Rory(not his real name), my yard man, was loading equipment into his truck when he referenced an affliction that was causing him to go blind in one eye. Ruefully, he acknowedged that he had no insurance and no money to pay doctor and hospital the $5700 needed for corrective surgery.
When I asked him if he had applied for Medicaid, he said "yes." He went on to mention that his wife's health had forced the couple to pay $400 per month to cover the premiums required to maintain her necessary treatment and medication. He admitted that he "wasn't complaining;" except that there were day workers like himself who "received anything they wanted for free." The problem was they were not in the country legally. "Somehow," Rory mused, "that ain't right!"
He was referring to one of the side affects of Phyler versus Doe, the 1982 Supreme Court ruling. Phyler versus Doe ultimately extended entitlements to illegal aliens. In the proposed "American English Unification Amendment" ("E" Amendment) introduced in "E" is for English, Phyler versus Doe would be superceded.
How much is America spending to facilitate this Supreme Court ruling? Studies should reveal much more than most Americans could possibly imagine! With Congress in gridlock over budget cuts, it's truly amazing that this variable has not surfaced. Perhaps it's because nobody wants to talk about it!
Certainly, both Republicans and Democrats are willing to discuss Rory's woes. Democrats conclude that the solution is universal health care. In the eyes of Barack Obama, his "new health care legislation" should answer the question and then some. But will it? As Rory admitted, "I see people drawing disability checks driving around in expensive cars, living in nice homes. Somehow, they're getting paid. But I also know people who don't have enough to eat and are getting $12 per month in food stamps! That's it! I'm talking about people, American people who have worked all their lives and paid into the system."
Republicans point to one measure that would have some tangible result. By allowing all 1300 health insurance companies to cross state lines, the prices for health insurance would logically come down. As Florida Senator, Marco Rubio asked, "what if you could buy your car insurance only from State Farm, Alstate and Shelter?" A guy with a 10th grade education like Rory could figure that one out! "Our car insurance rates would skyrocket!" he laughs. "But why can't we do that with health insurance?" Great question!
Guys like Rory(and a lot of other Americans) would like to know "why" illegal aliens can have free health insurance, food stamps, low income housing, A.F.D.C and other entitlements when 43 million people have no health insurance and are limited to minimal amounts of entitlements? Would guys like Rory be in favor of the "E" Amendment? What about more affluent people? Do they feel that it is their obligation to house, feed and provide medical care for people unlawfully in the country?
Cynics would conclude that the President would never press the issue. After all, he wants to "grant them amnesty so that they will become new Democrat voters." In fairness, we cannot think that lowly of President Obama. Especially since Republicans are also "keeping mum" on the subject!
Maybe it's because to do so would be politically incorrect. Most of the media would demonize any politician who dared suggest that we "stop taking care of children." They would ridicule any political leader who supported "starving illegals into self deportation." Had Speaker Boehner included such a measure in his deficit reduction package, guys like Chris Mathews would have referred to him as having "a heart of a thousand fiends."
Returning to Rory. How would passing the "E" Amendment help him save the sight in his eye? For starters, we would have more to invest in "forgotten America." Most Americans agree. Charity begins at home! We need to turn our attention to people living legally in the country.
It might not happen immediately. But with other practical measures such as allowing unrestricted competition for medical providers and "tort reform" we would be on the path toward a solution. It's a start in the right direction.
Democrats believe that they have accomplished this very notion. They are inflicting "mental morphine" into the psyches! "Reducing health care costs for all" was not accomplished by the new legislation. In fact it does the opposite! Everyones costs are heading up, including those of Medicare recipients. "Disaffecteds," members of forgotten America such as Rory, were completely left out.
So who did benefit? People with pre-existing conditions. 26 year-olds living with their parents? Some union members? Sounds like a handful of people benefited at the expense of the rest us! Worse still, illegals receiving medicare and medicaid were never mentioned!
Imagine building a road across a grassy meadow. What happens if you begin pouring asphalt immediately on the grass? Without prep work? The end result is "a mess." You have built something unsustainable.Get the picture!
Hardworking survivors like Rory aren't asking for universal healthcare. In fact, they aren't looking for a "handout," or even a "hand." The bare essentials are accepted with a mild degree of shame and embarrasment. But only as a last resort! These are self reliant, proudly independent Americans. They only ask to be remembered.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
"Punching the Winning Ticket"
Republicans are in universal agreement on one thing: "They want to make Barack Obama a one-term President."
There are some differences and preferences. For the most part, however, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and the rest are arguing from the same piece of paper. True, Ron Paul has added some Libertarian flavor. Rick Santorum keeps social issues in the forefront. Herman Cain is a clear Tea Party alternative. Convincing "Americas' taken for granted" and "Americas' forgotten" will be the deciding factor.
I am not speaking of Republicans. They will not vote for Obama. Not even some of the "R.I.N.O.s" who were duped into straying in 08! Specifically, we are looking at two distinct groups: The "Disaffecteds," referred to in the June 16th blog and the "D.I.N.O.s"(Democrats in Name Only) introduced in the July 2nd blog. Win these two groups and you win the White House!
What do "Disaffecteds and D.I.N.O.'s" have in common? Let's examine their "wish list."
1. They want a simplified tax system that is fair and uncomplicated. A common complaint from both groups is "there are all kinds of tax loop holes that only rich people can take advantage of," that there is "minimal help" for "people raising children,"and they "don't have the resources to retain a high powered C.P.A."
2. They want a guarantee that entitlements are not going away. They understand that the Social Security age needs to be raised. They want Medicare to remain in place but acknowledge that "waste and fraud" are rampant. They are open to the idea that Medicaid "may best be handled from state level." The idea of illegal aliens, even children accessing Medicaid infuriates them. In short, they want health insurance premiums to drop. Drastically! "If it means allowing companies to cross state lines, let 'em come." To "D.I.N.O.'s and "Disaffecteds" this takes preference even over accommodating those with pre-existing conditions! "Sorry!"
3. They want jobs. PERIOD! This is more important to "D.I.N.O.s" and "Disaffecteds" than "threatening a sand lizard's existence" in Texas, or disturbing the "migratory patterns of Polar Bears in Alaska!" They are happy to relax FDA rules in favor of accommodating small food processors in rural areas. Same holds true for energy producers, mining resources in sparsely settle places like the Bakken basin of Montana and North Dakota. They have one question, "will jobs be created if these regulations are relaxed?" If the answer is "yes," they're in!
