While there were some sticky spots, this past week's CPAC convention was a refreshing respite from today's troubled America.
Conservatives clearly defined their vision. It amounts to "reducing the size, scope and cost of the federal government."
The convention contained some emotional, even rabble rounding speeches. Ted Cruz rankled a few old guardsmen, suggesting that some were not sufficiently conservative. There was a lot of thoughtful panel dialog. Perhaps most impressive was the distinction of Democrat and Republican perception of women.
Sarah Palin wrapped things up with her typical fiery, plain spoken rhetoric. A straw poll was taken. The result unfortunately pointed to a 1964 repeat for the GOP.
Republicans have literally everything going for them. A sick economy. A mountain of unpopular regulations. A partisan health care plan that will bankrupt the nation. A growing world perception that America is weak and indecisive.
Best of all, there is an approaching midterm. Several "red state," Democrat Senators are anticipating termination. There are a half dozen open Senate seats in winnable states. A ten-seat, Senate pick-up would not be impossible!
The wind is definitely blowing in Democrats' face. But they have one advantage. They are united.
While some say that Hillary Clinton may not run, don't count on it. Even if she were reluctant to do it, the pressure from the party machine will be overwhelming. And, for good reason! What other front line candidate would Democrats have? Joe Biden? Andrew Cuomo? Moonbeam?
So, let's assume that Hillary is the opponent. She will have a "monster" warchest, courtesy of near unanimous Union patronage and left wing PAC generosity. Her game plan will be simple: "Scare the daylights out of Americans with predictions of apocalypse from Republican extremes."
Unfortunately this strategy is "tailor made" for CPAC straw poll winner, Rand Paul!
Michael Dukakis made a memorable statement in his losing bid for the the 1988 Presidency. "This is not about ideology. It is about competence." The only problem for Dukakis was that a closer look at his watch as Massachusetts Governor revealed incompetence!
When you talk the talk, you better be prepared to walk the walk!
Surprisingly enough, a clear plan to send Hillary Clinton to Martha's Vineyard permanently, just surfaced!
In a previous post, we explored Mrs. Clinton's actual public service accomplishments. They are essentially non-existent. A lackluster Senate tenure. A failed Presidential run. A stint as Secretary of State that remains shouded in controversy.
As first lady, she authored "Hillary Care," which resulted in the Democrats losing both House and Senate in the '94 midterms. A decade earlier in Arkansas she was deeply involved in what was labeled "the Whitewater scandel." Had her husband not been Governor, she might have forced to relocate to Pine Bluff, the home of Cummings Prison Farm.
Without question, Hillary Clinton is beatable. But Republicans won't beat her on ideology. Nor, will grandiose drivel proclaiming "my way is better than your way because..." score points with America. Like 1980, America is tired and frustrated. Unlike 1980, the nation is overwhelming cynical.
If you plan to "talk the talk, you better be prepared to walk the walk." In other words, we want more than promises. We want to see previous results."
A "report card" comparison would be something new in a Presidential election. And for a tired, frustrated, overwhelmingly cynical" America, it might be just what the doctor ordered. It is definitely not what Hillary Clinton wants!
While Rand Paul could make his case for being a committed conservative, like Hillary he has no Executive experience. Thus, it's "my way is better than your way because..." You could throw Rick Santorum into this same hopper.
Marco Rubio would attract new members to the Republican Party. As a result,Democrats see him as "dangerous." Ted Cruz isn't exactly the "apple" of the Establishments' eye. The constitution requires that a President "be born in the United States, live in the United States 14 consecutive years and be 35 years of age." That's it!
In essence, Rubio is eligible to be President. Cruz is not. Period. Those who consider "Minor versus Happersett" the final word on eligibility may also think that "Dred Scott" and "Brown versus the Board of Education" were thoughtful and conclusive SCOTUS decisions.
Scott Walker has scored some victories in a deep blue state. So has Chris Christie. But could either win their home state in a general election against Hillary? In Walker's case, "possibly." In Christie's case, "not likely." No President has ever been elected when not carrying his home state.
Jeb Bush? It appears that the Tea Party is defiantly against the former Florida Governor. While the Establishment loves him, could he mobilize the base? He would be a more difficult opponent for Hillary. But would he represent "same old, same old" in Washington D.C.? Yesterday's CPAC message reflected intense anger at the entrenched political establishment. Even though Jeb is neither his father or brother, he has the name. His Florida report card as Governor was better than average.
In short, Republicans have several suitors who could make their Presidential case. But, if the nomination were to be determined solely on a previous report card, the hands down choice is Rick Perry. In fact, it is so overwhelming, that the Republican's smartest option may well be to forego the primaries and "ask" the Texas Governor to be their nominee!
Crazy? Not hardly. Perry's track record as Governor of Texas may be the most successful in U.S. History. What will stand out most significantly is the fact that "for every two full time jobs created over the past five years, one has been in Texas." That means that the "other job" was created by the remaining 49 states collectively?
Believe it!
Perry's message of "10th amendment rediscovery," reflects this past week's
CPAC message. And, he actually has run a "lab" that proves that it works!
Under Perry's leadership, the Texas Educational report card has been superlative. The test scores prove it! Not only has Texas benefited from Charter Schools and voucher programs, but there are now ten Texas colleges and universities offering four-year tuitions for $10,000.
Texas' Environmental record is equally noteworthy. It stems from the truth that this important duty is better handled from Austin and not Washington. Leading by example is the key to unlocking the riches in states such as Alaska, Kentucky and West Virginia. Perry has done this splendidly.
Republicans can turn the 2016 election into a question of competence, with the candidates' actual record as evidence. On this field, Hillary Clinton is seen for what she is. "The Woody Allen of Politics."
Woody Allen? Wasn't he wildly successful as an actor? Isn't he a rich man? Yes. But every single movie that he was involved in lost millions! Today, he is referred to as the "most successful failure in show biz!"
Okay. Perry has been a wildly successful governor. His approval rating stands at 55%, after nearly 14 years on the job. Ted Cruz called his performance "terrific." We can even throw in the fact that he is the only front tier candidate with military experience. Don't forget that he flew F-130's in the Air Force. His tour included several Middle East sorties.
Impressive! But do voters even get that deep into a candidate's credentials? Barack Obama is proof that they don't! Wouldn't all of Perry's accomplishments go unnoticed, except for those who had already decided to vote for him?
Maybe not, if three things can happen.
First of all, the Tea Party must get behind Rick Perry. After all, he is the most qualified spokesman for their cause. This could happen with one simple overture. It amounts to this. Ted Cruz would journey to Kentucky and endorse Mitch McConnell. In exchange, McConnell would agree to withdraw his name from consideration as Senate Majority Leader if re-elected. Republican Senators would agree to name Cruz Senate Majority Leader. Cruz would endorse Perry for President.
Secondly, Republicans would ask Perry to be their nominee, foregoing the primary. This decision would be based on "not repeating the calamity of 2012."
Finally, Perry would annouce his selection of Marco Rubio for running mate prior to the June convention.
Rubio is an incredible orator. Jeb Bush called him the "best" that he has ever seen. He would canvas the country touting Perry's Texas record. He would remind America of Hillary's lackluster performance, starting with Healthcare and ending with Benghazi. He would be joined by popular swing state Governors. In the end, Marco Rubio would define Perry and with it, himself.
Republicans would accomplish three goals with this strategy.
(a) They would be defining their nominee and not allowing the media to do it. The media called Perry, "George Bush on steroids." The two men are actually quite different, as are their ideologies.
(b) They would be laying the groundwork for Marco Rubio as Perry's 2024 successor. The party would be recognizing Rubio as a "president in waiting," similar to the "Jim Bob Fisher-Bobby Bowden, Florida State University coaching scenario."
(c) They would be sending a clear message to the Tea Party. It would amount to "you are an important part of the conservative movement and we are going to include your leaders in the most important positions. All we ask is that you be team players."
Division is the biggest single enemy of the GOP. Failure to conquer it, will result in a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Even though she is a deeply flawed candidate, her party is unified behind her. She has near endless financial resources and enjoys support from a highly partisan media.
