Sunday, September 28, 2014

Conservatives Face Four Stark Choices

Conservatives in America have essentially four choices.

Choice number one amounts to starting a third party, possibly nominating Ben Carson or someone outside the political circuit. It generates strong emotions and would be the ultimate "in your eye" to the Republican Establishment. To many, telling them "it'll teach you a lesson, once and for all" would be worth it!

I call this the "Kamikaze pilot approach." If I didn't know better, I would think that a Democrat was behind it. After all, what strategy could do more to elect Hillary Clinton to the Presidency? A third party will not win. Even when the candidate is an experienced Chief Executive, as was the case with Teddy Roosevelt and his "Bull Moose" party during Ragtime. It never has...

Choice number two can be described as "Splintering." We witnessed this in 2012. Conservatives can't decide on any one candidate. Libertarians back Rand Paul. Fiscals get behind Donald Trump. Evangelicals choose Mike Huckabee. Tea Party opts for Ted Cruz. All the while, the Republican Establishment is uniting behind a Mitt Romney or a Jeb Bush.

In the end, we have a repeat of 2008 and 2012.Convervatives are divided. The party leadership picks the nominee. Conservatives are given a choice: Vote for our guy or stay home!

In actuality, Barack Obama and friends see a divided Republican party as the optimum future direction of America. They see the nation evolving into a one party system. A fragmented conservative front contributes to this aspiration.

Third Choice is to unite. The conservative groups outlined in an earlier post, choose one candidate who best represents all of the constituencies, including the Establishment. It would come down to answering the following questions:
(a) Which candidate would be able to energize Tea partiers, mobilize Evangelicals and be acceptable to Establishment?
(b) Which candidate would be capable of raising the money to run a 50-state campaign?

I refer to this choice as the "Elimination Approach." In essence, through process of elimination, we exclude nominees who,
(a) are unable to appeal to all of the three main segments
(b) are unable to attract low income, blue collar independents
(c) have never attracted more than 1/3 Hispanic voters in any election
(d) are tied to one prinipal issue

The "tie-breaker" considerations for the "Elimination Approach" should be as follows:
(1) Previous Executive experience
(2) Previous Military experience

Fourth Choice will be as the topic of a future post:

"The Three Americas."

America will still be composed of fifty states. But, some of her parts will be missing.

Google Tim Draper's "six Californias." Now google the recent(2013) movie hit that starred Matt Damon and Jody Foster. Three of Draper's six Californias, West California, North California and Silicon Valley will compose the new, 20 million strong nation, "Elysium." Chelsea Clinton could be their first President.

Turning east...Imagine New York, south of the 43rd parallel and east of the 75 parallel. Add New Jersey, Philadelphia and Delaware counties, Pennsylvania, six Maryland Counties and two of the three Delaware Counties. Now, throw in New England. Presto! We have, "The Peoples' Democratic Republic of America." The capital would be located in New York City. Michael Bloomberg would be named "Despot for Life."

Washington D.C. would become an "open city," more like a giant museum. It's historical documents would be available and accessible to citizens of the all three "Americas."

The Americas would enjoy a relationship comparable to Americas' current standing with Canada: "friends, allies and trading partners."

Monday, September 22, 2014

Promise of "Chits & Boonies" Key to Democrat '16 Plan

Make no mistake! It will be difficult for Republicans to win 270 electoral votes in the 2016 Presidential election.

In analyzing Hillary Clinton's recent Democrat Leadership Conference speech, the party's 2016 game plan is clearly evident. It can be summed up as follows:

(a) Gender warfare
(b) Class warfare
(c) Reminder of "improving lives" for millions of Americans under Obama's leadership
(d) A continued quest for Social Justice

She will predict, "if Republicans take the White House, you can anticipate that the "spickets" will be eventually turned off!" In short, entitlements such as food stamps, medical care, college education, even cell phones will be reduced, if not eliminated.

As Mrs. Clinton passionately reminded, those on the top would make certain that there "was no ladder" for others to make their climb. In her view, this is especially the case with women in America.

The speech was pure demagoguery! It is a glimpse into the Democrats' 2016 Presidential strategy. American fate will be decided, then and there. Republicans have an outside shot. But, the path to victory is narrow. To change the expected outcome, Hillary opponents must set aside differences.

