English only foundations have made steady progress, especially on the state level.
Visit their websites! U.S. English, Pro-English.org and English First all can be applauded for their advancements. It has been a slow process! But, state by state, piece by piece, it is happening! And, if you are a 10th amendment advocate, it is being done in the correct manner. English is, after all, a state concern. Isn't it?
A question was recently asked at a Taylorsville, Kentucky Tea Party function. "Is English as an official language a violation of the 10th amendment? Or, is it like the military, where each state has it's own militia but the country has a national armed forces?" The second amendment stipulates that the states have the right to bear arms and hold a militia. There is nothing in the constitution about a national language.
Diversity proponents would argue that there is no official language in the United States. They might reference the 10th amendment as a state's right to speak whatever language the majority wanted. Or, to have multiple languages as acceptable. This seems to be the direction that we have settled upon. The foundations evidently see this opposition as something to avoid. A better path may be to focus on the most "English friendly" states gaining victories whenever possible.
The opposite argument is simply, "87% of America favors English as the official language." These U.S. English numbers would indicate an overwhelming majority of the country wants it. What are the disadvantages?
Opponents use "discrimination" as a reason for not adopting English as our official language. This familiar excuse seems to resonate with diversity cultists. For some reason, they continue to believe that a uniform, first language excludes unfortunates who can't or won't assimilate. I know that they exist. But, they seem to be increasingly difficult to find!
The foundations seem to have some disagreement on "to what extent" English as the official language should be advanced. Pro English and English First like the idea of English only voting ballots and drivers license testing. They have a potential ally in some of the Tea Party groups. This development would save federal, state and local governments billions. Seems prudent! What's the problem?
To truly understand the question, it becomes important to understand the true importance of assimilation. And when that occurs, it becomes obvious that to truly have equally in the country, we must all have comparable understanding of one language. The diversity cultists argue vehemently that this isn't the case! But are they looking at the question from a "multidimensional sense?"
American tradition is one of a vast "melting pot." We come from nations all over the world, intermarry and our children are the fruits of our diversity. It can be easily argued that this is the "true diversity" of America. It makes us unique and the products of why our ancestors sought a new life in a new world. These opponents who object to English as the official language may have ulterior motives.
A "Balkanized" America offers profit and control to the limited few. In exchange for compromising assimilation for many, they continue to reap big dividends in the way of alternative language marketing. Plus, they maintain control of various segments of the population by making it easy to remain separate. Assimilation translates to a loss of both profit and control.
It begins with advancing English literacy in America. The more literate in English a citizen is, the more difficult that he or she will be to influence. It amounts to having improved access to communication. The more information that is available, the more knowledgeable the native. The more knowledgeable the native, the less dependent they are to those who would tell them what and how to think.
Should the foundations be taking a more aggressive approach?
Some would suggest that this isn't their place. They have a goal and they are quietly moving toward it. The alternative argument is that that the overwhelming support for English as the official language in America may create opportunities to address and resolve other needs.
With 87% of the population in favor of an idea, and a group founded on fiscal conservatism in solid support of it, you have the beginning of a coalition. Add those who strive to eliminate voter fraud and the coalition grows larger. Bring those groups in who are addressing identity theft and the coalition grows even larger.
To discuss English as the official language, coupled with the need for Charter schools, merit pay for teachers, school choice and six years of a second language in the public schools creates the potential of still another coalition. But would these goals "mesh?" It would appear so, but not so fast? There are actually education foundations who favor Charter schools, merit pay and school choice who would turn "thumbs down" to English as the official language. Why? Good question!
Then there is the issue that always seems interrelated with English as the official language: Immigration reform. This may explain the reluctance of some foundations to form coalitions. There are many proponents on the state level who might become alienated with foundations who sought alliances with Immigration reformers!
Immigration reform is a touchy item. It is, in the words of Karl Rove, "a politically toxic" subject. Still, if a moderate plan could be introduced with promise of advocates' support for English only, voter I.D.'s and Identity theft measures, a sweeping, far reaching compromise might come together.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
English as Official Language/ Immigration Reform are Linked
Really?
When legally mandating English as the one and only official language, we are designating it as a cornerstone for American society. It therefore plays a role in the forward direction of our nation. This includes persons illegally in the country through no fault of their own who have assimilated and those who "overstayed their welcome" but could assimilate quickly if given the chance.
Perhaps it depends on your perception! When targeting immigrants best capable of accelerated assimilation, "English as the official language" and "immigration reform" are connected.
Implied, of course is "meaningful immigration reform." Amnesty is not considered "meaningful." Of foremost importance are (a) what to do with illegal immigrants currently within our borders and (b what measures will improve the nation, making America stronger?
We need to rid ourselves of the asinine immigration lottery. How could arguably the most desirable of countries put forth a concept that is totally and exclusively based on "luck?" The proponents claim that it is in the spirit of "diversity." But this term, "diversity" has become an excuse! It's actual translation is akin to "settling for something less than the superlative!"
A priority points system for immigration should take into account any impact or implications made on Social Security. Our population is aging. We need younger immigrants. This should be a benchmark of any new system. When we use age as the first consideration, we immediately set in place a future guideline that will arrest the problem of insufficient new workers to fund the entitlement system.
The second benchmark should be education. We need better educated immigrants. But this goes beyond those with college degrees. America has a shortage of skilled craftsmen. In addition to Nurses and Engineers, we need Plumbers, Steamfitters, Electricians, Welders, Bricklayers, Stone Masons and Carpenters. There are trained workers abroad who can bring these skills with them when they immigrate.
Donald Trump suggested that "any international student receiving his PHD should be automatically issued a green card upon graduation." Why not? Our universities educate these people. Why not allow them to stay?
There should be weight given toward English proficiency. An English proficiency test should be given to any and all immigration candidates. If they can pass an elementary exam(4th grade), they would be given added consideration. An intermediate exam(10th grade) would earn a higher preference. We need immigrants who can assimilate as quickly as practicable. Those coming to the country with the language will shave anywhere from three to ten years time needed for complete assimilation.
Diversity cultists would vehemently oppose such a standard. They would claim that the system was being rigged to benefit selected countries. But this isn't necessarily the case! Visit Europe. Or, visit the Middle East, Asia or Africa for that matter. English is the international language of business. We should use this to our advantage!
Finally, there needs to be a preference for immigrants coming from N.A.T.O. countries. What's wrong with rewarding our friends and allies? Many of these immigrants would be coming from overcrowded European nations and would bring with them, not only the English language but a needed skill or profession.
Some would claim that a mythical points system based on age, education, language and country of origin would be at odds with uniting many families. True, we would be basing acceptance on more than family connections, proximity and luck. The question to ask is "what's best for America?" There should be some preference for family members! Especially children and siblings of newly naturalized Americans! But age, education and English proficiency should hold equal merit!
Requiring passage of an elementary English proficiency test as a prerequisite for a "green card" would have critics. But what are they truly protesting? More independent newcomers?
Opponents will abound who oppose giving N.A.T.O. countries a preference. They will call it "a backdoor strategy" designed to "maintain a white majority" in the United States. We can't change history(although revisionists long to do such)! Such an overture to our N.A.T.O. associates would be be seen as "the United States still remembers who her friends are."
Some will warn that those attempting to immigrate extended family members from outside the country would be delayed, perhaps permanently. This could happen, if the family member was older, uneducated and without the language!
The proposal clearly favors immigrants from English speaking countries. But it would not eliminate those who came from non-English speaking countries! They might need to add an extra step to the process. But there are millions outside our borders who speak English fluently. Most reside in countries where English is not the first language.
What about those currently in the country illegally?
When it becomes impossible to survive, human nature dictates migration. This has been the rule of humanity for eons! Passage of a 10th grade English proficiency test would be easy; for someone who had grown up in the U.S., attended and graduated from American schools or who had lived in the nation twenty plus years. For someone without that history, it could be a tough verdict!
When immigration is linked to English proficiency and literacy, those unable to make the cut will depart. The United States becomes quite inhospitable when you can't work, drive or have access to entitlements! Expect a silent, surprisingly speedy departure!
However, those able to pass an intermediate English examination would be welcomed into the family! They could then begin the path of "what can I do to earn" my place in America?
This standard alone would promote many possible and productive outcomes. One nagging question remains.
"What about those who came to the United States legally on a short term visa and never returned?" After all, this accounts for a large part of those in the country illegally. Would they be allowed to take an intermediate English exam and be given a probationary path to citizenship?
It is important that we differentiate persons who came into the country as minors and those who didn't. Those who happen to be in the country illegally through no fault of their own should be given a path to citizenship! This amounts to something similar to the D.R.E.A.M. Act without entitlement access. But what about the intentional offenders?
Intentional offenders should be rewarded for honesty if they come forth and confess. For example: We have perhaps as many as 50,000 Irishmen illegally in New York City today. They speak English. The majority of them could pass a 10th grade proficiency test. Many hold college degrees, professions and skills. In most cases they have family living in the states. This would immediately earn them top priorities. If they were given an additional "honesty" preference by voluntarily confessing to their status, two results might be possible.
Intentional offenders would face a "more rigorous path" in comparison to those who entered involuntarily. For those who entered the country as minors, the time required for naturalization would be five years. For those who came as adults(18+), it would be ten years. For those illegally in the country through no fault of their own, there would be several service alternatives. For those entering the country on their own accord, there would be only the military option.
During this time, all illegals participating in a path to citizenship would pay into the entitlement system. The more rigorous alternative would be available only to offending illegals thirty years of age and younger.
The second option would be to return to their native land and apply with the benefit of having improved their points priority through honest confession. Let's examine a mythical illustration:
24-year-old, James Bryant of Dublin, Ireland overstayed his visa and has been living with his American girlfriend in Queens, New York for 10 months. James has an undergraduate degree in history, speaks English fluently and wants to immigrate. He reports to the authorities, admitting that his six-month visitors visa expired the previous year.
James is given three points for his being under thirty years of age. He receives a point for his high school diploma, an additional point for a college degree and two points for his ability to pass an intermediate English proficiency exam. He is told that because he voluntarily turned himself in, he will receive an additional "honesty point." That totals eight points. But this is only if he returns to Ireland and applies through normal channels.
Had Ireland been a member of N.A.T.O., James would have received an additional two points. Had his degree been in Engineering or Nursing, he would have received an additional point. If James had parents living in the U.S., he would have received three points. A sibling would have earned him two points. A grandparent or first cousin would have been worth one point. These points, however, are meaningless if James does not return to Ireland.
James elects to not return to Ireland. He is given thirty days to report to the military branch assigned. If he fails to do such, he will be deported without further recourse. He will also become permanently ineligible for future immigration application or visas of any kind, including a K-1(Alien Fiance) visa.
The United States armed forces would be given the right to accept or reject his application. If rejected, he would return to Ireland retaining his priority points.
By rewarding offending illegals for honesty(turning themselves in to the authorities) we would be telling the entire world that we value truth and the ability to admit a mistake. We would be telling the offender that we were giving them one chance to begin their path toward citizenship. Because James was older than 17, his path would span a minimum of ten years. However, he would have permanent resident alien status upon acceptance by the armed forces.James would not be eligible for entitlements, including unemployment insurance. He would be required to pay into the system for ten years prior to becoming eligible for benefits. He would be granted all benefits offered by the U.S. armed forces.
