Perry Best Bet to Topple Bush, Clinton

Rick Perry will almost certainly announce his presidential candidacy June 4th in Dallas.

We can also expect Jeb Bush to announce his sometime in the near future. Our choice will likely come down to "Jeb or the other guy."

I can attest to the disdain seen for Jeb Bush on the Tea Party Nation blog. Many declare that they will "stay home," if Jeb is the nominee. Even, if Jeb opposes Hillary Clinton! This is both disquieting and disturbing! But it has happened before. I have no doubt that it could happen again.

I keep hearing side comments about Perry. It seems that most in the Tea Party are okay with he former Texas Governor. True, we have "pin pricks" such as his support for tuition waiver for illegals, who happened to be Texas high school graduates. Or, his support for an HPV vaccine that was never implemented. Or, his support for an autobahn that never materialized.

I have even heard how his friendship with Barbour's in Mississippi is a deal breaker! I am sure that there will be some who will even criticize Perry for voicing his support for the military, during the recent Jade Helm 15 question.

Let's get real!

Has anyone thought of the remote possibility that the Republican Establishment may actually be behind some of these fringe candidates? I have. Consider this. "Did anyone really believe that Michelle Bachmann had a chance in the 2012 election?" In retrospect, she was Rick Perry's greatest antagonist. In the end, she was Mitt Romney's greatest ally.

The 2012 election and Rick Perry's less than stellar performance is not the subject of this post. The point is "why" Republicans not wanting Bush should embrace Perry's candidacy.

There are some who say, "I like Perry, but I don't think he is electable." Fact is, Perry is unquestionably the most electable of any candidate. Here are the reasons why.

Education- Texas ranks second nationally(behind Maine) in percentage of high school graduates. Texas ranks first nationally in percentage of high school graduation rates for Hispanic and African-American students. There are now 19 colleges and universities in Texas offering four-year degrees for $10,000. Perry considers the latter his signature achievement.

The Environment- Check the statistics. They are astounding! From reduced C02 emissions to reduced ozone levels, they are too numerous to list on this post. Texas is number one in energy produced by wind. Many forget that Perry chaired Al Gore's Texas Presidential campaign in 1988. Both men supported a healthy environment. The split came over implementation. Perry cited the 10th amendment. Gore believed that the individual states could not be trusted. Texas' environmental report card is proof that Perry was correct. Meanwhile Gore lined his pockets with an elaborate hoax that has hurt America.

Healthcare- Texas implemented "loser pays tort reform." The result: Doctors' E & O insurance plummeted! Since implementation 34,000 physicians have relocated to Texas. While Texas has a lot of people who are statistically without insurance, it's generally because they elect to. It's called, "freedom." But the overall cost of healthcare is dramatically lower than in most "blue" states.

Border security- Texas shares a 1200 mile border with a foreign country. The Obama administration has essentially "winked," and done little. For his part, Perry has been pro-active, with limited resources. As commander-in-chief, I am confident that he would be best equipped from a knowledge perspective to decisively deal with the border situation.

Foreign Policy- Perry has military experience. Trained as a fighter pilot, he flew C-130's in the Air Force, engaged in better than 50 sorties in Europe and the Middle East. Without question, he has "front row understanding" of the needs of military families. He would be respected and feared by our adversaries. The Russians describe Rick Perry as "a cowboy with deep understanding of military affairs."

Plain Folks Appeal- "Blue collar" Americans connect with Perry. Perry is the son of West Texas tenant farmers. He did not have running water or an indoor toilet in his house until he was six years old. Unable to afford college, he accepted an ROTC scholarship to attend Texas A & M. Upon graduation, he went straight into the Air Force. While staunchly right to work, Perry remains a "card carrying, dues paying member" of the AFL-CIO. Like Ronald Reagan, Perry was formally a Democrat. He echos the Gipper's "I didn't leave the Democrat Party. It left me."

The Texas Economy- Texas represents the world's 13th largest economy. The formula is simple: Cut corporate tax rates and workers wages will increase. Thanks to Texas, the U.S. didn't lose jobs as a nation under Obama's watch. There is no question that if the Texas magic is applied nationally, everyone, not just the privileged few as has been the case during Obama's Presidency, will benefit.