Republicans can win only if they unify. It begins with examining which candidate best represents the objective, "to reduce the size, scope and cost of government," and has "most effectively implemented" these standands while on the job.
That is, unquestionably Rick Perry.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Replacing GOP "Old Guard" About Timing, Individual State
February 28th, Mississippi Democrat, Travis Childers annouced that he was entering the 2014 Senate race. The incumbant is 76-year-old Thad "The Shrimp" Cochran.
Cochran has more than Childers to contend with! The Tea Party has launched a lethal challenger in 41-year-old Chris McDaniel. McDaniel's message is simple: "Pork barrel politics" is not the future.
Historically, lawmakers from poor states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi and West Virginia have convinced their people that the "gracious hand of Washington" was their salvation. As Kentucky Governor, Steve Beshear put it, "we receive two dollars
from Washington for every one dollar we send to Washington." Jay Rockefeller has echoed the same sentiments in West Virginia. Ditto for Bill Clinton when Governor of Arkansas.
Cochran represents the old style Southern politician. The objective was to siphon federal money into state coffers. The more, the better! Who could find fault with this!
I recall in 1980 seeing a bumper sticker while driving in downtown Jackson, Mississippi. In bold letters it screamed, "Tax Mississippi Free!" In other words, let's find a way to generate revenue here at home. Federal money always comes with strings attached.
At that time, the rage was legalized casino gambling. When the idea was first introduced, it seemed preposterous. Today it is reality.
Growing up in Arkansas, the slogan was "Thank God for Mississippi, because if it were not for Mississippi, we would be 50th; instead of 49th!" Arkansans were constantly reminded by cagy career politicians, John McClellan, Bill Fulbright and Wilbur Mills
that their meager prosperity was the fruit of the "gracious hand" of Washington.
Bill Clinton represented the next generation of "gracious handers." Attending American University on a Fulright fellowship, he exceeded all hopes and expectations of his mentors. Today, Bill resides in New York City, a living legend of the small town boy who conquered the world. Surprisingly, however, the state didn't begin to take off until Mike Huckabee took over.
Chris McDaniel is not promising how much Washington "pork" he can procure for the Magnolia state. He is talking about the 10th amendment. He is stressing the positives of Mississippi's vast oil and natural gas reserves, it's timber and great farmland. His message is simple and to the point. "We can run our state better from Mississippi than bureaucrats can run it from Washington, D.C."
Unlike Fulbright, Thad Cochran is not a liberal Democrat! He loves his state and has worked within the system to better the lives of Mississippians. His camp maintains the postion that if Republicans regain the Senate, Thad will be in position to take over chairmanship of the powerful Senate Appropriations committee. In short, he will be able to "get more stuff" for Mississippi!
From the Tea Party point of view, this thinking is "what's wrong with Washington." More spending, more chits, more government! McDaniel's response is "less government, less interference and more local control" are excellent trade-offs.
Where Clinton's Arkansas was all about procuring the maximum help from Washington, Huckabee turned to the people of Arkansas. The farmers were asked to increase their yields of rice and soy beans because eager buyers were waiting in China, Japan and South Korea. The overnight business boom of Washington and Benton Counties in the Northwest corner of the state, now rivals Clinton's career achievements!
Still, conservatives must be patient. As one Rick Perry supporter noted, "it took years to fall into this way of thinking. It will take time to fall out of it."
In other words, "gradual evolution." It is time to replace Thad Cochran with Chris McDaniel. Because, Mississippi isn't going to elect Travis Childers, or any Democrat for that matter.
If it would work in Mississippi, why not in Kentucky?
Two reasons: Unlike Mississippi, Kentucky still has a Democrat Party. True, Barack Obama received only 37% of the vote. But, we must remember that Bill Clinton won this state in both '92 and '96. Like Arkansas, many of the old "courthouse" Democrats have died or are dying out. As with Arkansas, they are being replaced by conservative newcomers from Midwestern states.
Yet, while Democrat numbers dwindle in Arkansas and Kentucky, the machinery remains in place. While the Democrat brand is slightly tainted, the bureacracy remains indefinitely "blue!"
DNC National thought that Attorney General, Jack Conway represented the ultimate opportunity to place a "true believer" in an increasingly "red" state. The PAC money flowed in to the Bluegrass state. Conway spent a good deal of time on the West Coast cultivating the friends of Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman.
Fortunately for Kentuckians, his Republican opponent, Rand Paul was well funded. Through extensive television penetration, Conway's ideology was revealed. Paul defeated him going away. From the defeat, Democrats learned that a well funded opponent can and will take a campaign from "image to ideology."
In many ways, Mitch McConnell mirrors Thad Cochran. He hasn't been in Washington quite as long as Cochran, but he has likely made more enemies. And, unlike Mississippi, Democrats have a potent party machine in Kentucky. Plus, they have an attractive "true believer" in 35-year-old, Allison Lundgren Grimes, currently serving as Secretary of State.
As with Cochran, the Tea Party has decided that Mitch must go. Matt Bevin has emerged as as McConnell's replacement. Two differences should be noted. The first is money. Where is Bevin's money coming from and would it continue to flow in a general election?
The second is media. The Louisville Courier Journel and the Lexington Herald Leader are arguably two of the most Liberal Newspapers in America. Both are overwhelming anti-McConnell. They will manufacturer a dozen or more subtle angles in endorsing Hillary Clinton Disciple, Allison Lundgren Grimes.
There are recent polls showing Grimes currently in a "deal heat" with McConnell. Never mind that 18% of the sample came from Louisville liberal, John Yarmouth's district, 15% came from Franklin County and 17% came from Fayette County. Interestingly enough, half of the samples came from three of only four counties won by Barack Obama in the 2012 Presidential election...
Democrats acknowledge that McConnell has a massive war chest. Big enough to define Allison Lundgren Grimes in the manner that Jack Conway was defined: "a rubber stamp for the Obama Adminstration's agenda." The hope is, the Tea Party ideologues will become so focused on "ditching Mitch," that they will lose sight of the main Republican priority of 2014: To regain a Senate majority.
Kentuckians are constantly reminded by the state's entrenched Democrat bureaucracy, "for every dollar we send to Washington, two we receive." What they fail to mention is "the vast mineral wealth" that Kentucky possessses. Coal, Oil, Natural Gas are in abundance.
Kentucky is also the geographic center of the Eastern United States. The rivers that connect the state are impressive. The state likewise has great agricultural resources. Last but not least, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is one of the most beautiful spots on the planet.
The question becomes, "why" is Kentucky so poor? In reality, it should be one of the more prosperous states. As Commissioner of Agriculture, John Comer pointed out, "the state could have canneries throughout the state. But FDA regulations make it difficult, too expensive."
Berea based MACED has hired Administrators from Boston and New York. They have then placed these "all knowing experts" in front of the locals in an effort to convince them that "departure from the coal" business is in everyones' best interest."
Especially when there are government entitlements such as Food Stamps and Obamacare available.
Mitch McConnell, unlike Thad Cochran has been forced to deal with both an entrenched Democrat bureacracy and hostile media. While he reflects the old "siphon our share of the D.C. money into our state," his time for departure is not yet upon us. We must remember that Mitch came in under Ronald Reagan's watch. Cochern took the oath the same year Jimmy Carter did.
In a general election, McDaniel will beat Childers by fifteen points. If this were 2024, the same verdict would await Allison Lundgren Grimes at the hand of Matt Bevin.
Unfortunately for Republicans, Kentucky in 2014 is not Mississippi in 2014. Unlike Mississippi, Democrats could steal a win if Grimes is allowed to face Bevin and not McConnell in the general election.
In essence, "patience" must be the watchword, in states such as Kentucky. To get to where Mississippi is, there must first be a grassroots campaign to win both houses of the Legislature. Arkansas was successful in doing this. Kentucky and West Virginia should be next.
Many House and Senate Democrats in both states are "D.I.N.O.s"(Democrats in name only). These "D.I.N.O.s" must be persuaded to change party affiliation. If it worked in Arkansas and Mississippi, it can work in Kentucky and West Virginia.