Both groups traditionally have a deep mistrust of Washington. To "D.I.N.O.'s" it was Washington that "ousted God from our public schools." To "Disaffecteds" it was Washington who "gave companies their blessing to ship our jobs overseas."
"D.I.N.O.'s" will cheer at the though of closing the Department of Education; provided pell grants remain available. "Disaffecteds" would be ready to pop the cork from a champaign bottle(or more accurately pop the top off a beer can)at word that the EPA was closing! Both groups would applaud the abolition of the Energy Department. To them, this is simply excessive government.
What about a balanced budget amendment? What about "term limits" for Congressmen and Senators?
"D.I.N.O.'s" and "Disaffecteds" aren't the brightest students of big government. They have a simplied perception of the way it should be. And maybe there's some wisdom to that! Why do we need all of these agencies? Especially if we cannot afford them! Why are we tied to standards that were imposed through judicial actions? What if those actions were partisan based? Are we yet bound to them? Can we not change some of these laws that may have been based on previously flawed judicial judgment? If so, how?
Let's start with the previous questions. Yes, a balanced budget amendment makes sense. They are painfully aware of what it's like to live on a budget. Why does Washington have a problem with it? Maybe it's because "it will be more difficult to rewards supporters" with "pork!" Term limits should be the law! Why not give more people a chance to represent their country? After all, it's difficult get someone out of office once they're entrenched! And, be real! Who's going to fire themselves from the best job in America?"
Do we detect a trace of cynicism here? If so, it is cynicism born of frustration! The "Disaffecteds" are "forgotten America." The "D.I.N.O.s" are "America's taken for granted."Both groups have been largely ignored by the political establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike. Now they are ready to send Washington a message!
Where can these "Disaffecteds" and "D.I.N.O.s" be found?
The best place to start the D.I.N.O. hunt is in the rural areas of Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Many are consistently voting for Republicans. True, they were fooled by the cordial accents of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. And, in many cases, remained registered Democrats only "to vote in local elections." This is especially the case in states holding closed primaries. Some voted for Obama. After all, they are more fair minded than some might think. However, don't double talk these D.I.N.O.s! They prescribe to an old saying, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!"
The "Disaffecteds" generally abound in high unemployment areas. The Midwest holds many and if a candidate can convince them that their entitlements will not be placed in jeopardy, they have no problem with "reducing the cost of government." In essence, "you can pull the plug on any and all Washington agencies, if it means more jobs and doesn't take away my Medicare and Social Security entitlement."
In short, convince these two groups that "their needs are the needs of the country" and help yourself to the keys to the White House! Barack Obama did as much!
My inner most feeling hints that America will not give the President a second chance. Certainly there are those who will say it is because he's a "man of color." There may be a hint of truth to that! Nobody ever suggested that it would not be harder for a first time Black President. Even with media support, questions remain with Barack Obama's original qualifications. He didn't have a "thick resume" when he sought the office. Some of his appointments have been suspect. Perhaps the greatest hurdle for the President is the preception that he "campaigned from the center, then governed from the left." To "D.I.N.O.'s" and "Disaffecteds" this constitutes "disception."
The Republicans should remember this when nominating an opponent for Obama. Establishment Republicans will vote for any of the aforementioned candidates. Tea Party Repubicans may like some more than others, but they are not wavering. Welcoming all Americans hurt by the Obama's agenda can and will make the difference. Especially in swing states.
Many "D.I.N.O.s" are Evangelical Christians. Others are "fiscal conservatives" concerned with the debt and rising healthcare costs. They are key to Republicans recapturing Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and Iowa. They do not support Obamacare and they are disgusted with the growth and overreach of government. They believe that states should play a greater role in education and the environment.
Ohio, Florida and Michigan are awash with "Disaffecteds." Many are unemployed and underemployed. Their attitude is "show me a job and I'll show you my vote!"
The question becomes, "which Republican candidate can best bring both "D.I.N.O.'s" and "Disaffecteds" into the GOP tent? Here's a hint! He is not on the list of candidates named earlier.
In an earlier blog Florida Senator, Marco Rubio was identified as a candidate who could defeat Barack Obama. I stand by that assertion. But in the Republican scheme of things, it doesn't always work that way! Rubio's time will come and he stands to be the best possible Vice Presidential option for the 2012 ticket.
Considering the economy and the need to attract "D.I.N.O.s" and "Disaffecteds" the candidate who best fits the bill is Texas Governor, Rick Perry. Perry simply has it all!
It begins with the fact that he switched parties in 1988. It wasn't a matter of changing his mind. It was more along the Ronald Reagan logic of "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me."
The Democrats have evolved from a party that favored working families and small business' to a mouthpiece for special interests, non-taxpayers, unions and the ultra-super rich. Perry grew up on a farm near Abilene, Texas, the son of tenant farmers. He graduated from Texas A & M University. He later flew F-130's in the Air Force. Sounds like Middle Class America! He epitomizes the "Reagan Democrat" of the eighties. To "D.I.N.O" Democrats, "he's real."
Rick Perry has served 10 years as Governor of the second largest and one of the most diverse states in America. To top it off, Texas has accounted for 38% of all of the total U.S. jobs created during Obama's tenure. That, it itself will convince "Disaffecteds!" To them, it's about surviving! This translates to jobs, while retaining entitlements currently held. In spite of his flowery rhetoric, Obama hasn't delivered!
Perry is a constitutionalist. He is very quick to point to the 10th amendment as reason to rethink our massive Washington establishment. Maybe we need to bring decisions closer to home! It's food for thought!
The bare facts are, Perry's report card is "all "A's" when it comes to job creation. He has, what Barack Obama didn't have when seeking the Oval Office: "a resume!" True, he will scare anyone who loves the status quot. To them, he will "rock the boat," upsetting the way that "things have been done" in Washington.
To those wanting to make Barack Obama a "one-term president," Rick Perry is truly the "winning ticket." He will dramatically bring both "D.I.N.O.s" and "Disaffecteds" into the fold. They will support him hands down; for different reasons. Part of it relates to dissatifaction with Obama. Another factor is that Rick Perry "exudes confidence." As Dizzy Dean once said, "it ain't braggin', if you've done it!"
Barack Obama has demonstrated a sensitive ego throughout his tenure. He doesn't take criticism well. It's as if he is, "a legend in his own mind." At the core Obama is an "ideologue," painfully "over his head," who wants to give the impression of being in charge. Maybe this explains the arrogance that most perceive. When times are not good people resent being lectured! Especially from someone who hasn't felt the pain of a seemingly endless recession!
