the Tea Party as "a RINO." But, he may be one of the more electable Republicans. His state is a "must win."
In short, Republicans have two quandaries'. Nominating a candidate who can get the job done while making sure that the chosen one can beat Hillary Clinton.
The Evangelical right would love to see a Cruz-Huckabee ticket. But, I can't see it. And, I don't think it will be Trump-Cruz. Too many negatives on too many fronts. Even solid conservatives compare the Texas Senator to a "television evangelist."
Marco Rubio's wife is a devout Evangelical. He admits to attending Christ Fellowship, the Saddle Creek church, with her more often than Mass. And, having worked on his campaign, I can attest to his deep religious conviction. His positions on defense, Iran, Russia, China and certainly Cuba are right on target with conservatives.
On defeating Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio gets all "A's". Jeb Bush called him the "most gifted orator" he had ever seen. I can imagine what he would do to Hillary in a debate, even with her receiving expected help from the moderators! Cruz is known for his debating skills. But, in the debates he has come off as "canned."
America likes underdogs. That amounts to someone who came from very humble circumstances and vaulted to the top. Rubio did this. Cruz did it to a lessor extent. And, Ted was a superb student at Princeton and Harvard. Which brings me to the next consideration. Do we want another Ivy Leaguer in the White House. The last non-Ivy Leaguer was Ronald Reagan. I must admit! I have "cold feet" where Harvard Lawyers are concerned!
Globalist tendencies aside, Marco Rubio looks to be the best overall option. He will be only 45 when November 2016 rolls around. Young people see him as a "rock star." Immigrants look upon him as a champion. Both groups broke for Barack Obama in '08 and '12.
Obviously Ted Cruz has his advocates. But I see him as unelectable as Rubio is electable. No candidate is perfect, after all. Rubio's orientation is purely "supply side." Not because he talked about it! But, because he sponsored it, during his tenure as Florida House Speaker.
Texas will go "red" no matter who the Republicans nominate. But Florida will be determined by which candidate splits the Hispanic vote. Hispanics make up 27% of the Sunshine state's electorate. Smart money says that Rubio and Bush are the only two candidates who could do this. Ultimately the question becomes, "are you ready for Hillary?"
By the way, I think John Kasich would be an excellent choice for Vice President.
At this juncture, perhaps the two most qualified candidates for the Republican nomination have dropped out. Leaving conservative faithful's choices that are, at best, risky. My definition of "risky" amounts to "easiest for Hillary Clinton to defeat!"
Donald Trump isn't the one! Even if he secures the nomination, it will be difficult for him to lure sufficient women and Hispanics to collect 270 electoral votes.
Carly Fiorina is a smart, somewhat colorful player. But, she is rich. Extremely rich; the result of a multi-million dollar parachute, courtesy of Hewlett-Packard. Did anyone review Barbara Boxer's Senate attack ads? You could expect more of the same from the superbly hypocritical Hillary. Remember Bank of America CEO, Ken Lewis? For those who don't, he ran his company into the ground, exiting with a cool 65 million! Americans are tired of millionaire CEO's turning in less than stellar report cards while exiting with buckets of cash!
And for God's sake, forget Ben Carson. Not because he got it right about Moslems! He just doesn't have the experience for the top job. A cabinet position? Absolutely! But this is no game! We must get it right.
The key is to win. The media is in the tank for Hillary. Opponents can expect nothing short of the most biased coverage in election history. And make no mistake! She will be the nominee. Bernie Sander's accomplished his objective: to slide her ten degrees or so to the left. Joe Biden still might get in. But, if he does it will be only because something extraordinary, such as an indictment comes down within the next 30 days.
Ted Cruz has secured a place in the hearts of conservatives. He has truly said all of the right things. But where is he realistically? Those who know him will attest to his intellectual brilliance. Same could be said about Dr. Carson! But, we're talking about accomplishments, real accomplishments! Shutting the government down or threatening to do so doesn't qualify.
There are the Karl Rovers who continue to relish the idea of a Jeb Bush Presidency. But, the anti-Bush syndrome is so high at this moment that something amazing will need to take place. On paper, Bush did a reasonably good job in Florida. He is slightly to the right of his brother and father. As Rick Perry once said, "if his last name was Smith, he would be a shoo in."
Mike Huckabee has Executive experience and is in touch with "blue collar" America. But, he has no money. True, he could gain some early momentum by winning in Iowa. And he likely has more "dirt" on the Clintons than any candidate. But, it still might not be enough to win those purple states.
Marco Rubio may be the most electable Republican option. And, his retreat from the "Gang of Ocho," modifying his position is encouraging. Where Cruz is a decided Ideologue, Rubio appears to be a pragmatic. His positions on certain issues such as Climate change, Common Core and Obamacare are carbon copies of Cruz' positions.
Worrisome are his stances on globalization. The "I-Square" proposal is a stinker. For those not familiar, it would triple the number of international student visas while expanding the guest worker program. Too many benefactors would be from Islamic nations who are exporters of terrorism. Bad idea, Marco!
John Kasich is perceived by the Tea Party as "a RINO." But, he may be one of the more electable Republicans. His state is a "must win."
In short, Republicans have two quandaries'. Nominating a candidate who can get the job done while making sure that the chosen one can beat Hillary Clinton.
The Evangelical right would love to see a Cruz-Huckabee ticket. But, I can't see it. And, I don't think it will be Trump-Cruz. Too many negatives on too many fronts. Even solid conservatives compare the Texas Senator to a "television evangelist."
Marco Rubio's wife is a devout Evangelical. He admits to attending Christ Fellowship, the Saddle Creek church, with her more often than Mass. And, having worked on his campaign, I can attest to his deep religious conviction. His positions on defense, Iran, Russia, China and certainly Cuba are right on target with conservatives.
On defeating Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio gets all "A's". Jeb Bush called him the "most gifted orator" he had ever seen. I can imagine what he would do to Hillary in a debate, even with her receiving expected help from the moderators! Cruz is known for his debating skills. But, in the debates he has come off as "canned."
America likes underdogs. That amounts to someone who came from very humble circumstances and vaulted to the top. Rubio did this. Cruz did it to a lessor extent. And, Ted was a superb student at Princeton and Harvard. Which brings me to the next consideration. Do we want another Ivy Leaguer in the White House. The last non-Ivy Leaguer was Ronald Reagan. I must admit! I have "cold feet" where Harvard Lawyers are concerned!
Globalist tendencies aside, Marco Rubio looks to be the best overall option. He will be only 45 when November 2016 rolls around. Young people see him as a "rock star." Immigrants look upon him as a champion. Both groups broke for Barack Obama in '08 and '12.
Obviously Ted Cruz has his advocates. But I see him as unelectable as Rubio is electable. No candidate is perfect, after all. Rubio's orientation is purely "supply side." Not because he talked about it! But, because he sponsored it, during his tenure as Florida House Speaker.
Texas will go "red" no matter who the Republicans nominate. But Florida will be determined by which candidate splits the Hispanic vote. Hispanics make up 27% of the Sunshine state's electorate. Smart money says that Rubio and Bush are the only two candidates who could do this. Ultimately the question becomes, "are you ready for Hillary?"
By the way, I think John Kasich would be an excellent choice for Vice President.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Still Time For Rick Perry With Aid of Key Issue
Oh, those low information voters!
August concludes in unlikely fashion. Donald Trump is ahead and apparently getting stronger. Ben Carson is solidly in second place and Jeb Bush is struggling to stay in third in Republican primary polls? Or, is he actually in fourth place; behind Texas Senator, Ted Cruz?
Granted, it is early. Obviously too early to call the race. But, there seems to be a pattern. Loud and clear the American people are saying, "we're done with career politicians. It's time for an outsider!"
Anger, frustration and overall emotion are powerful influencers! It goes to show that many of these poll resondents are not armed with all of the information. If they were, Rick Perry would be enjoying a double digit lead in the polls. As things stand, his campaign is on life support. Politico predicted that the former governor would be the first to throw in the towel!
Perry should be more than frustrated! A farmer for the first forty-two years of his life, only taking a five year-break from the plow to serve as an Air Force pilot, he represents the perfect mix: Civilian, military and public service.
Republican opponents acknowledge his successfull 14-year governorship. So do the majority of Independents and even a notable percentage of registered Democrats.
As the son of West Texas tenant farmers who rose to Commissioner of Agriculture, Perry's resume sounds like the perfect script for the Iowa caucuses! Yet, last week Sam Clovis, who had earlier said that Donald Trump lacked a "moral center," dumped Perry in favor of "the Donald." Do I see a little "Kent Sorenson" in Clovis'decision?
Perry, to his credit, had not been overaly critical of the GOP field. Other than some useless jabs at Trump and mild taps at Governors, John Kasich and Chris Christie, he has been relatively benign.
Time to take the gloves off? Yes, but in a different way!
Donald Trump has placed his finger on a nerve ending. It is called "outsourcing." People are tired of hearing rationale that suggests that "we ship jobs overseas because the world is changing and we now live in a global socieity."
That's easy to say when you get yours on the first and the fifteenth, as politicians do!
Last cycle, Rick Santorum found out quickly that "K" Street will open up the coffers against anyone at odds with the status quot. Santorum's words revealed a closet protectionist. Trump is in the same court. The difference is, "the Donald" has money! And, he could care less about political correctness!
Perry's camp should take note of this fire that first Santorum in 2012 and now Trump has stoked. Amazingly, there is an opening that can vault Perry past, the entire field! From the "Showman Trump to the Charlatan Cruz to the choice of Fortune 500 globalists', Bush, to the Surgeon who is often reminiscent of Bill Cosby before the scandals!"
Identity Theft is the world's fastest growing crime. To make it an issue sounds noble. To concretely link it to offshore oursoucing would be unequivocally brilliant.
Hundreds of thousands of low wage jobs, courtesy of Chase, A T & T, Direct TV and others, are being handled in India, the Phillipines, Malaysia and Mexico. To be sure, Liberals might scoff at positions that would often pay less than $10 per hour. But, these voices are typically in non-right-to work states. When considering the fact that benefits come with these positions, a $16,000 or $17,000 per year job begins to look better. Especially if you are just getting out of school or are an older worker.
Even more to the liking of "blue collar" America would be the preclusion of offshore help in the debt recovery industry. Huge numbers of Americans are dismayed by errant credit reporting that result in mistakes on their credit reports. This results in reduced borrowering power for the consumer. And, of course, greater profits for the banks.
Besides making it illegal to outsource debt recovery, Perry could propose some changes in how debt recovery could be adminisistered. Starting with a law that would make reporting of any debt under $500 illegal. Many Americans are plague by tiny, mostly medical debts that result from providers refusing to follow the guidelines of the "Fact Act."
Such standards would infuriate Fortune 500 companies! But, their money has already been placed on Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. They are hedging their bets, in hope that one, preferably both, will be nominated.
Perry will be the first to make Identity Theft a center piece of his campaign. There will be others who will do the same. But this Populist preference would allow Perry to leapfrog four or five Republican opponents. The remainder will be forced to compare their records to his and go down like "cheese to a knife."
This strategy would neatly set a trap for Perry's rivals, namely Trump. "The Donald" couldn't oppose the plan. If it did, it would look like he was only interested in the companies, not the individual; ultimately setting himself up for a class warfare campaign. Which, of course, he would lose.
Millions of frustrated Americans are coming to the conclusion that America needs a strong man in the white house. We do. But, we must also remember that we are not Russia.
Trump is rich and he is confident. But, the majority of Americans would rather have a President that they would want to have a beer with. Perry comes off as humble as Trump arrogant. But both me have enjoyed success.
The necessary 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House never leaves centerpoint. And that will come down to which Republican candidate can secure female and Hispanic votes.
Trump backers say he can and they may have a point. The Democrat field doesn't look particularly strong. But, we have a long way to go.
I would put my money on the candidate with the record. It's probable that most non-Trump Republicans feel the same way.
August concludes in unlikely fashion. Donald Trump is ahead and apparently getting stronger. Ben Carson is solidly in second place and Jeb Bush is struggling to stay in third in Republican primary polls? Or, is he actually in fourth place; behind Texas Senator, Ted Cruz?
Granted, it is early. Obviously too early to call the race. But, there seems to be a pattern. Loud and clear the American people are saying, "we're done with career politicians. It's time for an outsider!"
Anger, frustration and overall emotion are powerful influencers! It goes to show that many of these poll resondents are not armed with all of the information. If they were, Rick Perry would be enjoying a double digit lead in the polls. As things stand, his campaign is on life support. Politico predicted that the former governor would be the first to throw in the towel!
Perry should be more than frustrated! A farmer for the first forty-two years of his life, only taking a five year-break from the plow to serve as an Air Force pilot, he represents the perfect mix: Civilian, military and public service.
Republican opponents acknowledge his successfull 14-year governorship. So do the majority of Independents and even a notable percentage of registered Democrats.
As the son of West Texas tenant farmers who rose to Commissioner of Agriculture, Perry's resume sounds like the perfect script for the Iowa caucuses! Yet, last week Sam Clovis, who had earlier said that Donald Trump lacked a "moral center," dumped Perry in favor of "the Donald." Do I see a little "Kent Sorenson" in Clovis'decision?
Perry, to his credit, had not been overaly critical of the GOP field. Other than some useless jabs at Trump and mild taps at Governors, John Kasich and Chris Christie, he has been relatively benign.
Time to take the gloves off? Yes, but in a different way!
Donald Trump has placed his finger on a nerve ending. It is called "outsourcing." People are tired of hearing rationale that suggests that "we ship jobs overseas because the world is changing and we now live in a global socieity."
That's easy to say when you get yours on the first and the fifteenth, as politicians do!
Last cycle, Rick Santorum found out quickly that "K" Street will open up the coffers against anyone at odds with the status quot. Santorum's words revealed a closet protectionist. Trump is in the same court. The difference is, "the Donald" has money! And, he could care less about political correctness!
Perry's camp should take note of this fire that first Santorum in 2012 and now Trump has stoked. Amazingly, there is an opening that can vault Perry past, the entire field! From the "Showman Trump to the Charlatan Cruz to the choice of Fortune 500 globalists', Bush, to the Surgeon who is often reminiscent of Bill Cosby before the scandals!"
Identity Theft is the world's fastest growing crime. To make it an issue sounds noble. To concretely link it to offshore oursoucing would be unequivocally brilliant.