These are solid facts why Perry can defeat Hillary Clinton in a general election. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, Perry has a report card. He will compare bank accounts, ruefully acknowledging that his is quite a bit smaller than hers! In 2012 Democrats ran a class warfare campaign against Mitt Romney. That will be impossible against Perry. Perry is as affable and likeable as Mrs. Clinton isn't. Even though Democrats would like to think it'll be Bill again, it won't be!

The key for Republicans is to think electorally. Bush is going to be one of the finalists. And he could beat Hillary. The question becomes, are we willing to settle for Jeb Bush?

It takes deep pockets to run a 50-state campaign. Bush has them. So does Perry. But who else can seriously come up with the kind of money to match Hillary in the general election? While she may have no record to run on, she will have a "truckload" of cash!

We cannot have a "John McCain" like we did in 2008! As many remember, the Arizona Senator took federal money when his fledgling campaign was on life support. Later, this restricted him. Obama outspent him four to one in the general election.

Hillary will have one of the best campaign handlers in the business in her husband. We can expect negative advertising on top of negative advertising. Perry, however, will be a problem. He can simply run on his record. No hypotheticals. No "woulds or coulds." Just facts. Unlike Jeb Bush, his achievements were recent. Bush has been out of the game since 2007.

Of course, there are good party members who believe that Ted Cruz or Scott Walker or Rand Paul or Marco Rubio would be a better finalist than Perry. But here are a couple of things to consider. Starting with Walker.

Scott Walker has emerged bloody but victorious in his Wisconsin battles. It was not without injury. Today, he is considered "anti union." While the party does support "right-to-work," there is a difference between being in favor of right to work and being anti union. Walker lacks exposure to Hispanic voters. Republicans must win 40% of Latino votes to win the election. It might also be mentioned that "no president has ever been elected when not carrying his home state." Smart money says that Walker will not defeat Clinton in Wisconsin.

Rand Paul might pull some Democrats over, but he would be too easy to demagogue in a general election. Hillary Clinton will dig up each and every looney idea proffered by Ron and apply them to Rand. Paul's position on defense makes the department nervous. Wall Street isn't comfortable with him. The Democrats strategy will again be "the promise of chits and boonies" to constituents. Rand's "austerity measures," and the promise of a balanced budget amendment won't be greeted with a lot of enthusiasm. Against Rand, Hillary will use her war chest to scare the socks off America! It will work.

Ted Cruz is an eloquent speaker. He possesses a brilliant legal mind. But, his resume is as thin as Barack Obama's! I am also a little unnerved by his support for Kaye Bailey Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Gubernatorial campaign against Perry. For those who remember, all of the Bush people were behind the former Senator. Karl Rove was chairman of "Team Hutchinson." This makes me suspicious that Ted might be a "Jeb plant." Those supporting Cruz' views, should embrace Perry. The two men essentially represent the same values. The difference is, "Perry has actually done them. Cruz has only talked about them."

Marco Rubio has much more experience than Ted Cruz. In addition to a full Senate term, he served eight years in the Florida House of Representatives; the last two years as House Speaker. His Senate match with former Governor, Charlie Crist was the toughest of campaigns.

A lot of good Americans can't get past Minor versus Happersatt. We tend to forget that the main topic of this 1875 Supreme Court case was universal suffrage for women. In addition to defining "natural born citizen," they ruled that women should not be granted the right to vote. Are we willing to use this particular court's interpretation to determine if Rubio is eligible to be President?

I believe that we should not.

Marco Rubio would be the ideal running mate for Rick Perry. They are a generation apart. Rick is 65. Marco will be 44, May 31st. Perry scored 44% of Latino votes in the 2010 Texas Gubernatorial general election. With Rubio on the bottom of the ticket, it might exceed 50%. It's probable that the Clinton camp would panic, possibly tapping San Antonio major, Julian Castro as Hillary's running mate.