Which bring me to another saying, this from former University of Texas Head Football coach, Darrell Royal. As Royal quipped, "there is no such thing as King Kong. For those who think that there is, you better get ready to wipe your bloody nose."
There are some differences and preferences. For the most part, however, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and the rest are arguing from the same piece of paper. True, Ron Paul has added some Libertarian flavor. Rick Santorum keeps social issues in the forefront. Herman Cain is a clear Tea Party alternative. Convincing "Americas' taken for granted" and "Americas' forgotten" will be the deciding factor.
I am not speaking of Republicans. They will not vote for Obama. Not even some of the "R.I.N.O.s" who were duped into straying in 08! Specifically, we are looking at two distinct groups: The "Disaffecteds," referred to in the June 16th blog and the "D.I.N.O.s"(Democrats in Name Only) introduced in the July 2nd blog. Win these two groups and you win the White House!
What do "Disaffecteds and D.I.N.O.'s" have in common? Let's examine their "wish list."
1. They want a simplified tax system that is fair and uncomplicated. A common complaint from both groups is "there are all kinds of tax loop holes that only rich people can take advantage of," that there is "minimal help" for "people raising children,"and they "don't have the resources to retain a high powered C.P.A."
2. They want a guarantee that entitlements are not going away. They understand that the Social Security age needs to be raised. They want Medicare to remain in place but acknowledge that "waste and fraud" are rampant. They are open to the idea that Medicaid "may best be handled from state level." The idea of illegal aliens, even children accessing Medicaid infuriates them. In short, they want health insurance premiums to drop. Drastically! "If it means allowing companies to cross state lines, let 'em come." To "D.I.N.O.'s and "Disaffecteds" this takes preference even over accommodating those with pre-existing conditions! "Sorry!"
3. They want jobs. PERIOD! This is more important to "D.I.N.O.s" and "Disaffecteds" than "threatening a sand lizard's existence" in Texas, or disturbing the "migratory patterns of Polar Bears in Alaska!" They are happy to relax FDA rules in favor of accommodating small food processors in rural areas. Same holds true for energy producers, mining resources in sparsely settle places like the Bakken basin of Montana and North Dakota. They have one question, "will jobs be created if these regulations are relaxed?" If the answer is "yes," they're in!
Both groups traditionally have a deep mistrust of Washington. To "D.I.N.O.'s" it was Washington that "ousted God from our public schools." To "Disaffecteds" it was Washington who "gave companies their blessing to ship our jobs overseas."
"D.I.N.O.'s" will cheer at the though of closing the Department of Education; provided pell grants remain available. "Disaffecteds" would be ready to pop the cork from a champaign bottle(or more accurately pop the top off a beer can)at word that the EPA was closing! Both groups would applaud the abolition of the Energy Department. To them, this is simply excessive government.
What about a balanced budget amendment? What about "term limits" for Congressmen and Senators?
"D.I.N.O.'s" and "Disaffecteds" aren't the brightest students of big government. They have a simplied perception of the way it should be. And maybe there's some wisdom to that! Why do we need all of these agencies? Especially if we cannot afford them! Why are we tied to standards that were imposed through judicial actions? What if those actions were partisan based? Are we yet bound to them? Can we not change some of these laws that may have been based on previously flawed judicial judgment? If so, how?
Let's start with the previous questions. Yes, a balanced budget amendment makes sense. They are painfully aware of what it's like to live on a budget. Why does Washington have a problem with it? Maybe it's because "it will be more difficult to rewards supporters" with "pork!" Term limits should be the law! Why not give more people a chance to represent their country? After all, it's difficult get someone out of office once they're entrenched! And, be real! Who's going to fire themselves from the best job in America?"
Do we detect a trace of cynicism here? If so, it is cynicism born of frustration! The "Disaffecteds" are "forgotten America." The "D.I.N.O.s" are "America's taken for granted."Both groups have been largely ignored by the political establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike. Now they are ready to send Washington a message!
Where can these "Disaffecteds" and "D.I.N.O.s" be found?
The best place to start the D.I.N.O. hunt is in the rural areas of Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Many are consistently voting for Republicans. True, they were fooled by the cordial accents of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. And, in many cases, remained registered Democrats only "to vote in local elections." This is especially the case in states holding closed primaries. Some voted for Obama. After all, they are more fair minded than some might think. However, don't double talk these D.I.N.O.s! They prescribe to an old saying, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!"
The "Disaffecteds" generally abound in high unemployment areas. The Midwest holds many and if a candidate can convince them that their entitlements will not be placed in jeopardy, they have no problem with "reducing the cost of government." In essence, "you can pull the plug on any and all Washington agencies, if it means more jobs and doesn't take away my Medicare and Social Security entitlement."
In short, convince these two groups that "their needs are the needs of the country" and help yourself to the keys to the White House! Barack Obama did as much!
My inner most feeling hints that America will not give the President a second chance. Certainly there are those who will say it is because he's a "man of color." There may be a hint of truth to that! Nobody ever suggested that it would not be harder for a first time Black President. Even with media support, questions remain with Barack Obama's original qualifications. He didn't have a "thick resume" when he sought the office. Some of his appointments have been suspect. Perhaps the greatest hurdle for the President is the preception that he "campaigned from the center, then governed from the left." To "D.I.N.O.'s" and "Disaffecteds" this constitutes "disception."
The Republicans should remember this when nominating an opponent for Obama. Establishment Republicans will vote for any of the aforementioned candidates. Tea Party Repubicans may like some more than others, but they are not wavering. Welcoming all Americans hurt by the Obama's agenda can and will make the difference. Especially in swing states.
Many "D.I.N.O.s" are Evangelical Christians. Others are "fiscal conservatives" concerned with the debt and rising healthcare costs. They are key to Republicans recapturing Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and Iowa. They do not support Obamacare and they are disgusted with the growth and overreach of government. They believe that states should play a greater role in education and the environment.
Ohio, Florida and Michigan are awash with "Disaffecteds." Many are unemployed and underemployed. Their attitude is "show me a job and I'll show you my vote!"
The question becomes, "which Republican candidate can best bring both "D.I.N.O.'s" and "Disaffecteds" into the GOP tent? Here's a hint! He is not on the list of candidates named earlier.
In an earlier blog Florida Senator, Marco Rubio was identified as a candidate who could defeat Barack Obama. I stand by that assertion. But in the Republican scheme of things, it doesn't always work that way! Rubio's time will come and he stands to be the best possible Vice Presidential option for the 2012 ticket.