We must also find a way to replace Democrats with Republicans in state bureaucracies. Former Kentucky Govenor, Ernie Fletcher attempted to do this. His downfall came with immature staffers and their lack of discretion. Unfortunately, this part of the riddle may take years to remedy.
Cochran has more than Childers to contend with! The Tea Party has launched a lethal challenger in 41-year-old Chris McDaniel. McDaniel's message is simple: "Pork barrel politics" is not the future.
Historically, lawmakers from poor states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi and West Virginia have convinced their people that the "gracious hand of Washington" was their salvation. As Kentucky Governor, Steve Beshear put it, "we receive two dollars
from Washington for every one dollar we send to Washington." Jay Rockefeller has echoed the same sentiments in West Virginia. Ditto for Bill Clinton when Governor of Arkansas.
Cochran represents the old style Southern politician. The objective was to siphon federal money into state coffers. The more, the better! Who could find fault with this!
I recall in 1980 seeing a bumper sticker while driving in downtown Jackson, Mississippi. In bold letters it screamed, "Tax Mississippi Free!" In other words, let's find a way to generate revenue here at home. Federal money always comes with strings attached.
At that time, the rage was legalized casino gambling. When the idea was first introduced, it seemed preposterous. Today it is reality.
Growing up in Arkansas, the slogan was "Thank God for Mississippi, because if it were not for Mississippi, we would be 50th; instead of 49th!" Arkansans were constantly reminded by cagy career politicians, John McClellan, Bill Fulbright and Wilbur Mills
that their meager prosperity was the fruit of the "gracious hand" of Washington.
Bill Clinton represented the next generation of "gracious handers." Attending American University on a Fulright fellowship, he exceeded all hopes and expectations of his mentors. Today, Bill resides in New York City, a living legend of the small town boy who conquered the world. Surprisingly, however, the state didn't begin to take off until Mike Huckabee took over.
Chris McDaniel is not promising how much Washington "pork" he can procure for the Magnolia state. He is talking about the 10th amendment. He is stressing the positives of Mississippi's vast oil and natural gas reserves, it's timber and great farmland. His message is simple and to the point. "We can run our state better from Mississippi than bureaucrats can run it from Washington, D.C."
Unlike Fulbright, Thad Cochran is not a liberal Democrat! He loves his state and has worked within the system to better the lives of Mississippians. His camp maintains the postion that if Republicans regain the Senate, Thad will be in position to take over chairmanship of the powerful Senate Appropriations committee. In short, he will be able to "get more stuff" for Mississippi!
From the Tea Party point of view, this thinking is "what's wrong with Washington." More spending, more chits, more government! McDaniel's response is "less government, less interference and more local control" are excellent trade-offs.
Where Clinton's Arkansas was all about procuring the maximum help from Washington, Huckabee turned to the people of Arkansas. The farmers were asked to increase their yields of rice and soy beans because eager buyers were waiting in China, Japan and South Korea. The overnight business boom of Washington and Benton Counties in the Northwest corner of the state, now rivals Clinton's career achievements!
Still, conservatives must be patient. As one Rick Perry supporter noted, "it took years to fall into this way of thinking. It will take time to fall out of it."
In other words, "gradual evolution." It is time to replace Thad Cochran with Chris McDaniel. Because, Mississippi isn't going to elect Travis Childers, or any Democrat for that matter.
If it would work in Mississippi, why not in Kentucky?
Two reasons: Unlike Mississippi, Kentucky still has a Democrat Party. True, Barack Obama received only 37% of the vote. But, we must remember that Bill Clinton won this state in both '92 and '96. Like Arkansas, many of the old "courthouse" Democrats have died or are dying out. As with Arkansas, they are being replaced by conservative newcomers from Midwestern states.
Yet, while Democrat numbers dwindle in Arkansas and Kentucky, the machinery remains in place. While the Democrat brand is slightly tainted, the bureacracy remains indefinitely "blue!"
DNC National thought that Attorney General, Jack Conway represented the ultimate opportunity to place a "true believer" in an increasingly "red" state. The PAC money flowed in to the Bluegrass state. Conway spent a good deal of time on the West Coast cultivating the friends of Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman.
Fortunately for Kentuckians, his Republican opponent, Rand Paul was well funded. Through extensive television penetration, Conway's ideology was revealed. Paul defeated him going away. From the defeat, Democrats learned that a well funded opponent can and will take a campaign from "image to ideology."
In many ways, Mitch McConnell mirrors Thad Cochran. He hasn't been in Washington quite as long as Cochran, but he has likely made more enemies. And, unlike Mississippi, Democrats have a potent party machine in Kentucky. Plus, they have an attractive "true believer" in 35-year-old, Allison Lundgren Grimes, currently serving as Secretary of State.
As with Cochran, the Tea Party has decided that Mitch must go. Matt Bevin has emerged as as McConnell's replacement. Two differences should be noted. The first is money. Where is Bevin's money coming from and would it continue to flow in a general election?
The second is media. The Louisville Courier Journel and the Lexington Herald Leader are arguably two of the most Liberal Newspapers in America. Both are overwhelming anti-McConnell. They will manufacturer a dozen or more subtle angles in endorsing Hillary Clinton Disciple, Allison Lundgren Grimes.
There are recent polls showing Grimes currently in a "deal heat" with McConnell. Never mind that 18% of the sample came from Louisville liberal, John Yarmouth's district, 15% came from Franklin County and 17% came from Fayette County. Interestingly enough, half of the samples came from three of only four counties won by Barack Obama in the 2012 Presidential election...
Democrats acknowledge that McConnell has a massive war chest. Big enough to define Allison Lundgren Grimes in the manner that Jack Conway was defined: "a rubber stamp for the Obama Adminstration's agenda." The hope is, the Tea Party ideologues will become so focused on "ditching Mitch," that they will lose sight of the main Republican priority of 2014: To regain a Senate majority.
Kentuckians are constantly reminded by the state's entrenched Democrat bureaucracy, "for every dollar we send to Washington, two we receive." What they fail to mention is "the vast mineral wealth" that Kentucky possessses. Coal, Oil, Natural Gas are in abundance.
Kentucky is also the geographic center of the Eastern United States. The rivers that connect the state are impressive. The state likewise has great agricultural resources. Last but not least, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is one of the most beautiful spots on the planet.
The question becomes, "why" is Kentucky so poor? In reality, it should be one of the more prosperous states. As Commissioner of Agriculture, John Comer pointed out, "the state could have canneries throughout the state. But FDA regulations make it difficult, too expensive."
Berea based MACED has hired Administrators from Boston and New York. They have then placed these "all knowing experts" in front of the locals in an effort to convince them that "departure from the coal" business is in everyones' best interest."
Especially when there are government entitlements such as Food Stamps and Obamacare available.
Mitch McConnell, unlike Thad Cochran has been forced to deal with both an entrenched Democrat bureacracy and hostile media. While he reflects the old "siphon our share of the D.C. money into our state," his time for departure is not yet upon us. We must remember that Mitch came in under Ronald Reagan's watch. Cochern took the oath the same year Jimmy Carter did.
In a general election, McDaniel will beat Childers by fifteen points. If this were 2024, the same verdict would await Allison Lundgren Grimes at the hand of Matt Bevin.
Unfortunately for Republicans, Kentucky in 2014 is not Mississippi in 2014. Unlike Mississippi, Democrats could steal a win if Grimes is allowed to face Bevin and not McConnell in the general election.
In essence, "patience" must be the watchword, in states such as Kentucky. To get to where Mississippi is, there must first be a grassroots campaign to win both houses of the Legislature. Arkansas was successful in doing this. Kentucky and West Virginia should be next.
Many House and Senate Democrats in both states are "D.I.N.O.s"(Democrats in name only). These "D.I.N.O.s" must be persuaded to change party affiliation. If it worked in Arkansas and Mississippi, it can work in Kentucky and West Virginia.