Evangelical voters have no problem with Rick Perry. In fact, he might do as well as any Republican, other than Mike Huckabee. While Roman Catholic, Rubio admits to attending Christ Fellowship church with his Evangelical wife, Jeanette, more than he attends Mass.

Perry ranks mostly as a second or third choice for Tea Party Republicans. Some consider him Establishment. If so, he represents the most conservative Establishment option. True, the Establishment would be more comfortable with a Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or even John Kasich. But, they would rally to Perry as they did Ronald Reagan.

A comparable argument was taking place in 1979 within the GOP. George H. W. Bush had emerged as having the best chance to up seat Jimmy Carter. Reagan has his constituents. But, he looked to be running against the wind. Then came New Hampshire. We know the rest of the story.

Evangelical mobilization will be key in Virginia and Iowa. The ability to attract "blue collar male Democrats" will be the difference in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Perry might actually win all four states.

With Rubio on the bottom of the ticket, Dade County will return to the "red" column. Democrats path to victory in Florida runs through Miami. Jeb Bush will win it. But these mostly Cuban and South American(70% of the county speaks Spanish as their first language)voters will break for Perry.

So will Mexican voters in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. Especially with Rubio on the bottom of the ticket recounting and emphasizing(en espanol) Perry's vast achievements as Governor of Texas.

Huckabee Could Prove to be GOP's Secret Weapon

Rick Perry made perhaps the most incisive statement to date regarding the stakes of the 2016 Presidential election. "The next President may appoint as many as four Supreme Court Justices."

Three Supreme Court Justices will be 80 years old or older. One will be 78. The thought of Hillary Clinton shaping future courts is positively chilling! Hence, the Republicans better win in 2016! Or accept a future America that will be shaped in the mold of the Frankfurt school! Anybody ready for Communism?

This bleak, lugubrious thought is sickening! In fact, it is so awful that many Americans will question the value of staying one nation! A large number of patriotic Americans would find a Hillary-America wanting. Make no mistake of that!

Still, the Republicans haven't lost the election. Signs are evident that Hillary may not be as formidable as once believed. Circumstances, wisdom, practicality and a little bit of compromise might result in a Republican victory in 2016. It starts with looking at the electoral map logically, not emotionally.

Ah, the debate begins! Don't dare say who is electable and who is not! It's about nominating the truest of believers! Better to lose the general election knowing that a real conservative was the nominee, than settle for anything less! Or, so some think!

Republicans' biggest advantage is knowing who the Democrat nominee will be. Running mates are generally good for two or three points in their home states. Maybe some edges in certain demographics. It's smaller than most imagine. Paul Ryan is proof! Yet, when speaking ideologically, things can be a bit more unpredictable.

Mike Huckabee has accurately identified Evangelical voter turnout as the key to the 2016 election. Per Huck, only "30 of 89 million" showed up to vote in '12. Amazingly 22% of these 30 million broke for Barack Obama! As the former Arkansas Governor suggests, if 45 million turned out, the Republicans would be looking at a landslide!

Few question Governor Huckabee's credentials. Speaking as a native Arkansan, I can assure the nation that he was a much more effective governor than Bill Clinton. What slips by the bulk of the country is how Glass-Steagall's repeal caused the Financial Crisis. Amazingly, it was repealed during the 1990's, under Bill's watch.

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 separated deposit taking commercial banks from securities trading investment banks. The act, considered controversial at the time, long symbolized America's unusual history of bank regulation- maybe the most unusual in the developed world.

The history, intricacies and players of Glass-Steagall's repeal is another subject for a different post. What's important is that it's repeal made insiders associated with the Clinton's wealthy.

Mike Huckabee arguably has more inside dirt on the Clinton's than any human alive. This makes him especially valuable to the GOP. Not merely because he knows it. But, because he can so eloquently express it in a benign, disarming, even charming manner. If Mike describes Hillary as a "dedicated public servant who is a good person and a secular humanist," Evangelical voters will translate this to be "atheist political insider."

Huckabee doesn't have money. Or, at least not currently. Not to say it won't come! Unfortunately 50-state campaigns are not won with ten and twenty dollar donations.

Perhaps the former Fox News Prime Timer has another idea. Such as "completing a presidential ticket."