Considering the economy and the need to attract "D.I.N.O.s" and "Disaffecteds" the candidate who best fits the bill is Texas Governor, Rick Perry. Perry simply has it all!
It begins with the fact that he switched parties in 1988. It wasn't a matter of changing his mind. It was more along the Ronald Reagan logic of "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me."
The Democrats have evolved from a party that favored working families and small business' to a mouthpiece for special interests, non-taxpayers, unions and the ultra-super rich. Perry grew up on a farm near Abilene, Texas, the son of tenant farmers. He graduated from Texas A & M University. He later flew F-130's in the Air Force. Sounds like Middle Class America! He epitomizes the "Reagan Democrat" of the eighties. To "D.I.N.O" Democrats, "he's real."
Rick Perry has served 10 years as Governor of the second largest and one of the most diverse states in America. To top it off, Texas has accounted for 38% of all of the total U.S. jobs created during Obama's tenure. That, it itself will convince "Disaffecteds!" To them, it's about surviving! This translates to jobs, while retaining entitlements currently held. In spite of his flowery rhetoric, Obama hasn't delivered!
Perry is a constitutionalist. He is very quick to point to the 10th amendment as reason to rethink our massive Washington establishment. Maybe we need to bring decisions closer to home! It's food for thought!
The bare facts are, Perry's report card is "all "A's" when it comes to job creation. He has, what Barack Obama didn't have when seeking the Oval Office: "a resume!" True, he will scare anyone who loves the status quot. To them, he will "rock the boat," upsetting the way that "things have been done" in Washington.
To those wanting to make Barack Obama a "one-term president," Rick Perry is truly the "winning ticket." He will dramatically bring both "D.I.N.O.s" and "Disaffecteds" into the fold. They will support him hands down; for different reasons. Part of it relates to dissatifaction with Obama. Another factor is that Rick Perry "exudes confidence." As Dizzy Dean once said, "it ain't braggin', if you've done it!"
Barack Obama has demonstrated a sensitive ego throughout his tenure. He doesn't take criticism well. It's as if he is, "a legend in his own mind." At the core Obama is an "ideologue," painfully "over his head," who wants to give the impression of being in charge. Maybe this explains the arrogance that most perceive. When times are not good people resent being lectured! Especially from someone who hasn't felt the pain of a seemingly endless recession!
Which bring me to another saying, this from former University of Texas Head Football coach, Darrell Royal. As Royal quipped, "there is no such thing as King Kong. For those who think that there is, you better get ready to wipe your bloody nose."
Sunday, July 10, 2011
The EPA and Jackson- "No motivation for moderation."
Driving U.S. 71 in Western Arkansas in 1987 I witnessed a sad reality: The close forest of Shortleaf Pine Trees had been clear cut. What had been thick stands of majestic, 35 and 40-foot trees were now stumps and tiny saplings. It was enough to make even a mild tree lover indignant!
The culprit, Weyerhaeuser Paper defended the action. They explained that the "new trees would grow twice as fast" as the old ones. Twenty years later, I made the drive from Texarkana to Fort Smith, Arkansas and saw that they had been correct. Some minor erosion had taken place. Locals said the land itself "had looked bare" for a generation! And the unique, somewhat irregular Short Leaf Pines which marked the northwestern end of the southern pine forest were no more. In their place were healthy looking, "super" growers that not only grew faster, but provided a better wood product! Was this progress? To Weyerhaeuser it was! To Arkansans, it was "at a cost."
Sierra Club activists readily denounced clearcutting. They acknowledged that the new trees would grow faster. But their argument was tempered with an appeal for moderation. The end result was "selective harvest" methods. It proved to be the best solution and is the norm for today.
Most Americans hold at least marginal sentiments for protecting our land, air, trees, streams, lakes and beaches. Since the sixties there has been increased pride and awareness in cleanliness and environmental friendliness. America's report card is good, bordering on outstanding. We should be congradulating ourselves. Of course, there are those who continue to say that "we are not doing enough."
There are always extremists on every side of any issue. In the case of many Reagan era profiteers, Weyerhaeuser saw the long term dollar signs. Clearcutting the Ouachita National Forest was practical. After all, why let stand a tree that took fifty years to mature, when better trees could be planted that could be harvested in twenty years? Their point of view proved to be in the minority. Careful assessment of both positions brought the end result. Can we not learn from history?
Today, the pendulum has swung the other way!
The Environmental Protection Agency, now 17,000 employees strong has determined that a deepening recession is not sufficient reason for postphoning corrective measures. Under the leadership of EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, the agency will go full speed ahead with added regulations on smog, mercury, mining waste, and vehicle emissions. Every corner of the country will be affected.
The timing could not be worse for the Obama Administration. EPA believes that the administration did not fight hard enough for cap-and-trade legislation. Perhaps this was due to some inconclusive findings. Those who supported the legislation, expecially those in coal states, such as Kentucky's Ben Chandler, either lost or barely retained their Congressional seats. At a time when creating jobs is on the top of both Republicans and Democrats "wish lists," Jackson's agenda seems to be odds with it.
"I think that the face of the 2012 election is going to be EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson," said Barney Bishop, President and CEO of Associated Industries of Florida. Bishop, who describes himself as a "lifelong Democrat," added,"she is killing jobs faster than the president can create them."
The ideology of extremism has surfaced in recent times. When Bjorn Lomborg published "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World," he was hung in effigy by the Environmental Establishment. Three years later, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger delivered "the death of environmentalism" at the 2004 Environmental Grantmakers Association. In 2007, they published a book: "Break Through; From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility."
This somewhat "moderate to the left" point of view was scorned by Sierra Club President Carl Pope and stalwart proponents of the movement. Yet the message was clearly "not out in the ozone." They factually concluded that Kyoto state emission reductions failed any reasonable cost-benefit test.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger further angered the establishment in pointing out flaws in Waxman-Markey's cap-and-trade bill. They called Barack Obama's green jobs "a fraud;" actually labeled them "green jobs for janitors."
Not exactly right wing fringe brokers, Nordhaus and Shellenberger have championed left wing causes. They have consulted labor unions, gay rights groups and have been consistent advocates for tax increases. They scoff at such cliche's about the "fragility" of nature-"an obsolete paradigm of traditional conservation."
It is clearly evident that the environmental movement is having second thoughts.