We must also find a way to replace Democrats with Republicans in state bureaucracies. Former Kentucky Govenor, Ernie Fletcher attempted to do this. His downfall came with immature staffers and their lack of discretion. Unfortunately, this part of the riddle may take years to remedy.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
"Jeb Bush and Rick Perry: A Tale of Two Texans"
To quote the National Review, the relationship between the Bush and Perry camps is "complicated."
.
Talking to the Perry camp, you will hear nothing but admiration and respect for George W., Bush the Elder and Jeb. This sentiment hasn't exactly been reciprocated.
Rewind the clock to 2010. Then Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchinson was running to upseat Perry as Governor of Texas. Although W. didn't endorse her, Dad did. So did Dick Cheney. And James Baker. Even Karen Hughes and W's Education Secretary, Margaret Spellings were there to render support. The advisor of team Hutchinson? If you guessed Karl Rove, you are correct.
Hutchinson reminded Texans "look what I've done for you in Washington." Perry's retort was simple: "These duties should be handled from Austin, not Washington."
This is the classic "Neo-Con," versus "Constitutionalist" argument!
Remembering, "No Child Left Behind," Governor Perry mused, "Yeah, that's a cool name. But it's a monsterous intrusion into our affairs.
"Look, I like George!"(W)"But that's not good public policy. That's what Kay didn't understand. She kept saying,"look what I'm doing for you. Look what Washington is doing for you. But that's not what we want!"
To Neo-Cons, Kay Bailey Hutchinson was in sinc. She believed, like so many including Karl Rove, the Bushes, Cheney, Baker and so many others, that the goal is to "advance and facilitate conservative principles through a large, Washington, D.C. based government."
Which brings us to the man who could be Perry's chief rival for the Republican nomination, Jeb Bush. Jeb did a notable job as Governor of Florida. Nobody can deny that he left office "popular."
Yet "Common core," which he supported from inception has conservatives antsy. It sounds like more "big government" at best. At worst, it sounds like something that the Democrats would devise.
"No Child Left Behind" sounded good and was inspired with the greatest of intentions. But what does the constitution say about education? Last time I checked, there was nothing in the 10th amendment that mentioned "Education!"
What lends credence to Perry's paradigm is the report card of Texas' public school students. As an Iowahawk blogger reported, "white, black and Hispanic students in Texas' allegedly ramshackled public schools outperformed their ethic-group peers in high-tax, union-run Wisconsin in 17 out of 18 NAEP measures, and bested the results of most of the so-called progressive states."
Can Jeb Bush's Florida equal that? Can any state or any Governor equal that?
A very recent discussion with a member of the Florida Mortgage Brokers association reminded me that "Jeb doesn't like Governor Perry."
Maybe there is a reason. After all, it was Karl Rove who broached then Democrat Perry about both switching parties and running against Democrat incumbant, Jim Hightower for Commissioner of Agriculture. As the story goes, Rove made his pitch to Perry with Perry seated high on a tractor on his his father's Paint Creek farm.
As all know, Perry won that election and went on to bigger and better things. What remained was the memory that it was the Bush camp that made it possible for Perry to stay in politics.
A two-term Democrat Congressman, Perry had managed Al Gore's Texas Presidential campaign in 1988.
Perry people will say today that "Al Gore changed drastically" in the coming years. What mattered to Texas Democrats was Perry's unwillingness to support the Dukakis-Benson ticket. At that time, Texas was solidly "blue." Jim Wright was the U.S. House Speaker. Ann Richards was the Governor. When Perry turned his back on Texas Democrats he was, in effect, calling it quits. Rove and Republicans resurrected him.
If there is a rift it might have opened in 1998, when Perry was locked in a photo finish for Lt. Governor. The Bush camp was coasting to re-election. They wanted to call off the dogs. It was reported that Perry had a falling out with Rove. It may have been the beginning of a rivalry between the Bush and Perry camps.
Jeb was always considered "the smart one" by his parents and the media. They had seen him as a future President.A lot of loyal party members hoped that Jeb would run in both '08 and '12. But he didn't. Perhaps it was because he saw '16 as a more winnable landscape.
Unlike his father and brother, Jeb did not attend Yale, opting for the University of Texas. There he received an undergraduate degree in Latin American Studies.
The Spanish language and the countries that spoke it always held a facination for Jeb. Born in Midland, growing up in Houston, Jeb landed his first job with Texas Commerce Bank, with help from family crony, James Baker. In 1977, he was sent to Caracas, Venezuela to open a new operation for the bank. For the next two years he was chiefly engaged in International Trade and Finance.
In 1980, Bush returned to the states to work on his father's presidential campaign. Afterward, he relocated to Miami, taking a Real Estate job for Armando Codina, a self made millionaire Cuban immigrant. In 1986, he was named Secretary of Commerce, serving two years at that post.
Jeb Bush was the only Republican Governor to serve two full terms in Florida, leaving office in 2007. On paper, his eight years as Governor were viewed as successful and productive. He initiated improvements in the economy, environment, health care and education.
The were some "bumps" in the road. He ended Florida's high speed rail initiative. It was thought that his close friendship with the CEO of Southwest Airlines may have influenced his preference. He won accolades from Environmental groups, due to the state's massive increase in public sector lands. Upon leaving office, he went to work for Lehman Brothers.
Those close to the Bush camp readily admit that Jeb is slightly more conservative than his older brother. His "One Florida" proposal effectively ended affirmative action in the state. He is an avid proponent of school vouchers and charter schools.
In all, John Ellis Bush will be remembered as a "better than average Governor." Yet, while commendable, his are no where close to Rick Perry's accomplishments in Texas!
Perry didn't grow up with the same pedigree as held by the Bush dynasty. His parents were tenant farmers in a town, that couldn't be found on a map, 60 miles north of Abilene.He attended Texas A & M University on a ROTC scholarship, getting a degree in Animal Science. Upon graduation, he received an Air Force commission. While in the Air Force, Captain Perry flew C-130's. His action included Libya and several other Middle East sorties.
Perry has the same interest in Environmental issues as Bush. Conservatives are often confused as to how Perry, a conservative, could have lead Al Gore's Presidential campaign. But when you review his Texas Environmental record, a surprise awaits!
During Perry's watch, Texas has scored a 27 percent reduction in ozone levels. They have posted a 53% drop in mono-nitrogen oxides. To top this off, Perry is suing the Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to defend the state's flexible permitting rules. His argument stems from the belief that the air improvement quality can be improved without placing unrealistic burdens on business.
As the Perry camp noted, "Al Gore believed that only through Washington's guidance and auspices" could these goals be achieved. Perry's position is "under the 10th amendment" it is a state responsibility. Besides the state can do it more effectively and efficiently.
Even more notable has been the establishment of $10,000, four-year degrees at ten Texas state universities. That's eight full time semesters for ten grand! Who would have believed it!
The Texas economy is a story in itself. True, Perry drew some criticism from interests outside the Lone Star state for his use of the "Enterprise fund" to entice business to relocate to Texas. Glenn Beck even called him a "job poacher." Yet, anywhere you go in the state, the signs of growth are impressive. From the Metro-Plex to the Gulf Coast, to the Llano Estado, the state is booming. Austin is the fastest growing city in America. The unemployment rate in Texas' capital city is 4.7%, best in the nation.
Which brings us full circle to the possible Republican choice for Hillary Clinton's opponent. Both could make their arguments. Although both men were born in Texas, their roots differ. Perry is a fifth generation Texan. His ancestors were around when Texas fought for Indepedence from Mexico. George Bush the Elder came to Texas from Connecticut.
Their brand of conservatism is likewise dissimilar.
Rick Perry believes in the 10th amendment. As in, state's rights. He believes that the Obama Administration represents a "dark period," as seen by an unprecidented federal reach into the economy, health care, the environment and every other aspect of American life. His solution: a renewed emphasis on states rights. Complicating the term "states rights" has been a stigma of "racist and segregationist" that has been around since 1865.
Per Perry,"states are real things with real interests,real rights. They are not administrative subdivisions of the federal government, even if they've been treated that way for generations." He winces over the traditional connect between states rights and Bull Connor or George Wallace.
Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul drew a distinction between Constitutional Conservatives like Rick Perry and New Conservatives, AKA "Neo-Cons." As Paul wrote in his book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington," Neo-Cons" believe in a large, Washington, D.C. based government having an exclusive role to advance and facilitate conservative principles. Constitutional Conservatives believe in a more literal view of the Constitution.
Rick Perry is a "strict Constructionist." In essence,if the 10th amendment didn't assign a duty to the federal government, it must be reserved for the state!
Jeb Bush doesn't openly express a belief that the states should be administrative subdivisions of the federal government. But, the "Neo-Con" taint is everywhere. Beginning with his support of Common Core. Working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency drilling efforts in the Everglades were thwarted. This is quite a contrast from Perry's suing them!
Dad was a devout Keynesian. His brother gave us "No Child Left Behind." Not to mention the Department of Homeland Security and two overseas adventures. Perry, like Ronald Reagan is a "supply sider." We still aren't certain where Jeb will be but all indications suggest that he will follow suit with Dad and Dubya and take the Keynesian direction.
In a face-off, could Perry hope to beat Jeb Bush? As Perry stated, "if Jeb Bush's name was Jeb Smith, he'd be the next president of the United States."
One thing is for certain: Bush, if he chooses to run, will have the Republican Establishment firmly behind him. The Republican base, could outdistance them. But, could they throw their unified support behind Govenor Perry? If 2012 is an indication, the answer is "probably not."
Yet, what if they did?
In a perfect world, the party base would merely look at Perry's Texas track record and conclude, "why waste time with a primary? This is our candidate."
A close friend in Louisiana made it clear, "this will never happen. There are too many egos involved."
Quite true. Simply put, "what other Republican option would have the experience, not to mention resources to go the full bout with Jeb Bush?" And, assuming that some did, would all cast their lot against Bush? Not likely.
Rick Perry connects with a segment of the American population that are probably out of bounds for Jeb Bush. They are "lower middle class, largely blue collar Democrats and Independents." The best news is they can't stand Hillary Clinton. It's not that they wouldn't vote for Bush. But they gravitate to Perry. In their eye, he's one of them! This translates to turnout.
Beyond winning the election, there is the question of "direction." Would Bush be, as Perry predicted Mitt Romney would be, "Obama lite?"
Game point might be decided by asking the American people to make a choice. The three options are as follows:
(a) To do nothing. Inflate the money. Ration healthcare. Leave the problem for the next generation. This is the choice of career politicians.
(b) Simpson-Bowles plan of "Shared Sacrifice." A fifty-
cent per gallon, gasoline tax, raising the social security eligibility age. Reducing the home mortgage deduction allowance. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and George Soros love this alternative.
(c) Reducing the size, scope and cost of the federal government. This would be Perry's answer. He has proposed eliminating the Education, Energy and Commerce Departments. He has also proposed that Congress be made into a part time job, with a 50% paycut.
Would Jeb Bush be ready to second the motion? I would predict, "not entirely."
This brings us to the question that all fiscal conservatives must ask. "Are we happy to continue on as "red team versus blue team playing for the same university?" If not, we next must ask, "which Republican President would best make possible this "break" with the old way of doing things.
Smart money would say, "it wouldn't be Jeb."
.
Talking to the Perry camp, you will hear nothing but admiration and respect for George W., Bush the Elder and Jeb. This sentiment hasn't exactly been reciprocated.
Rewind the clock to 2010. Then Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchinson was running to upseat Perry as Governor of Texas. Although W. didn't endorse her, Dad did. So did Dick Cheney. And James Baker. Even Karen Hughes and W's Education Secretary, Margaret Spellings were there to render support. The advisor of team Hutchinson? If you guessed Karl Rove, you are correct.
Hutchinson reminded Texans "look what I've done for you in Washington." Perry's retort was simple: "These duties should be handled from Austin, not Washington."
This is the classic "Neo-Con," versus "Constitutionalist" argument!
Remembering, "No Child Left Behind," Governor Perry mused, "Yeah, that's a cool name. But it's a monsterous intrusion into our affairs.
"Look, I like George!"(W)"But that's not good public policy. That's what Kay didn't understand. She kept saying,"look what I'm doing for you. Look what Washington is doing for you. But that's not what we want!"
To Neo-Cons, Kay Bailey Hutchinson was in sinc. She believed, like so many including Karl Rove, the Bushes, Cheney, Baker and so many others, that the goal is to "advance and facilitate conservative principles through a large, Washington, D.C. based government."
Which brings us to the man who could be Perry's chief rival for the Republican nomination, Jeb Bush. Jeb did a notable job as Governor of Florida. Nobody can deny that he left office "popular."
Yet "Common core," which he supported from inception has conservatives antsy. It sounds like more "big government" at best. At worst, it sounds like something that the Democrats would devise.
"No Child Left Behind" sounded good and was inspired with the greatest of intentions. But what does the constitution say about education? Last time I checked, there was nothing in the 10th amendment that mentioned "Education!"
What lends credence to Perry's paradigm is the report card of Texas' public school students. As an Iowahawk blogger reported, "white, black and Hispanic students in Texas' allegedly ramshackled public schools outperformed their ethic-group peers in high-tax, union-run Wisconsin in 17 out of 18 NAEP measures, and bested the results of most of the so-called progressive states."
Can Jeb Bush's Florida equal that? Can any state or any Governor equal that?
A very recent discussion with a member of the Florida Mortgage Brokers association reminded me that "Jeb doesn't like Governor Perry."
Maybe there is a reason. After all, it was Karl Rove who broached then Democrat Perry about both switching parties and running against Democrat incumbant, Jim Hightower for Commissioner of Agriculture. As the story goes, Rove made his pitch to Perry with Perry seated high on a tractor on his his father's Paint Creek farm.
As all know, Perry won that election and went on to bigger and better things. What remained was the memory that it was the Bush camp that made it possible for Perry to stay in politics.
A two-term Democrat Congressman, Perry had managed Al Gore's Texas Presidential campaign in 1988.
Perry people will say today that "Al Gore changed drastically" in the coming years. What mattered to Texas Democrats was Perry's unwillingness to support the Dukakis-Benson ticket. At that time, Texas was solidly "blue." Jim Wright was the U.S. House Speaker. Ann Richards was the Governor. When Perry turned his back on Texas Democrats he was, in effect, calling it quits. Rove and Republicans resurrected him.
If there is a rift it might have opened in 1998, when Perry was locked in a photo finish for Lt. Governor. The Bush camp was coasting to re-election. They wanted to call off the dogs. It was reported that Perry had a falling out with Rove. It may have been the beginning of a rivalry between the Bush and Perry camps.
Jeb was always considered "the smart one" by his parents and the media. They had seen him as a future President.A lot of loyal party members hoped that Jeb would run in both '08 and '12. But he didn't. Perhaps it was because he saw '16 as a more winnable landscape.
Unlike his father and brother, Jeb did not attend Yale, opting for the University of Texas. There he received an undergraduate degree in Latin American Studies.
The Spanish language and the countries that spoke it always held a facination for Jeb. Born in Midland, growing up in Houston, Jeb landed his first job with Texas Commerce Bank, with help from family crony, James Baker. In 1977, he was sent to Caracas, Venezuela to open a new operation for the bank. For the next two years he was chiefly engaged in International Trade and Finance.
In 1980, Bush returned to the states to work on his father's presidential campaign. Afterward, he relocated to Miami, taking a Real Estate job for Armando Codina, a self made millionaire Cuban immigrant. In 1986, he was named Secretary of Commerce, serving two years at that post.
Jeb Bush was the only Republican Governor to serve two full terms in Florida, leaving office in 2007. On paper, his eight years as Governor were viewed as successful and productive. He initiated improvements in the economy, environment, health care and education.
The were some "bumps" in the road. He ended Florida's high speed rail initiative. It was thought that his close friendship with the CEO of Southwest Airlines may have influenced his preference. He won accolades from Environmental groups, due to the state's massive increase in public sector lands. Upon leaving office, he went to work for Lehman Brothers.