Any way you cut it, Mike Huckabee would be a great running mate for a number of would be nominees. He mobilizes Evangelicals like no other candidate. And, he knows the enemy! Nobody would doubt his qualification for being a "heartbeat away" from the Oval office. He is considered honest, ethical and sincere. He is a superlative communicator.

Republicans must win Florida to have a chance in 2016. That's why it's a strong probability that either Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio will land somewhere on the ticket. Rubio is a fresh face. He scares Democrats who fear a "2008 in reverse." It helps that he and Huck are close personal friends.

Huck would be a valuable running mate for Bush. However, Cincinnati whispers create the impression that the Bush camp has already settled on John Kasich, if things go as planned.

There are many possible tickets that will be discussed. But make no mistake! The Republicans path to victory runs through Florida. Lose Florida and it is endgame! Furthermore, Hispanics must turnout for the GOP. The short list on "best able to attract Latinos is(not necessarily in this order)Bush, Rubio, Huckabee and Perry. This is based on voting results from previous state and federal elections. Not presumption!

And then there are the Evangelicals. Even a twenty percent increase in turnout might make the difference. This is why Mike Huckabee may ultimately enter the picture.

Decentralization Possible Salvation for Apprehensive Americans

Evangelicals remind that "salvation" can only come through a relationship with Jesus Christ.

No argument will be made to the contrary. Yet, throughout history there were good Americans who welcomed less figurative, more concrete assurances. Thomas Jefferson was one of them.

Thomas Jefferson was far from the picture of founding father perfection. He was an opulent man who died heavily in debt. He had an eye for the grandiose. Monticello is graced with exotic plants from all over the world. Jefferson was touted to possess one of the finest personal libraries in the Commonwealth of Virginia. His wine cellar was stocked with expensive imported vintages.

A lanky 6-2 1/2, 190 pounds with curly red hair, he could have been mistaken for Mathew McConaughey, had you bumped into him on New Years eve at Nashville's Wild Horse Saloon. Tom loved art. And, he could write, as many who have read the Declaration of Independence will attest to.

He also knew love. His wife of ten years, Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson died tragically at the age of 34. 39-year-old-Thomas promised her that we would never remarry. He was true to his word.

Following Martha's death, Jefferson went through an extended mourning period. At the recommendation of Benjamin Franklin he accepted the ambassadorship to France.

In Paris Jefferson, now age 44, met his younger daughter's 14-year-old servant, Sally Hemmings. Sally, a "quadroon," was a slave and the half sister to Jefferson's deceased wife. Their relationship was a story in itself.

Returning to Virginia, Sally Hemmings passed on remaining in France as a free woman, in favor of sharing Jefferson's bed chamber at Monticello. They parented five children. Four lived to adulthood.

Through the limited photos and descriptions we now know that Sally stood about 5'5", had long black hair and was eerily reminiscent of Halle Berry.

Jefferson is remembered as one of America's finest Presidents. Most noteworthy was his decision to pay France $15,000,000 for what became known as the Louisiana purchase. Often forgotten are his endless debates with Alexander Hamilton.

What shaped Jefferson's paradigm will never be truly known. He always advocated the rights of the individual state from a standpoint that was later described as "strict construction." In defending his position, he constantly referred to the common man and his place in America.

Perhaps it was derived or, at least, partially derived from his relationship with Hemmings. It was clearly apparent that he harbored a deep empathy and understanding for the common man. He realized that most in America had come to escape a European nobility system. He saw the danger in an overly centralized government that wielded too much power.

Hamilton believed that government was best administered by the better educated, more affluent, from a central point. He admitted to not trusting the common man with the rigors of government. To Jefferson, this amounted to a ruling class. In essence, an American nobility.

2016 Presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina describes it as "the political class."

Jefferson advocated less centralization, more control from the individual states. He was the ultimate proponent of the 10th amendment.

How much power should be reserved for the individual states has plagued America since Thomas Jefferson's day. A great and bloody war was fought over it. Today it remains a subject for debate.