Hundreds of thousands of low wage jobs, courtesy of Chase, A T & T, Direct TV and others, are being handled in India, the Phillipines, Malaysia and Mexico. To be sure, Liberals might scoff at positions that would often pay less than $10 per hour. But, these voices are typically in non-right-to work states. When considering the fact that benefits come with these positions, a $16,000 or $17,000 per year job begins to look better. Especially if you are just getting out of school or are an older worker.
Even more to the liking of "blue collar" America would be the preclusion of offshore help in the debt recovery industry. Huge numbers of Americans are dismayed by errant credit reporting that result in mistakes on their credit reports. This results in reduced borrowering power for the consumer. And, of course, greater profits for the banks.
Besides making it illegal to outsource debt recovery, Perry could propose some changes in how debt recovery could be adminisistered. Starting with a law that would make reporting of any debt under $500 illegal. Many Americans are plague by tiny, mostly medical debts that result from providers refusing to follow the guidelines of the "Fact Act."
Such standards would infuriate Fortune 500 companies! But, their money has already been placed on Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. They are hedging their bets, in hope that one, preferably both, will be nominated.
Perry will be the first to make Identity Theft a center piece of his campaign. There will be others who will do the same. But this Populist preference would allow Perry to leapfrog four or five Republican opponents. The remainder will be forced to compare their records to his and go down like "cheese to a knife."
This strategy would neatly set a trap for Perry's rivals, namely Trump. "The Donald" couldn't oppose the plan. If it did, it would look like he was only interested in the companies, not the individual; ultimately setting himself up for a class warfare campaign. Which, of course, he would lose.
Millions of frustrated Americans are coming to the conclusion that America needs a strong man in the white house. We do. But, we must also remember that we are not Russia.
Trump is rich and he is confident. But, the majority of Americans would rather have a President that they would want to have a beer with. Perry comes off as humble as Trump arrogant. But both me have enjoyed success.
The necessary 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House never leaves centerpoint. And that will come down to which Republican candidate can secure female and Hispanic votes.
Trump backers say he can and they may have a point. The Democrat field doesn't look particularly strong. But, we have a long way to go.
I would put my money on the candidate with the record. It's probable that most non-Trump Republicans feel the same way.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Trump's Display May Finally Force Americas' Hand
2016 will likely be remembered as the year when the Republican base failed to make up it's mind!
Candidates were either "too moderate, too polarizing, too focused on social issues, too religious, too inexperienced, too Libertarian, too reminiscent of a Tele-Evangelist, too dogmatic or simply too "dumb" to be worthy of the nomination.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump told it like it was and ultimately drew the wrath of the brass.
Perhaps the party leadership had it coming! But, John McCain's experience as a P..O.W. is something few would covet. Call McCain what you will! But his record of service to his country should not be scoffed!
Trump probably will fade from front runner status; if you can call it that. Polls this early in the process are a bit ridiculous anyway!
Sadly, "the Donald" may have already done the damage. If he is the nominee, he will face long odds. The hypocritical Hillary will position him as "an Oligarch," out of touch with the common man. If he runs as a third party candidate, which is highly possible, he will essentially hand the Clintons keys to the White House.
I recall the movie "Gettysburg," when General John Buford proclaimed that he "could see" the upcoming Union defeat," as plain as day." His decisive action and dogged determination may have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Such insightful thinking must prevail for conservative America, if the nation is to be spared a Hillary presidency.
Maybe it's too late. GOP national won't acknowledge such. But Democrats are gloating visibly over the perceived "blue wall." They are now counting Nevada, New Hampshire and New Mexico as "safely blue." To look at their projected tally, they already have 257 electoral votes in the bag! Virginia and her 13 votes are said to be essentially won. It only takes 270 electoral votes to win.
I would like to believe that conservative America will cease to think emotionally and commence thinking strategically. It won't happen! We simply have too many options. Don't think it might not get nasty! There is a deep divide in the party. Donald Trump has further accentuated it!
There are those who retain hope that Hillary Clinton will somehow implode. Won't happen. With most of the media in the tank for her, she can simply run out the clock. Don't think a national debate will change much. 95% of voters will have made their decision by the time that the debates roll around.
So what options remain?
Even though there are a lot of Americans who would shudder at this option, let's seriously ponder it.
Hillary is elected. Texas says, "we're done!" Oklahoma follows suit. Nobody would argue that both states legally can exit the union. In fact, based on a previous article in Salon magazine, their exodus might be welcomed by some. Would it end there?
It has been written that the left, including Barack Obama himself might actually relish the departure of some of the red states. It would certainly make it easier to finish imposing a totalitarian, Marxist style government on what remained of America. The million dollar questions are,
"Could it really happen?"
"Where would the lines be drawn?
"How would the resources and debt be divided,"
"How would the military hardware be distributed?"
"How would the rest of the world react to it?"
"Would career politicians listen to their constituents?"
There are literally dozens of scenarios. The safest scenario is "do nothing; thing's might work out." I am afraid that this is wishful thinking!
The United States has not been this divided since 1861. This time the divide is not sectional. It is ideological. We have major disagreements on health care, same sex marriage, abortion, gun control, foreign policy, wealth distribution, the environment, immigration, voter I.D. laws, education and federalism. In short, we have a "clash of perceptions."
I hold very little optimism for a satisfactory conclusion engineered by the Republican party. More constructive would be for the states to have an adult conversation, shake hands and go separate ways. There is no reason why that it could not be peaceful and constructive. We could be friends, trading partners and allies; as we are with Canada! Americans would be given the choice of Americas, with migration as an option for everyone.
Naysayers would contend that it would weaken the overall fabric of the West and freedom. But they don't know this. When we return to the original premise of our constitution, we realize that our founders saw "strong states" as the key to a strong nation.
Today we have one group who sees the country as "the United American States." The other stubbornly insists that it truly is "the United States of America."
Here we clash! Can it be said that either side is right or wrong? In reality, this argument has been brewing for centuries. It only needed a Donald Trump to force the country to accept it.
Candidates were either "too moderate, too polarizing, too focused on social issues, too religious, too inexperienced, too Libertarian, too reminiscent of a Tele-Evangelist, too dogmatic or simply too "dumb" to be worthy of the nomination.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump told it like it was and ultimately drew the wrath of the brass.
Perhaps the party leadership had it coming! But, John McCain's experience as a P..O.W. is something few would covet. Call McCain what you will! But his record of service to his country should not be scoffed!
Trump probably will fade from front runner status; if you can call it that. Polls this early in the process are a bit ridiculous anyway!
Sadly, "the Donald" may have already done the damage. If he is the nominee, he will face long odds. The hypocritical Hillary will position him as "an Oligarch," out of touch with the common man. If he runs as a third party candidate, which is highly possible, he will essentially hand the Clintons keys to the White House.
I recall the movie "Gettysburg," when General John Buford proclaimed that he "could see" the upcoming Union defeat," as plain as day." His decisive action and dogged determination may have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Such insightful thinking must prevail for conservative America, if the nation is to be spared a Hillary presidency.
Maybe it's too late. GOP national won't acknowledge such. But Democrats are gloating visibly over the perceived "blue wall." They are now counting Nevada, New Hampshire and New Mexico as "safely blue." To look at their projected tally, they already have 257 electoral votes in the bag! Virginia and her 13 votes are said to be essentially won. It only takes 270 electoral votes to win.
I would like to believe that conservative America will cease to think emotionally and commence thinking strategically. It won't happen! We simply have too many options. Don't think it might not get nasty! There is a deep divide in the party. Donald Trump has further accentuated it!
There are those who retain hope that Hillary Clinton will somehow implode. Won't happen. With most of the media in the tank for her, she can simply run out the clock. Don't think a national debate will change much. 95% of voters will have made their decision by the time that the debates roll around.
So what options remain?
Even though there are a lot of Americans who would shudder at this option, let's seriously ponder it.
Hillary is elected. Texas says, "we're done!" Oklahoma follows suit. Nobody would argue that both states legally can exit the union. In fact, based on a previous article in Salon magazine, their exodus might be welcomed by some. Would it end there?
It has been written that the left, including Barack Obama himself might actually relish the departure of some of the red states. It would certainly make it easier to finish imposing a totalitarian, Marxist style government on what remained of America. The million dollar questions are,
"Could it really happen?"
"Where would the lines be drawn?
"How would the resources and debt be divided,"
"How would the military hardware be distributed?"
"How would the rest of the world react to it?"
"Would career politicians listen to their constituents?"
There are literally dozens of scenarios. The safest scenario is "do nothing; thing's might work out." I am afraid that this is wishful thinking!
The United States has not been this divided since 1861. This time the divide is not sectional. It is ideological. We have major disagreements on health care, same sex marriage, abortion, gun control, foreign policy, wealth distribution, the environment, immigration, voter I.D. laws, education and federalism. In short, we have a "clash of perceptions."
I hold very little optimism for a satisfactory conclusion engineered by the Republican party. More constructive would be for the states to have an adult conversation, shake hands and go separate ways. There is no reason why that it could not be peaceful and constructive. We could be friends, trading partners and allies; as we are with Canada! Americans would be given the choice of Americas, with migration as an option for everyone.
Naysayers would contend that it would weaken the overall fabric of the West and freedom. But they don't know this. When we return to the original premise of our constitution, we realize that our founders saw "strong states" as the key to a strong nation.
Today we have one group who sees the country as "the United American States." The other stubbornly insists that it truly is "the United States of America."
Here we clash! Can it be said that either side is right or wrong? In reality, this argument has been brewing for centuries. It only needed a Donald Trump to force the country to accept it.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Republican Candidates Should Answer These Questions
Three questions should accompany each and every one of the Republican Presidential candidates:
(1) Do you believe in the 10th amendment?
(2) Do you love your home state more than the federal union?
(3) Do you believe that the military, including all veterans, and the law enforcement officials nationwide would follow you?
If the answer is "no" to any of these three questions, candidates should be precluded from further nomination consideration.
Cut and dry? Maybe. But, consider this.
We will have sixteen or more possible nominees. The good news is, "Democrats will have no clue as to what Republicans are doing." The bad news is, "we have some real "stinkers" in the field!
Rand Paul distinguished the difference between "Con-Con" and "Neo-Con" in his book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington." Kudos for Rand! We really got a taste of the distinction in the recent Trans Pacific vote.
There is a saying. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Isn't it time that we practiced what we preached?
What about those who saw both sides of the issue? I can't condemn anyone. But, I can review their voting record. As in, their chances to vote! Missing the chance is as good as saying, "I don't care! I have bigger things in mind!"
How about the military? Have we truly given this question much thought? Their support could be the difference between a rally that made the six o'clock news and something much bigger...
And finally, "how much do we love our home state?" Are we with her? Or, did she merely give us the necessary platform to move on with our careers?
The time is short. Soon, we will be forced to make a call: "The contenders versus the pretenders." We must pass the emotion test and begin looking at reality. Can we honestly say that our preference is capable of leading a nation in the time of ultimate turmoil? In the tradition of Abraham Lincoln?
If the answer is "I don't know," perhaps it's time to experience that crucial, pivotal paradigm shift. Before, it's too late!
Oh! By the way! If you haven't already figured it out...Donald Trump is running to take out Jeb Bush, in the tradition of Ross Perot. He knows that he can't win. But, he can make certain that Jeb does not win. Even if the Republican Establishment crams him down the throat of the base, which is likely the plan. Does anyone remember Ross Perot?
For those who are secretly resigned to vote for Bush, because he is allegedly the "most electable," never forget! If Trump runs as a third party candidate, Hillary will win. And Trump might run! Has anyone checked to see how much he has given Democrat candidates over the past twenty years?
Back to the original questions. Check the candidates from A to Z. Take a moment to forgo the question of "who" is the "most glib," who is the perceived "slickest debater."
Try to merely focus on results. As in, a previous report card...Then return to the three questions asked previously. For the sake of what's left of this once great nation...
Are we there yet?
I rest my case...
(1) Do you believe in the 10th amendment?
(2) Do you love your home state more than the federal union?
(3) Do you believe that the military, including all veterans, and the law enforcement officials nationwide would follow you?
If the answer is "no" to any of these three questions, candidates should be precluded from further nomination consideration.
Cut and dry? Maybe. But, consider this.
We will have sixteen or more possible nominees. The good news is, "Democrats will have no clue as to what Republicans are doing." The bad news is, "we have some real "stinkers" in the field!
Rand Paul distinguished the difference between "Con-Con" and "Neo-Con" in his book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington." Kudos for Rand! We really got a taste of the distinction in the recent Trans Pacific vote.
There is a saying. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Isn't it time that we practiced what we preached?
What about those who saw both sides of the issue? I can't condemn anyone. But, I can review their voting record. As in, their chances to vote! Missing the chance is as good as saying, "I don't care! I have bigger things in mind!"
How about the military? Have we truly given this question much thought? Their support could be the difference between a rally that made the six o'clock news and something much bigger...
And finally, "how much do we love our home state?" Are we with her? Or, did she merely give us the necessary platform to move on with our careers?
The time is short. Soon, we will be forced to make a call: "The contenders versus the pretenders." We must pass the emotion test and begin looking at reality. Can we honestly say that our preference is capable of leading a nation in the time of ultimate turmoil? In the tradition of Abraham Lincoln?
If the answer is "I don't know," perhaps it's time to experience that crucial, pivotal paradigm shift. Before, it's too late!
Oh! By the way! If you haven't already figured it out...Donald Trump is running to take out Jeb Bush, in the tradition of Ross Perot. He knows that he can't win. But, he can make certain that Jeb does not win. Even if the Republican Establishment crams him down the throat of the base, which is likely the plan. Does anyone remember Ross Perot?
For those who are secretly resigned to vote for Bush, because he is allegedly the "most electable," never forget! If Trump runs as a third party candidate, Hillary will win. And Trump might run! Has anyone checked to see how much he has given Democrat candidates over the past twenty years?
Back to the original questions. Check the candidates from A to Z. Take a moment to forgo the question of "who" is the "most glib," who is the perceived "slickest debater."
Try to merely focus on results. As in, a previous report card...Then return to the three questions asked previously. For the sake of what's left of this once great nation...
Are we there yet?
I rest my case...
Monday, June 15, 2015
Trans Pacific Vote Exposes True Priorities for Presidential Contenders
Was anyone keeping close watch on "which" Republican Presidential candidate came out in favor of the Trans Pacific Treaty? Donald Trump evidently was!
Anyone who watched "the Donald," this morning on Fox News was likely taken aback. Not only did Trump oppose the treaty. He made it sound like anyone who didn't cared little for the American people. As in, "only the Fortune 500 companies and their Lobbyists" mattered. Makes one really feel significant!