Many would argue that this model is "too soft." But not if the plan is presented in conjunction with a modification of the 14th Amendment's citizenship interpretation. Adding a provision that required at least one parent to hold "green card status" would discourage illegals from parenting "anchor babies."
Meanwhile offenders holding intermediate English skills could return to their native countries and proceed through normal channels holding enhanced priorities. Or, they could remain under these stringent conditions. If they chose the latter, they would begin contributing to the entitlement system without drawing immediate benefit from it.
Where immigration is concerned this is the true "bridge for the moderates." We make it clear that we have a preference for young, well educated, English savvy newcomers. They simply would pay for breaking line!
When legally mandating English as the one and only official language, we are designating it as a cornerstone for American society. It therefore plays a role in the forward direction of our nation. This includes persons illegally in the country through no fault of their own who have assimilated and those who "overstayed their welcome" but could assimilate quickly if given the chance.
Perhaps it depends on your perception! When targeting immigrants best capable of accelerated assimilation, "English as the official language" and "immigration reform" are connected.
Implied, of course is "meaningful immigration reform." Amnesty is not considered "meaningful." Of foremost importance are (a) what to do with illegal immigrants currently within our borders and (b what measures will improve the nation, making America stronger?
We need to rid ourselves of the asinine immigration lottery. How could arguably the most desirable of countries put forth a concept that is totally and exclusively based on "luck?" The proponents claim that it is in the spirit of "diversity." But this term, "diversity" has become an excuse! It's actual translation is akin to "settling for something less than the superlative!"
A priority points system for immigration should take into account any impact or implications made on Social Security. Our population is aging. We need younger immigrants. This should be a benchmark of any new system. When we use age as the first consideration, we immediately set in place a future guideline that will arrest the problem of insufficient new workers to fund the entitlement system.
The second benchmark should be education. We need better educated immigrants. But this goes beyond those with college degrees. America has a shortage of skilled craftsmen. In addition to Nurses and Engineers, we need Plumbers, Steamfitters, Electricians, Welders, Bricklayers, Stone Masons and Carpenters. There are trained workers abroad who can bring these skills with them when they immigrate.
Donald Trump suggested that "any international student receiving his PHD should be automatically issued a green card upon graduation." Why not? Our universities educate these people. Why not allow them to stay?
There should be weight given toward English proficiency. An English proficiency test should be given to any and all immigration candidates. If they can pass an elementary exam(4th grade), they would be given added consideration. An intermediate exam(10th grade) would earn a higher preference. We need immigrants who can assimilate as quickly as practicable. Those coming to the country with the language will shave anywhere from three to ten years time needed for complete assimilation.
Diversity cultists would vehemently oppose such a standard. They would claim that the system was being rigged to benefit selected countries. But this isn't necessarily the case! Visit Europe. Or, visit the Middle East, Asia or Africa for that matter. English is the international language of business. We should use this to our advantage!
Finally, there needs to be a preference for immigrants coming from N.A.T.O. countries. What's wrong with rewarding our friends and allies? Many of these immigrants would be coming from overcrowded European nations and would bring with them, not only the English language but a needed skill or profession.
Some would claim that a mythical points system based on age, education, language and country of origin would be at odds with uniting many families. True, we would be basing acceptance on more than family connections, proximity and luck. The question to ask is "what's best for America?" There should be some preference for family members! Especially children and siblings of newly naturalized Americans! But age, education and English proficiency should hold equal merit!
Requiring passage of an elementary English proficiency test as a prerequisite for a "green card" would have critics. But what are they truly protesting? More independent newcomers?
Opponents will abound who oppose giving N.A.T.O. countries a preference. They will call it "a backdoor strategy" designed to "maintain a white majority" in the United States. We can't change history(although revisionists long to do such)! Such an overture to our N.A.T.O. associates would be be seen as "the United States still remembers who her friends are."
Some will warn that those attempting to immigrate extended family members from outside the country would be delayed, perhaps permanently. This could happen, if the family member was older, uneducated and without the language!
The proposal clearly favors immigrants from English speaking countries. But it would not eliminate those who came from non-English speaking countries! They might need to add an extra step to the process. But there are millions outside our borders who speak English fluently. Most reside in countries where English is not the first language.
What about those currently in the country illegally?
When it becomes impossible to survive, human nature dictates migration. This has been the rule of humanity for eons! Passage of a 10th grade English proficiency test would be easy; for someone who had grown up in the U.S., attended and graduated from American schools or who had lived in the nation twenty plus years. For someone without that history, it could be a tough verdict!
When immigration is linked to English proficiency and literacy, those unable to make the cut will depart. The United States becomes quite inhospitable when you can't work, drive or have access to entitlements! Expect a silent, surprisingly speedy departure!
However, those able to pass an intermediate English examination would be welcomed into the family! They could then begin the path of "what can I do to earn" my place in America?
This standard alone would promote many possible and productive outcomes. One nagging question remains.
"What about those who came to the United States legally on a short term visa and never returned?" After all, this accounts for a large part of those in the country illegally. Would they be allowed to take an intermediate English exam and be given a probationary path to citizenship?
It is important that we differentiate persons who came into the country as minors and those who didn't. Those who happen to be in the country illegally through no fault of their own should be given a path to citizenship! This amounts to something similar to the D.R.E.A.M. Act without entitlement access. But what about the intentional offenders?
Intentional offenders should be rewarded for honesty if they come forth and confess. For example: We have perhaps as many as 50,000 Irishmen illegally in New York City today. They speak English. The majority of them could pass a 10th grade proficiency test. Many hold college degrees, professions and skills. In most cases they have family living in the states. This would immediately earn them top priorities. If they were given an additional "honesty" preference by voluntarily confessing to their status, two results might be possible.
Intentional offenders would face a "more rigorous path" in comparison to those who entered involuntarily. For those who entered the country as minors, the time required for naturalization would be five years. For those who came as adults(18+), it would be ten years. For those illegally in the country through no fault of their own, there would be several service alternatives. For those entering the country on their own accord, there would be only the military option.
During this time, all illegals participating in a path to citizenship would pay into the entitlement system. The more rigorous alternative would be available only to offending illegals thirty years of age and younger.
The second option would be to return to their native land and apply with the benefit of having improved their points priority through honest confession. Let's examine a mythical illustration:
24-year-old, James Bryant of Dublin, Ireland overstayed his visa and has been living with his American girlfriend in Queens, New York for 10 months. James has an undergraduate degree in history, speaks English fluently and wants to immigrate. He reports to the authorities, admitting that his six-month visitors visa expired the previous year.
James is given three points for his being under thirty years of age. He receives a point for his high school diploma, an additional point for a college degree and two points for his ability to pass an intermediate English proficiency exam. He is told that because he voluntarily turned himself in, he will receive an additional "honesty point." That totals eight points. But this is only if he returns to Ireland and applies through normal channels.
Had Ireland been a member of N.A.T.O., James would have received an additional two points. Had his degree been in Engineering or Nursing, he would have received an additional point. If James had parents living in the U.S., he would have received three points. A sibling would have earned him two points. A grandparent or first cousin would have been worth one point. These points, however, are meaningless if James does not return to Ireland.
James elects to not return to Ireland. He is given thirty days to report to the military branch assigned. If he fails to do such, he will be deported without further recourse. He will also become permanently ineligible for future immigration application or visas of any kind, including a K-1(Alien Fiance) visa.
The United States armed forces would be given the right to accept or reject his application. If rejected, he would return to Ireland retaining his priority points.
By rewarding offending illegals for honesty(turning themselves in to the authorities) we would be telling the entire world that we value truth and the ability to admit a mistake. We would be telling the offender that we were giving them one chance to begin their path toward citizenship. Because James was older than 17, his path would span a minimum of ten years. However, he would have permanent resident alien status upon acceptance by the armed forces.James would not be eligible for entitlements, including unemployment insurance. He would be required to pay into the system for ten years prior to becoming eligible for benefits. He would be granted all benefits offered by the U.S. armed forces.
Many would argue that this model is "too soft." But not if the plan is presented in conjunction with a modification of the 14th Amendment's citizenship interpretation. Adding a provision that required at least one parent to hold "green card status" would discourage illegals from parenting "anchor babies."
Meanwhile offenders holding intermediate English skills could return to their native countries and proceed through normal channels holding enhanced priorities. Or, they could remain under these stringent conditions. If they chose the latter, they would begin contributing to the entitlement system without drawing immediate benefit from it.
Where immigration is concerned this is the true "bridge for the moderates." We make it clear that we have a preference for young, well educated, English savvy newcomers. They simply would pay for breaking line!
Sunday, May 6, 2012
English as Official Language Represents "Politically Toxic" Issue; Chance to Unify the Nation
Whatever one may think of Karl Rove, it must be concluded: "he's a brilliant, contemporary political mind."
When Rove refers to an issue as "toxic," wise men pay heed. If you don't belief it, ask Texas Governor, Rick Perry! He learned quickly that the "truth can be deadly." Especially when he described Social Security as a "Ponzi Scheme." Never mind that he was right! When you embark upon verboten topics with truthful candor, even would be allies can turn on you! Perhaps that is why political leaders have been slow to turn up the heat on "English only."
According to U.S. English, as many as 90% of Americans favor making English the official language in the United States. "Pro English" and "English First," two other Washington based English advocacy foundations seconded the assertion. State by state, brick by brick progress is being made. But there are setbacks. HR 997, which has languished in committee for years is likely to make it through the House of Representatives in 2012. There it will remain until 2013, with the hope that Republicans will retake the Senate. As "Pro English" Communication Director, Phil Tignino reminded, "Harry Reid will not allow the measure to come to a floor vote."
The question becomes, "why?"
Why would the Senate Majority leader block legislation that is favored by 90% of the population? Simple. Harry Reid and friends see "English only" as the ultimate weapon to destroy the "Plebyeih"(Pronounced PLEB-YEA-IH) in America.
"Why" would any responsible leader want to maintain a segment of ignorant,illiterate, know nothings labeled "Plebyeih?" We are using the Russian word, because there is no English equivalent. The label was coined by the bourgeoisie in the Soviet Union during and shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. "Plebyeih" were frequently seen in the streets of cities carrying banners and spouting Communist Party slogans.
For the record, Karl Rove never described "English only" as a "toxic issue." But he has made minimal mention of it. Rick Santorum took the issue to head in the Puerto Rico primary. Desperate to maintain momentum, Mitt Romney assumed the counter position. This was the politically correct posture and consistent with Washington leadership. While important and relevant, the issue of "English only" could antagonize certain elements. But who are they?
Deeper analysis of the "English only" question reveals a graphic glimpse of the dark side of America. Actually, there are two "dark sides." Let's first look at Harry Reid's argument.
For Communism to work in America, there must be a "Plebyeih." They represent a solid voting block necessary to wage class warfare. This segment can't read at a fourth grade level. They are typically poor and live on government relief. They are the most susceptible to the politics of jealously. It is easy to convince them that the system is rigged against them.