The Democrat leadership is making this case to it's base. Their point amounts to "retaining control of the White House is the primary objective." The message is clear and blunt. "Let's not blow it!"

With Hillary as the almost certain nominee, Democrats see the election as "theirs to lose."

Record numbers of Americans are on the government payroll. In higher pay areas such at the Northeast, Midwest and California, entitlements can be worth as much as $40,000 per year, cash or equivalent. Recipients are reported to enjoy home computers, giant flatscreen TV's,smart phones, comfortable housing, free healthcare and education. Rejoining the work force would amount to a paycut. Mobilizing these voters will be as easy as saying "no more payola if we lose!"

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democrat base defend these constituents. Their question: "Shouldn't these people be included in the American Dream, in the name of American fairness?" It comes down to "social justice."

As expected, "racism" will work it's way into the conversation. Minorities are positioned as downtrodden, abused, neglected and exploited. As Hillary promises, "justice for all" will be the main priority.

The wage difference between women and men will be the keynote Clinton argument. Using stinted numbers, all astericks deleted, Hillary will attempt to rally American women.

The promise of "chits and boonies," coupled with continued assertion of "you deserve them because you have a raw deal," is powerful. Perhaps un-American and certainly devious, but powerful. Bursting the bubble will take more than a few slick television commercials! Is there a winning counterpunch for Republicans?

Actually, yes!

In a previous post, we introduced the "disaffecteds." While some anti-Hillary people remain cynical, there is an argument that these seemingly forgotten voters can be rallied. After all, Ronald Reagan rallied them!

To turn out these "conservative wannabees," we must appeal to both their "need for security," and their "resentment of being left out." Common sense would suggest that any family struggling to make $35,000 per year, with two people working, will resent another family making more without working!

Democrats will tell them they "need to visit their local resource center,"(unemployment office) to "determine if they qualify" for one of the many new entitlement programs recently implemented. In other words, "no harm in trying!" And, "don't be discouraged" if you were denied the first time! We now have the "Affordable Health Care Act." And, if we can "gain cooperation from those greedy, Republicans," we might have a $10 per hour minimum wage soon!

Believe it or not, the Democrats' "glass jaw" has just been exposed!

These voters, who slightly lean Republican will not be impressed with such an overture! They want jobs! Real jobs! With benefits and retirement plans. Their opinion of those "at the government trough," is a combination of resentment and contempt.

Most of these potential voters are classified as "Independents." They aren't sold on Hillary! In many ways, they are looking for a reason to pull the lever for her opponent. Cagy Democrat strategists know this. Their plan is to launch a "scare campaign" against the Republican challenger. Hillary will be presented as the "safe" candidate.

This is why anyone seeking to avoid a Hillary Clinton Presidency must take heed!
From past experience Republicans have learned two important lessons:

(1) Attempting to "out Democrat the Democrats" has never worked.
(2) Third parties have never been successful.

Don't think for a moment that Hillary will not wage a "dirty fight." She has no record to run on. But she will have a "monster" warchest. Expect a massive negative advertising campaign against her opponent. The question becomes "which" potential nominee provides the least amount of fuel for her onslaught?

Mitt Romney will be the ideal opponent for "class warfare." She will replay the tape that Mother Jone's David Corn produced in 2012. The result would be predictable.

Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta. She will refer to the constitution's requirement of "being born in the United States," which makes Cruz ineligible.

Rand Paul's votes and rhetoric will create the perfect ground for "scaring the pants off" working class Americans, not to mention minorities.

Mike Huckabee will be portrayed as the "religious fanatic" who supported Todd Akin in the 2012 Missouri Senate race.

A Scott Walker Presidency would be accompanied by a national "right to work law," effectively eliminating private sector unions in America.

Rick Santorum would make "repealing Roe versus Wade," his top priority, while pushing for legislation santifying marriage between a man and a woman.

A campaign against Jeb Bush would amount to a campaign against his Brother. Dubya's watch and the fallacies of it, ranging from Iraq to the banking meltdown would be recounted with vigor and great detail.