There are more "green" advocates bringing out painful, yet pertinent information at odds with Jackson's directive. British Journalist, Fred Pearce's "The Coming Population Crash and Our Planet's Surprising Future," systematically dissects the previously accepted doctrine of climate change. David Roberts of Grist.org, another renowned "green" writer has questioned the overall validity of previous climate change conclusions.
Earlier this year, Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modelers projected a coming 30-year "mini ice age." He suggested that we may already be seeing the first stages of it. This came after a warming period that took place largely between 1980 and 2000. The world and beyond felt this. Temperature readings on the planet Mars were up almost two degrees from the time Viking landers began taking temperature readings in 1976 and when Pathfinder resumed the readings in 1997. This deviation was clearly unrelated to carbon emissions. One probable cause for the upcoming ice age may be the absence of "sunspots" on the Sun itself.
Americans seemingly are left with an out of control federal agency clearly determined to mandate and implement policies that are based on inconclusive and/or flawed information. Never mind that there are holes emerging on every end of previous theory! Who cares if there are millions of Americans currently out of work and more will become "green casualities" if Jackson is allowed to proceed with her agenda. Could the president put the brakes on EPA? Probably not! And if he could, he would infuriate California zealots such as Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and Al Gore.
The center of Henry Waxman's district is Westlake Village, a pristine Ventura County, seemingly made for television community. Rarely does the temperature exceed 80 or drop below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The average household income is $190,000 per year.
Nancy Pelosi can muse between sips of Chardonnay from her Napa valley vinyard that she and her 35 million in assets "can see the big picture,unlike the little people."
Al Gore has banked tens of millions from his "sale" of a would be crisis which, at best, has been exaggerated. Does excess carbon consumption bother the former Vice President? It would appear that it doesn't; based on his prodigious Malibu mansion and private jet.
Unfortunately for Obama, all three were key supporters in his 2008 presidential run. To cross Lisa Jackson would be politically incorrect. Not to mention a guarantee of alientating key constituents certain to be influenced by the trio!
The EPA is now larger than the Internal Revenue Service. It has evidently decided to take charge and implement the failed cap-and-trade legislation, irregardless of whether the people want it or can afford it. In the mind of Lisa Jackson and her tight circle of ideologues, the EPA "simply knows what's best for us."
What about Michelle Bachmann's assertion that the best solution may be to merely "shut the agency down," pink slipping Ms. Jackson and her cohorts? Such an action would actually be consistent with the Constitution's 10th amendment! And, in looking at the results of low taxed states such as Texas which produced a 27 percent reduction in ozone levels and a 53 percent dropoff in mono-nitrogen oxides, maybe the states would be better stewards.
The bottom line is this: Business eventually moderated because of public pressure. The EPA answers to nobody. They have "carte blanche" to expedite a flawed theory, even if it results in further job loss. In the minds of Lisa Jackson and company, the theory isn't flawed. Only the people who question it are the problem.
The culprit, Weyerhaeuser Paper defended the action. They explained that the "new trees would grow twice as fast" as the old ones. Twenty years later, I made the drive from Texarkana to Fort Smith, Arkansas and saw that they had been correct. Some minor erosion had taken place. Locals said the land itself "had looked bare" for a generation! And the unique, somewhat irregular Short Leaf Pines which marked the northwestern end of the southern pine forest were no more. In their place were healthy looking, "super" growers that not only grew faster, but provided a better wood product! Was this progress? To Weyerhaeuser it was! To Arkansans, it was "at a cost."
Sierra Club activists readily denounced clearcutting. They acknowledged that the new trees would grow faster. But their argument was tempered with an appeal for moderation. The end result was "selective harvest" methods. It proved to be the best solution and is the norm for today.
Most Americans hold at least marginal sentiments for protecting our land, air, trees, streams, lakes and beaches. Since the sixties there has been increased pride and awareness in cleanliness and environmental friendliness. America's report card is good, bordering on outstanding. We should be congradulating ourselves. Of course, there are those who continue to say that "we are not doing enough."
There are always extremists on every side of any issue. In the case of many Reagan era profiteers, Weyerhaeuser saw the long term dollar signs. Clearcutting the Ouachita National Forest was practical. After all, why let stand a tree that took fifty years to mature, when better trees could be planted that could be harvested in twenty years? Their point of view proved to be in the minority. Careful assessment of both positions brought the end result. Can we not learn from history?
Today, the pendulum has swung the other way!
The Environmental Protection Agency, now 17,000 employees strong has determined that a deepening recession is not sufficient reason for postphoning corrective measures. Under the leadership of EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, the agency will go full speed ahead with added regulations on smog, mercury, mining waste, and vehicle emissions. Every corner of the country will be affected.
The timing could not be worse for the Obama Administration. EPA believes that the administration did not fight hard enough for cap-and-trade legislation. Perhaps this was due to some inconclusive findings. Those who supported the legislation, expecially those in coal states, such as Kentucky's Ben Chandler, either lost or barely retained their Congressional seats. At a time when creating jobs is on the top of both Republicans and Democrats "wish lists," Jackson's agenda seems to be odds with it.
"I think that the face of the 2012 election is going to be EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson," said Barney Bishop, President and CEO of Associated Industries of Florida. Bishop, who describes himself as a "lifelong Democrat," added,"she is killing jobs faster than the president can create them."
The ideology of extremism has surfaced in recent times. When Bjorn Lomborg published "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World," he was hung in effigy by the Environmental Establishment. Three years later, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger delivered "the death of environmentalism" at the 2004 Environmental Grantmakers Association. In 2007, they published a book: "Break Through; From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility."
This somewhat "moderate to the left" point of view was scorned by Sierra Club President Carl Pope and stalwart proponents of the movement. Yet the message was clearly "not out in the ozone." They factually concluded that Kyoto state emission reductions failed any reasonable cost-benefit test.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger further angered the establishment in pointing out flaws in Waxman-Markey's cap-and-trade bill. They called Barack Obama's green jobs "a fraud;" actually labeled them "green jobs for janitors."
Not exactly right wing fringe brokers, Nordhaus and Shellenberger have championed left wing causes. They have consulted labor unions, gay rights groups and have been consistent advocates for tax increases. They scoff at such cliche's about the "fragility" of nature-"an obsolete paradigm of traditional conservation."
It is clearly evident that the environmental movement is having second thoughts.
There are more "green" advocates bringing out painful, yet pertinent information at odds with Jackson's directive. British Journalist, Fred Pearce's "The Coming Population Crash and Our Planet's Surprising Future," systematically dissects the previously accepted doctrine of climate change. David Roberts of Grist.org, another renowned "green" writer has questioned the overall validity of previous climate change conclusions.