Plebyeih aren't necessarily children of immigrants. Most actually are not. But underachieving newcomers without the language are easy targets for recruitment. Reid and company see "English only" as the first rung in dismantling this important block of voters. That's why they are fighting "English only" so voraciously! The immigration issue is directly linked to maintaining a potent "Plebyeih."
It's probable that Rove has described "immigration reform" as another "toxic issue." It is. Marco Rubio learned that Tea Party support may evaporate following his efforts to produce something contrary to "unconditional deportation." Give him credit for tackling the problem! "McCain-Kennedy" was "amnesty," and nothing less. Presidents Bush and Obama supported "McCain-Kennedy." The D.R.E.A.M. Act had mostly partisan support. Rubio's idea is a scaled down version. Learning English has always been a part of all proposals. But there has never been a direct link to assimilation and citizenship in any plan. The same could be said for voter identification cards.
When you mention voter I.D. cards, Reid and his friends cry foul! According to Reverend Al Sharpton, this is nothing more than a tool of discrimination. In his mind(and obviously scores of Democrats)proponents of "English only," voter I.D. cards and anti-amnesty positions are racists, bigots, fascists and imperialists. Sharpton and evidently Reid believe that open borders, no official language and no required documentation lead to a better America, and maybe more Democrat voters.
Harry Reid's reasoning is relatively easy to fathom. The key to power within his party is grow the "Plebyeih." That equates to the continued "dumbing down" of large segments of the population. The more "Plebyeih" the better! When you have more than 50% of the country paying nothing into the system, Reid and cohorts will have won.
Mitt Romney certainly doesn't support this position! But what does he support? Spanish as the second official language? In witnessing his words in Puerto Rico, it would be logical to assume as much! Or maybe, he was just being his "trimmer" self?" There is always the third possibility, which brings us to the second dark side of America.
The very notion of "English only" reflects "excellence" in English. Totally zealous advocates such as myself strive for Americans to be the "masters of the English language." Better, even than the English themselves. Is this unrealistic? No. In fact, it opens the door to making the country stronger, smarter and more secure. Isn't this Governor Romney's objective?
Yes. Within reason. Like any noble cause "excellence in English," initiated by "English only" can have a negative backlash! The sequence is predictable.
In "E" is for English, "English only voting ballots" and "English only drivers license testing" are proposed. The position is supported by both "Pro English" and "English First." But the book goes one step further. While removing all other languages from government, it mandates six years of a second language in the public schools.The premise is simple: English understanding improves when a second language is formally learned. Producing multilingual high school graduates would result in a more cosmopolitan, more sophisticated society.
It's easy to understand why Reid, Sharpton and associates would fight such a measure. But Mitt Romney? In getting to know him, one would assume that he would embrace such action. Regretfully,"where there are roses there are thorns."
Under this practice America would be producing many more candidates for the service sector workplace. That, in in itself could pose a problem! A high school graduate would emerge bi-lingual, and likely unemployed. The book proposes making offshore outsourcing illegal for any job requiring the use of even part of an American's social security number.
Identity Theft is the fastest growing crime in America. There is growing suspicion that the rise is linked to the large numbers of service sector jobs that have been shipped to India, the Philippines and Central America. Fortune 500 companies would "howl" if such a standard became law. They would predict higher prices for everything, due to the expense equated with hiring American workers. This would almost certainly be Mitt Romney's stance.
The case has been made that "English only" will ultimately contribute to improved English literacy in America. In an abstract way, it's possible to link "Immigration reform" to "English only." But how does identity theft relate to "English only?"
An American monopoly on service sector jobs could be the end result of "English only." The rest of the world would be dismayed to learn that the United States had taken the position that "only Americans could be trusted with Americans social security numbers." It is a position totally contrary to that of globalists. For stockholders, it could prove costly.
In his book, "The World is Flat,"Thomas Friedman described a globalist intention to level the world's playing field. They would facilitate the super rich while bringing peace, harmony and economic parity to the inhabitants of our world. The proposed legislation unveiled in "E" is for English would, in the words of University of Kentucky ESL Professor, Dr. Kay Combs "run contrary" to this objective.
The idea of "English only" in America is the beginning. What's especially dangerous to both Communists and Globalists is that an overwhelming majority of Americans support it! The next step is to build a coalition. That coalition begins with those wanting to curtail identity theft. 100% of the country acknowledges the problem. Even Karl Rove would admit that Identity Theft curtailment is not a toxic issue!
From there we move to the next toxic issue: Immigration Reform. "E" is for English introduced a plan that deals with the present and future. It is directly linked to English proficiency. It would stipulate that anyone who planned to drive, work and vote in America, learn English. For newcomers it would amount to "accelerated assimilation." For illiterates with American roots spanning generations, it would finally mean "inclusion." Which bring us to the final toxic issue: Literacy.
None of the "English only" foundations have spoken the unthinkable. But I will and I did in "E" is for English. We are at a point in America where we must destroy the "Plebyeih." We simply cannot have Americans who are illiterate in English. English is the strand that binds us as one. It transcends all differences. Race, color, creed, sex, national origin, religious preference, it covers them all! We must accept nothing less than totally literacy. We must insure that every American has access to the American Dream.
Requiring a "fourth grade English proficiency test" as a prerequisite for a voter I.D. card will do it. Yes, this is a tough, new standard. It will take a constitutional amendment to do it. But, when we raise the bar, we will be saving millions from illiteracy and ignorance. True, literate masses are more difficult to control than illiterate masses. That's why Harry Reid and like minded "Plebyeih proponents" so vehemently oppose "English only." They would prefer an illiterate, Balkanized America.
This proposal is the ultimate in political incorrectness. It likely sets the gold standard for toxic issues!
"Would the majority of Americans favor it?" I believe that they would!
"English only" foundations have enjoyed marginal success. But the main objective remains unresolved for want of the right coalition. When joined by anti-identity theft groups,anti-voter fraud activists, and those wanting "fair, practical and comprehensive" immigration reform measures, the numbers are there. The education "purists" will follow. When opponents of "English only" are properly positioned as "Communists and Globalists" the battle lines will be drawn.
One remaining question: "Should we be satisfied with HR 997? Or, should we take advantage of the overwhelming support for "English only" to fix other needs?"
"E" is for English's aim is to "create a stronger, smarter, more secure America." Could we use "English only" as the catalyst for reforming immigration, eliminating voter fraud and curtailing identity theft? The book's proposed "American English Unification Amendment"("E" Amendment) addresses all issues, linking them to the goal of 100% literacy in America. It's a notion that nobody dared to dream!
The proposal comes at a time when an increasingly partisan America shows division not seen since 1861! Any concept offering constructive solutions in conjunction with unity measures should be studied. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that billions of tax payer dollars can be saved with the adoption of this legislation. It comes down to Congressmen and Senators looking past the "toxic," stop protecting their jobs and start doing them!
We must remember that the President will not be involved in the amendment process. Passage in the House and Senate will send it back to the states. We will need 37 states for ratification.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Tea Parties Can Produce a Winning Coalition
Chris Matthews doesn't get it.
The MSNBC anchor continues to see the Tea Party as "far right loons from fringe elements of the Republican Party." Perhaps it's time for him to step out of his "Boston bubble" and take a road trip across America!
Not that anyone in the Tea Party truly reveres the opinion of Chris Matthews! There is anger throughout the movement; at the Republican Establishment. It is a general conclusion that these holders of Ivy League diplomas forgot 2008. More conveniently they failed to remember 2010!
Conservatives can blame themselves in part. There were several candidates more acceptable than Mitt Romney. Maybe, too many! Then came the question of "which" Tea Party? And in getting down to the specifics, we realized that there was no clear preference.
To some Tea Parties, Ron Paul was the true conservative. To a lot of Kentuckians, he was the "Gatewood Galbreath" of Presidential elections. It seemed that he was always a candidate; on multiple parties, if my memory serves me correctly. The first one was probably the most accurate. While harboring some Republicans positions, it's fair to conclude that Congressman Paul is a Libertarian.
There are many Republicans who consider Texas Governor, Rick Perry a Democrat. True, Perry's positions were to the right of Mitt Romney's. But his historical involvement in Democrat politics raised some eyebrows. Never mind about his report card as Governor. The important thing to remember is that he was Al Gore's Texas campaign chairmen in 1988. Some have forgotten that the former VP ran for President in '88. Perry's people say that Gore was "different, much more conservative" in 1988!
The die-hard Newt Gingrich supporters must be given a medal; for stubbornness! As great of an orator as he is, Newt was never really electable. He would make a great Secretary of State. But his baggage is considerable.
Michelle Bachmann should have endorsed Perry. Instead, she tried to destroy him. She might have come away with the VP nod. Instead, she is likely going back to her law practice.
Rick Santorum was as unlikely as any candidate. He had no money and an extremist legacy. His 18-point loss in the Pennsylvania Senate race in 2006 signaled the end of his career. Yet he surprised everyone! Today, he is in excellent position for another Presidential run sometime in the future.
Many of us were hoping the Jeb Bush might declare. But he didn't. Now that he is voicing some mild interest in being the Vice President, we're saying, "why now, Jeb?"
April is not yet concluded and it appears that the Republican Establishment has gotten their wish! But what are the implications of a Romney nomination? If he wins, they will note, "we had to defeat Barack Obama." However, if he loses, they will be blamed. And probably divorced!
Ron Paul will make no more attempts at the presidency. His followers will push him for this years nomination. Don't look for it to happen. Still, his message of Constitutional conservatism will live. So will Rick Perry's "states rights, 10th amendment" conservatism. While Perry and Paul don't particularly like each other, their constitutional positions are very similar.
What is interesting is "what will happen to two distinct groups of overlooked and apparently forgotten voters?" They are "blue collar" Democrats and "Disaffecteds."
Who are "Disaffecteds?" Read Henry Olsen's article in the June 20th edition of National Review. They represent 20% of the country. Only 19% identify with the Tea Party. 77% are white. 67% are Independents. The average household income is $30,000 per year. 89% do not hold a college degree.
We frequently reference "blue collar" Democrats. They are often social conservatives. These are the voters Rick Santorum found willing to say "adios" to their party. Why? Because they have concluded that today's Democratic Party is not "the party of John F. Kennedy." West Virginia Senator, Joe Manchin is their idea of a "real Democrat."
These Democrats believe in the second amendment. They opposed both Cap and Trade and Obamacare. They also favor "uncool, politically incorrect ideas" such "prayer in the public schools, photo I.D. cards for voting and a fair tax." Governor Mike Huckabee found these Democrats. So did Ronald Reagan.
Could the Tea Party tent accommodate both groups? This is an important question. If the answer is "yes," we have sufficient numbers to take back America. But we must remember one thing: "These voters are not going to be impressed with "austerity measures" as outlined by some of the "young Tea Party Turks" in Congress! Find a way to cut the budget without compromising their meager entitlements and you win. But the first sign of "austerity measures;" as well as "shared sacrifice," you lose!
Can the Tea Party fill the bill?