Chris Christie's stormy Governorship would be easy to run against.

Which essentially leaves Rick Perry...

The Travis County indictment could ultimately work to his advantage. Unlike Christie's "bridge gate," the evidence is faulty at best. Better yet, for Perry, it shows every indication of being politically motivated. The Travis County District Attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg has become a symbol of today's Democrat party. It will be difficult for Hillary Clinton not to take the path of Alan Dershowitz and denounce the indictment altogether!

The Establishment can live with Rick Perry. The Tea Party can embrace Rick Perry. Evangelical voters will turnout for the Texas Governor. Equally significant, these "forgotten Americans," the "Disaffecteds," will buy Rick Perry.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Perry isn't merely talk! He has a report card. And, it's a good one! In fact, when it comes to "Jobs and the Economy" there is none better! Perry will remind that there are "two million" less Americans working full time today than in 2008. He will attack Obama's job numbers with zeal.

Perry will also talk about "securing the borders." This is a critical issue to not only Disaffecteds, but the Republican base.

Lastly, he will talk about "peace through strength." This will score points with many non-Republicans. The Russians refer to Rick Perry as "a cowboy with deep understanding of millitary affairs." As a former Air Force C-130 pilot, this perception is predictable!

Most importantly, Rick Perry connects with the working poor. Growing up as the son of West Texas tenant farmers, he can relate to "not having an indoor toilet until he was six years old."

Perry's counter to Hillary's promise of "chits and boonies" will be "creation of millions of energy sector jobs" that offer high pay and benefits. These words may not amount to much in the ghettos of Detroit. But, they will resonate with Americas' working poor.

Unlike any Republican candidate, Perry can say to a Hillary challenge, "this is my record and I stand behind it! Now let's talk about your record; or lack thereof!"

Do Republicans honestly want to waste time and money on a primary?

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Red State Convention Starts With Coalition Building

Two important points to make regarding any proposed "Red State" convention:

This is not meant to be a Constitutional Convention. As Glenn Beck warned, we should be wary about any convention that would alter the constitution in wholesale fashion. It goes back to "who" is actually running the convention. The wrong people could spell doom for the country. The is part of the problem seen in the current Republican party.

Secondly, the idea behind the convention is not necessarily "to form a third party." True, a replacement party might be the ultimate end result. If it happens, it happens. But, the goal is to "identify and organize a coalition." If all goes as it should, the Republican Party will be gutted, the Democrat Party castrated and Independents will have a home at last.

It begins with identifying which elements are with us.

Let us start with the TEA PARTIES. There are certainly more than one. All seem to agree on "lower taxes and less government." For now, we must make certain that the discussions don't turn to Abortion, Gay Marriage and Agenda 21! If they do, the remaining groups will identify the convention as a "far right bitch session" and walk away. For the sake of unity, these critical constituencies must stay on theme.

EVANGELICALS were originally brought into the party through Jerry Falwell's "Christian Coalition." The C.C. was especially active during Ronald Reagan's reelection campaign in 1984. Leading spokespersons including Christian Broadcaster, Pat Roberson, presented a conservative message based on traditional family values. Opponents were classified as "Secular Humanists."

Andrew Card, George W. Bush's Chief of Staff may have alienated these voters in 2008. Card later admitted to the mistake. The Massachusetts native now rates as another questionable Bush cabinet appointment. In the 2012 Presidential election, according to former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, only 30 million of the known 89 Evangelicals voted. 22% broke for Barack Obama.

LIBERTARIANS account for as much as 20% of the country. Ron Paul brought them out in force in 2008 and especially 2012. Critics remind that it was through them that the Tea Parties were co-opted. Still, a growing desire for less government and more individual freedoms top the Libertarian agenda. Paul effectively introduced questions surrounding the Federal Reserve. His son, Rand has apparantly accepted the Libertarian mantle from Dad and may be a 2016 Presidential candidate.

The remaining groups represent some crossovers. They are as follows:

(a) Reagan Democrats. These voters were first identified during the eighties. While generally favoring a progressive tax structure, a solvent Social Security and Medicare, Reagan Democrats want government only when they need it. These voters were turned off by what they perceived as the "excessive liberalism" of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. Today, many have departed the Democrat Party. Some joined the Republican Party. Others became Independents. In the 1980's Reagan Democrats in the South were often referred to as "Boll Weevils."