Earlier this year, Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modelers projected a coming 30-year "mini ice age." He suggested that we may already be seeing the first stages of it. This came after a warming period that took place largely between 1980 and 2000. The world and beyond felt this. Temperature readings on the planet Mars were up almost two degrees from the time Viking landers began taking temperature readings in 1976 and when Pathfinder resumed the readings in 1997. This deviation was clearly unrelated to carbon emissions. One probable cause for the upcoming ice age may be the absence of "sunspots" on the Sun itself.
Americans seemingly are left with an out of control federal agency clearly determined to mandate and implement policies that are based on inconclusive and/or flawed information. Never mind that there are holes emerging on every end of previous theory! Who cares if there are millions of Americans currently out of work and more will become "green casualities" if Jackson is allowed to proceed with her agenda. Could the president put the brakes on EPA? Probably not! And if he could, he would infuriate California zealots such as Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and Al Gore.
The center of Henry Waxman's district is Westlake Village, a pristine Ventura County, seemingly made for television community. Rarely does the temperature exceed 80 or drop below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The average household income is $190,000 per year.
Nancy Pelosi can muse between sips of Chardonnay from her Napa valley vinyard that she and her 35 million in assets "can see the big picture,unlike the little people."
Al Gore has banked tens of millions from his "sale" of a would be crisis which, at best, has been exaggerated. Does excess carbon consumption bother the former Vice President? It would appear that it doesn't; based on his prodigious Malibu mansion and private jet.
Unfortunately for Obama, all three were key supporters in his 2008 presidential run. To cross Lisa Jackson would be politically incorrect. Not to mention a guarantee of alientating key constituents certain to be influenced by the trio!
The EPA is now larger than the Internal Revenue Service. It has evidently decided to take charge and implement the failed cap-and-trade legislation, irregardless of whether the people want it or can afford it. In the mind of Lisa Jackson and her tight circle of ideologues, the EPA "simply knows what's best for us."
What about Michelle Bachmann's assertion that the best solution may be to merely "shut the agency down," pink slipping Ms. Jackson and her cohorts? Such an action would actually be consistent with the Constitution's 10th amendment! And, in looking at the results of low taxed states such as Texas which produced a 27 percent reduction in ozone levels and a 53 percent dropoff in mono-nitrogen oxides, maybe the states would be better stewards.
The bottom line is this: Business eventually moderated because of public pressure. The EPA answers to nobody. They have "carte blanche" to expedite a flawed theory, even if it results in further job loss. In the minds of Lisa Jackson and company, the theory isn't flawed. Only the people who question it are the problem.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
D.I.N.O. Democrats- The Opposite End of the Spectrum
A lot has been written about those "R.I.N.O. Republicans."
These "Republicans in Name Only," have drawn criticism from several quarters. In summary, they can best be described as "fiscal conservatives with more progressive social leanings." In past times, they have wielded perhaps more influence on the party than their numbers justified.
Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware was scorned by the Tea Party due in part to his "yea" vote on "Cap and Trade." Chris Coons, the eventual winner in the general election was "miles left" of Castle. Still most participants in the Republican primary concluded that it was better to nominate a "true believer" such as Christine O'Donnell than settle for "R.I.N.O. Castle. Did R.I.N.O.s in that state vote for Coons? Some did! GOP experts such as Karl Rove pointed out accurately that Castle's chances in the general election would have been better than O'Donnell's.
Establishment Republicans were quick to say that Sharon Angle was not the best opponent for Harry Reid in the Nevada Senate race. The thinking was, a more centrist choice like Danny Tarkanian would do better with Independents. As it turned out, Angle swooned in the late going, her evident alienation of Latino voters a probable cause. But based on her 11th hour lead in the polls, one could surmise that some R.I.N.O.s might have voted for Harry Reid.
Colorado's Lt. Governor,Jane Norton, a former Reagan and George H.W. Bush official was edged out by Ken Buck in the Republican primary. Buck, the Tea Party choice lost ground with a fraction of female voters allowing Obama appointee, Michael Bennett to win narrowly. Could R.I.N.O's have been a part of Bennett's triumph?
In retrospect, if Castle, Norton and Tarkanian had been the Republican nominees, the GOP might have won all three races. As a result, they would control the Senate today. Any conservative would admit that Castle, Norton and Tarkanian would have been preferable to Reid, Coons and Bennett. The morale of the story: "Don't buck the party leadership!"
Of course, there were two Senate races, being Kentucky and Florida, that did not go the Establishments' way. Charlie Crist, the then popular governor of Florida was drilled by charismatic, Marco Rubio. Mitch McConnell Disciple, Trey Grayson was routed by Rand Paul in the GOP primary. Paul went on to defeat Democrat, Jack Conway by 12 points in the general election. Rubio's November victory may have been even more impressive. Slated against both Crist(who switched to Independent) and Democrat, Kendrick Meek, he garnered 52% of the total vote. He finished with 58% of the female vote.
Both Rubio and Paul were "Tea Party" candidates. While Paul has accepted the role as "poster boy" of the Tea Party, Rubio has maintained that the "Tea Party is a mainstreet, not Washington organization."
We can remember the Tea Party support for Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election. Brown gratefully accepted the help. Once elected, he played the polls, knowing that his state had voted him in primarily because they already had health care, courtesy of his friend and supporter, Mitt Romney. Brown has been the consistent R.I.N.O. and is hardly to blame for it. He is up for election next year. His voting record will be difficult for Democrats to challenge. He may not be what "hard core" conservatives would have wished for. But, as former, Pro-English.Org Director and Bay State resident, Jayne Cannava put it, "with Massachusetts, Scott Brown is about as good as you're going to get if you are a Republican!"
The question becomes, "Does this somewhat awkward marriage between Tea Party and Establishment represent the single road to victory?" It might appear that way! At least on the surface. Probing deeper we come to the inevitible discovery: "If there are Republicans in name only, are there not Democrats in name only?" As in "D.I.N.O.s!"
Yes! They are the opposite end of the spectrum, the true wild cards.
Let us examine these "D.I.N.O. Democrats." They are fiscally progressive, yet socially conservative. This amounts to favoring a progressive tax system, social security, medicare and medicaid solvency. Bluntly put, they want their entitlements protected. At the same time, these D.I.N.O. Democrats oppose same sex marriage, favor strong immigration standards and are pro life. They want "a safety net." But they likewise want government to stay out of their way.