We must first find ourselves. Then we need to tailor a platform that meets the needs of these key constituencies, while advancing our standard. But what is our standard? I thought the Tea Party was about restoring fiscal sanity to America. As Senator Rand Paul demonstrated in his plan, there is a way, if we reduce the size and cost of government. We can likewise make our entitlement system more efficient as Congressman Paul Ryan showed in his proposal. But we must do it without compromising our potentially winning coalition. Can this be done?
Yes. The "American English Unification Amendment"("E" Amendment) would bring it all together. And with it, these two groups would become part of a new Constitutional Republican Party. We say "Republic" because those unable to read at a 4th grade level would not participate in elections. Voter fraud would be eliminated. Identity Theft would be greatly reduced because no job that required an Americans' social security number could be outsourced offshore. Throw a real immigration reform plan into the mix and you have something that people can unite behind.
Amazingly the losers would be the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats. Democrats would lose their backbone. They would be left with Al Gore and the radical "greenies," the oligarchs (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros) etc., Hollywood and the "Plebyeih." Please read the passage on this blog "understanding the Plebyeih." They are the "ignorant, illiterate, know nothing masses" spouting slogans who make up a large part of Barack Obama's constituency.
They greatly resemble Joseph Stalin's banner carrying hacks of the 1920's in Soviet Russia.
The Republican Establishment would lose those working but making less than $200,000 per year. It's probable that they would attempt to become more socially liberal in an effort to pick up those "pro business liberals" Paul Tsongas identified in 1992.
But in looking at the map, this party would become more regional in scope. As Mitt Romney proved, they exist. But where and how many remains unanswered.
Meanwhile, the Tea Parties can emerge as the leaders of a new party in American that can dominate from the middle. Job creation through energy exploration, immigration reform, total literacy, a fair and more simplified tax system, a smaller, more efficient government and increased authority for the individual states, will result in a balanced budget. These simple goals can be stressed to this new coalition. Best of all, it need not include eliminating or compromising entitlements.
The MSNBC anchor continues to see the Tea Party as "far right loons from fringe elements of the Republican Party." Perhaps it's time for him to step out of his "Boston bubble" and take a road trip across America!
Not that anyone in the Tea Party truly reveres the opinion of Chris Matthews! There is anger throughout the movement; at the Republican Establishment. It is a general conclusion that these holders of Ivy League diplomas forgot 2008. More conveniently they failed to remember 2010!
Conservatives can blame themselves in part. There were several candidates more acceptable than Mitt Romney. Maybe, too many! Then came the question of "which" Tea Party? And in getting down to the specifics, we realized that there was no clear preference.
To some Tea Parties, Ron Paul was the true conservative. To a lot of Kentuckians, he was the "Gatewood Galbreath" of Presidential elections. It seemed that he was always a candidate; on multiple parties, if my memory serves me correctly. The first one was probably the most accurate. While harboring some Republicans positions, it's fair to conclude that Congressman Paul is a Libertarian.
There are many Republicans who consider Texas Governor, Rick Perry a Democrat. True, Perry's positions were to the right of Mitt Romney's. But his historical involvement in Democrat politics raised some eyebrows. Never mind about his report card as Governor. The important thing to remember is that he was Al Gore's Texas campaign chairmen in 1988. Some have forgotten that the former VP ran for President in '88. Perry's people say that Gore was "different, much more conservative" in 1988!
The die-hard Newt Gingrich supporters must be given a medal; for stubbornness! As great of an orator as he is, Newt was never really electable. He would make a great Secretary of State. But his baggage is considerable.
Michelle Bachmann should have endorsed Perry. Instead, she tried to destroy him. She might have come away with the VP nod. Instead, she is likely going back to her law practice.
Rick Santorum was as unlikely as any candidate. He had no money and an extremist legacy. His 18-point loss in the Pennsylvania Senate race in 2006 signaled the end of his career. Yet he surprised everyone! Today, he is in excellent position for another Presidential run sometime in the future.
Many of us were hoping the Jeb Bush might declare. But he didn't. Now that he is voicing some mild interest in being the Vice President, we're saying, "why now, Jeb?"
April is not yet concluded and it appears that the Republican Establishment has gotten their wish! But what are the implications of a Romney nomination? If he wins, they will note, "we had to defeat Barack Obama." However, if he loses, they will be blamed. And probably divorced!
Ron Paul will make no more attempts at the presidency. His followers will push him for this years nomination. Don't look for it to happen. Still, his message of Constitutional conservatism will live. So will Rick Perry's "states rights, 10th amendment" conservatism. While Perry and Paul don't particularly like each other, their constitutional positions are very similar.
What is interesting is "what will happen to two distinct groups of overlooked and apparently forgotten voters?" They are "blue collar" Democrats and "Disaffecteds."
Who are "Disaffecteds?" Read Henry Olsen's article in the June 20th edition of National Review. They represent 20% of the country. Only 19% identify with the Tea Party. 77% are white. 67% are Independents. The average household income is $30,000 per year. 89% do not hold a college degree.
We frequently reference "blue collar" Democrats. They are often social conservatives. These are the voters Rick Santorum found willing to say "adios" to their party. Why? Because they have concluded that today's Democratic Party is not "the party of John F. Kennedy." West Virginia Senator, Joe Manchin is their idea of a "real Democrat."
These Democrats believe in the second amendment. They opposed both Cap and Trade and Obamacare. They also favor "uncool, politically incorrect ideas" such "prayer in the public schools, photo I.D. cards for voting and a fair tax." Governor Mike Huckabee found these Democrats. So did Ronald Reagan.
Could the Tea Party tent accommodate both groups? This is an important question. If the answer is "yes," we have sufficient numbers to take back America. But we must remember one thing: "These voters are not going to be impressed with "austerity measures" as outlined by some of the "young Tea Party Turks" in Congress! Find a way to cut the budget without compromising their meager entitlements and you win. But the first sign of "austerity measures;" as well as "shared sacrifice," you lose!
Can the Tea Party fill the bill?
We must first find ourselves. Then we need to tailor a platform that meets the needs of these key constituencies, while advancing our standard. But what is our standard? I thought the Tea Party was about restoring fiscal sanity to America. As Senator Rand Paul demonstrated in his plan, there is a way, if we reduce the size and cost of government. We can likewise make our entitlement system more efficient as Congressman Paul Ryan showed in his proposal. But we must do it without compromising our potentially winning coalition. Can this be done?
Yes. The "American English Unification Amendment"("E" Amendment) would bring it all together. And with it, these two groups would become part of a new Constitutional Republican Party. We say "Republic" because those unable to read at a 4th grade level would not participate in elections. Voter fraud would be eliminated. Identity Theft would be greatly reduced because no job that required an Americans' social security number could be outsourced offshore. Throw a real immigration reform plan into the mix and you have something that people can unite behind.
Amazingly the losers would be the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats. Democrats would lose their backbone. They would be left with Al Gore and the radical "greenies," the oligarchs (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros) etc., Hollywood and the "Plebyeih." Please read the passage on this blog "understanding the Plebyeih." They are the "ignorant, illiterate, know nothing masses" spouting slogans who make up a large part of Barack Obama's constituency.
They greatly resemble Joseph Stalin's banner carrying hacks of the 1920's in Soviet Russia.
The Republican Establishment would lose those working but making less than $200,000 per year. It's probable that they would attempt to become more socially liberal in an effort to pick up those "pro business liberals" Paul Tsongas identified in 1992.
But in looking at the map, this party would become more regional in scope. As Mitt Romney proved, they exist. But where and how many remains unanswered.
Meanwhile, the Tea Parties can emerge as the leaders of a new party in American that can dominate from the middle. Job creation through energy exploration, immigration reform, total literacy, a fair and more simplified tax system, a smaller, more efficient government and increased authority for the individual states, will result in a balanced budget. These simple goals can be stressed to this new coalition. Best of all, it need not include eliminating or compromising entitlements.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
"Constitutionalists" versus "Neo-Cons"- The Approaching Train Wreck
Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul identified the divide in his book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington." Paul described the two sides in this manner:
"Neo-Conservative"- Those who believe that a large, Washington D.C. based government is necessary to facilitate conservative principles."
"Constitutionalist"- Those who believe in a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution; in essence a "more literal interpretation of the 10th amendment."
Sound complicated? It really isn't! But it does make it possible to hang a label on those competing for leadership in the Republican party. Both sides have their detractors. What complicates the divide is where and to what extent the detractors can ultimately lead the party.
"R.I.N.O."(Republican in name only)is a common label pinned on some "neo-cons." There is constant worry that Republicans who have been elected will crossover and vote with Democrats. Defenders say they "moderate" in order to "bring about a consensus." Critics call them "Republicrats." It comes from their comfort and acceptance of a big central government.
Constitutionalists open themselves up for such labels as "Anarchists" or "Racists." The more genteel descriptions are "Libertarian" or "States rights conservative." Liberal Democrats have contributed to these designations.
Up until recently any political leader who touted the 10th amendment was immediately pigeonholed as a cohort of Lester Maddox and George Wallace. This 1960's carryover related to integration. In 2012, the majority of America sees that correlation as an "anachronism." The 10th amendment is what it is: "A master blueprint for the protection and continuation of America."
Historically, those who defended the 10th amendment were Democrats. Dubbed "Dixiecrats" in the mid-20th century, they even mounted a presidential candidate in a national election in 1948. But they were regional and the part of the country that they represented was too small in population to make a national impact.
Throughout the years, these "Dixiecrats" remained registered Democrats. In the 1964 presidential election the majority cast their votes for Barry Goldwater. This began a trend of voting Republican in national elections. Jimmy Carter temporarily halted the trend in 1976. Then, as his left leaning agenda became fully exposed, these Democrats angrily voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Many sons and daughters of "Dixiecrats" left the Democrats for good. Others continued to be "registered" with their party, voting mostly for Republican candidates. The distinction held with their elected leaders. Called "boll weevils" these politicians continued to hold rank in the Democrat party. However, when the national party nominated Walter Mondale in '84 and Michael Dukakis in '88, holdouts such as Tommy Robinson of Arkansas and Ken Hance of Texas finally bolted. These eighties defectors included Texas Governor, Rick Perry.
The 1980's will always be remembered as the "great party switch." Southern conservatives defied tradition and became Republicans. Suddenly the Republican base was in the south.
To be sure, there continued to be Republicans in the tradition of Thomas Dewey and Nelson Rockefeller. They welcomed the newcomers from the standpoint that it equated to added voting clout. But they maintained their more centrist posture. Richard Nixon was typical. He was a fiscally moderate "Keynesian", a social moderate and a conservative on national defense. Gerald Ford continued that legacy. George Herbert Walker Bush was next in line.
Ronald Reagan reached out and connected with the "new Republicans." He bettered Bush in the primary and went on to set a new bar for Republicans, based on "supply side economics," social conservatism, low taxes, smaller government and a strong national defense. Baby boomers linked Reagan with recovery, success and where America could go if properly governed. Reagan had established a new standard for the party. And he had done it with a new constituency. They were called "Reagan Democrats."
The primary tool of the Reagan recovery was rediscovery of "federalism," or more responsibilities returned to the states. This principle was embraced by those later referred to as "Constitutionalists." While it was a notable success, it carried with it some red flags. The biggest concern was "where would it end?"