The recent Jade Helm 15 question is the fruit of fear that has festered. Some considered this apprehension unjustified. But, coupled with mounting concerns on other issues such an overbearing E.P.A.'s encroachment and the I.R.S.'s apparent partisanship, the paranoia that is creeping across the continent can't be easily dismissed!

When jobs are intentionally destroyed or shipped abroad, people ask "why!"

When an agency such as the I.R.S. lives by a standard, "guilty until proven innocent," people question the exception.

When farmers are put out of business because of a minnow, they ask, "who are these people who are making these decisions and what are their credentials?"

When United Nations troops are seen in Texas poising for photographs at Wall Mart, rational people, not reactionaries exclaim, "what in the hell are UN soldiers doing on American soil!"

Thomas Jefferson's way was all about protecting the little guy. But it was likewise a guarantee that a small group of well organized fanatics might not seize control of a government grown too big, powerful and centralized.

Jefferson was not alive in 1917. But had he been, he would have concluded that the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent 70-year Communist nightmare would have been averted had the individual provinces held more power.

Nicholas Wrenden corroborated this position in his book, "The Unmaking of a Russian." Wrenden reveals how "only about 60,000 well organized, well disciplined" believers implemented a brutal dictatorship over a region of better than 150 million people. Though heavily outnumbered, they took control of Moscow, and with it, the central bureaucracy.

Communists in America know that the key to ultimate takeover lies in a powerful, Washington, D.C. government. This preference crosses party lines. Even Republicans who claim to be conservative, yet favor "top down, control from Washington," are one in the same! Their methodologies may differ, as did those of Stalin and Troksky. But the goal remains consistent.

Quelling the rising anxiety of a federal government grown too powerful may be as easy as decentralization. It would not come without a fight.

Al Sharpton talks vigorously about the need for a more centralized government. Many states, especially those in the Northeast, don't want it. They warn that that decentralization would result in "rich states and poor states." Some go as far to say that it would "make us like little, individual countries."

The latter may be an exaggeration. The nation has national entitlement programs, a military, an interstate system, a national park service, a postal service and a space program. What more do we need at the federal level?

It is not to say that many of the services are not without merit. Or need! But, could they not be better administered from the state level? Texas' Educational and Environmental track records are proof enough for those who live there!Ditto for Energy oversight and Homeland Security. The latter definitely should be done under the auspices of the individual states. For those unconvinced, read both the second and 10th amendments!

A Department of Homeland Security in the wrong hands, could become an American edition of the S.S.! Members of the military swear an oath to the defend the constitution. The Secret Service allegiance is to the Chief Executive. What about D.H.S.? Would it not be a better option to administer this department at the state level?

Next month, the Supreme Court will decide on the definition of marriage. Should not that determination be left up to the individual states? Ditto for abortion and Marijuana legalization.

What makes America unique to every country in the world is how we began. We are, "the United States of America." Not, the "United American States." Our motto reinforces this assertion: "E Pluribus Unum."- "From the many, one."

Democrats and Neo-Con Republicans will attest to their understanding of Jefferson's "strict constructionist" standard. They will simultaneously say that it is not practical in today's America. When questioned, "why," the answer all comes down to inertia.

Implementing a constitutionally correct America would have a devastating effect on the system in place. Thousands of jobs, including large numbers of jobs currently headquartered in Washington would either be redirected or eliminated. For some members of the bureaucracy, it would be as simple as a new boss. Others could be looking at relocation, or a pink slip!

Politicians talk. But implementing a Jeffersonian style America would take a tough, decisive President, backed by an equally committed Congress and Senate. The bulk of countrymen say it "would never happen!" Yet, when fear is introduced into the equation, never say never!

Americans need to ask these proponents of big government from Washington, "why" they believe this to be the better way? Our history deficient youth need to be cornered into admitting that they know nothing about Weimar or the Bolshevik Revolution, what they symbolized and why we, as a nation, don't want to go there!

There was likely nothing to Jade Helm 15. But, the reaction that it generated should be noted. Millions of Americans have lost complete trust in the federal government. Fear is replacing reason, in too many instances.

This essentially happened in the Weimar Republic. It stands as historical proof, that people are most gullible when they are frightened.