Republicans share the desire to make social security, medicare and medicaid solvent. Paul Ryan and company did offer a plan. Perhaps it's not the perfect plan, but it's a start. D.I.N.O's listen and are close to being convinced. Then, the GOP Congress decides that 99 weeks of eligible unemployment entitlements are too much. They propose legislation allowing states to pull the plug on recipients in favor of deficit reduction. Bad move and consistent with Democrats' claim that "Republicans lack compassion."
Democrats tout that the country has avoided adopting an immigration policy. But their alternative seems to always begin with amnesty! Not good! D.I.N.O.s are equally unhappy with current regulatory standards that have resulted in jobs being shipped overseas. For this, they blame "out of touch, liberal" members of their own party.
So where do the D.I.N.O.s stand? And what does their preference have to do with potential alliances with either Establishment or Tea Party Republicans?
Many Tea Party members are not Republicans. A large number are Indepedents. Some are Democrats. The idea behind protecting entitlements has never been scorned by Tea Party or Establishment Republicans. The difference may be in the notion that "entitlements are synonymous with excessive spending and big government." Is that true?
When Rand Paul presented his controversial budget plan, he called for eliminating the Education Department sans Pell Grants. In other words, entitlements continued. But the duplication of efforts(federal and state) ceased. D.I.N.O.s understand this. And here lies the fear for Democrats: "If the message of "reducing the cost of government" without reducing entitlements can be effectively transmitted, D.I.N.O.s are swayable! Ronald Reagan knew this. But he was careful not to link "recovery" with middle class Americans losing what they currently enjoyed. D.I.N.O.s were referred to then as "Reagan Democrats." They equated Jimmy Carter and the Democrats as the party of high taxes, needless regulation and big government. They spoke.
It is probable that 90% or more D.I.N.O. Democrats would favor the "E" Amendment. To them, English as the official language is "way past due!" "eliminating constitutional costs" does nothing but take power away from the courts; which is fine by them! The thought of illegal aliens having a "carte blanche" on entitlements outrages these voters.
Many Tea Party members have Libertarian leanings. The best way to increase freedom is to reduce the size and cost of government. Dismantling the federal bureaucracy, downsizing parts of it while eliminating others works. D.I.N.O. Democrats do not have a problem with this. Many still recall an overreaching federal government that outlawed school prayer while mandating busing. In today's economy the F.D.A. and the E.P.A. are seen as a "job killers."
Historically the D.I.N.O. Democrats have been somewhat "hawkish" where national defense is concerned. Reagan took advantage of this. But things may be changing. There seems to be more of a "mind your own business, look after your own" mentality taking hold in America. This is not good news for Establishment Republicans! But the Tea Party may hold many of these same convictions.
The "magic seed" found in every D.I.N.O. heart is the question of education. There is mounting concern for the runaway cost of a college education. Furthermore, there is the worry that traditional "good jobs" may be gone forever by way of outsourcing. There is the longing for a time past, where a grand living could be made with a trade. No more! To attempt to comprehend the concept of a global economy may be an impossibility. To D.I.N.O.s, it translates to greed. If big business can get people to do "a job and-a-half" for the "price of a job," they will. And, if they can get someone abroad to do a job for three dollars per hour as opposed to twenty, they'll do it. Surprisingly, most D.I.N.O.'s favor right to work.
Tea Partiers may look at these D.I.N.O.s as potential allies in reshaping America; and for good reason! They are threatened. They are somewhat bewildered. They are growing angrier by the day. There is a question of " can we still right a ship that is presumably destined to leave us behind?"
D.I.N.O. Democrats seek a solution that protects their basic interests first. It begins with a plan that includes "retention of existing benefits, good jobs and affordable education." This delivered, the remainder of the Democrat agenda can be compromised.
In short, the R.I.N.O.s have money, power and have traditionally run the Republican Party. The D.I.N.O.'s maintain their registration as Democrats but it is wavering. In addition to supporting Reagan, they supported both Bushes and McCain. They are growing more and more disillisioned by the Democrats gradual drift to the left. If Tea Party strategists can find a way to answer the education riddle, while not compromising their entitlements, they're in! And if they are, due to sheer numbers, the dynamics of the GOP will change.
In 2008 many R.I.N.O.s voted for Barack Obama. Conservative Republicans will never again truly trust them! It is safer to encourage an exodus of D.I.N.O.s to GOP ranks. This could change the "party of Wall Street to the party of Main Street."
There are more D.I.N.O.s than R.I.N.O.s. It would take only a fraction of them to sufficiently replace defecting R.I.N.O.s. In close races such as Nevada, Colorado and Delaware a fraction is all that would be needed.
These "Republicans in Name Only," have drawn criticism from several quarters. In summary, they can best be described as "fiscal conservatives with more progressive social leanings." In past times, they have wielded perhaps more influence on the party than their numbers justified.
Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware was scorned by the Tea Party due in part to his "yea" vote on "Cap and Trade." Chris Coons, the eventual winner in the general election was "miles left" of Castle. Still most participants in the Republican primary concluded that it was better to nominate a "true believer" such as Christine O'Donnell than settle for "R.I.N.O. Castle. Did R.I.N.O.s in that state vote for Coons? Some did! GOP experts such as Karl Rove pointed out accurately that Castle's chances in the general election would have been better than O'Donnell's.
Establishment Republicans were quick to say that Sharon Angle was not the best opponent for Harry Reid in the Nevada Senate race. The thinking was, a more centrist choice like Danny Tarkanian would do better with Independents. As it turned out, Angle swooned in the late going, her evident alienation of Latino voters a probable cause. But based on her 11th hour lead in the polls, one could surmise that some R.I.N.O.s might have voted for Harry Reid.
Colorado's Lt. Governor,Jane Norton, a former Reagan and George H.W. Bush official was edged out by Ken Buck in the Republican primary. Buck, the Tea Party choice lost ground with a fraction of female voters allowing Obama appointee, Michael Bennett to win narrowly. Could R.I.N.O's have been a part of Bennett's triumph?
In retrospect, if Castle, Norton and Tarkanian had been the Republican nominees, the GOP might have won all three races. As a result, they would control the Senate today. Any conservative would admit that Castle, Norton and Tarkanian would have been preferable to Reid, Coons and Bennett. The morale of the story: "Don't buck the party leadership!"