A constitutional purist,(some call them 10thers) believes in a systematic abandonment of the New Deal. Which translates to a systematic disassembling of Washington D.C. bureaucracies. In literal form this equates to closing Education, Energy, HUD, Commerce, Environmental Protection and likely FDA, returning the responsibilities to the states, along with block grants that would fund them.
Such a departure from the current system scares career Washingtonians. As Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell explained in his reasoning to oppose term limits, "it takes two terms for any Senator to develop the necessary relationships with key Washington bureaucrats." The Constutionalists say, "this is exactly why we need to move on it."
Neo-Conservatives are quick to point out flaws in the Constitutionalist argument. Two recently came to the forefront. One was the Massachusetts Healthcare law. Perhaps the greatest contrast between a true "Neo-Con," Rick Santorum and true "Constutitionalist," Rick Perry, surfaced in 2011.
Perry said that he opposed the idea of mandated health care coverage but Massachusetts had the right under the 10th amendment to pass such legislation. Santorum argued that mandated health care was un-constitutional under the constitution.
Their argument continued with New York's same sex marriage law. Santorum said that it should be prohibited nationally by law. Perry said that while he "supported a constitutional amendment defining sanctity of marriage," the New York legislature had the right to pass such legislation under the 10th amendment.
Santorum voted with 90 other Senators including the late Edward Kennedy for "No Child Left Behind." Perry used Kaye Bailey Hutchinson's "yes" vote on N.C.L.B. as a violation of states rights and soundly defeated her in the Texas 2010 Governors race.
Which brings us to our clash of perceptions, and probable split in the Republican party. Most Republican conservatives in power are "neo-cons." But most conservative Republicans are "constitutionalists." The real "beef" of the party no longer sits in Cambrige, Ithaca or New Haven. They now reside in Houston, Spartanburg and Provo.
The traditional Dewey-Rockefeller Republicans are more comfortable supporting a "neo-con" position because it is what it is: a position within the current system." The "constitutionalist" position signals a break and eventual destruction of the present norm. To return huge amounts of power(and money) to Austin or Nashville or Indianapolis would be synonymous with transferring control back to those locales! Sharing(in this case relinquishing) authority goes against human nature, unfortunately!
To date, traditional Republicans have suppressed these potential adversaries by saying "they are actually Democrats, not Republicans." Recently on a national Tea Party Blog, a Texas Republican reminded the readers that when Rick Perry switched parties he said "nothing has changed with me other than I now have an "R" by my name and not a "D".
For those who have been paying attention to the last thirty years, that's been the rule across the south! Perry was just being factual. His votes didn't change. They merely became consistent with his party label.
Of equal relevance are the vast numbers of "D.I.N.O.s"(Democrats in name only) who consider themselves "Constitutionalists." They may represent the tie breaker in who controls the conservative movement, especially if the arty splits. Most of these DINOS live in "red" states. While many voted for Clinton in '92(and Ross Perot)and '96, almost all voted for Bush in '00 and '04 and for McCain in '08.
They admit the only reason that they remain "registered Democrats" is a desire to vote in the local primary elections. Some quietly acknowledge their registration is for mere "protection." An unnamed DINO quietly admitted that "Eastern Kentucky Univerity has access through motor vehicles to party affiliation. If an applicant is a registered Republican, they are eliminated from employment consideration."
This kind of intimidation has actually been going on behind the scenes for decades, especially in the public sector. The emergence of a third party would change such practices forever. Expect nothing short of a tidal wave in both Republican and Democrat parties. And with better than 50% of the population claiming to be "Independent," nobody can guess where the lines could ultimately be drawn!
Which brings us to this years general election and 2016. Mitt Romney will face Barack Obama because he had consistent backing of the traditional Dewey-Rockefeller branch of the party. Even though they didn't equal one-third(perhaps not even one-fourth) of the party, it was enough to get him, in staggering fashion to the finish line. Why? Because the conservatives could not decide whether they wanted to be Constitutionalists or Neo-Cons! They will have four years to talk about it. Perhaps eight, if Romney wins.
"Neo-Conservative"- Those who believe that a large, Washington D.C. based government is necessary to facilitate conservative principles."
"Constitutionalist"- Those who believe in a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution; in essence a "more literal interpretation of the 10th amendment."
Sound complicated? It really isn't! But it does make it possible to hang a label on those competing for leadership in the Republican party. Both sides have their detractors. What complicates the divide is where and to what extent the detractors can ultimately lead the party.
"R.I.N.O."(Republican in name only)is a common label pinned on some "neo-cons." There is constant worry that Republicans who have been elected will crossover and vote with Democrats. Defenders say they "moderate" in order to "bring about a consensus." Critics call them "Republicrats." It comes from their comfort and acceptance of a big central government.
Constitutionalists open themselves up for such labels as "Anarchists" or "Racists." The more genteel descriptions are "Libertarian" or "States rights conservative." Liberal Democrats have contributed to these designations.
Up until recently any political leader who touted the 10th amendment was immediately pigeonholed as a cohort of Lester Maddox and George Wallace. This 1960's carryover related to integration. In 2012, the majority of America sees that correlation as an "anachronism." The 10th amendment is what it is: "A master blueprint for the protection and continuation of America."
Historically, those who defended the 10th amendment were Democrats. Dubbed "Dixiecrats" in the mid-20th century, they even mounted a presidential candidate in a national election in 1948. But they were regional and the part of the country that they represented was too small in population to make a national impact.
Throughout the years, these "Dixiecrats" remained registered Democrats. In the 1964 presidential election the majority cast their votes for Barry Goldwater. This began a trend of voting Republican in national elections. Jimmy Carter temporarily halted the trend in 1976. Then, as his left leaning agenda became fully exposed, these Democrats angrily voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Many sons and daughters of "Dixiecrats" left the Democrats for good. Others continued to be "registered" with their party, voting mostly for Republican candidates. The distinction held with their elected leaders. Called "boll weevils" these politicians continued to hold rank in the Democrat party. However, when the national party nominated Walter Mondale in '84 and Michael Dukakis in '88, holdouts such as Tommy Robinson of Arkansas and Ken Hance of Texas finally bolted. These eighties defectors included Texas Governor, Rick Perry.
The 1980's will always be remembered as the "great party switch." Southern conservatives defied tradition and became Republicans. Suddenly the Republican base was in the south.
To be sure, there continued to be Republicans in the tradition of Thomas Dewey and Nelson Rockefeller. They welcomed the newcomers from the standpoint that it equated to added voting clout. But they maintained their more centrist posture. Richard Nixon was typical. He was a fiscally moderate "Keynesian", a social moderate and a conservative on national defense. Gerald Ford continued that legacy. George Herbert Walker Bush was next in line.
Ronald Reagan reached out and connected with the "new Republicans." He bettered Bush in the primary and went on to set a new bar for Republicans, based on "supply side economics," social conservatism, low taxes, smaller government and a strong national defense. Baby boomers linked Reagan with recovery, success and where America could go if properly governed. Reagan had established a new standard for the party. And he had done it with a new constituency. They were called "Reagan Democrats."
The primary tool of the Reagan recovery was rediscovery of "federalism," or more responsibilities returned to the states. This principle was embraced by those later referred to as "Constitutionalists." While it was a notable success, it carried with it some red flags. The biggest concern was "where would it end?"
A constitutional purist,(some call them 10thers) believes in a systematic abandonment of the New Deal. Which translates to a systematic disassembling of Washington D.C. bureaucracies. In literal form this equates to closing Education, Energy, HUD, Commerce, Environmental Protection and likely FDA, returning the responsibilities to the states, along with block grants that would fund them.
Such a departure from the current system scares career Washingtonians. As Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell explained in his reasoning to oppose term limits, "it takes two terms for any Senator to develop the necessary relationships with key Washington bureaucrats." The Constutionalists say, "this is exactly why we need to move on it."
Neo-Conservatives are quick to point out flaws in the Constitutionalist argument. Two recently came to the forefront. One was the Massachusetts Healthcare law. Perhaps the greatest contrast between a true "Neo-Con," Rick Santorum and true "Constutitionalist," Rick Perry, surfaced in 2011.
Perry said that he opposed the idea of mandated health care coverage but Massachusetts had the right under the 10th amendment to pass such legislation. Santorum argued that mandated health care was un-constitutional under the constitution.
Their argument continued with New York's same sex marriage law. Santorum said that it should be prohibited nationally by law. Perry said that while he "supported a constitutional amendment defining sanctity of marriage," the New York legislature had the right to pass such legislation under the 10th amendment.
Santorum voted with 90 other Senators including the late Edward Kennedy for "No Child Left Behind." Perry used Kaye Bailey Hutchinson's "yes" vote on N.C.L.B. as a violation of states rights and soundly defeated her in the Texas 2010 Governors race.
Which brings us to our clash of perceptions, and probable split in the Republican party. Most Republican conservatives in power are "neo-cons." But most conservative Republicans are "constitutionalists." The real "beef" of the party no longer sits in Cambrige, Ithaca or New Haven. They now reside in Houston, Spartanburg and Provo.
The traditional Dewey-Rockefeller Republicans are more comfortable supporting a "neo-con" position because it is what it is: a position within the current system." The "constitutionalist" position signals a break and eventual destruction of the present norm. To return huge amounts of power(and money) to Austin or Nashville or Indianapolis would be synonymous with transferring control back to those locales! Sharing(in this case relinquishing) authority goes against human nature, unfortunately!
To date, traditional Republicans have suppressed these potential adversaries by saying "they are actually Democrats, not Republicans." Recently on a national Tea Party Blog, a Texas Republican reminded the readers that when Rick Perry switched parties he said "nothing has changed with me other than I now have an "R" by my name and not a "D".
For those who have been paying attention to the last thirty years, that's been the rule across the south! Perry was just being factual. His votes didn't change. They merely became consistent with his party label.
Of equal relevance are the vast numbers of "D.I.N.O.s"(Democrats in name only) who consider themselves "Constitutionalists." They may represent the tie breaker in who controls the conservative movement, especially if the arty splits. Most of these DINOS live in "red" states. While many voted for Clinton in '92(and Ross Perot)and '96, almost all voted for Bush in '00 and '04 and for McCain in '08.
They admit the only reason that they remain "registered Democrats" is a desire to vote in the local primary elections. Some quietly acknowledge their registration is for mere "protection." An unnamed DINO quietly admitted that "Eastern Kentucky Univerity has access through motor vehicles to party affiliation. If an applicant is a registered Republican, they are eliminated from employment consideration."
This kind of intimidation has actually been going on behind the scenes for decades, especially in the public sector. The emergence of a third party would change such practices forever. Expect nothing short of a tidal wave in both Republican and Democrat parties. And with better than 50% of the population claiming to be "Independent," nobody can guess where the lines could ultimately be drawn!