I used to actually like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. Now I feel that both should be replaced. After all, who wants leaders who are attempting to stab you in the back! And, how could they possibly be willing to cede their influence to a President nearly all party members don't trust?
I heard the argument! If we don't do it, China will. Or, we're finally getting Japan to the table. Better make hay while the sun shines! Viet Nam? I guess it's okay for the Dictator of Brunei to have the same "one vote, one country" as we have?
For those who may have missed it, Lindsay Graham, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush favored it. In the end, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina and, of course, Donald Trump opposed it.
Candidates' perception of the bill may lend insight into their overall position regarding free trade. Rick Perry initially voiced optimism for the deal. Then, he reversed his position, explaining that "we need to read it prior" to committing. Carly Fiorina added, "the devil's in the details."
Although proponents may find a thousand and one reasons why it's a good deal, nobody is denying the legislation would cost America jobs. I sat on the fence until the 11th hour. Then, I call my Congressman, leaving a voice mail message that urged him to vote against it.
A lot of pundits will dismiss the bill's acceptance or rejection as a sidebar. But, I could see Hillary Clinton(who waffled on it before finally admitting that she disapproved) using "support" for the bill as a negative. Even though her opposition was "vague and mushy," in comparison to Rand Paul's, she'll make it sound like she was always vehemently opposed to it.
Perhaps the biggest surprise(and disappointment) among Tea Party Republicans was Ted Cruz' support of the bill. Bush, Christie and Graham were expected to vote for it. Scott Walker shocked some with his support. But, we must always remember that a Wisconsin Republican isn't going to be as conservative as a Southern Republican.
The fact that Hillary followed Elizabeth Warren's lead is not surprising. What is most disquieting is the large number of Republicans who supported it. It would appear that some either didn't know or leaned on the party leadership for an answer.
Anyone who watched "the Donald," this morning on Fox News was likely taken aback. Not only did Trump oppose the treaty. He made it sound like anyone who didn't cared little for the American people. As in, "only the Fortune 500 companies and their Lobbyists" mattered. Makes one really feel significant!
I used to actually like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. Now I feel that both should be replaced. After all, who wants leaders who are attempting to stab you in the back! And, how could they possibly be willing to cede their influence to a President nearly all party members don't trust?
I heard the argument! If we don't do it, China will. Or, we're finally getting Japan to the table. Better make hay while the sun shines! Viet Nam? I guess it's okay for the Dictator of Brunei to have the same "one vote, one country" as we have?
For those who may have missed it, Lindsay Graham, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush favored it. In the end, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina and, of course, Donald Trump opposed it.
Candidates' perception of the bill may lend insight into their overall position regarding free trade. Rick Perry initially voiced optimism for the deal. Then, he reversed his position, explaining that "we need to read it prior" to committing. Carly Fiorina added, "the devil's in the details."
Although proponents may find a thousand and one reasons why it's a good deal, nobody is denying the legislation would cost America jobs. I sat on the fence until the 11th hour. Then, I call my Congressman, leaving a voice mail message that urged him to vote against it.
A lot of pundits will dismiss the bill's acceptance or rejection as a sidebar. But, I could see Hillary Clinton(who waffled on it before finally admitting that she disapproved) using "support" for the bill as a negative. Even though her opposition was "vague and mushy," in comparison to Rand Paul's, she'll make it sound like she was always vehemently opposed to it.
Perhaps the biggest surprise(and disappointment) among Tea Party Republicans was Ted Cruz' support of the bill. Bush, Christie and Graham were expected to vote for it. Scott Walker shocked some with his support. But, we must always remember that a Wisconsin Republican isn't going to be as conservative as a Southern Republican.
The fact that Hillary followed Elizabeth Warren's lead is not surprising. What is most disquieting is the large number of Republicans who supported it. It would appear that some either didn't know or leaned on the party leadership for an answer.
Friday, June 12, 2015
Brokered Convention Might be Ultimate Outcome for GOP
Even though millions still don't get it, Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee in 2016.
In spite of a somewhat "choppy" start, believe it. Jeb will finish third in Iowa, first in New Hampshire and second in South Carolina. Then he will capture Florida's winner take all primary. Despite the crowded field, it's a mathematical certainty that he will hold the lead in delegates when July 2016 approaches.
Is this 2012? It would appear so. What happened to the other candidates? After all, there were better than 20 of them! Scott Walker, for one looked so promising! It would be expected that Chris Christies supporters will eventually line up behind Jeb. And, John Kasich's decision not to run makes sense. Experts starting with Karl Rove will agree: The Ohio Governor would make an excellent running mate for Bush. Even the Clinton camp shudders at the "electoral problem" that would result from a Bush-Kasich ticket!
I guess Karma wins out! But wait! Are not there advocates of "Semper Fi" who contend, "they'll stay home" if Bush is the nominee? Yes. And, they mean it! But, isn't there another way? Maybe!
Iowa will be the key. Like Mitt Romney, Bush isn't going to spend a lot of time there. He has an organization that will deliver some delegates. But winning the "Hawkeye State" is not an imperative for his overall victory. New Hampshire is a state that he will zero in on. If he defeats Christie, which is probable, he'll be in excellent shape. But, let's return to Iowa for a moment.
Rick Perry's handlers have evidently decided that the campaign begins and ends in Iowa. If the former Texas Governor finishes first or second, he will be alive. And he just might! Rick Santorum visited all 99 counties in '12. As history reflects, he defeated Mitt Romney by a nose. Perry, by rights, should be stronger than the former Pennsylvania Senator. Iowans like to rub elbows with candidates. Unlike 2012, Perry is healthy and has nothing but time on his hands. He is as good at retail politicking as anyone. He grew up on a farm, attended Texas A & M and flew C-130's in the Air Force. He is as warm and charismatic as Scott Walker is dry and detached. Walker will likely be the favorite in Iowa.
What about Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Ben Carson? Won't they make some noise in the early primaries?
In a recent Dallas Morning News article, Todd J. Gillman compared and contrasted Cruz and Perry. In reality, the men hold almost identical positions on all issues. Perry points out that the biggest difference is he's practiced while Cruz has only preached. Yet it goes beyond ideology.
Politics has be said to be "poetry" in it's own right. This may be the greatest distinction between the two Texans.
"Texas has two strong candidates," said Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership program at the conservative American Principles in Action group and chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship under President George W. Bush.
But, he added, "Rick Perry inspires people. Ted Cruz annoys people."
Compared with Perry, Aguilar said, "Cruz has a Latino problem, and it's ironic, because he is Latino." Not good, for the junior Senator!
Rand Paul might snag some Libertarian votes in New Hampshire. He might hold his own in Iowa. But, how deep can his campaign go? Perhaps to the end! He has Ron's base pretty much intact. This is highly significant. While the Kentucky Senator may come up short, in a brokered convention, his delegates could be pivotal.
Ben Carson? I cannot honestly see him going anywhere. He is simply too moderate for Tea Party Republicans. Evangelicals have a lot to choose from this time around, including Governor Mike Huckabee.
Marco Rubio is already being mentioned as a Vice Presidential option. He does have Norman Braman and a story. The truth of his financial struggles will actually work to his advantage. But can he do well enough in the early states to secure a foothold? Nevada, a state where he spent five formative years as a youth, could be his best bet. But can he defeat Bush in Florida?
Oh, what a mess! And so reminiscent of 2012. Bush has money and an organization. He can plod along, watching opponents fall by the wayside. In the end, he'll gain their endorsements and have things wrapped up by Independence Day. Unless...
Only the Tea Party stands in Bush's way to the nomination. Expect Bush to have the lead. But, if he doesn't have sufficient delegates to clinch the nomination, as Tom DeLay points out, we might be looking at a "brokered" convention. This would be bad for the Bush camp.
Money, as always, will be critical. This is why it is important to look past the sizzle of any candidate. There is also general election electability. A brokered convention that yielded an unelectable general election nominee would be disastrous! But who actually is electable? Bush backers insist their guy is. So do both Perry and Rubio's people.
Can Cruz or Paul win? And, for that matter, can Scott Walker win?
At the Lexington, Kentucky Lincoln Day dinner, I listened to Sixth District Congressman, Andy Barr's read on possible Republican tickets. He believes that "a Walker-Rubio ticket" will pay dividends for the GOP. He might be right! But, he also admits that Walker has a problem with Latino voters.
"They just don't know him," Andy professes. "I guess it's about exposure. Hopefully Rubio would bridge the shortfall."
Hopefully! While Rubio polls very strong with South Americans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans, he is still, according to a recent Gallup poll, only in the "mid-thirties" with Mexican voters. Good, but not great! And, not as good as Jeb Bush or Rick Perry! All three candidates speak fluent Spanish.
Which would lead me to conclude that Perry would be a better overall candidate than Scott Walker. He did score 44% of Latino voters in 2010 Texas Senatorial general election. These Hispanics were mostly Mexicans. And if Cruz indeed has a "Latino problem" as Aguilar insists, Republicans may be on their way to that brokered convention, if Perry bests Walker in Iowa!
Jeb Bush's worst nightmare is to have the nomination come down to he and Rick Perry. Not only because Perry can compete money wise. But, Perry's vision is based on the 10th amendment, not "Neo-Conservative" principles. Given the choice, Tea Party conservatives will flock to Perry. In spite of some mostly imagined flaws.
The key will be Iowa. If Perry finishes first or second in Iowa, he can win South Carolina. If Cruz bows out early, he might win "four or five" of the proposed "S.E.C. primary states:(Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee). Like Florida, Texas is a winner take all state.
In a brokered convention, it is highly conceivable that Tea Party Republicans, including all of Paul's Millennials, find their way to Perry. After all, he is "Ted Cruz with actual experience" and shares Paul's 10th amendment orientation...
Still looming is the impact Mike Huckabee might have on the electorate. The former Arkansas Governor does well in Caucus states. He may pick up enough delegates to play a role in a brokered convention. Like Rubio and Kasich, his name is certain to come up when discussing possible Vice Presidential selections.
In spite of a somewhat "choppy" start, believe it. Jeb will finish third in Iowa, first in New Hampshire and second in South Carolina. Then he will capture Florida's winner take all primary. Despite the crowded field, it's a mathematical certainty that he will hold the lead in delegates when July 2016 approaches.
Is this 2012? It would appear so. What happened to the other candidates? After all, there were better than 20 of them! Scott Walker, for one looked so promising! It would be expected that Chris Christies supporters will eventually line up behind Jeb. And, John Kasich's decision not to run makes sense. Experts starting with Karl Rove will agree: The Ohio Governor would make an excellent running mate for Bush. Even the Clinton camp shudders at the "electoral problem" that would result from a Bush-Kasich ticket!
I guess Karma wins out! But wait! Are not there advocates of "Semper Fi" who contend, "they'll stay home" if Bush is the nominee? Yes. And, they mean it! But, isn't there another way? Maybe!
Iowa will be the key. Like Mitt Romney, Bush isn't going to spend a lot of time there. He has an organization that will deliver some delegates. But winning the "Hawkeye State" is not an imperative for his overall victory. New Hampshire is a state that he will zero in on. If he defeats Christie, which is probable, he'll be in excellent shape. But, let's return to Iowa for a moment.
Rick Perry's handlers have evidently decided that the campaign begins and ends in Iowa. If the former Texas Governor finishes first or second, he will be alive. And he just might! Rick Santorum visited all 99 counties in '12. As history reflects, he defeated Mitt Romney by a nose. Perry, by rights, should be stronger than the former Pennsylvania Senator. Iowans like to rub elbows with candidates. Unlike 2012, Perry is healthy and has nothing but time on his hands. He is as good at retail politicking as anyone. He grew up on a farm, attended Texas A & M and flew C-130's in the Air Force. He is as warm and charismatic as Scott Walker is dry and detached. Walker will likely be the favorite in Iowa.
What about Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Ben Carson? Won't they make some noise in the early primaries?
In a recent Dallas Morning News article, Todd J. Gillman compared and contrasted Cruz and Perry. In reality, the men hold almost identical positions on all issues. Perry points out that the biggest difference is he's practiced while Cruz has only preached. Yet it goes beyond ideology.
Politics has be said to be "poetry" in it's own right. This may be the greatest distinction between the two Texans.
"Texas has two strong candidates," said Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership program at the conservative American Principles in Action group and chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship under President George W. Bush.
But, he added, "Rick Perry inspires people. Ted Cruz annoys people."
Compared with Perry, Aguilar said, "Cruz has a Latino problem, and it's ironic, because he is Latino." Not good, for the junior Senator!
Rand Paul might snag some Libertarian votes in New Hampshire. He might hold his own in Iowa. But, how deep can his campaign go? Perhaps to the end! He has Ron's base pretty much intact. This is highly significant. While the Kentucky Senator may come up short, in a brokered convention, his delegates could be pivotal.
Ben Carson? I cannot honestly see him going anywhere. He is simply too moderate for Tea Party Republicans. Evangelicals have a lot to choose from this time around, including Governor Mike Huckabee.
Marco Rubio is already being mentioned as a Vice Presidential option. He does have Norman Braman and a story. The truth of his financial struggles will actually work to his advantage. But can he do well enough in the early states to secure a foothold? Nevada, a state where he spent five formative years as a youth, could be his best bet. But can he defeat Bush in Florida?
Oh, what a mess! And so reminiscent of 2012. Bush has money and an organization. He can plod along, watching opponents fall by the wayside. In the end, he'll gain their endorsements and have things wrapped up by Independence Day. Unless...
Only the Tea Party stands in Bush's way to the nomination. Expect Bush to have the lead. But, if he doesn't have sufficient delegates to clinch the nomination, as Tom DeLay points out, we might be looking at a "brokered" convention. This would be bad for the Bush camp.
Money, as always, will be critical. This is why it is important to look past the sizzle of any candidate. There is also general election electability. A brokered convention that yielded an unelectable general election nominee would be disastrous! But who actually is electable? Bush backers insist their guy is. So do both Perry and Rubio's people.
Can Cruz or Paul win? And, for that matter, can Scott Walker win?
At the Lexington, Kentucky Lincoln Day dinner, I listened to Sixth District Congressman, Andy Barr's read on possible Republican tickets. He believes that "a Walker-Rubio ticket" will pay dividends for the GOP. He might be right! But, he also admits that Walker has a problem with Latino voters.
"They just don't know him," Andy professes. "I guess it's about exposure. Hopefully Rubio would bridge the shortfall."
Hopefully! While Rubio polls very strong with South Americans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans, he is still, according to a recent Gallup poll, only in the "mid-thirties" with Mexican voters. Good, but not great! And, not as good as Jeb Bush or Rick Perry! All three candidates speak fluent Spanish.