Of course, there were two Senate races, being Kentucky and Florida, that did not go the Establishments' way. Charlie Crist, the then popular governor of Florida was drilled by charismatic, Marco Rubio. Mitch McConnell Disciple, Trey Grayson was routed by Rand Paul in the GOP primary. Paul went on to defeat Democrat, Jack Conway by 12 points in the general election. Rubio's November victory may have been even more impressive. Slated against both Crist(who switched to Independent) and Democrat, Kendrick Meek, he garnered 52% of the total vote. He finished with 58% of the female vote.
Both Rubio and Paul were "Tea Party" candidates. While Paul has accepted the role as "poster boy" of the Tea Party, Rubio has maintained that the "Tea Party is a mainstreet, not Washington organization."
We can remember the Tea Party support for Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election. Brown gratefully accepted the help. Once elected, he played the polls, knowing that his state had voted him in primarily because they already had health care, courtesy of his friend and supporter, Mitt Romney. Brown has been the consistent R.I.N.O. and is hardly to blame for it. He is up for election next year. His voting record will be difficult for Democrats to challenge. He may not be what "hard core" conservatives would have wished for. But, as former, Pro-English.Org Director and Bay State resident, Jayne Cannava put it, "with Massachusetts, Scott Brown is about as good as you're going to get if you are a Republican!"
The question becomes, "Does this somewhat awkward marriage between Tea Party and Establishment represent the single road to victory?" It might appear that way! At least on the surface. Probing deeper we come to the inevitible discovery: "If there are Republicans in name only, are there not Democrats in name only?" As in "D.I.N.O.s!"
Yes! They are the opposite end of the spectrum, the true wild cards.
Let us examine these "D.I.N.O. Democrats." They are fiscally progressive, yet socially conservative. This amounts to favoring a progressive tax system, social security, medicare and medicaid solvency. Bluntly put, they want their entitlements protected. At the same time, these D.I.N.O. Democrats oppose same sex marriage, favor strong immigration standards and are pro life. They want "a safety net." But they likewise want government to stay out of their way.
Republicans share the desire to make social security, medicare and medicaid solvent. Paul Ryan and company did offer a plan. Perhaps it's not the perfect plan, but it's a start. D.I.N.O's listen and are close to being convinced. Then, the GOP Congress decides that 99 weeks of eligible unemployment entitlements are too much. They propose legislation allowing states to pull the plug on recipients in favor of deficit reduction. Bad move and consistent with Democrats' claim that "Republicans lack compassion."
Democrats tout that the country has avoided adopting an immigration policy. But their alternative seems to always begin with amnesty! Not good! D.I.N.O.s are equally unhappy with current regulatory standards that have resulted in jobs being shipped overseas. For this, they blame "out of touch, liberal" members of their own party.
So where do the D.I.N.O.s stand? And what does their preference have to do with potential alliances with either Establishment or Tea Party Republicans?
Many Tea Party members are not Republicans. A large number are Indepedents. Some are Democrats. The idea behind protecting entitlements has never been scorned by Tea Party or Establishment Republicans. The difference may be in the notion that "entitlements are synonymous with excessive spending and big government." Is that true?
When Rand Paul presented his controversial budget plan, he called for eliminating the Education Department sans Pell Grants. In other words, entitlements continued. But the duplication of efforts(federal and state) ceased. D.I.N.O.s understand this. And here lies the fear for Democrats: "If the message of "reducing the cost of government" without reducing entitlements can be effectively transmitted, D.I.N.O.s are swayable! Ronald Reagan knew this. But he was careful not to link "recovery" with middle class Americans losing what they currently enjoyed. D.I.N.O.s were referred to then as "Reagan Democrats." They equated Jimmy Carter and the Democrats as the party of high taxes, needless regulation and big government. They spoke.
It is probable that 90% or more D.I.N.O. Democrats would favor the "E" Amendment. To them, English as the official language is "way past due!" "eliminating constitutional costs" does nothing but take power away from the courts; which is fine by them! The thought of illegal aliens having a "carte blanche" on entitlements outrages these voters.
Many Tea Party members have Libertarian leanings. The best way to increase freedom is to reduce the size and cost of government. Dismantling the federal bureaucracy, downsizing parts of it while eliminating others works. D.I.N.O. Democrats do not have a problem with this. Many still recall an overreaching federal government that outlawed school prayer while mandating busing. In today's economy the F.D.A. and the E.P.A. are seen as a "job killers."
Historically the D.I.N.O. Democrats have been somewhat "hawkish" where national defense is concerned. Reagan took advantage of this. But things may be changing. There seems to be more of a "mind your own business, look after your own" mentality taking hold in America. This is not good news for Establishment Republicans! But the Tea Party may hold many of these same convictions.
The "magic seed" found in every D.I.N.O. heart is the question of education. There is mounting concern for the runaway cost of a college education. Furthermore, there is the worry that traditional "good jobs" may be gone forever by way of outsourcing. There is the longing for a time past, where a grand living could be made with a trade. No more! To attempt to comprehend the concept of a global economy may be an impossibility. To D.I.N.O.s, it translates to greed. If big business can get people to do "a job and-a-half" for the "price of a job," they will. And, if they can get someone abroad to do a job for three dollars per hour as opposed to twenty, they'll do it. Surprisingly, most D.I.N.O.'s favor right to work.
Tea Partiers may look at these D.I.N.O.s as potential allies in reshaping America; and for good reason! They are threatened. They are somewhat bewildered. They are growing angrier by the day. There is a question of " can we still right a ship that is presumably destined to leave us behind?"
D.I.N.O. Democrats seek a solution that protects their basic interests first. It begins with a plan that includes "retention of existing benefits, good jobs and affordable education." This delivered, the remainder of the Democrat agenda can be compromised.
In short, the R.I.N.O.s have money, power and have traditionally run the Republican Party. The D.I.N.O.'s maintain their registration as Democrats but it is wavering. In addition to supporting Reagan, they supported both Bushes and McCain. They are growing more and more disillisioned by the Democrats gradual drift to the left. If Tea Party strategists can find a way to answer the education riddle, while not compromising their entitlements, they're in! And if they are, due to sheer numbers, the dynamics of the GOP will change.
In 2008 many R.I.N.O.s voted for Barack Obama. Conservative Republicans will never again truly trust them! It is safer to encourage an exodus of D.I.N.O.s to GOP ranks. This could change the "party of Wall Street to the party of Main Street."
There are more D.I.N.O.s than R.I.N.O.s. It would take only a fraction of them to sufficiently replace defecting R.I.N.O.s. In close races such as Nevada, Colorado and Delaware a fraction is all that would be needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)