Those close to the Bush camp readily admit that Jeb is slightly more conservative than his older brother. His "One Florida" proposal effectively ended affirmative action in the state. He is an avid proponent of school vouchers and charter schools.
In all, John Ellis Bush will be remembered as a "better than average Governor." Yet, while commendable, his are no where close to Rick Perry's accomplishments in Texas!
Perry didn't grow up with the same pedigree as held by the Bush dynasty. His parents were tenant farmers in a town, that couldn't be found on a map, 60 miles north of Abilene.He attended Texas A & M University on a ROTC scholarship, getting a degree in Animal Science. Upon graduation, he received an Air Force commission. While in the Air Force, Captain Perry flew C-130's. His action included Libya and several other Middle East sorties.
Perry has the same interest in Environmental issues as Bush. Conservatives are often confused as to how Perry, a conservative, could have lead Al Gore's Presidential campaign. But when you review his Texas Environmental record, a surprise awaits!
During Perry's watch, Texas has scored a 27 percent reduction in ozone levels. They have posted a 53% drop in mono-nitrogen oxides. To top this off, Perry is suing the Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to defend the state's flexible permitting rules. His argument stems from the belief that the air improvement quality can be improved without placing unrealistic burdens on business.
As the Perry camp noted, "Al Gore believed that only through Washington's guidance and auspices" could these goals be achieved. Perry's position is "under the 10th amendment" it is a state responsibility. Besides the state can do it more effectively and efficiently.
Even more notable has been the establishment of $10,000, four-year degrees at ten Texas state universities. That's eight full time semesters for ten grand! Who would have believed it!
The Texas economy is a story in itself. True, Perry drew some criticism from interests outside the Lone Star state for his use of the "Enterprise fund" to entice business to relocate to Texas. Glenn Beck even called him a "job poacher." Yet, anywhere you go in the state, the signs of growth are impressive. From the Metro-Plex to the Gulf Coast, to the Llano Estado, the state is booming. Austin is the fastest growing city in America. The unemployment rate in Texas' capital city is 4.7%, best in the nation.
Which brings us full circle to the possible Republican choice for Hillary Clinton's opponent. Both could make their arguments. Although both men were born in Texas, their roots differ. Perry is a fifth generation Texan. His ancestors were around when Texas fought for Indepedence from Mexico. George Bush the Elder came to Texas from Connecticut.
Their brand of conservatism is likewise dissimilar.
Rick Perry believes in the 10th amendment. As in, state's rights. He believes that the Obama Administration represents a "dark period," as seen by an unprecidented federal reach into the economy, health care, the environment and every other aspect of American life. His solution: a renewed emphasis on states rights. Complicating the term "states rights" has been a stigma of "racist and segregationist" that has been around since 1865.
Per Perry,"states are real things with real interests,real rights. They are not administrative subdivisions of the federal government, even if they've been treated that way for generations." He winces over the traditional connect between states rights and Bull Connor or George Wallace.
Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul drew a distinction between Constitutional Conservatives like Rick Perry and New Conservatives, AKA "Neo-Cons." As Paul wrote in his book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington," Neo-Cons" believe in a large, Washington, D.C. based government having an exclusive role to advance and facilitate conservative principles. Constitutional Conservatives believe in a more literal view of the Constitution.
Rick Perry is a "strict Constructionist." In essence,if the 10th amendment didn't assign a duty to the federal government, it must be reserved for the state!
Jeb Bush doesn't openly express a belief that the states should be administrative subdivisions of the federal government. But, the "Neo-Con" taint is everywhere. Beginning with his support of Common Core. Working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency drilling efforts in the Everglades were thwarted. This is quite a contrast from Perry's suing them!
Dad was a devout Keynesian. His brother gave us "No Child Left Behind." Not to mention the Department of Homeland Security and two overseas adventures. Perry, like Ronald Reagan is a "supply sider." We still aren't certain where Jeb will be but all indications suggest that he will follow suit with Dad and Dubya and take the Keynesian direction.
In a face-off, could Perry hope to beat Jeb Bush? As Perry stated, "if Jeb Bush's name was Jeb Smith, he'd be the next president of the United States."
One thing is for certain: Bush, if he chooses to run, will have the Republican Establishment firmly behind him. The Republican base, could outdistance them. But, could they throw their unified support behind Govenor Perry? If 2012 is an indication, the answer is "probably not."
Yet, what if they did?
In a perfect world, the party base would merely look at Perry's Texas track record and conclude, "why waste time with a primary? This is our candidate."
A close friend in Louisiana made it clear, "this will never happen. There are too many egos involved."
Quite true. Simply put, "what other Republican option would have the experience, not to mention resources to go the full bout with Jeb Bush?" And, assuming that some did, would all cast their lot against Bush? Not likely.
Rick Perry connects with a segment of the American population that are probably out of bounds for Jeb Bush. They are "lower middle class, largely blue collar Democrats and Independents." The best news is they can't stand Hillary Clinton. It's not that they wouldn't vote for Bush. But they gravitate to Perry. In their eye, he's one of them! This translates to turnout.
Beyond winning the election, there is the question of "direction." Would Bush be, as Perry predicted Mitt Romney would be, "Obama lite?"
Game point might be decided by asking the American people to make a choice. The three options are as follows:
(a) To do nothing. Inflate the money. Ration healthcare. Leave the problem for the next generation. This is the choice of career politicians.
(b) Simpson-Bowles plan of "Shared Sacrifice." A fifty-
cent per gallon, gasoline tax, raising the social security eligibility age. Reducing the home mortgage deduction allowance. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and George Soros love this alternative.
(c) Reducing the size, scope and cost of the federal government. This would be Perry's answer. He has proposed eliminating the Education, Energy and Commerce Departments. He has also proposed that Congress be made into a part time job, with a 50% paycut.
Would Jeb Bush be ready to second the motion? I would predict, "not entirely."
This brings us to the question that all fiscal conservatives must ask. "Are we happy to continue on as "red team versus blue team playing for the same university?" If not, we next must ask, "which Republican President would best make possible this "break" with the old way of doing things.
Smart money would say, "it wouldn't be Jeb."
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Is Jeb the Man?
The Republican Establishment would think so! In fact, a monumental sigh of relief, especially from Eastern banking interests, would be figuratively audible in Maui!
With Chris Christie's implosion, a giant void has opened. GOP alternatives, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are visiting early primary states. A revolt with the party base is brewing.
Will Jeb Bush run in 2016? Thus far, he isn't saying yes. But, he isn't saying no. It will come down to if the decision creates "joy" in his heart and if it's in "best interest" of his family. The former Florida Governor has promised to "think about it hard," later into the year.
The official Democrat line is echoed by the mainstream media. "The nation is "O.D.'d" on Bushes." Yet, in private circles, party leaders have acknowledged that even Hillary would have difficulty beating Bush in his home state. From there, an electoral problem unfolds.
John Ellis Bush is neither his father or brother. In fact, his career path is quite different. The holder of a B.A. in Latin American Studies from the University of Texas at Austin, Jeb went one step further in marrying Columba Garnica Gallo, a native of Leon, Mexico. Raised a Methodist, he converted to Roman Catholism.
While securing a noteworthy record of public service, including a successful two-term Governship, most of Jeb's adult life has been spent in the private sector. This includes but is not limited to, deep experience in International Trade and Finance.
As Governor he scored points with Environmentalists with his opposition to off shore drilling. His record on healthcare is impressive. His support and facilitation of Charter schools in Florida drew applause from both Republicans and Democrats.
Democrats recall that the issue of Charter schools split their constituency. Hillary Clinton, at the urging of the teachers union, voiced opposition. Barack Obama supported the concept. Insiders, including David Axelrod believe that this may have been the issue that ultimately swung the nomination to Obama. Worse still for Hillary, Jeb Bush was both a supporter and pioneer of Charter schools. Their success in the Sunshine state has been decisive.
Democrats are gravely concerned with Jeb Bush's history of Hispanic support. In 2003, Bush was returned to the Governor's mansion with 56% of non-Cuban Hispanic support and better than 80% of the Cuban votes. That could spell big trouble in states like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado! Even, dare we say, California?