Which brings us to this years general election and 2016. Mitt Romney will face Barack Obama because he had consistent backing of the traditional Dewey-Rockefeller branch of the party. Even though they didn't equal one-third(perhaps not even one-fourth) of the party, it was enough to get him, in staggering fashion to the finish line. Why? Because the conservatives could not decide whether they wanted to be Constitutionalists or Neo-Cons! They will have four years to talk about it. Perhaps eight, if Romney wins.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Why Establishment Fears Rick Santorum
It is not because of his intense moral convictions. Nor, it is because he may alienate women or Independents. Rick Santorum goes against the proverbial Republican flow.
This 53-year old ex-Senator/Congressman has always been in his own way, a marvel. While Pennsylvania has tradionally leaned toward life due to it heavily Roman Catholic influence, it is what it is: A Northeastern, big labor, big union state. Santorum was the rule, never the exception.
When he announced his run for the Presidency everyone, including myself, felt that he would be the " Republican Dennis Kucinich" of the primary. He was a "pro-life, sanctity of marriage" ideologue. He was what Kentucky Senator Rand Paul would have described in his book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington," a "neo-con."
In short, Senator Santorum always had his admirers. His chances in the GOP primary would have been described as "none and none." However, this was 2012. Nothing went according to script!
When you are seen to be out of the race before the race starts, you do have one advantage: You aren't on the radar. The remaining candidates saw Santorum as a "one and doner." He would quietly make his best pitch to the small towns in Iowa, finish sixth or seventh and be through. As we know, this isn't how it unfolded!
Amazingly, Senator Santorum reaped the most delegates in Iowa. What was even more incredible is that he didn't learn this fact until a week later! When the public finally realized that Mitt Romney had indeed not won Iowa, there was a pause, then the Establishment resumed their plea to call the race. Then, as we know, an aggrieved Newt Gingrich exercised "payback" over the airwaves against Romney. Romney's antics(actually it was his Super Pac)in Iowa were vigorously returned.
Meanwhile, a cash strapped Santorum weighed his options. What may have kept him in the race was the endorsement of some key Evangelical leaders in Texas. This surprised everyone, including Santorum! Most had expected Texas Governor, Rick Perry to be the beneficiary!
Still Santorum looked doomed. Gingrich won handily in South Carolina. Florida was a "brass knucks brawl" with Romney's great war chest ultimately determining the outcome. Santorum briefly returned home to attend to his ailing baby daughter. He looked cooked! Gingrich was throbbing from the millions spent on negative ads by Romney's Super Pac.
The Establishment renewed it's call to end the race. Fred Thompson accurately pointed out that only 10% of the delegates had been determined.
Romney moved on to win Morman friendly Nevada. Then came Santorum's pivotal sweep of Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado. Everything seemed to turn. Contributions began to come in. Gingrich hinted at what many were already secretly thinking: Romney should withdraw from the race, for the sake of party unity.
This was the high water mark for Rick Santorum. Everything had been stacked against him. Suddenly he was polling ahead in Michigan, Ohio and several key states. The "bluebloods" took notice. Romney again opened his warchest. The negative ads began to fly. We know the rest of the story.
The questions became "why" was the party Establishment so afraid of Santorum? Why were they so quick to push Mitt Romney at the conservative base? It was apparent that conservatives never warmed to the former Massachusetts Governor. In fact, most were looking at any option other than Mitt Romney.
We must mention that a large percentage of party faithful were doing their best to "buy" Romney. "Mitt Romney's like a can of beer in the morning." one Tea Party head compared. "In the afternoon, he looks better than he did eight hours earlier."
Santorum's verbal attacks on Romney grew sharper. He pointed out to voters that Romneycare was the preamble to Obamacare. He reminded voters of his own consistent stances on abortion, the bailouts and green energy. Romney continued to outspend him anywhere from 6-1 to 20-1 and in doing so, violated Ronald Reagan's axiom.
Through it all, the Establishment was persistent in it's call for the race to be over. Their propaganda ministry, AKA as Fox News was even accused of "shilling" for Mitt Romney by Santorum.
Then came the endorsements. It started with New Jersey Governor,Chris Christie. That was explainable. He owed California Republican, Carly Fiorina a favor. South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley obviously was promised something. Ditto for Haley Barbour. Then came Paul Ryan's "Harrumph" and finally Jeb Bush's stamp of approval. Marco Rubio's endorsement and subsequent plea for Santorum to exit was supposed to have ended it.
The question is, "why?"
"Why" is the party so focused on wrapping up the nomination in April? We finished '08 early and as I recall the Democrats took theirs into June. If '08 was an indication, declaring John McCain the winner wasn't the recipe for success! Perhaps it's due to Santorum's being "against the flow."
Santorum's Republican version is, in the minds of Fortune 500 CEO's "an anachromism." He talks about "the family, the job at the factory and the church." That's a different America. It may be what the "angry white male" longs for, but it's the past. In fact, "protection for American industry," while the original hallmark of the party, is now looked upon with suspicion, if not contempt by these corporate heads. There remains the question of where Santorum stands with organized labor.
Rick Santorum has voted against anti-right-to-work measures repeatedly, throughout his career. He is perceived to be a closet protectionist. He proposes bringing manufacturing jobs home. He has hinted that offshore outsourcing might be curbed. He is talking about an America that, according the National Review, doesn't exist anymore.
This could be a problem for Globalists. When you look at the Fortune 500 companies that support Mitt Romney, a Santorum administration could throw a monkey wrench into their plans. Romney has flip flopped on green energy. Santorum is about "going for it." Basically, these "blue collar jobs with high wages, benefits and union protection are what America is all about!" In other words, initiating coal, natural gas and oil exploration at a rate never seen before in this country; in the name of "job creation and national security," trump all other concerns!
Sounds good to "Joe Six Pack." To the "big boys" it could complicate things. It is akin to Governor Huckabee proposing a "fair tax." We're talking about, as they say in Arkansas, "upsetting the apple cart."
At this point some readers may becoming angry. "Why" would our Republican leaders be so willing to get behind an unpopular front runner when his opponent clearly better resonates with the country? Simple. Romney is part of the elite. He is the candidate of Fortune 500 companies, Wall Street and the big banks. He represents the system, the current status quo. Santorum is an outsider. Sure, he has made recent strides and has climbed the ladder nicely. But he is from a Plebeian past. Furthermore, his "working class" ideas are not in step with our leaderships' globalistic agenda.
Okay. "Bluebloods" like other "bluebloods." But what about guys like Marco Rubio. His past mirrors Santorum's to an extent. Two years ago, he was campaigning against the "Arlen Specter wing of the party." Rubio is another discussion for another writing. But he was clearly co-opted by an Establishment who has promised him something. What? That's a million dollar question! But, write it down! It's worth a lot!
Is there any path to the nomination for Santorum? It looks hopeless. But stranger things have happened. On delegate count alone, Romney should be there. But if he falls short, there will be another discussion. It probably won't make a difference BUT, with a party split on the horizon, it's imprudent to rule out the impossible.
A lot will depend on how strong Obama looks in July. If Obamacare is overturned the President will be in an interesting position. As Dick Morris suggested, "his two main achievements were the Stimulus and Obamacare. The Stimulus failed and if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, he will have nothing to run on save failure."
How will this impact the Republican convention? Nobody honestly knows! Obamacare's overturn should result in a combination of "relief and anger." The fact that Mitt Romney supported government mandated health care in his home state will not be forgotten. There will be countless arguments over the actual unemployment numbers. Energy exploration will likely be the issue most frequently discussed at the convention.
The stage could finally be set for a third party emergence in 2016. If Romney is the nominee and loses in November, BANK ON IT!
This 53-year old ex-Senator/Congressman has always been in his own way, a marvel. While Pennsylvania has tradionally leaned toward life due to it heavily Roman Catholic influence, it is what it is: A Northeastern, big labor, big union state. Santorum was the rule, never the exception.
When he announced his run for the Presidency everyone, including myself, felt that he would be the " Republican Dennis Kucinich" of the primary. He was a "pro-life, sanctity of marriage" ideologue. He was what Kentucky Senator Rand Paul would have described in his book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington," a "neo-con."
In short, Senator Santorum always had his admirers. His chances in the GOP primary would have been described as "none and none." However, this was 2012. Nothing went according to script!
When you are seen to be out of the race before the race starts, you do have one advantage: You aren't on the radar. The remaining candidates saw Santorum as a "one and doner." He would quietly make his best pitch to the small towns in Iowa, finish sixth or seventh and be through. As we know, this isn't how it unfolded!
Amazingly, Senator Santorum reaped the most delegates in Iowa. What was even more incredible is that he didn't learn this fact until a week later! When the public finally realized that Mitt Romney had indeed not won Iowa, there was a pause, then the Establishment resumed their plea to call the race. Then, as we know, an aggrieved Newt Gingrich exercised "payback" over the airwaves against Romney. Romney's antics(actually it was his Super Pac)in Iowa were vigorously returned.
Meanwhile, a cash strapped Santorum weighed his options. What may have kept him in the race was the endorsement of some key Evangelical leaders in Texas. This surprised everyone, including Santorum! Most had expected Texas Governor, Rick Perry to be the beneficiary!
Still Santorum looked doomed. Gingrich won handily in South Carolina. Florida was a "brass knucks brawl" with Romney's great war chest ultimately determining the outcome. Santorum briefly returned home to attend to his ailing baby daughter. He looked cooked! Gingrich was throbbing from the millions spent on negative ads by Romney's Super Pac.
The Establishment renewed it's call to end the race. Fred Thompson accurately pointed out that only 10% of the delegates had been determined.
Romney moved on to win Morman friendly Nevada. Then came Santorum's pivotal sweep of Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado. Everything seemed to turn. Contributions began to come in. Gingrich hinted at what many were already secretly thinking: Romney should withdraw from the race, for the sake of party unity.
This was the high water mark for Rick Santorum. Everything had been stacked against him. Suddenly he was polling ahead in Michigan, Ohio and several key states. The "bluebloods" took notice. Romney again opened his warchest. The negative ads began to fly. We know the rest of the story.
The questions became "why" was the party Establishment so afraid of Santorum? Why were they so quick to push Mitt Romney at the conservative base? It was apparent that conservatives never warmed to the former Massachusetts Governor. In fact, most were looking at any option other than Mitt Romney.
We must mention that a large percentage of party faithful were doing their best to "buy" Romney. "Mitt Romney's like a can of beer in the morning." one Tea Party head compared. "In the afternoon, he looks better than he did eight hours earlier."
Santorum's verbal attacks on Romney grew sharper. He pointed out to voters that Romneycare was the preamble to Obamacare. He reminded voters of his own consistent stances on abortion, the bailouts and green energy. Romney continued to outspend him anywhere from 6-1 to 20-1 and in doing so, violated Ronald Reagan's axiom.
Through it all, the Establishment was persistent in it's call for the race to be over. Their propaganda ministry, AKA as Fox News was even accused of "shilling" for Mitt Romney by Santorum.
Then came the endorsements. It started with New Jersey Governor,Chris Christie. That was explainable. He owed California Republican, Carly Fiorina a favor. South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley obviously was promised something. Ditto for Haley Barbour. Then came Paul Ryan's "Harrumph" and finally Jeb Bush's stamp of approval. Marco Rubio's endorsement and subsequent plea for Santorum to exit was supposed to have ended it.