Which would lead me to conclude that Perry would be a better overall candidate than Scott Walker. He did score 44% of Latino voters in 2010 Texas Senatorial general election. These Hispanics were mostly Mexicans. And if Cruz indeed has a "Latino problem" as Aguilar insists, Republicans may be on their way to that brokered convention, if Perry bests Walker in Iowa!
Jeb Bush's worst nightmare is to have the nomination come down to he and Rick Perry. Not only because Perry can compete money wise. But, Perry's vision is based on the 10th amendment, not "Neo-Conservative" principles. Given the choice, Tea Party conservatives will flock to Perry. In spite of some mostly imagined flaws.
The key will be Iowa. If Perry finishes first or second in Iowa, he can win South Carolina. If Cruz bows out early, he might win "four or five" of the proposed "S.E.C. primary states:(Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee). Like Florida, Texas is a winner take all state.
In a brokered convention, it is highly conceivable that Tea Party Republicans, including all of Paul's Millennials, find their way to Perry. After all, he is "Ted Cruz with actual experience" and shares Paul's 10th amendment orientation...
Still looming is the impact Mike Huckabee might have on the electorate. The former Arkansas Governor does well in Caucus states. He may pick up enough delegates to play a role in a brokered convention. Like Rubio and Kasich, his name is certain to come up when discussing possible Vice Presidential selections.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Perry Best Bet to Topple Bush, Clinton
Rick Perry will almost certainly announce his presidential candidacy June 4th in Dallas.
We can also expect Jeb Bush to announce his sometime in the near future. Our choice will likely come down to "Jeb or the other guy."
I can attest to the disdain seen for Jeb Bush on the Tea Party Nation blog. Many declare that they will "stay home," if Jeb is the nominee. Even, if Jeb opposes Hillary Clinton! This is both disquieting and disturbing! But it has happened before. I have no doubt that it could happen again.
I keep hearing side comments about Perry. It seems that most in the Tea Party are okay with he former Texas Governor. True, we have "pin pricks" such as his support for tuition waiver for illegals, who happened to be Texas high school graduates. Or, his support for an HPV vaccine that was never implemented. Or, his support for an autobahn that never materialized.
I have even heard how his friendship with Barbour's in Mississippi is a deal breaker! I am sure that there will be some who will even criticize Perry for voicing his support for the military, during the recent Jade Helm 15 question.
Let's get real!
Has anyone thought of the remote possibility that the Republican Establishment may actually be behind some of these fringe candidates? I have. Consider this. "Did anyone really believe that Michelle Bachmann had a chance in the 2012 election?" In retrospect, she was Rick Perry's greatest antagonist. In the end, she was Mitt Romney's greatest ally.
The 2012 election and Rick Perry's less than stellar performance is not the subject of this post. The point is "why" Republicans not wanting Bush should embrace Perry's candidacy.
There are some who say, "I like Perry, but I don't think he is electable." Fact is, Perry is unquestionably the most electable of any candidate. Here are the reasons why.
Education- Texas ranks second nationally(behind Maine) in percentage of high school graduates. Texas ranks first nationally in percentage of high school graduation rates for Hispanic and African-American students. There are now 19 colleges and universities in Texas offering four-year degrees for $10,000. Perry considers the latter his signature achievement.
The Environment- Check the statistics. They are astounding! From reduced C02 emissions to reduced ozone levels, they are too numerous to list on this post. Texas is number one in energy produced by wind. Many forget that Perry chaired Al Gore's Texas Presidential campaign in 1988. Both men supported a healthy environment. The split came over implementation. Perry cited the 10th amendment. Gore believed that the individual states could not be trusted. Texas' environmental report card is proof that Perry was correct. Meanwhile Gore lined his pockets with an elaborate hoax that has hurt America.
Healthcare- Texas implemented "loser pays tort reform." The result: Doctors' E & O insurance plummeted! Since implementation 34,000 physicians have relocated to Texas. While Texas has a lot of people who are statistically without insurance, it's generally because they elect to. It's called, "freedom." But the overall cost of healthcare is dramatically lower than in most "blue" states.
Border security- Texas shares a 1200 mile border with a foreign country. The Obama administration has essentially "winked," and done little. For his part, Perry has been pro-active, with limited resources. As commander-in-chief, I am confident that he would be best equipped from a knowledge perspective to decisively deal with the border situation.
Foreign Policy- Perry has military experience. Trained as a fighter pilot, he flew C-130's in the Air Force, engaged in better than 50 sorties in Europe and the Middle East. Without question, he has "front row understanding" of the needs of military families. He would be respected and feared by our adversaries. The Russians describe Rick Perry as "a cowboy with deep understanding of military affairs."
Plain Folks Appeal- "Blue collar" Americans connect with Perry. Perry is the son of West Texas tenant farmers. He did not have running water or an indoor toilet in his house until he was six years old. Unable to afford college, he accepted an ROTC scholarship to attend Texas A & M. Upon graduation, he went straight into the Air Force. While staunchly right to work, Perry remains a "card carrying, dues paying member" of the AFL-CIO. Like Ronald Reagan, Perry was formally a Democrat. He echos the Gipper's "I didn't leave the Democrat Party. It left me."
The Texas Economy- Texas represents the world's 13th largest economy. The formula is simple: Cut corporate tax rates and workers wages will increase. Thanks to Texas, the U.S. didn't lose jobs as a nation under Obama's watch. There is no question that if the Texas magic is applied nationally, everyone, not just the privileged few as has been the case during Obama's Presidency, will benefit.
These are solid facts why Perry can defeat Hillary Clinton in a general election. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, Perry has a report card. He will compare bank accounts, ruefully acknowledging that his is quite a bit smaller than hers! In 2012 Democrats ran a class warfare campaign against Mitt Romney. That will be impossible against Perry. Perry is as affable and likeable as Mrs. Clinton isn't. Even though Democrats would like to think it'll be Bill again, it won't be!
The key for Republicans is to think electorally. Bush is going to be one of the finalists. And he could beat Hillary. The question becomes, are we willing to settle for Jeb Bush?
It takes deep pockets to run a 50-state campaign. Bush has them. So does Perry. But who else can seriously come up with the kind of money to match Hillary in the general election? While she may have no record to run on, she will have a "truckload" of cash!
We cannot have a "John McCain" like we did in 2008! As many remember, the Arizona Senator took federal money when his fledgling campaign was on life support. Later, this restricted him. Obama outspent him four to one in the general election.
Hillary will have one of the best campaign handlers in the business in her husband. We can expect negative advertising on top of negative advertising. Perry, however, will be a problem. He can simply run on his record. No hypotheticals. No "woulds or coulds." Just facts. Unlike Jeb Bush, his achievements were recent. Bush has been out of the game since 2007.
Of course, there are good party members who believe that Ted Cruz or Scott Walker or Rand Paul or Marco Rubio would be a better finalist than Perry. But here are a couple of things to consider. Starting with Walker.
Scott Walker has emerged bloody but victorious in his Wisconsin battles. It was not without injury. Today, he is considered "anti union." While the party does support "right-to-work," there is a difference between being in favor of right to work and being anti union. Walker lacks exposure to Hispanic voters. Republicans must win 40% of Latino votes to win the election. It might also be mentioned that "no president has ever been elected when not carrying his home state." Smart money says that Walker will not defeat Clinton in Wisconsin.
Rand Paul might pull some Democrats over, but he would be too easy to demagogue in a general election. Hillary Clinton will dig up each and every looney idea proffered by Ron and apply them to Rand. Paul's position on defense makes the department nervous. Wall Street isn't comfortable with him. The Democrats strategy will again be "the promise of chits and boonies" to constituents. Rand's "austerity measures," and the promise of a balanced budget amendment won't be greeted with a lot of enthusiasm. Against Rand, Hillary will use her war chest to scare the socks off America! It will work.
Ted Cruz is an eloquent speaker. He possesses a brilliant legal mind. But, his resume is as thin as Barack Obama's! I am also a little unnerved by his support for Kaye Bailey Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Gubernatorial campaign against Perry. For those who remember, all of the Bush people were behind the former Senator. Karl Rove was chairman of "Team Hutchinson." This makes me suspicious that Ted might be a "Jeb plant." Those supporting Cruz' views, should embrace Perry. The two men essentially represent the same values. The difference is, "Perry has actually done them. Cruz has only talked about them."
Marco Rubio has much more experience than Ted Cruz. In addition to a full Senate term, he served eight years in the Florida House of Representatives; the last two years as House Speaker. His Senate match with former Governor, Charlie Crist was the toughest of campaigns.
A lot of good Americans can't get past Minor versus Happersatt. We tend to forget that the main topic of this 1875 Supreme Court case was universal suffrage for women. In addition to defining "natural born citizen," they ruled that women should not be granted the right to vote. Are we willing to use this particular court's interpretation to determine if Rubio is eligible to be President?
I believe that we should not.
Marco Rubio would be the ideal running mate for Rick Perry. They are a generation apart. Rick is 65. Marco will be 44, May 31st. Perry scored 44% of Latino votes in the 2010 Texas Gubernatorial general election. With Rubio on the bottom of the ticket, it might exceed 50%. It's probable that the Clinton camp would panic, possibly tapping San Antonio major, Julian Castro as Hillary's running mate.
Evangelical voters have no problem with Rick Perry. In fact, he might do as well as any Republican, other than Mike Huckabee. While Roman Catholic, Rubio admits to attending Christ Fellowship church with his Evangelical wife, Jeanette, more than he attends Mass.
Perry ranks mostly as a second or third choice for Tea Party Republicans. Some consider him Establishment. If so, he represents the most conservative Establishment option. True, the Establishment would be more comfortable with a Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or even John Kasich. But, they would rally to Perry as they did Ronald Reagan.
A comparable argument was taking place in 1979 within the GOP. George H. W. Bush had emerged as having the best chance to up seat Jimmy Carter. Reagan has his constituents. But, he looked to be running against the wind. Then came New Hampshire. We know the rest of the story.
Evangelical mobilization will be key in Virginia and Iowa. The ability to attract "blue collar male Democrats" will be the difference in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Perry might actually win all four states.
With Rubio on the bottom of the ticket, Dade County will return to the "red" column. Democrats path to victory in Florida runs through Miami. Jeb Bush will win it. But these mostly Cuban and South American(70% of the county speaks Spanish as their first language)voters will break for Perry.
So will Mexican voters in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. Especially with Rubio on the bottom of the ticket recounting and emphasizing(en espanol) Perry's vast achievements as Governor of Texas.
We can also expect Jeb Bush to announce his sometime in the near future. Our choice will likely come down to "Jeb or the other guy."
I can attest to the disdain seen for Jeb Bush on the Tea Party Nation blog. Many declare that they will "stay home," if Jeb is the nominee. Even, if Jeb opposes Hillary Clinton! This is both disquieting and disturbing! But it has happened before. I have no doubt that it could happen again.
I keep hearing side comments about Perry. It seems that most in the Tea Party are okay with he former Texas Governor. True, we have "pin pricks" such as his support for tuition waiver for illegals, who happened to be Texas high school graduates. Or, his support for an HPV vaccine that was never implemented. Or, his support for an autobahn that never materialized.
I have even heard how his friendship with Barbour's in Mississippi is a deal breaker! I am sure that there will be some who will even criticize Perry for voicing his support for the military, during the recent Jade Helm 15 question.
Let's get real!
Has anyone thought of the remote possibility that the Republican Establishment may actually be behind some of these fringe candidates? I have. Consider this. "Did anyone really believe that Michelle Bachmann had a chance in the 2012 election?" In retrospect, she was Rick Perry's greatest antagonist. In the end, she was Mitt Romney's greatest ally.
The 2012 election and Rick Perry's less than stellar performance is not the subject of this post. The point is "why" Republicans not wanting Bush should embrace Perry's candidacy.
There are some who say, "I like Perry, but I don't think he is electable." Fact is, Perry is unquestionably the most electable of any candidate. Here are the reasons why.
Education- Texas ranks second nationally(behind Maine) in percentage of high school graduates. Texas ranks first nationally in percentage of high school graduation rates for Hispanic and African-American students. There are now 19 colleges and universities in Texas offering four-year degrees for $10,000. Perry considers the latter his signature achievement.
The Environment- Check the statistics. They are astounding! From reduced C02 emissions to reduced ozone levels, they are too numerous to list on this post. Texas is number one in energy produced by wind. Many forget that Perry chaired Al Gore's Texas Presidential campaign in 1988. Both men supported a healthy environment. The split came over implementation. Perry cited the 10th amendment. Gore believed that the individual states could not be trusted. Texas' environmental report card is proof that Perry was correct. Meanwhile Gore lined his pockets with an elaborate hoax that has hurt America.
Healthcare- Texas implemented "loser pays tort reform." The result: Doctors' E & O insurance plummeted! Since implementation 34,000 physicians have relocated to Texas. While Texas has a lot of people who are statistically without insurance, it's generally because they elect to. It's called, "freedom." But the overall cost of healthcare is dramatically lower than in most "blue" states.
Border security- Texas shares a 1200 mile border with a foreign country. The Obama administration has essentially "winked," and done little. For his part, Perry has been pro-active, with limited resources. As commander-in-chief, I am confident that he would be best equipped from a knowledge perspective to decisively deal with the border situation.
Foreign Policy- Perry has military experience. Trained as a fighter pilot, he flew C-130's in the Air Force, engaged in better than 50 sorties in Europe and the Middle East. Without question, he has "front row understanding" of the needs of military families. He would be respected and feared by our adversaries. The Russians describe Rick Perry as "a cowboy with deep understanding of military affairs."
Plain Folks Appeal- "Blue collar" Americans connect with Perry. Perry is the son of West Texas tenant farmers. He did not have running water or an indoor toilet in his house until he was six years old. Unable to afford college, he accepted an ROTC scholarship to attend Texas A & M. Upon graduation, he went straight into the Air Force. While staunchly right to work, Perry remains a "card carrying, dues paying member" of the AFL-CIO. Like Ronald Reagan, Perry was formally a Democrat. He echos the Gipper's "I didn't leave the Democrat Party. It left me."
The Texas Economy- Texas represents the world's 13th largest economy. The formula is simple: Cut corporate tax rates and workers wages will increase. Thanks to Texas, the U.S. didn't lose jobs as a nation under Obama's watch. There is no question that if the Texas magic is applied nationally, everyone, not just the privileged few as has been the case during Obama's Presidency, will benefit.