(b) John F. Kennedy Democrats. Slightly older on an average than Reagan Democrats, these voters are feeling left behind by the current Democrat Party. Like Reagan Democrats, they favor a strong national defense. Unlike, Reagan Democrats, they tend to be "pro choice" and slightly more to the left on social issues. To JFK Democrats, "small business and the working man" should be their parties' primary consideration. The fact that they are no longer on the Democrat parties' radar, has created a restive mood within their ranks. West Virginia Senator, Joe Manchin is JFK Democrats' "poster boy."

(c) Fiscal Conservatives. The voters could care less about Abortion and Gay Rights. What they want is an America that "lives within her means." Ideas that help business top their wish list. They are also interested in reviving the American Middle Class. It begins with "trimming the fat." Curtailing and eliminating government waste is seen as the number one priority. "Fiscals" almost universally support a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Donald Trump and Steve Forbes are classic "Fiscals."

(d) "10thers." This growing constituency represents the purist of Constitutional Conservatives. The "10thers" are the original "strict constructionists" of the constitution. In short, "if the 10th amendment didn't designate a responsibility to the federal government, it automatically falls under the individual state's auspices." 10thers support nullification. They believe that issues such as "abortion, same sex marriage and Marijuana legalization" should be handled at the state level. Texas Governor, Rick Perry stands as Americas' most renowned 10ther.

Democrats rank "10thers" with Tea Party members as "right wing nut cases." So do Republican "Neo-Cons." Yet, both 10thers and Tea Partiers promote a smaller central government. This creates our needed benchmark for creating something new.

Fiscals have no problem reducing the "size, scope and cost" of the Federal government. Libertarians are likewise in agreement with the idea. Yet, to effectively attract the JFK and Reagan Democrats, there must be attention aimed at preserving the safety nets. There must also be discussion relating to both short and long term immigration reform. Not to mention "Health Insurance" reform. Ideas such as "English as official language and voter I.D. cards," are greeted with enthusiasm by both JFK and Reagan Democrats.

Evangelicals, to the surprise of many, are often registered Democrats. In fact, the United Churches of Christ are generally liberals on all fronts. The good news for coalition builders is that Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, even Episcopalians, and Disciples of Christ(Christian Church), consider the members of the United Churches of Christ, "Christian nut cases."

Evangelicals can and will embrace the 10ther quest to "defer abortion and gay rights" to the individual states. They would welcome "public school prayer" to likewise be left to the states. Evangelicals, with the exception of the United Churches of Christ, believe that "separation of church and state" refers to "keeping government out of the church." Not visa versa!

Members of the Roman Catholic Church have historically voted Democrat. But that support may be eroding. The Church universally opposes abortion and same sex marriage.

It is been said that getting conservatives to agree on anything is similar to "herding cats." The "10ther angle" may serve as the "long awaited vehicle" to attain compromise. It's unlikely that conservatives will agree on any one theme or candidate. But, it's very possible to shove ideas not agreed upon back to the individual states. In reality, that's what our founding fathers intended.

The convention should begin with a review of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson's historic debate. Hamilton did not trust the common man. He believed that government should be left to the better educated, best connected and more affluent; preferably from a central location.

Jefferson favored the common man. He reminded that most had fled Europe to escape an entrenched aristocracy. He saw Hamilton's vision as nothing short of the "creation of an American nobility." Jefferson's remedy was "decentralization." He concluded that the common mans' greatest safeguard was "more decision making" at the state level.

"10thers" sometimes refer to themselves as "Jeffersonians." In studying the memoirs of Thomas Jefferson, the need for limited government on the federal level is easily understood. The third U.S. President was all about individual freedom. Perhaps his greatest assessment of government can be noted by his following quote:

"When people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."

This paradigm obviously amounts to the printing of "exit visas" for "Neo-Con" Republicans. In truth, these "Republicans" are more philosopically in step with the national Democrat Party. Their control of the current Republican Party has brought us to where we are today.

