To most Democrats, the Clinton name is magical.
"Fifty somethings" revert to the promise of 1995 when the gentle breezes of bi-partisanship begin to envelope Washington D.C. They remember the soft, amiable plea of "working together for a common cause." This rare flicker of reason made the case that both sides had good arguments. Yes, Bill Clinton was a master; at getting the mainstream to simply like him.
Reviews are still mixed concerning his overall success. To Democrats, he was the right mix of ideological principle and practical wisdom. Republicans point out that his success came as a result of a Congress and Senate not controlled by his party. All agree on one point: Bill Clinton was more pragmatist than ideologue.
It stands to reason that his "wife," Hillary would attract those still remembering Bill's magic. What is often overlooked is the simple fact that Hillary is not Bill. In fact, if one forgets her eight year stint in the White House as first lady, judging her strickly on her own merit, the clouds begin to gather. The question becomes, "would Hillary truly be the best option for America?"
A few vaguely remember "Hillary care." This was the debacle of 1993, when Democrats attempted to ram national health care down the throats of America. The end result was decisive 1994 losses in the House and Senate, resulting in loss of control in both chambers.
Hillary's subsequent relocation to New York City and Senate run made poltical sense. But, when reviewing her accomplishments at that post, you must dig!
The 2008 Presidential nomination appeared to be hers. During that January primary, I recall working as a Miami precinct captain. Both Republicans and Democrats concluded that she was in, predicting that Barack Obama would be her running mate. Republicans only question was "who" could defeat her in the general election. The notion that "an experienced moderate would stand the best chance" lead to the selection of John McCain.
Barack Obama is evidence that "credentials" mean little in a Presidential election. Hillary's lackluster term as a New York Senator was followed by a close Presidential primary loss. Toss in a stormy, if not suspect stint as Secretary of State and the "stretch" to locate success continues.
In essence, this woman has had every advantage, every benefit of the doubt. She has been embraced by a partisan media. She has been the recipient of a bottomless pool of funding. And, if the truth be confronted, she has accomplished very little in every position of leadership that she has held.
How could this happen? Are Americans blind? Is party affiliation and the promise of boonies so great in our society that we can simply overlook impotence?
Evidently so. We must remember, Hillary Clinton is your consummate globalist. Like Bill, she is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. She favors one world government. She believes in Agenda 21, AKA "sustainability." She is a dedicated disciple of Saul Alinsky.
Poppycock! Nobody believes in any of that stuff! Right?
The majority of America simply can't see this. For starters, it is too deep. Secondly, it is outrageous. It is what conspiracy theories are made of. When anyone of any standing in media begins to laud these accusations, they are quickly dismissed from the limelight.
Americans want peace and security. Any departure threatens most of the nation. True, certain parts of America are more self reliant. But, as a nation, we see government as a "backstop" to catastrope. Most of the country would opt for less freedoms in favor of more guarantees.
What about Americans who don't hold to these convictions? They do exist. And where they dominate, overall prosperity dominates with them. Look at Texas!
During the past five years Texas has created "one of every two" new, full time jobs in America. Companies are flocking to the Lone Star state. True, many are taking advantage of targeted tax incentives to relocate. But, this is the tip of the iceberg! When comparing the entire package, ranging from education to the environment, not to mention the economy, it's all about a more workable system.
Rick Perry has been Governor since 2000. To be sure, his strict, fiscal standards have drawn criticism. His naysayers continue to remind the country of the number of Texans not having health insurance. But the comeback is always the same: "We built a stronger state because we let people keep more of their money."
Can anyone visualize a 2016 Perry-Hillary face-off? Some are beginning to pencil it in.
If there was every a Presidential election that pitted an achiever/accompisher versus a non-achiever/non- accomplisher, it would be this one. Hillary supporters would be outraged with this comparison! But, the truth is what it is. It would be the "New York Yankees versus the Chicago Cubs!"
Rick Perry has a long list of accomplishments, running the second largest state in the Union. Texas has an economy that is 30% larger than Austrailia's. It is an extremely diverse state, sharing 1200 miles of border with a foreign country. Issues such as immigration and defense require actual response, not rhetoric in Texas. He has confronted both successfully, hampered only by Washington, D.C. restrictions.
If it sounds too logical, it is! Perry has critics from both the right and the left. Republicans are split. Smart money suggests that Perry would never get out of the early primaries. His biggest challenge would be to stay alive during the early two "blue state" races. The Governer learned that even his own party members don't want to talk about his Texas report card.
Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are hopelessly divided.
Imagine a triangle. The Bill Kristol "Neo-Cons" are on one end of the triangle, the New England, "R.I.N.O.'s" on the second end of the triangle and the "Dogmatics" on the third end! Perry is neither! True, his contingency represents more than half of the party (Some believe it may be as high as 80%). Doesn't matter! The first two groups control the party machinery. The third group is ready to bolt the party!
Could things possibly look more promising for Hillary? Who cares if her career report card reflects a "C minus!"