These are solid facts why Perry can defeat Hillary Clinton in a general election. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, Perry has a report card. He will compare bank accounts, ruefully acknowledging that his is quite a bit smaller than hers! In 2012 Democrats ran a class warfare campaign against Mitt Romney. That will be impossible against Perry. Perry is as affable and likeable as Mrs. Clinton isn't. Even though Democrats would like to think it'll be Bill again, it won't be!
The key for Republicans is to think electorally. Bush is going to be one of the finalists. And he could beat Hillary. The question becomes, are we willing to settle for Jeb Bush?
It takes deep pockets to run a 50-state campaign. Bush has them. So does Perry. But who else can seriously come up with the kind of money to match Hillary in the general election? While she may have no record to run on, she will have a "truckload" of cash!
We cannot have a "John McCain" like we did in 2008! As many remember, the Arizona Senator took federal money when his fledgling campaign was on life support. Later, this restricted him. Obama outspent him four to one in the general election.
Hillary will have one of the best campaign handlers in the business in her husband. We can expect negative advertising on top of negative advertising. Perry, however, will be a problem. He can simply run on his record. No hypotheticals. No "woulds or coulds." Just facts. Unlike Jeb Bush, his achievements were recent. Bush has been out of the game since 2007.
Of course, there are good party members who believe that Ted Cruz or Scott Walker or Rand Paul or Marco Rubio would be a better finalist than Perry. But here are a couple of things to consider. Starting with Walker.
Scott Walker has emerged bloody but victorious in his Wisconsin battles. It was not without injury. Today, he is considered "anti union." While the party does support "right-to-work," there is a difference between being in favor of right to work and being anti union. Walker lacks exposure to Hispanic voters. Republicans must win 40% of Latino votes to win the election. It might also be mentioned that "no president has ever been elected when not carrying his home state." Smart money says that Walker will not defeat Clinton in Wisconsin.
Rand Paul might pull some Democrats over, but he would be too easy to demagogue in a general election. Hillary Clinton will dig up each and every looney idea proffered by Ron and apply them to Rand. Paul's position on defense makes the department nervous. Wall Street isn't comfortable with him. The Democrats strategy will again be "the promise of chits and boonies" to constituents. Rand's "austerity measures," and the promise of a balanced budget amendment won't be greeted with a lot of enthusiasm. Against Rand, Hillary will use her war chest to scare the socks off America! It will work.
Ted Cruz is an eloquent speaker. He possesses a brilliant legal mind. But, his resume is as thin as Barack Obama's! I am also a little unnerved by his support for Kaye Bailey Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Gubernatorial campaign against Perry. For those who remember, all of the Bush people were behind the former Senator. Karl Rove was chairman of "Team Hutchinson." This makes me suspicious that Ted might be a "Jeb plant." Those supporting Cruz' views, should embrace Perry. The two men essentially represent the same values. The difference is, "Perry has actually done them. Cruz has only talked about them."
Marco Rubio has much more experience than Ted Cruz. In addition to a full Senate term, he served eight years in the Florida House of Representatives; the last two years as House Speaker. His Senate match with former Governor, Charlie Crist was the toughest of campaigns.
A lot of good Americans can't get past Minor versus Happersatt. We tend to forget that the main topic of this 1875 Supreme Court case was universal suffrage for women. In addition to defining "natural born citizen," they ruled that women should not be granted the right to vote. Are we willing to use this particular court's interpretation to determine if Rubio is eligible to be President?
I believe that we should not.
Marco Rubio would be the ideal running mate for Rick Perry. They are a generation apart. Rick is 65. Marco will be 44, May 31st. Perry scored 44% of Latino votes in the 2010 Texas Gubernatorial general election. With Rubio on the bottom of the ticket, it might exceed 50%. It's probable that the Clinton camp would panic, possibly tapping San Antonio major, Julian Castro as Hillary's running mate.
Evangelical voters have no problem with Rick Perry. In fact, he might do as well as any Republican, other than Mike Huckabee. While Roman Catholic, Rubio admits to attending Christ Fellowship church with his Evangelical wife, Jeanette, more than he attends Mass.
Perry ranks mostly as a second or third choice for Tea Party Republicans. Some consider him Establishment. If so, he represents the most conservative Establishment option. True, the Establishment would be more comfortable with a Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or even John Kasich. But, they would rally to Perry as they did Ronald Reagan.
A comparable argument was taking place in 1979 within the GOP. George H. W. Bush had emerged as having the best chance to up seat Jimmy Carter. Reagan has his constituents. But, he looked to be running against the wind. Then came New Hampshire. We know the rest of the story.
Evangelical mobilization will be key in Virginia and Iowa. The ability to attract "blue collar male Democrats" will be the difference in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Perry might actually win all four states.
With Rubio on the bottom of the ticket, Dade County will return to the "red" column. Democrats path to victory in Florida runs through Miami. Jeb Bush will win it. But these mostly Cuban and South American(70% of the county speaks Spanish as their first language)voters will break for Perry.
So will Mexican voters in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. Especially with Rubio on the bottom of the ticket recounting and emphasizing(en espanol) Perry's vast achievements as Governor of Texas.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Huckabee Could Prove to be GOP's Secret Weapon
Rick Perry made perhaps the most incisive statement to date regarding the stakes of the 2016 Presidential election. "The next President may appoint as many as four Supreme Court Justices."
Three Supreme Court Justices will be 80 years old or older. One will be 78. The thought of Hillary Clinton shaping future courts is positively chilling! Hence, the Republicans better win in 2016! Or accept a future America that will be shaped in the mold of the Frankfurt school! Anybody ready for Communism?
This bleak, lugubrious thought is sickening! In fact, it is so awful that many Americans will question the value of staying one nation! A large number of patriotic Americans would find a Hillary-America wanting. Make no mistake of that!
Still, the Republicans haven't lost the election. Signs are evident that Hillary may not be as formidable as once believed. Circumstances, wisdom, practicality and a little bit of compromise might result in a Republican victory in 2016. It starts with looking at the electoral map logically, not emotionally.
Ah, the debate begins! Don't dare say who is electable and who is not! It's about nominating the truest of believers! Better to lose the general election knowing that a real conservative was the nominee, than settle for anything less! Or, so some think!
Republicans' biggest advantage is knowing who the Democrat nominee will be. Running mates are generally good for two or three points in their home states. Maybe some edges in certain demographics. It's smaller than most imagine. Paul Ryan is proof! Yet, when speaking ideologically, things can be a bit more unpredictable.
Mike Huckabee has accurately identified Evangelical voter turnout as the key to the 2016 election. Per Huck, only "30 of 89 million" showed up to vote in '12. Amazingly 22% of these 30 million broke for Barack Obama! As the former Arkansas Governor suggests, if 45 million turned out, the Republicans would be looking at a landslide!
Few question Governor Huckabee's credentials. Speaking as a native Arkansan, I can assure the nation that he was a much more effective governor than Bill Clinton. What slips by the bulk of the country is how Glass-Steagall's repeal caused the Financial Crisis. Amazingly, it was repealed during the 1990's, under Bill's watch.
The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 separated deposit taking commercial banks from securities trading investment banks. The act, considered controversial at the time, long symbolized America's unusual history of bank regulation- maybe the most unusual in the developed world.
The history, intricacies and players of Glass-Steagall's repeal is another subject for a different post. What's important is that it's repeal made insiders associated with the Clinton's wealthy.
Mike Huckabee arguably has more inside dirt on the Clinton's than any human alive. This makes him especially valuable to the GOP. Not merely because he knows it. But, because he can so eloquently express it in a benign, disarming, even charming manner. If Mike describes Hillary as a "dedicated public servant who is a good person and a secular humanist," Evangelical voters will translate this to be "atheist political insider."
Huckabee doesn't have money. Or, at least not currently. Not to say it won't come! Unfortunately 50-state campaigns are not won with ten and twenty dollar donations.
Perhaps the former Fox News Prime Timer has another idea. Such as "completing a presidential ticket."
Any way you cut it, Mike Huckabee would be a great running mate for a number of would be nominees. He mobilizes Evangelicals like no other candidate. And, he knows the enemy! Nobody would doubt his qualification for being a "heartbeat away" from the Oval office. He is considered honest, ethical and sincere. He is a superlative communicator.
Republicans must win Florida to have a chance in 2016. That's why it's a strong probability that either Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio will land somewhere on the ticket. Rubio is a fresh face. He scares Democrats who fear a "2008 in reverse." It helps that he and Huck are close personal friends.
Huck would be a valuable running mate for Bush. However, Cincinnati whispers create the impression that the Bush camp has already settled on John Kasich, if things go as planned.
There are many possible tickets that will be discussed. But make no mistake! The Republicans path to victory runs through Florida. Lose Florida and it is endgame! Furthermore, Hispanics must turnout for the GOP. The short list on "best able to attract Latinos is(not necessarily in this order)Bush, Rubio, Huckabee and Perry. This is based on voting results from previous state and federal elections. Not presumption!
And then there are the Evangelicals. Even a twenty percent increase in turnout might make the difference. This is why Mike Huckabee may ultimately enter the picture.
Three Supreme Court Justices will be 80 years old or older. One will be 78. The thought of Hillary Clinton shaping future courts is positively chilling! Hence, the Republicans better win in 2016! Or accept a future America that will be shaped in the mold of the Frankfurt school! Anybody ready for Communism?
This bleak, lugubrious thought is sickening! In fact, it is so awful that many Americans will question the value of staying one nation! A large number of patriotic Americans would find a Hillary-America wanting. Make no mistake of that!
Still, the Republicans haven't lost the election. Signs are evident that Hillary may not be as formidable as once believed. Circumstances, wisdom, practicality and a little bit of compromise might result in a Republican victory in 2016. It starts with looking at the electoral map logically, not emotionally.
Ah, the debate begins! Don't dare say who is electable and who is not! It's about nominating the truest of believers! Better to lose the general election knowing that a real conservative was the nominee, than settle for anything less! Or, so some think!
Republicans' biggest advantage is knowing who the Democrat nominee will be. Running mates are generally good for two or three points in their home states. Maybe some edges in certain demographics. It's smaller than most imagine. Paul Ryan is proof! Yet, when speaking ideologically, things can be a bit more unpredictable.
Mike Huckabee has accurately identified Evangelical voter turnout as the key to the 2016 election. Per Huck, only "30 of 89 million" showed up to vote in '12. Amazingly 22% of these 30 million broke for Barack Obama! As the former Arkansas Governor suggests, if 45 million turned out, the Republicans would be looking at a landslide!
Few question Governor Huckabee's credentials. Speaking as a native Arkansan, I can assure the nation that he was a much more effective governor than Bill Clinton. What slips by the bulk of the country is how Glass-Steagall's repeal caused the Financial Crisis. Amazingly, it was repealed during the 1990's, under Bill's watch.
The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 separated deposit taking commercial banks from securities trading investment banks. The act, considered controversial at the time, long symbolized America's unusual history of bank regulation- maybe the most unusual in the developed world.
The history, intricacies and players of Glass-Steagall's repeal is another subject for a different post. What's important is that it's repeal made insiders associated with the Clinton's wealthy.
Mike Huckabee arguably has more inside dirt on the Clinton's than any human alive. This makes him especially valuable to the GOP. Not merely because he knows it. But, because he can so eloquently express it in a benign, disarming, even charming manner. If Mike describes Hillary as a "dedicated public servant who is a good person and a secular humanist," Evangelical voters will translate this to be "atheist political insider."
Huckabee doesn't have money. Or, at least not currently. Not to say it won't come! Unfortunately 50-state campaigns are not won with ten and twenty dollar donations.
Perhaps the former Fox News Prime Timer has another idea. Such as "completing a presidential ticket."
Any way you cut it, Mike Huckabee would be a great running mate for a number of would be nominees. He mobilizes Evangelicals like no other candidate. And, he knows the enemy! Nobody would doubt his qualification for being a "heartbeat away" from the Oval office. He is considered honest, ethical and sincere. He is a superlative communicator.
Republicans must win Florida to have a chance in 2016. That's why it's a strong probability that either Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio will land somewhere on the ticket. Rubio is a fresh face. He scares Democrats who fear a "2008 in reverse." It helps that he and Huck are close personal friends.
Huck would be a valuable running mate for Bush. However, Cincinnati whispers create the impression that the Bush camp has already settled on John Kasich, if things go as planned.
There are many possible tickets that will be discussed. But make no mistake! The Republicans path to victory runs through Florida. Lose Florida and it is endgame! Furthermore, Hispanics must turnout for the GOP. The short list on "best able to attract Latinos is(not necessarily in this order)Bush, Rubio, Huckabee and Perry. This is based on voting results from previous state and federal elections. Not presumption!
And then there are the Evangelicals. Even a twenty percent increase in turnout might make the difference. This is why Mike Huckabee may ultimately enter the picture.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Decentralization Possible Salvation for Apprehensive Americans
Evangelicals remind that "salvation" can only come through a relationship with Jesus Christ.
No argument will be made to the contrary. Yet, throughout history there were good Americans who welcomed less figurative, more concrete assurances. Thomas Jefferson was one of them.
Thomas Jefferson was far from the picture of founding father perfection. He was an opulent man who died heavily in debt. He had an eye for the grandiose. Monticello is graced with exotic plants from all over the world. Jefferson was touted to possess one of the finest personal libraries in the Commonwealth of Virginia. His wine cellar was stocked with expensive imported vintages.
A lanky 6-2 1/2, 190 pounds with curly red hair, he could have been mistaken for Mathew McConaughey, had you bumped into him on New Years eve at Nashville's Wild Horse Saloon. Tom loved art. And, he could write, as many who have read the Declaration of Independence will attest to.
He also knew love. His wife of ten years, Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson died tragically at the age of 34. 39-year-old-Thomas promised her that we would never remarry. He was true to his word.
Following Martha's death, Jefferson went through an extended mourning period. At the recommendation of Benjamin Franklin he accepted the ambassadorship to France.
In Paris Jefferson, now age 44, met his younger daughter's 14-year-old servant, Sally Hemmings. Sally, a "quadroon," was a slave and the half sister to Jefferson's deceased wife. Their relationship was a story in itself.
Returning to Virginia, Sally Hemmings passed on remaining in France as a free woman, in favor of sharing Jefferson's bed chamber at Monticello. They parented five children. Four lived to adulthood.
Through the limited photos and descriptions we now know that Sally stood about 5'5", had long black hair and was eerily reminiscent of Halle Berry.
Jefferson is remembered as one of America's finest Presidents. Most noteworthy was his decision to pay France $15,000,000 for what became known as the Louisiana purchase. Often forgotten are his endless debates with Alexander Hamilton.