The recently introduced Republican alternative to Obamacare, seems "tailor made" for Jeb Bush. As 2014 unfolds, Republicans envision a meltdown in Democrat ranks, to the extent of total abandonment of the President's signature accomplishment. The opportunity will be perfect for Bush to pick up the pieces, and with it, bi-partisan support for Obamacare's "replacement."
Bush's business credentials likewise make him the most creditable of voices in support of repealing Dodd-Frank. This too, is on the top of Republicans' wish list.
In essence, "what more" could Republicans want in a 2016 nominee than Jeb Bush? The Establishment would be thrilled with his selection. The base would see him as "better than" Romney, McCain or Christie. The Tea Party might not be overjoyed! But, if it came down to a choice between Hillary or staying home, they would pull the lever for Jeb!
In short, we are talking about a unified Republican party! Could anything be more perfect? Or, are we forgetting something? Such as the fact that more Americans today are Independents than either Republicans or Democrats?
There is a growing call for the end of an increasingly intrusive federal government. While decidedly more conservative than Hillary Clinton, critics recall Jeb Bush's support of Common Core. Constitutional conservatives consider this program nothing short of "more big government."
As President, there is little doubt that Jeb Bush's court appointments would be more conservative than Hillary's. But, what would Jeb's position be on "downsizing" the Washington bureaucracy. Would he take the 10th amendment seriously? Or, would he give it lip service? Would he commit to "reducing the size, scope and cost" of the federal government? Would he bring public sector pay and benefits in line with the Americans they serve?
What about Independents? What about the 20% who were referenced in the June 2011, National Review article, "Dangerous Dissaffecteds." Hillary will be promising handouts. But these Americans want jobs, serious jobs with benefits! Ten-dollar per hour jobs aren't what they have in mind! And, least we forget, "Dissafecteds" don't trust government and are disgusted with both parties!
These are the behind the scene questions that will be leveled at Jeb Bush. While his name bears no malignancy with Republicans and likely few Americans, there is concern of his father's and brother's "Neo-con," legasy. Will Jeb follow suit? Good question.
Constitutional conservatives see a stark difference in their brand of conservativism and the "Neo-Con" version. Jeb's support for Common core lends insight into his position on other issues. Rather than return to a more 10th amendment focused America, Jeb might be satisfied with slightly modifying the status quot. His brother's watch included almost as much growth in government as Obama's. Bush the Elder was a great American Patriot. But, he was also a devout Keynesian, and a member of the Tri-Lateral Commission.
Jeb Bush would be hard to beat in a Republican primary. His father was seen as "hard to beat" in the 1980 Republican primary. Little would we have known that a former actor might take the honor.
Which brings us to the inevitable question: "Is Jeb the man?"
For the party establishment, "definitely!"
For the party base, "probably."
For the Conservative movement, "marginally."
For the Tea Party, "unfortunately."
For real reform in the federal government, it's size, scope and cost? "Unlikely."
With Chris Christie's implosion, a giant void has opened. GOP alternatives, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are visiting early primary states. A revolt with the party base is brewing.
Will Jeb Bush run in 2016? Thus far, he isn't saying yes. But, he isn't saying no. It will come down to if the decision creates "joy" in his heart and if it's in "best interest" of his family. The former Florida Governor has promised to "think about it hard," later into the year.
The official Democrat line is echoed by the mainstream media. "The nation is "O.D.'d" on Bushes." Yet, in private circles, party leaders have acknowledged that even Hillary would have difficulty beating Bush in his home state. From there, an electoral problem unfolds.
John Ellis Bush is neither his father or brother. In fact, his career path is quite different. The holder of a B.A. in Latin American Studies from the University of Texas at Austin, Jeb went one step further in marrying Columba Garnica Gallo, a native of Leon, Mexico. Raised a Methodist, he converted to Roman Catholism.
While securing a noteworthy record of public service, including a successful two-term Governship, most of Jeb's adult life has been spent in the private sector. This includes but is not limited to, deep experience in International Trade and Finance.
As Governor he scored points with Environmentalists with his opposition to off shore drilling. His record on healthcare is impressive. His support and facilitation of Charter schools in Florida drew applause from both Republicans and Democrats.
Democrats recall that the issue of Charter schools split their constituency. Hillary Clinton, at the urging of the teachers union, voiced opposition. Barack Obama supported the concept. Insiders, including David Axelrod believe that this may have been the issue that ultimately swung the nomination to Obama. Worse still for Hillary, Jeb Bush was both a supporter and pioneer of Charter schools. Their success in the Sunshine state has been decisive.
Democrats are gravely concerned with Jeb Bush's history of Hispanic support. In 2003, Bush was returned to the Governor's mansion with 56% of non-Cuban Hispanic support and better than 80% of the Cuban votes. That could spell big trouble in states like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado! Even, dare we say, California?
The recently introduced Republican alternative to Obamacare, seems "tailor made" for Jeb Bush. As 2014 unfolds, Republicans envision a meltdown in Democrat ranks, to the extent of total abandonment of the President's signature accomplishment. The opportunity will be perfect for Bush to pick up the pieces, and with it, bi-partisan support for Obamacare's "replacement."
Bush's business credentials likewise make him the most creditable of voices in support of repealing Dodd-Frank. This too, is on the top of Republicans' wish list.
In essence, "what more" could Republicans want in a 2016 nominee than Jeb Bush? The Establishment would be thrilled with his selection. The base would see him as "better than" Romney, McCain or Christie. The Tea Party might not be overjoyed! But, if it came down to a choice between Hillary or staying home, they would pull the lever for Jeb!
In short, we are talking about a unified Republican party! Could anything be more perfect? Or, are we forgetting something? Such as the fact that more Americans today are Independents than either Republicans or Democrats?
There is a growing call for the end of an increasingly intrusive federal government. While decidedly more conservative than Hillary Clinton, critics recall Jeb Bush's support of Common Core. Constitutional conservatives consider this program nothing short of "more big government."
As President, there is little doubt that Jeb Bush's court appointments would be more conservative than Hillary's. But, what would Jeb's position be on "downsizing" the Washington bureaucracy. Would he take the 10th amendment seriously? Or, would he give it lip service? Would he commit to "reducing the size, scope and cost" of the federal government? Would he bring public sector pay and benefits in line with the Americans they serve?
What about Independents? What about the 20% who were referenced in the June 2011, National Review article, "Dangerous Dissaffecteds." Hillary will be promising handouts. But these Americans want jobs, serious jobs with benefits! Ten-dollar per hour jobs aren't what they have in mind! And, least we forget, "Dissafecteds" don't trust government and are disgusted with both parties!
These are the behind the scene questions that will be leveled at Jeb Bush. While his name bears no malignancy with Republicans and likely few Americans, there is concern of his father's and brother's "Neo-con," legasy. Will Jeb follow suit? Good question.
Constitutional conservatives see a stark difference in their brand of conservativism and the "Neo-Con" version. Jeb's support for Common core lends insight into his position on other issues. Rather than return to a more 10th amendment focused America, Jeb might be satisfied with slightly modifying the status quot. His brother's watch included almost as much growth in government as Obama's. Bush the Elder was a great American Patriot. But, he was also a devout Keynesian, and a member of the Tri-Lateral Commission.
Jeb Bush would be hard to beat in a Republican primary. His father was seen as "hard to beat" in the 1980 Republican primary. Little would we have known that a former actor might take the honor.
Which brings us to the inevitable question: "Is Jeb the man?"
For the party establishment, "definitely!"
For the party base, "probably."
For the Conservative movement, "marginally."
For the Tea Party, "unfortunately."
For real reform in the federal government, it's size, scope and cost? "Unlikely."
Saturday, February 8, 2014
With Christie Done, Establishment May Turn to Romney
With Chris Christie likely dead in the water, the Republican Establishment has gone to plan "B." Who else but Mitt Romney!
Are we serious?
The Wall Street crowd is! It goes back to selecting a predictable candidate. With Hillary Clinton, they know what they will be getting. Romney is merely a different variation of the same element.