The question is, "why?"
"Why" is the party so focused on wrapping up the nomination in April? We finished '08 early and as I recall the Democrats took theirs into June. If '08 was an indication, declaring John McCain the winner wasn't the recipe for success! Perhaps it's due to Santorum's being "against the flow."
Santorum's Republican version is, in the minds of Fortune 500 CEO's "an anachromism." He talks about "the family, the job at the factory and the church." That's a different America. It may be what the "angry white male" longs for, but it's the past. In fact, "protection for American industry," while the original hallmark of the party, is now looked upon with suspicion, if not contempt by these corporate heads. There remains the question of where Santorum stands with organized labor.
Rick Santorum has voted against anti-right-to-work measures repeatedly, throughout his career. He is perceived to be a closet protectionist. He proposes bringing manufacturing jobs home. He has hinted that offshore outsourcing might be curbed. He is talking about an America that, according the National Review, doesn't exist anymore.
This could be a problem for Globalists. When you look at the Fortune 500 companies that support Mitt Romney, a Santorum administration could throw a monkey wrench into their plans. Romney has flip flopped on green energy. Santorum is about "going for it." Basically, these "blue collar jobs with high wages, benefits and union protection are what America is all about!" In other words, initiating coal, natural gas and oil exploration at a rate never seen before in this country; in the name of "job creation and national security," trump all other concerns!
Sounds good to "Joe Six Pack." To the "big boys" it could complicate things. It is akin to Governor Huckabee proposing a "fair tax." We're talking about, as they say in Arkansas, "upsetting the apple cart."
At this point some readers may becoming angry. "Why" would our Republican leaders be so willing to get behind an unpopular front runner when his opponent clearly better resonates with the country? Simple. Romney is part of the elite. He is the candidate of Fortune 500 companies, Wall Street and the big banks. He represents the system, the current status quo. Santorum is an outsider. Sure, he has made recent strides and has climbed the ladder nicely. But he is from a Plebeian past. Furthermore, his "working class" ideas are not in step with our leaderships' globalistic agenda.
Okay. "Bluebloods" like other "bluebloods." But what about guys like Marco Rubio. His past mirrors Santorum's to an extent. Two years ago, he was campaigning against the "Arlen Specter wing of the party." Rubio is another discussion for another writing. But he was clearly co-opted by an Establishment who has promised him something. What? That's a million dollar question! But, write it down! It's worth a lot!
Is there any path to the nomination for Santorum? It looks hopeless. But stranger things have happened. On delegate count alone, Romney should be there. But if he falls short, there will be another discussion. It probably won't make a difference BUT, with a party split on the horizon, it's imprudent to rule out the impossible.
A lot will depend on how strong Obama looks in July. If Obamacare is overturned the President will be in an interesting position. As Dick Morris suggested, "his two main achievements were the Stimulus and Obamacare. The Stimulus failed and if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, he will have nothing to run on save failure."
How will this impact the Republican convention? Nobody honestly knows! Obamacare's overturn should result in a combination of "relief and anger." The fact that Mitt Romney supported government mandated health care in his home state will not be forgotten. There will be countless arguments over the actual unemployment numbers. Energy exploration will likely be the issue most frequently discussed at the convention.
The stage could finally be set for a third party emergence in 2016. If Romney is the nominee and loses in November, BANK ON IT!
Sunday, March 25, 2012
"Behind the Scenes Workings"
The Republican party bosses wanted this race over early. They would have been happy to have called it for Mitt Romney prior to the South Carolina primary. Unfortunately, there were a few "annoyances and hiccups.!"
For a few days it looked like Romney had it locked up. He had won Iowa and New Hampshire. He had the endorsement of South Carolina Governor(and Tea Party darling) Nikki Haley. The one Republican who was originally feared to be his most formitable opponent, Rick Perry, "was returning to Texas to access" his campaign. The primary was thought to be a "done deal."
Then came the first "hiccup." Rick Santorum had actually won Iowa. True, the former Pennsylvania Senator had not received the "bump" that he should have gotten after his unlikely win in Iowa. That had unjustly gone to Romney. The "annoyance" came in the form of payback from Newt Gingrich.
Smarting from the super PAC TV pummeling he took in Iowa, the former Speaker retaliated. Recession ridden, South Carolina became acquainted with "Bain Capital Mitt," the downsizer and outsourcer of small business in rural Americana. Gingrich's super PAC onslaught coupled with a solid debate performance delivered the Palmetto State.
Turn-about is fair play. Especially when you have a "Restore our Future" super PAC in your court. The result was a devastating blitz of more negative ads in Florida. Gingrich couldn't effectively respond. His campaign has never been the same; although he did score a convincing win in Georgia. It might be noted that Santorum had cut the campaign short to attend to his special needs daughter's illness in Pennsylvania.
Perhaps Romney strategists never took Rick Santorum seriously. There was certainly reason for it! He had no money and it looked like his campaign would dry up for lack thereof. Then came the sweep. Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri Santorum won in surprising fashion. Romney was quick to downplay all three losses. Missouri was actually nothing more than a straw poll. Romney didn't campaign in Minnesota. Colorado was a disappointment but it had an annoying number of "very conservative" voters.
Most disconcerting was that Michigan and Ohio were suddenly battlegrounds. Romney narrowly won both. But he was forced to pay a "pound of flesh" to do it. The payment came in the form of negative ads from his super PAC. Not to mention his own war chest! Santorum's fundraising efforts improved. But they came from $50 and $100 dollar contributions. His camp was gravely acknowledging how difficult it was to compete with Fortune 500 pocketbooks!
Also coming up short was Santorum's organization. He failed to make get on the Virginia ballot. Ohio was much closer than the lopsided delegate total. The trend of winning in the suburbs continued for Romney and resumed in Illinois. He was dominant with voters in households that boasted 200k plus incomes.
Throughout it all, Santorum continued to deliver the "blue collar," moderate income voters. His performance in Dixie has been impressive. Newt's disappointing finish in Louisiana may be a sign of things to come. But for now, he's still in the race.
Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia are "winner take all." There are 98 delegates at stake. A Romney sweep will once again bring out calls to end the primary and declare Romney the winner. This happened after Illinois, although nobody really thought that Romney would lose. So what is happening behind the scenes?
Florida Governor, Jeb Bush's endorsement may be a clue. So might Jim Demint's unofficial blessing. They are saying it's "time to focus on the general election." They emphasize the importance of "unity within party ranks." The subjectively point to Romney's assumed electability. What they are not stressing is "why" Rick Santorum would not be a viable alternative.
There is fear that the party may split, and for good reason. Conservatives never settled on one candidate. In the fall debates there was constant emphasis and magnification of "non general election issues." Three candidates with executive experience exited the race. Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin(not to mention Bush) never became candidates. Considering the stakes, it wasn't the strongest of fields!
Some say that Santorum survived only because he was never on the radar. As we move in the "second half" of the primary season, he looks to be the only possible option to Mitt Romney. So why is Romney having such a difficult time closing the deal? Maybe it's because conservatives see him for what he is!
As one good friend in Fort Lauderdale phraised it, "Mitt Romney is a carbon copy of Bill Clinton. If you liked Bill Clinton, you'll love Mitt Romney. He's Clinton, without the sex scandals."
Don..., a lifelong Democrat admitted to having voted for Obama in '08. "But," as he surmised, "Obama turned out to be a lot more liberal than advertised." He will "enthusiastically" vote for Mitt Romney if he is the Republican nominee.
Don's perception seems to be consistent with most fellow Jewish voters in Broward County. Describing himself as a "Bill Clinton Democrat," Don thought that Hillary was "too polarizing." He had voted for Obama, thinking that he would be more moderate. He compares Romney to former Massachusetts Governor, William Weld, former Florida Governor, Charlie Crist and certain prominent Democrats.
"Mitt is similar to his old friend, Paul Tsongas." Don added. Tsongas, who ran unsuccessfully for President in 1992 as a Democrat, described himself as a "pro-business liberal."
There are perhaps millions of voters like Don in America. The Republican establishment thinks so. These "moderate Democrats to mushy Republicans,"living in the suburbs are comfortable with Mitt Romney. Many voted for Obama in 2008 and are unsatisfied, if not angry with his report card. The question becomes, "are these voters numerous enough to make the difference?"
Republicans are nearly unanimous in their preference for Marco Rubio as the Vice Presidential pick. Romney's glaring weakness with Hispanics would be greatly diminished with Marco on the bottom of the ticket. "Blue collar" Democrats gravitate to him. Younger voters see him as a "rock star." His record with women voters is impressive. Experts believe that he would deliver five key states to Romney.
At 41, Rubio would be positioning himself for a future presidential run. His close friend and mentor Jeb Bush has endorsed Romney. Why would there be hesitation? Maybe it's due to Romney being a "carbon copy" of the man he routed in the Florida Senate race.
A heavy underdog, Rubio overcame Republican national money and a cold shoulder from party leadership to run an unlikely campaign against an incumbant governor. Throughout the race, he never referred to Charlie Crist by name. He labeled him "the Arlen Specter wing" of the party. It's possible, if not probable that he sees Romney in the same light.
Rubio has not endorsed any of the candidates. But it might be noted that his people worked on the Gingrich campaign. It's also fact that Crist's former staffers aided the Romney Florida campaign. Rubio has admitted that he and Romney were "in agreement" on foreign affairs. Domestically, Rubio is a "supply sider." Romney is a "Keynesian."
In 2008, Rubio supported Governor Huckabee and applauds his "fair tax" proposal. Romney is a "progressive." Unlike Rubio, who favors an overhaul of the current tax system, Romney seems to be satisfied with adjusting the current structure. Romney believes that small business is the "backbone" of America. Most of Romney's financial support is coming from Fortune 500 companies.
In short, these two men are miles apart on most things. Without question, Romney would be happier to have a Bob McDonald, Mitch Daniels or Chris Chrisie as his running mate. But Governor Romney is a smart man. He knows that without the voters Rubio brings, he's in trouble.
There is concern that conservatives may revolt if Romney is the nominee and loses in the general election. This has been a long time in coming. That time could be upon us. Rubio could check that, turning a loss into a win. The Repubican Establishment is keenly aware of this.
In short, "will Marco Rubio do one for the team?" The "bluebloods" are utterly counting on it. But what if he doesn't?
Then there is the question of Romney failing to procure the necessary 1144 delegates. He is confident that he will get there. A sweep of Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia will be big and it could happen. Santorum isn't on the ballot in D.C..Romney is polling ahead in Maryland. Wisconsin is still up for grabs. A Santorum win in the Badger state could prolong the outcome through May. The inevitability of a brokered convention would look more probable than ever! Then what?
Establishment types do not want Santorum as the nominee. Not because he can't beat Obama! He can and would be actually stronger than Romney in the general election. However, his past anti-right-to-work votes make big business nervous.His plan calls for bringing manufacturing jobs back to our shores. Some see him as a "closet protectionist."
Romney's aide's now famous, "etch-a-sketch" analogy has become a keynote in the campaign. This hints to the fear that Romney has an alternative message for general election voters. Establishment fears the same from Santorum. Not that he would attempt to "remake" his campaign! A better description would be to "complete it."