What shaped Jefferson's paradigm will never be truly known. He always advocated the rights of the individual state from a standpoint that was later described as "strict construction." In defending his position, he constantly referred to the common man and his place in America.
Perhaps it was derived or, at least, partially derived from his relationship with Hemmings. It was clearly apparent that he harbored a deep empathy and understanding for the common man. He realized that most in America had come to escape a European nobility system. He saw the danger in an overly centralized government that wielded too much power.
Hamilton believed that government was best administered by the better educated, more affluent, from a central point. He admitted to not trusting the common man with the rigors of government. To Jefferson, this amounted to a ruling class. In essence, an American nobility.
2016 Presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina describes it as "the political class."
Jefferson advocated less centralization, more control from the individual states. He was the ultimate proponent of the 10th amendment.
How much power should be reserved for the individual states has plagued America since Thomas Jefferson's day. A great and bloody war was fought over it. Today it remains a subject for debate.
The recent Jade Helm 15 question is the fruit of fear that has festered. Some considered this apprehension unjustified. But, coupled with mounting concerns on other issues such an overbearing E.P.A.'s encroachment and the I.R.S.'s apparent partisanship, the paranoia that is creeping across the continent can't be easily dismissed!
When jobs are intentionally destroyed or shipped abroad, people ask "why!"
When an agency such as the I.R.S. lives by a standard, "guilty until proven innocent," people question the exception.
When farmers are put out of business because of a minnow, they ask, "who are these people who are making these decisions and what are their credentials?"
When United Nations troops are seen in Texas poising for photographs at Wall Mart, rational people, not reactionaries exclaim, "what in the hell are UN soldiers doing on American soil!"
Thomas Jefferson's way was all about protecting the little guy. But it was likewise a guarantee that a small group of well organized fanatics might not seize control of a government grown too big, powerful and centralized.
Jefferson was not alive in 1917. But had he been, he would have concluded that the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent 70-year Communist nightmare would have been averted had the individual provinces held more power.
Nicholas Wrenden corroborated this position in his book, "The Unmaking of a Russian." Wrenden reveals how "only about 60,000 well organized, well disciplined" believers implemented a brutal dictatorship over a region of better than 150 million people. Though heavily outnumbered, they took control of Moscow, and with it, the central bureaucracy.
Communists in America know that the key to ultimate takeover lies in a powerful, Washington, D.C. government. This preference crosses party lines. Even Republicans who claim to be conservative, yet favor "top down, control from Washington," are one in the same! Their methodologies may differ, as did those of Stalin and Troksky. But the goal remains consistent.
Quelling the rising anxiety of a federal government grown too powerful may be as easy as decentralization. It would not come without a fight.
Al Sharpton talks vigorously about the need for a more centralized government. Many states, especially those in the Northeast, don't want it. They warn that that decentralization would result in "rich states and poor states." Some go as far to say that it would "make us like little, individual countries."
The latter may be an exaggeration. The nation has national entitlement programs, a military, an interstate system, a national park service, a postal service and a space program. What more do we need at the federal level?
It is not to say that many of the services are not without merit. Or need! But, could they not be better administered from the state level? Texas' Educational and Environmental track records are proof enough for those who live there!Ditto for Energy oversight and Homeland Security. The latter definitely should be done under the auspices of the individual states. For those unconvinced, read both the second and 10th amendments!
A Department of Homeland Security in the wrong hands, could become an American edition of the S.S.! Members of the military swear an oath to the defend the constitution. The Secret Service allegiance is to the Chief Executive. What about D.H.S.? Would it not be a better option to administer this department at the state level?
Next month, the Supreme Court will decide on the definition of marriage. Should not that determination be left up to the individual states? Ditto for abortion and Marijuana legalization.
What makes America unique to every country in the world is how we began. We are, "the United States of America." Not, the "United American States." Our motto reinforces this assertion: "E Pluribus Unum."- "From the many, one."
Democrats and Neo-Con Republicans will attest to their understanding of Jefferson's "strict constructionist" standard. They will simultaneously say that it is not practical in today's America. When questioned, "why," the answer all comes down to inertia.
Implementing a constitutionally correct America would have a devastating effect on the system in place. Thousands of jobs, including large numbers of jobs currently headquartered in Washington would either be redirected or eliminated. For some members of the bureaucracy, it would be as simple as a new boss. Others could be looking at relocation, or a pink slip!
Politicians talk. But implementing a Jeffersonian style America would take a tough, decisive President, backed by an equally committed Congress and Senate. The bulk of countrymen say it "would never happen!" Yet, when fear is introduced into the equation, never say never!
Americans need to ask these proponents of big government from Washington, "why" they believe this to be the better way? Our history deficient youth need to be cornered into admitting that they know nothing about Weimar or the Bolshevik Revolution, what they symbolized and why we, as a nation, don't want to go there!
There was likely nothing to Jade Helm 15. But, the reaction that it generated should be noted. Millions of Americans have lost complete trust in the federal government. Fear is replacing reason, in too many instances.
This essentially happened in the Weimar Republic. It stands as historical proof, that people are most gullible when they are frightened.
No argument will be made to the contrary. Yet, throughout history there were good Americans who welcomed less figurative, more concrete assurances. Thomas Jefferson was one of them.
Thomas Jefferson was far from the picture of founding father perfection. He was an opulent man who died heavily in debt. He had an eye for the grandiose. Monticello is graced with exotic plants from all over the world. Jefferson was touted to possess one of the finest personal libraries in the Commonwealth of Virginia. His wine cellar was stocked with expensive imported vintages.
A lanky 6-2 1/2, 190 pounds with curly red hair, he could have been mistaken for Mathew McConaughey, had you bumped into him on New Years eve at Nashville's Wild Horse Saloon. Tom loved art. And, he could write, as many who have read the Declaration of Independence will attest to.
He also knew love. His wife of ten years, Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson died tragically at the age of 34. 39-year-old-Thomas promised her that we would never remarry. He was true to his word.
Following Martha's death, Jefferson went through an extended mourning period. At the recommendation of Benjamin Franklin he accepted the ambassadorship to France.
In Paris Jefferson, now age 44, met his younger daughter's 14-year-old servant, Sally Hemmings. Sally, a "quadroon," was a slave and the half sister to Jefferson's deceased wife. Their relationship was a story in itself.
Returning to Virginia, Sally Hemmings passed on remaining in France as a free woman, in favor of sharing Jefferson's bed chamber at Monticello. They parented five children. Four lived to adulthood.
Through the limited photos and descriptions we now know that Sally stood about 5'5", had long black hair and was eerily reminiscent of Halle Berry.
Jefferson is remembered as one of America's finest Presidents. Most noteworthy was his decision to pay France $15,000,000 for what became known as the Louisiana purchase. Often forgotten are his endless debates with Alexander Hamilton.
What shaped Jefferson's paradigm will never be truly known. He always advocated the rights of the individual state from a standpoint that was later described as "strict construction." In defending his position, he constantly referred to the common man and his place in America.
Perhaps it was derived or, at least, partially derived from his relationship with Hemmings. It was clearly apparent that he harbored a deep empathy and understanding for the common man. He realized that most in America had come to escape a European nobility system. He saw the danger in an overly centralized government that wielded too much power.
Hamilton believed that government was best administered by the better educated, more affluent, from a central point. He admitted to not trusting the common man with the rigors of government. To Jefferson, this amounted to a ruling class. In essence, an American nobility.
2016 Presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina describes it as "the political class."
Jefferson advocated less centralization, more control from the individual states. He was the ultimate proponent of the 10th amendment.
How much power should be reserved for the individual states has plagued America since Thomas Jefferson's day. A great and bloody war was fought over it. Today it remains a subject for debate.
The recent Jade Helm 15 question is the fruit of fear that has festered. Some considered this apprehension unjustified. But, coupled with mounting concerns on other issues such an overbearing E.P.A.'s encroachment and the I.R.S.'s apparent partisanship, the paranoia that is creeping across the continent can't be easily dismissed!
When jobs are intentionally destroyed or shipped abroad, people ask "why!"
When an agency such as the I.R.S. lives by a standard, "guilty until proven innocent," people question the exception.
When farmers are put out of business because of a minnow, they ask, "who are these people who are making these decisions and what are their credentials?"
When United Nations troops are seen in Texas poising for photographs at Wall Mart, rational people, not reactionaries exclaim, "what in the hell are UN soldiers doing on American soil!"
Thomas Jefferson's way was all about protecting the little guy. But it was likewise a guarantee that a small group of well organized fanatics might not seize control of a government grown too big, powerful and centralized.
Jefferson was not alive in 1917. But had he been, he would have concluded that the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent 70-year Communist nightmare would have been averted had the individual provinces held more power.
Nicholas Wrenden corroborated this position in his book, "The Unmaking of a Russian." Wrenden reveals how "only about 60,000 well organized, well disciplined" believers implemented a brutal dictatorship over a region of better than 150 million people. Though heavily outnumbered, they took control of Moscow, and with it, the central bureaucracy.
Communists in America know that the key to ultimate takeover lies in a powerful, Washington, D.C. government. This preference crosses party lines. Even Republicans who claim to be conservative, yet favor "top down, control from Washington," are one in the same! Their methodologies may differ, as did those of Stalin and Troksky. But the goal remains consistent.
Quelling the rising anxiety of a federal government grown too powerful may be as easy as decentralization. It would not come without a fight.
Al Sharpton talks vigorously about the need for a more centralized government. Many states, especially those in the Northeast, don't want it. They warn that that decentralization would result in "rich states and poor states." Some go as far to say that it would "make us like little, individual countries."
The latter may be an exaggeration. The nation has national entitlement programs, a military, an interstate system, a national park service, a postal service and a space program. What more do we need at the federal level?
It is not to say that many of the services are not without merit. Or need! But, could they not be better administered from the state level? Texas' Educational and Environmental track records are proof enough for those who live there!Ditto for Energy oversight and Homeland Security. The latter definitely should be done under the auspices of the individual states. For those unconvinced, read both the second and 10th amendments!
A Department of Homeland Security in the wrong hands, could become an American edition of the S.S.! Members of the military swear an oath to the defend the constitution. The Secret Service allegiance is to the Chief Executive. What about D.H.S.? Would it not be a better option to administer this department at the state level?
Next month, the Supreme Court will decide on the definition of marriage. Should not that determination be left up to the individual states? Ditto for abortion and Marijuana legalization.
What makes America unique to every country in the world is how we began. We are, "the United States of America." Not, the "United American States." Our motto reinforces this assertion: "E Pluribus Unum."- "From the many, one."
Democrats and Neo-Con Republicans will attest to their understanding of Jefferson's "strict constructionist" standard. They will simultaneously say that it is not practical in today's America. When questioned, "why," the answer all comes down to inertia.
Implementing a constitutionally correct America would have a devastating effect on the system in place. Thousands of jobs, including large numbers of jobs currently headquartered in Washington would either be redirected or eliminated. For some members of the bureaucracy, it would be as simple as a new boss. Others could be looking at relocation, or a pink slip!
Politicians talk. But implementing a Jeffersonian style America would take a tough, decisive President, backed by an equally committed Congress and Senate. The bulk of countrymen say it "would never happen!" Yet, when fear is introduced into the equation, never say never!
Americans need to ask these proponents of big government from Washington, "why" they believe this to be the better way? Our history deficient youth need to be cornered into admitting that they know nothing about Weimar or the Bolshevik Revolution, what they symbolized and why we, as a nation, don't want to go there!
There was likely nothing to Jade Helm 15. But, the reaction that it generated should be noted. Millions of Americans have lost complete trust in the federal government. Fear is replacing reason, in too many instances.
This essentially happened in the Weimar Republic. It stands as historical proof, that people are most gullible when they are frightened.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
What is Jade Helm 15?
I have never considered myself a reactionary. Nor do I subscribe to conspiracy theories. But the news that is coming out of the Southwest is disquieting, if not disturbing! Below is an excerpt taken from the Inquisitr, a conservative b log, that has pointed out numerous irregularities that are corroborated by ex-military men from all branches of the services.
To Monitor Federal Troops During Jade Helm Military Exercises, Governor Deploys Troops to Guard Against Martial Law
Texas militia to guard against federal declaration of martial law
Texas Gov. Greg Abbot ordered the Texas State Guard to monitor federal troops as they conduct Jade Helm 15 military exercises later this year that some fear are a prelude to declaring martial law.
Some Texans have been accusing the federal government of using the Jade Helm 15 military exercises as a way to take over, seize their guns and declare martial law.
Operation Jade Helm 15 is a massive training exercise involving 1,200 special operations troops operating clandestinely in several southwest states, including Texas, which, for the duration of the exercise, has been designated a hostile country.
The US military’s most elite soldiers, Navy Seals and Green Berets will attempt to operate covertly without being seen from Texas to California in what the Pentagon is calling, training on the evolving nature of warfare.
Texas Governor deploys militia to monitor federal troops during Jade Helm
KODIAK, AK – DECEMBER 14: Navy SEALs perform Advanced Cold Weather training to experience the physical stress of the environment and how their equipment will operate, or even sound, in adverse conditions December 14, 2003 in Kodiak, Alaska. Photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Eric S. Logsdon/U.S. Navy via Getty Images)
In response to citizen fears of a federal government takeover and amid growing concern of individual rights, Gov. Abbot ordered the Texas military to monitor the US military operations during Jade Helm, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
“During the training operation, it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property right and civil liberties will not be infringed. I am directing the Texas State Guard to monitor Operation Jade Helm 15.”
Abbot commands the Texas State Guard, a militia of volunteers reserved for times of emergency or catastrophe.
A Texas State Guard spokesman told the San Francisco Chronicle his unit was ready to meet the governor’s command in response to Jade Helm.
“We are always ready to answer the call of the Governor, and we are in the initial planning and coordination phase in response to the Governor’s directive.”
Radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has joined the far right blogosphere in voicing his fear of a federal government takeover during the Jade Helm maneuvers, according to the Dallas Morning News.
Many conservative Texans also view the abrupt closing of five Wal-Mart’s and the firing of 2,200 workers in the southwest with suspicion and fear the superstores could be used as bases for foreign or federal troops operating under Jade Helm, according to the Inquisitr.
Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria, a spokesman for federal military forces attended a Bastrop County Commissioners Court Monday and sought to dispel resident’s fears saying the misinformation about Jade Helm 15 was spread for someone’s personal agenda, according to the Austin American Statesman.
“You may have issues with the administration. So be it. But this institution right here has been with you for over 200 years. I’ve worn this uniform across five different administrations for 27 years.”