The "Red State" Convention can change this absurdity, once and for all.

Friday, September 5, 2014

"Red State Convention" Could Doom Republican Party

Something big is evidently brewing in America!

Earlier today, I was privy to some feedback from a November 2013 post, "All Roads Lead to Nashville." It discussed a proposed "Red State Convention," that would take place in Nashville, spring of 2015. The topic, "replacing the existing Republican Party."

The post also appeared on Tea Party Nation. Conservatives throughout the country are obviously thinking along the same lines! But, as this caller warned, "you are talking about destroying the Republican Party, no two ways about it!"

Maybe the time has come to commence entertaining such a notion! It is apparent that the party leadership has abandoned the party base! The disgraceful Mississippi Senate primary is proof that some people within the party have become so powerful, so important that they could care less what the majority thinks.

It doesn't take a whiz kid to recognize the "rift" in the Republican party. Only through threats of a "third party will do nothing but elect Democrats," has the so called Republican "Establishment" maintained their grip.

The Tea Party has been continuously ridiculed and chastised. They have been called everything from "fringe elements to NAZIS;" by everyone from Al Sharpton to Thad Cochran. Never mind the fact that they fished a broken GOP from the stagnant, post 2008 sewer, achieving major legislative gains in 2010!

2014 yields a different landscape. Today's Tea Party is marked by one basic question: "Which Tea Party?"

Originally founded as a "fiscal issues only" movement, today's Tea Party has become the landing spot for disgruntled Americans with a cause. Yet, getting everyone on the same page, as a convention would require, could be like "herding cats!"

It begins with adopting a platform. "All Roads.." introduced 15 planks. Today's caller added another idea.

"Cut our Corporate tax from 35% to 17.5%, if companies brought "half" of their outsourced jobs back to American soil. Bring "all" of the jobs back to America and the tax would be "zero."

"Each American company would be required" to provide "a minimum of $10,000 in health insurance coverage." This would work hand-in-hand with the $10,000 and up "catastrophic pool" initially proposed in "All Roads..."

The caller predicted the return of "millions" of jobs to our shores. Some would be low paying. Some would pay fairly well. American companies that continued to send jobs abroad, would be taxed accordingly.

Another Red State convention advocate sugggested that we ban public sector unions. Harry S. Truman would have seconded that motion!

"A fourth grade English proficiency test as a prerequisite for a voter I.D. card, complete with photograph?" Most of the folks in Washington would be horrified! But mainstream American would likely say, "why not?"

As the caller phrased, "we need to concentrate on "ideas, not people." The "people will come later." What's important now is "winning elections!" This equates to increasing the overall appeal. For years, Republicans have talked about "broadening the tent." The "Red State" platform would do just that.

"Those in charge" would suggest that this ploy would accomplish the opposite. Yet, are we certain that "those in charge,"don't merely amount to "opposite extremes of the same ingredient?"

True, there are exceptions. But, by and large, we have, to quote one conservative broadcaster, "Democans and Republicrats." They first argue and debate. Then, they assemble, usually behind closed doors and eventually reach a "consensus." If anything, it sounds like a game!

Ultimately to "scare" those entrenched to "get on the mainstream America bandwagon, while they still can," may be the the only sure way. Some won't. But, a lot will. Especially when those holdouts have been accurately fingered!

Mouthing "RINO" won't be sufficient! The distinction must be made between the "strict constructionist" conservatives and the "new conservatives." When "new" equates to "favoring large, Washington D.C. based power, preemptive wars and globalist ties," the knockout punch can be administered! And that is...?


Disgust with corruption has non partisan sentiment. It is indeed sufficient to bring the walls of Jericho tumbling down!

It's vital to include those Americans who consider themselves forgotten. Therefore, it's critical that we concentrate on issues that impact everyone. It's imperative that we do not get "lost in the weeds" over specific items such as "Gay Marriage and Abortion." We must listen. If we do, we might learn something that we didn't know!

A convention as outlined would create the forum to make this happen. This is the starting point. Next, however, must be the "positioning statement." To leave it at we're the "disgusted with Washington party," won't be enough. Any replacement party must immediately define itself. Otherwise, the mainstream media will do it for them.