There is no way to discuss renewed manufacturing in America without including measures to curb offshore outsourcing. This is a sensitive subject in California and the Industrial Midwest especially. Santorum is from a part of America that has been hurt by jobs shipped abroad for promise of fewer regulations and cheaper wages. Republicans agree on the regulations but not on the wages. A Santorum administration could easily introduce legislation that would tax companies who chose to ship jobs overseas. It wouldn't bode well for Fortune 500 companies.
That's why there will be an all out effort to convince Marco Rubio that he needs to be Romney's running mate. If he gives the Establishment bosses the same cold shoulder that they gave him in 2009, all bets are off. He might even do the "unthinkable" and endorse Santorum!
What about Newt? He has vowed that he will stay in the race until Tampa. Still, there is the chance that if he finishes May with 200 delegates and a real chance to thwart Romney's bid, he might do it.
Californa has 172 delegates in a winner take all primary. Romney holds the lead, but does not have a majority. If Gingrich chose to endorse Santorum and actively campaigned for him, it might be enough.
Ron Paul doesn't look to drop out. California has a strong representation of Libertarians. It's conceivable that the Texas Congressman could take 10-12% of the overall votes cast. Odds are, three fourth of Gingrich's supporters would back Santorum. There is also the chance that some of the other GOP heavyweights such as Sarah Palin might jump in on behalf of Santorum.
Anyway you cut it, even with super delegate help, Romney would be in deep trouble if he loses California. The Establishment hopes that these super delegates won't be needed. But if Romney shows up to Tampa with 1000 delegates, look for Santorum to be the nominee.
That's exactly why the "wheels are turning" behind the scenes. A Rubio endorsement of Romney could seal the deal nicely! And certainly more safely!
For a few days it looked like Romney had it locked up. He had won Iowa and New Hampshire. He had the endorsement of South Carolina Governor(and Tea Party darling) Nikki Haley. The one Republican who was originally feared to be his most formitable opponent, Rick Perry, "was returning to Texas to access" his campaign. The primary was thought to be a "done deal."
Then came the first "hiccup." Rick Santorum had actually won Iowa. True, the former Pennsylvania Senator had not received the "bump" that he should have gotten after his unlikely win in Iowa. That had unjustly gone to Romney. The "annoyance" came in the form of payback from Newt Gingrich.
Smarting from the super PAC TV pummeling he took in Iowa, the former Speaker retaliated. Recession ridden, South Carolina became acquainted with "Bain Capital Mitt," the downsizer and outsourcer of small business in rural Americana. Gingrich's super PAC onslaught coupled with a solid debate performance delivered the Palmetto State.
Turn-about is fair play. Especially when you have a "Restore our Future" super PAC in your court. The result was a devastating blitz of more negative ads in Florida. Gingrich couldn't effectively respond. His campaign has never been the same; although he did score a convincing win in Georgia. It might be noted that Santorum had cut the campaign short to attend to his special needs daughter's illness in Pennsylvania.
Perhaps Romney strategists never took Rick Santorum seriously. There was certainly reason for it! He had no money and it looked like his campaign would dry up for lack thereof. Then came the sweep. Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri Santorum won in surprising fashion. Romney was quick to downplay all three losses. Missouri was actually nothing more than a straw poll. Romney didn't campaign in Minnesota. Colorado was a disappointment but it had an annoying number of "very conservative" voters.
Most disconcerting was that Michigan and Ohio were suddenly battlegrounds. Romney narrowly won both. But he was forced to pay a "pound of flesh" to do it. The payment came in the form of negative ads from his super PAC. Not to mention his own war chest! Santorum's fundraising efforts improved. But they came from $50 and $100 dollar contributions. His camp was gravely acknowledging how difficult it was to compete with Fortune 500 pocketbooks!
Also coming up short was Santorum's organization. He failed to make get on the Virginia ballot. Ohio was much closer than the lopsided delegate total. The trend of winning in the suburbs continued for Romney and resumed in Illinois. He was dominant with voters in households that boasted 200k plus incomes.
Throughout it all, Santorum continued to deliver the "blue collar," moderate income voters. His performance in Dixie has been impressive. Newt's disappointing finish in Louisiana may be a sign of things to come. But for now, he's still in the race.
Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia are "winner take all." There are 98 delegates at stake. A Romney sweep will once again bring out calls to end the primary and declare Romney the winner. This happened after Illinois, although nobody really thought that Romney would lose. So what is happening behind the scenes?
Florida Governor, Jeb Bush's endorsement may be a clue. So might Jim Demint's unofficial blessing. They are saying it's "time to focus on the general election." They emphasize the importance of "unity within party ranks." The subjectively point to Romney's assumed electability. What they are not stressing is "why" Rick Santorum would not be a viable alternative.
There is fear that the party may split, and for good reason. Conservatives never settled on one candidate. In the fall debates there was constant emphasis and magnification of "non general election issues." Three candidates with executive experience exited the race. Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin(not to mention Bush) never became candidates. Considering the stakes, it wasn't the strongest of fields!
Some say that Santorum survived only because he was never on the radar. As we move in the "second half" of the primary season, he looks to be the only possible option to Mitt Romney. So why is Romney having such a difficult time closing the deal? Maybe it's because conservatives see him for what he is!
As one good friend in Fort Lauderdale phraised it, "Mitt Romney is a carbon copy of Bill Clinton. If you liked Bill Clinton, you'll love Mitt Romney. He's Clinton, without the sex scandals."
Don..., a lifelong Democrat admitted to having voted for Obama in '08. "But," as he surmised, "Obama turned out to be a lot more liberal than advertised." He will "enthusiastically" vote for Mitt Romney if he is the Republican nominee.
Don's perception seems to be consistent with most fellow Jewish voters in Broward County. Describing himself as a "Bill Clinton Democrat," Don thought that Hillary was "too polarizing." He had voted for Obama, thinking that he would be more moderate. He compares Romney to former Massachusetts Governor, William Weld, former Florida Governor, Charlie Crist and certain prominent Democrats.
"Mitt is similar to his old friend, Paul Tsongas." Don added. Tsongas, who ran unsuccessfully for President in 1992 as a Democrat, described himself as a "pro-business liberal."
There are perhaps millions of voters like Don in America. The Republican establishment thinks so. These "moderate Democrats to mushy Republicans,"living in the suburbs are comfortable with Mitt Romney. Many voted for Obama in 2008 and are unsatisfied, if not angry with his report card. The question becomes, "are these voters numerous enough to make the difference?"
Republicans are nearly unanimous in their preference for Marco Rubio as the Vice Presidential pick. Romney's glaring weakness with Hispanics would be greatly diminished with Marco on the bottom of the ticket. "Blue collar" Democrats gravitate to him. Younger voters see him as a "rock star." His record with women voters is impressive. Experts believe that he would deliver five key states to Romney.
At 41, Rubio would be positioning himself for a future presidential run. His close friend and mentor Jeb Bush has endorsed Romney. Why would there be hesitation? Maybe it's due to Romney being a "carbon copy" of the man he routed in the Florida Senate race.
A heavy underdog, Rubio overcame Republican national money and a cold shoulder from party leadership to run an unlikely campaign against an incumbant governor. Throughout the race, he never referred to Charlie Crist by name. He labeled him "the Arlen Specter wing" of the party. It's possible, if not probable that he sees Romney in the same light.
Rubio has not endorsed any of the candidates. But it might be noted that his people worked on the Gingrich campaign. It's also fact that Crist's former staffers aided the Romney Florida campaign. Rubio has admitted that he and Romney were "in agreement" on foreign affairs. Domestically, Rubio is a "supply sider." Romney is a "Keynesian."
In 2008, Rubio supported Governor Huckabee and applauds his "fair tax" proposal. Romney is a "progressive." Unlike Rubio, who favors an overhaul of the current tax system, Romney seems to be satisfied with adjusting the current structure. Romney believes that small business is the "backbone" of America. Most of Romney's financial support is coming from Fortune 500 companies.
In short, these two men are miles apart on most things. Without question, Romney would be happier to have a Bob McDonald, Mitch Daniels or Chris Chrisie as his running mate. But Governor Romney is a smart man. He knows that without the voters Rubio brings, he's in trouble.
There is concern that conservatives may revolt if Romney is the nominee and loses in the general election. This has been a long time in coming. That time could be upon us. Rubio could check that, turning a loss into a win. The Repubican Establishment is keenly aware of this.
In short, "will Marco Rubio do one for the team?" The "bluebloods" are utterly counting on it. But what if he doesn't?
Then there is the question of Romney failing to procure the necessary 1144 delegates. He is confident that he will get there. A sweep of Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia will be big and it could happen. Santorum isn't on the ballot in D.C..Romney is polling ahead in Maryland. Wisconsin is still up for grabs. A Santorum win in the Badger state could prolong the outcome through May. The inevitability of a brokered convention would look more probable than ever! Then what?
Establishment types do not want Santorum as the nominee. Not because he can't beat Obama! He can and would be actually stronger than Romney in the general election. However, his past anti-right-to-work votes make big business nervous.His plan calls for bringing manufacturing jobs back to our shores. Some see him as a "closet protectionist."
Romney's aide's now famous, "etch-a-sketch" analogy has become a keynote in the campaign. This hints to the fear that Romney has an alternative message for general election voters. Establishment fears the same from Santorum. Not that he would attempt to "remake" his campaign! A better description would be to "complete it."
There is no way to discuss renewed manufacturing in America without including measures to curb offshore outsourcing. This is a sensitive subject in California and the Industrial Midwest especially. Santorum is from a part of America that has been hurt by jobs shipped abroad for promise of fewer regulations and cheaper wages. Republicans agree on the regulations but not on the wages. A Santorum administration could easily introduce legislation that would tax companies who chose to ship jobs overseas. It wouldn't bode well for Fortune 500 companies.
That's why there will be an all out effort to convince Marco Rubio that he needs to be Romney's running mate. If he gives the Establishment bosses the same cold shoulder that they gave him in 2009, all bets are off. He might even do the "unthinkable" and endorse Santorum!
What about Newt? He has vowed that he will stay in the race until Tampa. Still, there is the chance that if he finishes May with 200 delegates and a real chance to thwart Romney's bid, he might do it.
Californa has 172 delegates in a winner take all primary. Romney holds the lead, but does not have a majority. If Gingrich chose to endorse Santorum and actively campaigned for him, it might be enough.
Ron Paul doesn't look to drop out. California has a strong representation of Libertarians. It's conceivable that the Texas Congressman could take 10-12% of the overall votes cast. Odds are, three fourth of Gingrich's supporters would back Santorum. There is also the chance that some of the other GOP heavyweights such as Sarah Palin might jump in on behalf of Santorum.
Anyway you cut it, even with super delegate help, Romney would be in deep trouble if he loses California. The Establishment hopes that these super delegates won't be needed. But if Romney shows up to Tampa with 1000 delegates, look for Santorum to be the nominee.
That's exactly why the "wheels are turning" behind the scenes. A Rubio endorsement of Romney could seal the deal nicely! And certainly more safely!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)