Jade Helm military exercises in Victoria and Goliad counties have been cancelled for unknown reasons.
Photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Eric S. LogsdonU.S. Navy/Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Texas and Utah been designated as "hostile " areas. Colorado and California are labeled "permissive." Could this be coincidental?
Obviously the Governor Texas didn't take it as merely coincidental! One well informed Texan pointed out, that "martial law wouldn't be possible. Perhaps a coup. But, the law enforcement officials and sheriffs in the small towns, not the cities, would be with us. We would have them outnumbered 20 to one."
A big to do about nothing? Fox News evidently thinks so! But why are Turkish Soldiers in Texas. But, of course! They are actually UN Peacekeepers! Which brings us to the next question: "What are UN Peacekeepers doing in the United States?"
The official line is "the plan is to dress men of war in civilian clothing and blend in with the local population."
What?
At latest report, Jade Helm 15 had spread to 10 states, most recently adding Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. Military exercise? Perhaps. But, it certainly doesn't' resemble anything that we have seen!
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Anger, Fear Growing Rapidly in America
Anger, mixed with a little bit of fear, is increasingly prevalent in America.
Recently, I spoke to a friend from Nashville who shared an alarming tidbit of information. Her son, serving in the military had a patch on his uniform. It read, "Geneva U.C." Or, so she thought.
What does "Geneva" have to do with American troops stationed in Tennessee?
No real answer. Just like all of the ready made coffins recently discovered somewhere in Michigan. Not to mention "camp like compounds," seen near Flint. What is this?
The N.S.A. is supported by members of both parties. I noticed this morning on Facebook how Jeb Bush is singing the accolades of the N.S.A., professing that they are "keeping us safe." As I understand it, however, the N.S.A. can arrest any American who is deemed a terrorist without due process. They can intern the suspected terrorist; without telling the family where. And, they can hold them indefinitely. This can't be right! Can it?
I am not one for conspiracy theories. Nor, do I consider myself a paranoid person. But, if all of this is true, we have big problems!
Friends have urged me to purchase a couple of AR-15's, and plenty of rounds. I listened but didn't respond. Then, I read that the President is attempting to rid the country of AR-15 rounds. Marketing? Or, could it be something more? I certainly hope not!
Everyone from Survivalists to Mormons have been secretly hoarding food over past years. Under alleged N.S.A. rules, no American is allowed to keep more than a month's supply of food and would be breaking the law, if they did. This can't be!
Fear paralyzes. I am finding that many sane, rational, non paranoid people, including my brother, urge caution when communicating on the phone or via email or Facebook.
Senator Rand Paul pointed much of this out in the Republican Leadership Conference, held this past weekend in New Hampshire. It's time that somebody had both the insight and intestinal fortitude to do this. Hopefully, it's not too late!
There is a growing divide in America. For illustrative purposes, I will call the opposing parties the "Centralists" and the "Federalists." The Centralists want an America that is more uniform, preferably run from Washington, D.C. The Federalists believe in the 10th amendment. They see the states as individual laboratories of innovation.
Both Centralists and Federalist strive for the same objective. It's a matter of how to accomplish it. Or, that's how Rick Perry sees it! Hopefully, he's right! At the very least, the former Texas Governor gets an "A" for diplomacy!
Paul supporters aren't so sure. Neither are Ted Cruz followers. From both camps we're hearing about a "plot to bring America into a New World Order, a one world government." Those who resist will be dealt with accordingly.
Are these Americans merely paranoid reactionaries? Or, are they simply a step ahead of the rest of the country? For those who have taken the time to read, G. Edward Griffin's, "the Creature from Jekyll Island," you will have Paul's perspective. Cruz is a brilliant legal authority on the constitution. Both are "Federalists."
Most of the Republican Party leadership are "Centralists." I watched Mitt Romney discuss the GOP contenders last night on Hannity. He mentioned five would be Republicans who figured into the race. Neither Cruz or Paul was mentioned. Neither was Perry. Jeb Bush was mentioned! So were Chris Christie and Lindsey Graham. I guess "Centralists" like "Centralists."
In two previous posts, we discussed "New Conservatives," AKA "Neo-Cons." They are the "Centralists." But, all Centralists are not conservatives! Barack Obama is surely a Centralist. In fact, most all of the Democrat Party is comprised of Centralists.
Thus, Centralists, Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham have more in common with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton than Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or Rick Perry. No wonder much of the party refers to both men as "R.I.N.O.s!"
Two-Hundred-Twenty years ago, Bush, Christie and Graham, not to mention Romney, would have been referred to as "Hamiltonians!" Like Alexander Hamilton, they believed that power should be more concentrated in Washington, implemented by the better educated, more affluent. Today they are, as Carly Fiorina described them, "the political class."
Does this mean that they would support measures such as N.S.A. spying? Evidently so!
Wait a minute! Wasn't this "Centralist versus Federalist" argument settled at Appomattox in 1865? Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia thinks so!
States rights was then and remains a thorny issue. Southerners and to a large degree, Westerners take the 10th amendment more literally than those from the Northeast. Most believe that the issue remains unresolved. The Midwest continues to be divided on the issue. Indiana and to a lesser degree, Ohio and Iowa hold Federalist leanings.
Over the past two decades, the electoral map has reflected these paradigms. Thus, it's understandable that Centralists would be more open to Obamacare and Common Core, while Federalists would oppose both programs.
Nominating a Centralist has been a GOP trend since 1988. Ronald Reagan was the last Federalist President. Most agree that the GOP base is firmly in favor of choosing a Federalist in 2016. But, who does that eliminate? It was disquieting that Romney also mentioned Marco Rubio and Scott Walker.
Rubio is talking like a Federalist. Yet, there are slips, such as his positions on Marijuana legalization and gay rights. Both indicate that he might be a closet Centralist. Scott Walker hasn't been too vocal either way. And that could translate to his being courted by Centralists, in the event that Bush or Rubio fizzle!
Nobody is talking about Mike Huckabee. But if he declares his candidacy on May 5th, you will hear his name frequently. Maybe as a possible running mate for Bush! After all, there are Evangelicals who consider Federalists, "Relativists." They might ultimately prove pivotal in Centralists maintaining party control...
Why the significance?
In a previous post we traced the Neo-Con origin back to Leon Trotsky and the fight between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia. It is easy to trace Hillary Clinton's origins back to the Frankfurt School. These mostly Jewish Europeans were Stalinists. In essence, when discussing Centralists in America, we are essentially resuming the Stalin versus Trotsky debate that took place in 1913...
Most conservatives deem a Hillary Clinton presidency a ticket to the ruination of America. Yet, are they completely powerless to prevent it? What if there is a closely contested election that ends in the manner that 2000 ended?
It's probable that the Obama administration and most Centralists fear a citizens uprising. Especially in light of the growing trend for increased second amendment protections. The million dollar question amounts to, "what would be the disposition of the military and other law enforcement officials in America."
A Nevada Tea Party activist refers to the five star generals as "perfumed princes." That's a fitting description for CFR members, David Petraeus and Wesley Clark. No doubt that they would stay with the crown!
But what about the one stars? Not to mention those officers cashiered by the Obama Administration! It's fairly obvious that most fraternal order of police members are sympathetic to the conservative cause! Homeland Security? Who knows! And we still haven't gotten to that "Geneva something or another.!"
By weighing this additional consideration, the choice of a Republican nominee takes on a second dimension. In the event that we encountered an impasse, would law enforcement officials and the majority of the military follow them? And, would they be capable of assuming the immediate role of commander-in-chief?
Fear is a great motivator. It can paralyze. Or, it can bring about action! Anger can start as rage and ultimately end in joy. It is never a good idea to push people too far. True, 98% of the country will remain apathetic. But the rest won't! Those who studied the Bolshevik revolution will remind that only 60,000 or so brought about the change.
Thomas Jefferson concluded that "when people fear government you have tyranny and when government fears the people, you have liberty." Perhaps those truly loving America should look to Jefferson for insight.
Not to mention the almighty.
Recently, I spoke to a friend from Nashville who shared an alarming tidbit of information. Her son, serving in the military had a patch on his uniform. It read, "Geneva U.C." Or, so she thought.
What does "Geneva" have to do with American troops stationed in Tennessee?
No real answer. Just like all of the ready made coffins recently discovered somewhere in Michigan. Not to mention "camp like compounds," seen near Flint. What is this?
The N.S.A. is supported by members of both parties. I noticed this morning on Facebook how Jeb Bush is singing the accolades of the N.S.A., professing that they are "keeping us safe." As I understand it, however, the N.S.A. can arrest any American who is deemed a terrorist without due process. They can intern the suspected terrorist; without telling the family where. And, they can hold them indefinitely. This can't be right! Can it?
I am not one for conspiracy theories. Nor, do I consider myself a paranoid person. But, if all of this is true, we have big problems!
Friends have urged me to purchase a couple of AR-15's, and plenty of rounds. I listened but didn't respond. Then, I read that the President is attempting to rid the country of AR-15 rounds. Marketing? Or, could it be something more? I certainly hope not!
Everyone from Survivalists to Mormons have been secretly hoarding food over past years. Under alleged N.S.A. rules, no American is allowed to keep more than a month's supply of food and would be breaking the law, if they did. This can't be!
Fear paralyzes. I am finding that many sane, rational, non paranoid people, including my brother, urge caution when communicating on the phone or via email or Facebook.
Senator Rand Paul pointed much of this out in the Republican Leadership Conference, held this past weekend in New Hampshire. It's time that somebody had both the insight and intestinal fortitude to do this. Hopefully, it's not too late!
There is a growing divide in America. For illustrative purposes, I will call the opposing parties the "Centralists" and the "Federalists." The Centralists want an America that is more uniform, preferably run from Washington, D.C. The Federalists believe in the 10th amendment. They see the states as individual laboratories of innovation.
Both Centralists and Federalist strive for the same objective. It's a matter of how to accomplish it. Or, that's how Rick Perry sees it! Hopefully, he's right! At the very least, the former Texas Governor gets an "A" for diplomacy!
Paul supporters aren't so sure. Neither are Ted Cruz followers. From both camps we're hearing about a "plot to bring America into a New World Order, a one world government." Those who resist will be dealt with accordingly.
Are these Americans merely paranoid reactionaries? Or, are they simply a step ahead of the rest of the country? For those who have taken the time to read, G. Edward Griffin's, "the Creature from Jekyll Island," you will have Paul's perspective. Cruz is a brilliant legal authority on the constitution. Both are "Federalists."
Most of the Republican Party leadership are "Centralists." I watched Mitt Romney discuss the GOP contenders last night on Hannity. He mentioned five would be Republicans who figured into the race. Neither Cruz or Paul was mentioned. Neither was Perry. Jeb Bush was mentioned! So were Chris Christie and Lindsey Graham. I guess "Centralists" like "Centralists."
In two previous posts, we discussed "New Conservatives," AKA "Neo-Cons." They are the "Centralists." But, all Centralists are not conservatives! Barack Obama is surely a Centralist. In fact, most all of the Democrat Party is comprised of Centralists.
Thus, Centralists, Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham have more in common with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton than Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or Rick Perry. No wonder much of the party refers to both men as "R.I.N.O.s!"
Two-Hundred-Twenty years ago, Bush, Christie and Graham, not to mention Romney, would have been referred to as "Hamiltonians!" Like Alexander Hamilton, they believed that power should be more concentrated in Washington, implemented by the better educated, more affluent. Today they are, as Carly Fiorina described them, "the political class."
Does this mean that they would support measures such as N.S.A. spying? Evidently so!
Wait a minute! Wasn't this "Centralist versus Federalist" argument settled at Appomattox in 1865? Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia thinks so!
States rights was then and remains a thorny issue. Southerners and to a large degree, Westerners take the 10th amendment more literally than those from the Northeast. Most believe that the issue remains unresolved. The Midwest continues to be divided on the issue. Indiana and to a lesser degree, Ohio and Iowa hold Federalist leanings.
Over the past two decades, the electoral map has reflected these paradigms. Thus, it's understandable that Centralists would be more open to Obamacare and Common Core, while Federalists would oppose both programs.
Nominating a Centralist has been a GOP trend since 1988. Ronald Reagan was the last Federalist President. Most agree that the GOP base is firmly in favor of choosing a Federalist in 2016. But, who does that eliminate? It was disquieting that Romney also mentioned Marco Rubio and Scott Walker.
Rubio is talking like a Federalist. Yet, there are slips, such as his positions on Marijuana legalization and gay rights. Both indicate that he might be a closet Centralist. Scott Walker hasn't been too vocal either way. And that could translate to his being courted by Centralists, in the event that Bush or Rubio fizzle!
Nobody is talking about Mike Huckabee. But if he declares his candidacy on May 5th, you will hear his name frequently. Maybe as a possible running mate for Bush! After all, there are Evangelicals who consider Federalists, "Relativists." They might ultimately prove pivotal in Centralists maintaining party control...
Why the significance?
In a previous post we traced the Neo-Con origin back to Leon Trotsky and the fight between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia. It is easy to trace Hillary Clinton's origins back to the Frankfurt School. These mostly Jewish Europeans were Stalinists. In essence, when discussing Centralists in America, we are essentially resuming the Stalin versus Trotsky debate that took place in 1913...
Most conservatives deem a Hillary Clinton presidency a ticket to the ruination of America. Yet, are they completely powerless to prevent it? What if there is a closely contested election that ends in the manner that 2000 ended?
It's probable that the Obama administration and most Centralists fear a citizens uprising. Especially in light of the growing trend for increased second amendment protections. The million dollar question amounts to, "what would be the disposition of the military and other law enforcement officials in America."
A Nevada Tea Party activist refers to the five star generals as "perfumed princes." That's a fitting description for CFR members, David Petraeus and Wesley Clark. No doubt that they would stay with the crown!
But what about the one stars? Not to mention those officers cashiered by the Obama Administration! It's fairly obvious that most fraternal order of police members are sympathetic to the conservative cause! Homeland Security? Who knows! And we still haven't gotten to that "Geneva something or another.!"
By weighing this additional consideration, the choice of a Republican nominee takes on a second dimension. In the event that we encountered an impasse, would law enforcement officials and the majority of the military follow them? And, would they be capable of assuming the immediate role of commander-in-chief?
Fear is a great motivator. It can paralyze. Or, it can bring about action! Anger can start as rage and ultimately end in joy. It is never a good idea to push people too far. True, 98% of the country will remain apathetic. But the rest won't! Those who studied the Bolshevik revolution will remind that only 60,000 or so brought about the change.
Thomas Jefferson concluded that "when people fear government you have tyranny and when government fears the people, you have liberty." Perhaps those truly loving America should look to Jefferson for insight.
Not to mention the almighty.
Monday, April 20, 2015
GOP Nominee Should Have a History With Hispanics
Former Clinton consultant, Doug Shoen recently referred to Hillary's campaign as "like a giant balloon, looking for a pin."
Will she implode? Don't count on it! Mrs. Clinton has the media firmly in her tank! True there are many in her party who might like to see someone else. Most in her party who would welcome some primary competition. But, it's all a charade. When the smoke clears, it will be Hillary Clinton as the Dem's nominee. It about inertia. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat's Bob Dole.
Clinton is not taking anything for granted. She is engaged in conversation with San Antonio Major, Julian Castro. The topic: His joining her on the ticket! For those not familiar with the 40-year-old Castro, take a closer look. Mayor Castro sees "Chicanos" as victims of prejudice, bigotry and exploitation. His selection would indicate that Hillary isn't thinking about bi-partisanship and a working relationship with Congress. Why should she? Class warfare worked splendidly for Barack Obama.
There are some old hands, such as James Carville, not to mention her husband, advising her. They are warning, "don't take any previous voter for granted." Especially Hispanics.
Jeb Bush is seen as a "difficult" match-up. Not that the Clinton's think that he couldn't be beaten! Of the three or four possibles, he might be the easiest. But, he was a successful governor in a key swing state, is husband to a Mexican wife, speaks the language better than 90% of American Latinos and has drawn the wrath of many fellow Republicans for what is described as a "soft" position on immigration.
Rick Perry hasn't caught fire. Yet. But, his tenure as Governor of Texas included some noteworthy achievements and advancements for Hispanics. One of the most surprising is the high school graduation rates in Texas. Perry tallied 44% of the Hispanic vote in Texas' 2010 Gubernatorial, general election.
Marco Rubio has one of the most impressive stories in recent years. His youth could work to his advantage. The Clinton camp evidently sees the potential of a 2008 in reverse. Party history, however is not on his side as far as being the nominee. Yet he tops nearly every list as a V.P. select!
Mike Huckabee received 46% of the Hispanic vote in his last re-election campaign in Arkansas. The former Governor will readily remind that he also received 48% of the African American vote.
While Ted Cruz has the right surname, it will be easy enough for Hillary Clinton to bury him with her war chest. Ditto for Rand Paul, although both, especially Paul are gaining some traction with Hispanic voters.
The Republican stable is full of race horses to be sure! And, a few nags, such as South Carolina, "R.I.N.O.," Lindsey Graham.
To be sure, both Scott Walker and John Kasich would be qualified nominees. But should the lack of appeal to Hispanics preclude them?
Clinton's camp hopes that Republicans will again ignore this crucial block of voters, as they did in 2012. Don't look for them to take any chances with a moderate like Jim Webb. Webb's military report card would bring some credibility to the ticket. But, Julian Castro will enable them to play the class warfare card with zeal, and a "truckload" of cash!
Sadly her party may be willing to do this. Any Democrat strategist will tell you that to "split" the Hispanic vote with Republicans would be a disaster, a recipe for losing the general election. They know that a Bush-Huckabee or a Perry-Rubio or a Huckabee-Rubio ticket would pit the former first lady/Secretary of State against a veteran Governor who had the ability to mobilize Evangelicals and/or Youthful voters.
Worst still, all three did exceptionally well with Hispanic voters in previous elections.
Will she implode? Don't count on it! Mrs. Clinton has the media firmly in her tank! True there are many in her party who might like to see someone else. Most in her party who would welcome some primary competition. But, it's all a charade. When the smoke clears, it will be Hillary Clinton as the Dem's nominee. It about inertia. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat's Bob Dole.
Clinton is not taking anything for granted. She is engaged in conversation with San Antonio Major, Julian Castro. The topic: His joining her on the ticket! For those not familiar with the 40-year-old Castro, take a closer look. Mayor Castro sees "Chicanos" as victims of prejudice, bigotry and exploitation. His selection would indicate that Hillary isn't thinking about bi-partisanship and a working relationship with Congress. Why should she? Class warfare worked splendidly for Barack Obama.
There are some old hands, such as James Carville, not to mention her husband, advising her. They are warning, "don't take any previous voter for granted." Especially Hispanics.
Jeb Bush is seen as a "difficult" match-up. Not that the Clinton's think that he couldn't be beaten! Of the three or four possibles, he might be the easiest. But, he was a successful governor in a key swing state, is husband to a Mexican wife, speaks the language better than 90% of American Latinos and has drawn the wrath of many fellow Republicans for what is described as a "soft" position on immigration.
Rick Perry hasn't caught fire. Yet. But, his tenure as Governor of Texas included some noteworthy achievements and advancements for Hispanics. One of the most surprising is the high school graduation rates in Texas. Perry tallied 44% of the Hispanic vote in Texas' 2010 Gubernatorial, general election.
Marco Rubio has one of the most impressive stories in recent years. His youth could work to his advantage. The Clinton camp evidently sees the potential of a 2008 in reverse. Party history, however is not on his side as far as being the nominee. Yet he tops nearly every list as a V.P. select!
Mike Huckabee received 46% of the Hispanic vote in his last re-election campaign in Arkansas. The former Governor will readily remind that he also received 48% of the African American vote.
While Ted Cruz has the right surname, it will be easy enough for Hillary Clinton to bury him with her war chest. Ditto for Rand Paul, although both, especially Paul are gaining some traction with Hispanic voters.
The Republican stable is full of race horses to be sure! And, a few nags, such as South Carolina, "R.I.N.O.," Lindsey Graham.
To be sure, both Scott Walker and John Kasich would be qualified nominees. But should the lack of appeal to Hispanics preclude them?
Clinton's camp hopes that Republicans will again ignore this crucial block of voters, as they did in 2012. Don't look for them to take any chances with a moderate like Jim Webb. Webb's military report card would bring some credibility to the ticket. But, Julian Castro will enable them to play the class warfare card with zeal, and a "truckload" of cash!
Sadly her party may be willing to do this. Any Democrat strategist will tell you that to "split" the Hispanic vote with Republicans would be a disaster, a recipe for losing the general election. They know that a Bush-Huckabee or a Perry-Rubio or a Huckabee-Rubio ticket would pit the former first lady/Secretary of State against a veteran Governor who had the ability to mobilize Evangelicals and/or Youthful voters.
Worst still, all three did exceptionally well with Hispanic voters in previous elections.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Kentucky's Hal Heiner Remiscent of Texas' James Street
Recently, Kentucky Republican Gubernatorial candidate, Hal Heiner, visited my office. It came on the heels of a luncheon appearance at the Lexington Rotary club. I had earlier given him from a lift from the Rotary luncheon.
This was my first one-on-one with Heiner. I found him remarkably reminiscent of the late James Street, quarterback for University of Texas' 1969 national champion football team. Heiner is a youthful 62 and not only looks a lot like Street, but has that same effervescence. Those who remember will tell you that "James stayed lit up like a pin ball machine." Street's childhood friend who now serves as Clemson University Athletic Director, Terry Don Phillips, described James as "a winner."
Heiner's "can do" attitude further reminds you of Street. He described Kentucky as a state that "was blessed" with everything from natural resources to a central location. His outlook pretty much amounted to one factor: "We need to produce revenue by not increasing taxes, but increasing jobs."
Kentucky is a unique state. I recall former WTVQ General Manager, Diane Sutter, describing it as "Southerners with a Midwestern mentality." In essence "charming and genteel, while being more practical and less temperamental." Heiner certainly fits the bill! But, as one elderly Rotarian questioned, "speaking as an engineer, Hal, how would you address the gridlock in Frankfort?"
Kentucky has a Senate that has Republican majority. The House of Representatives has been in Democrat control since Reconstruction. Speaker, Greg Stumbo runs the House with an iron hand. Current Governor, Steve Beshear went as far to say that the Houses return to Republican control would "turn the clock back 100 years!"
Heiner's plan is typical of an Engineer. It is thorough. It contains numerous movable parts, starting with "right-to-work" and ending with "charter schools." Both are predicted to attract industry, which would equate to jobs. His rationale behind Obamacare and Kentucky's establishment of exchanges is backed by pure economic logic. It stands as polar opposite to that of likely Democrat nominee, Jack Conway.
Obviously it will take a "winner with a can do attitude" to accomplish what Heiner seeks to do! Which inspired me to ask a somewhat novel question: "Do you think we could get ten or twelve Democrats to switch parties?"
Hal's response was, "interesting idea. I dunno."
Throughout the South there are conservatives who vote with Republicans in nearly all, if not all national elections. I refer to them as "D.I.N.O.s- Democrats in name only." I recall my insurance agent trashing President Obama,telling me how much he liked Rand Paul and exclaiming that there was "no way I will vote for Ben Chandler in the U.S. Congressional election." He then said that he was a registered Democrat. When I ask him "why," his response was "well, my father was a Democrat and his father was a Democrat and I guess it's just tradition."
Tradition or not, it may be the key to unlocking Kentucky's potential as Heiner seeks to do!
It can happen! In fact it did happen throughout the South on a national level. Perhaps the most prominent example is Rick Perry. Perry was a Democrat through 1988. But he made the switch on grounds that he didn't leave the party, it left him. As some remember, Ronald Reagan used those same words.
Many have read former Georgia Democrat, Zell Millers book, "A national Party no More." The Democrats are increasingly seen as the party of "big government, increased entitlements and questionable foreign policy."
In short,the party has drifted left to the point where John F. Kennedy would have a difficult time recognizing it. It's safe to say that "the party of John F. Kennedy and Harry S. Truman" no longer exist!
Could a "can do optimist such as Hal Heiner pull it off?" If he's anything like Street, the answer is "yes." Longhorn historians will describe Street's impossible dilemma of playing second string behind All American, (later all pro) Bill Bradley. Yet by the third game of his junior year, he had won the starting job!
It might require some help from the outside! Obviously a "D.I.N.O." Congresswoman such as Richmond's Rita Smart would be impressed, if not overwhelmed if Rick Perry asked her to both lunch and to switch parties!
Kentucky and certainly America needs smart, enthusiastic business people like Hal Heiner "quarterbacking" their transformation from a "ward of Washington" to a "laboratory" of ingenuity and progress. This is what Mike Huckabee did in Arkansas. That's why Arkansans who lived in the state during both Clinton's and Huckabee's governorships will tell you how much more effective Huck was than Bill.
In Hal Heiner, we see James Street, less the Longview, Texas drawl. In effect a "winner." The question will be, "how big?"
It may come down to how many D.I.N.O.s come home.
This was my first one-on-one with Heiner. I found him remarkably reminiscent of the late James Street, quarterback for University of Texas' 1969 national champion football team. Heiner is a youthful 62 and not only looks a lot like Street, but has that same effervescence. Those who remember will tell you that "James stayed lit up like a pin ball machine." Street's childhood friend who now serves as Clemson University Athletic Director, Terry Don Phillips, described James as "a winner."
Heiner's "can do" attitude further reminds you of Street. He described Kentucky as a state that "was blessed" with everything from natural resources to a central location. His outlook pretty much amounted to one factor: "We need to produce revenue by not increasing taxes, but increasing jobs."
Kentucky is a unique state. I recall former WTVQ General Manager, Diane Sutter, describing it as "Southerners with a Midwestern mentality." In essence "charming and genteel, while being more practical and less temperamental." Heiner certainly fits the bill! But, as one elderly Rotarian questioned, "speaking as an engineer, Hal, how would you address the gridlock in Frankfort?"
Kentucky has a Senate that has Republican majority. The House of Representatives has been in Democrat control since Reconstruction. Speaker, Greg Stumbo runs the House with an iron hand. Current Governor, Steve Beshear went as far to say that the Houses return to Republican control would "turn the clock back 100 years!"
Heiner's plan is typical of an Engineer. It is thorough. It contains numerous movable parts, starting with "right-to-work" and ending with "charter schools." Both are predicted to attract industry, which would equate to jobs. His rationale behind Obamacare and Kentucky's establishment of exchanges is backed by pure economic logic. It stands as polar opposite to that of likely Democrat nominee, Jack Conway.
Obviously it will take a "winner with a can do attitude" to accomplish what Heiner seeks to do! Which inspired me to ask a somewhat novel question: "Do you think we could get ten or twelve Democrats to switch parties?"
Hal's response was, "interesting idea. I dunno."
Throughout the South there are conservatives who vote with Republicans in nearly all, if not all national elections. I refer to them as "D.I.N.O.s- Democrats in name only." I recall my insurance agent trashing President Obama,telling me how much he liked Rand Paul and exclaiming that there was "no way I will vote for Ben Chandler in the U.S. Congressional election." He then said that he was a registered Democrat. When I ask him "why," his response was "well, my father was a Democrat and his father was a Democrat and I guess it's just tradition."
Tradition or not, it may be the key to unlocking Kentucky's potential as Heiner seeks to do!
It can happen! In fact it did happen throughout the South on a national level. Perhaps the most prominent example is Rick Perry. Perry was a Democrat through 1988. But he made the switch on grounds that he didn't leave the party, it left him. As some remember, Ronald Reagan used those same words.
Many have read former Georgia Democrat, Zell Millers book, "A national Party no More." The Democrats are increasingly seen as the party of "big government, increased entitlements and questionable foreign policy."
In short,the party has drifted left to the point where John F. Kennedy would have a difficult time recognizing it. It's safe to say that "the party of John F. Kennedy and Harry S. Truman" no longer exist!
Could a "can do optimist such as Hal Heiner pull it off?" If he's anything like Street, the answer is "yes." Longhorn historians will describe Street's impossible dilemma of playing second string behind All American, (later all pro) Bill Bradley. Yet by the third game of his junior year, he had won the starting job!
It might require some help from the outside! Obviously a "D.I.N.O." Congresswoman such as Richmond's Rita Smart would be impressed, if not overwhelmed if Rick Perry asked her to both lunch and to switch parties!
Kentucky and certainly America needs smart, enthusiastic business people like Hal Heiner "quarterbacking" their transformation from a "ward of Washington" to a "laboratory" of ingenuity and progress. This is what Mike Huckabee did in Arkansas. That's why Arkansans who lived in the state during both Clinton's and Huckabee's governorships will tell you how much more effective Huck was than Bill.
In Hal Heiner, we see James Street, less the Longview, Texas drawl. In effect a "winner." The question will be, "how big?"
It may come down to how many D.I.N.O.s come home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)