Isn't Mitt a moderate? Throughout the primaries, he tried to recreate himself as a conservative. The base didn't buy it. Then, in debate numero uno, the real Mitt emerged. Democrats were initially surprised! For a couple of weeks, they could see the election slipping away.
Barack gained the usual media help. A devastating storm briefly diverted the nations' attention. Governor Christie appeared as the man in charge, working robustly with the President to aid the Sandy victims. True, the relief effort was pretty much "botched." But the overall exposure portrayed Christie as an in touch, on the spot leader. Romney's image of an out-of-touch elitist was not impaired.
Sixteen months later, Governor Christie shows signs of having "clay feet." We recall his RNC convention speech. There is the question "why" he held the Jersey Senate race on a different day as the Governors race. Then came "traffic-gate." Hints of a rejection by the Republican base are everywhere!
In returning to "Moderate Mitt," as Bill Clinton phraised, Romney reaffirmed his trust with the Establishment. As a result, they may look to him in 2016. As with Hillary, they will know going in, what they are getting.
Is Hillary more moderate that Barack Obama? Not hardly! She represents the entrenched Establishment. There are two wings of the Democrat Party,but differences are more connected with personalities than ideology. Consistent with both is their conclusion that "big government is the best government."
While the Republican Establishment may talk about the "grave contrast," they aren't particularly dissimiliar from Democrats. Like their counterparts, they favor a "large, Washington D.C. based government." As with Democrats, they reason "we know what is best" for the people. True, there may be differences on how money is allocated. But, it still goes back to the same idea that "big government is the best government."
It is essentially an understanding of how our system works. We are in what some describe as a "global" economy. Fortune 500 companies collectively determine outcomes. It begins with an understanding of the general principle of one world government.
Conspiracy theory? Not really. Hillary, Mitt, Christie and Obama have four things in common: They are avowed Keynesians. They favor a large central government making decisions for all. They do not threaten the power structure. In short, they are safe; for those manning the ship!
What about the rest of the people? If you are talking about the poor, they will be saved by the safety net. This "net" is growing daily. Meanwhile, the Middle Class is shrinking. And the top 1%, those making $394,000 or more per year, is getting richer.
Is America done? Possibly. But there may be hope. Take a look at how many states are calling for conventions. Something is happening in America. The Establishment is keeping a wary eye on it. A lot could result from rediscovery of the 10th amendment in America. From Wall Street's prospective, this might prove costly!
Two months ago, I posted "All Roads Lead to Nashville," on this blog. It called for a Nashville convention, held first quarter 2015. A 15-plank platform would be adopted. The disposition of the Republican Party would be determined. It would accept the platform. Or, it would die, right then, right there! We're not talking "third party." We are talking "replacement party." Potentially, the modern Republican Party would go the way of the Whig Party.
A drastic outcome? Maybe. But the alternative is "a red team versus a blue team, playing for the same university."
Can this be done? Definitely. It is a matter of finding a proven leader who blends experience with insight. And, the coming together of all who seek to "reduce the size, scope and cost" of the federal government. This amounts to change. And, least we forget, not everyone wants this kind of change!While decentralization of power may benefit the majority, it will take from those who currently enjoy it!
In short, their allegiance begins with Wall Street. Their true masters are the Fortune 500 companies. They are mainly concerned with protecting and advancing their wealth, influence and power. This is the Establishment. These are the people pulling the strings. Democrat? Republican? The line grows fuzzy. The question becomes, "how long" will it be before those who hold a different American vision unite.
It won't happen with a Chris Christie or Mitt Romney, anymore than it will happen with Hillary Clinton.
Are we serious?
The Wall Street crowd is! It goes back to selecting a predictable candidate. With Hillary Clinton, they know what they will be getting. Romney is merely a different variation of the same element.
Isn't Mitt a moderate? Throughout the primaries, he tried to recreate himself as a conservative. The base didn't buy it. Then, in debate numero uno, the real Mitt emerged. Democrats were initially surprised! For a couple of weeks, they could see the election slipping away.
Barack gained the usual media help. A devastating storm briefly diverted the nations' attention. Governor Christie appeared as the man in charge, working robustly with the President to aid the Sandy victims. True, the relief effort was pretty much "botched." But the overall exposure portrayed Christie as an in touch, on the spot leader. Romney's image of an out-of-touch elitist was not impaired.
Sixteen months later, Governor Christie shows signs of having "clay feet." We recall his RNC convention speech. There is the question "why" he held the Jersey Senate race on a different day as the Governors race. Then came "traffic-gate." Hints of a rejection by the Republican base are everywhere!
In returning to "Moderate Mitt," as Bill Clinton phraised, Romney reaffirmed his trust with the Establishment. As a result, they may look to him in 2016. As with Hillary, they will know going in, what they are getting.
Is Hillary more moderate that Barack Obama? Not hardly! She represents the entrenched Establishment. There are two wings of the Democrat Party,but differences are more connected with personalities than ideology. Consistent with both is their conclusion that "big government is the best government."
While the Republican Establishment may talk about the "grave contrast," they aren't particularly dissimiliar from Democrats. Like their counterparts, they favor a "large, Washington D.C. based government." As with Democrats, they reason "we know what is best" for the people. True, there may be differences on how money is allocated. But, it still goes back to the same idea that "big government is the best government."
It is essentially an understanding of how our system works. We are in what some describe as a "global" economy. Fortune 500 companies collectively determine outcomes. It begins with an understanding of the general principle of one world government.
Conspiracy theory? Not really. Hillary, Mitt, Christie and Obama have four things in common: They are avowed Keynesians. They favor a large central government making decisions for all. They do not threaten the power structure. In short, they are safe; for those manning the ship!
What about the rest of the people? If you are talking about the poor, they will be saved by the safety net. This "net" is growing daily. Meanwhile, the Middle Class is shrinking. And the top 1%, those making $394,000 or more per year, is getting richer.
Is America done? Possibly. But there may be hope. Take a look at how many states are calling for conventions. Something is happening in America. The Establishment is keeping a wary eye on it. A lot could result from rediscovery of the 10th amendment in America. From Wall Street's prospective, this might prove costly!
Two months ago, I posted "All Roads Lead to Nashville," on this blog. It called for a Nashville convention, held first quarter 2015. A 15-plank platform would be adopted. The disposition of the Republican Party would be determined. It would accept the platform. Or, it would die, right then, right there! We're not talking "third party." We are talking "replacement party." Potentially, the modern Republican Party would go the way of the Whig Party.
A drastic outcome? Maybe. But the alternative is "a red team versus a blue team, playing for the same university."
Can this be done? Definitely. It is a matter of finding a proven leader who blends experience with insight. And, the coming together of all who seek to "reduce the size, scope and cost" of the federal government. This amounts to change. And, least we forget, not everyone wants this kind of change!While decentralization of power may benefit the majority, it will take from those who currently enjoy it!
In short, their allegiance begins with Wall Street. Their true masters are the Fortune 500 companies. They are mainly concerned with protecting and advancing their wealth, influence and power. This is the Establishment. These are the people pulling the strings. Democrat? Republican? The line grows fuzzy. The question becomes, "how long" will it be before those who hold a different American vision unite.
It won't happen with a Chris Christie or Mitt Romney, anymore than it will happen with Hillary Clinton.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Christie's Implosion Creates Quandary for Establishment
Chris Christie may be imploding to the point of no return!
Who would have ever thought that something as seemingly minor as a traffic jam could change the face of history! But it might.
As the story unfolds, pundits are scrambling to determine if it will be the end of Christie's Presidential aspirations. While the jury is still out, it would appear that the noose is closing!
With the Establishment, there is cause for concern. Some have suggested that the New Jersey Governor represented the parties' "best chance" to reclaim the White House. If memory serves me correctly, these same strategists were telling the party that it was Mitt Romney who represented Republicans "best chance" to defeat Barack Obama.
I recall the son of a former CIA operative ruefully admitting that is was all "predetermined." His analogy was food for thought.
"It's like a red team and a blue team playing for the same university." His comparison suggested that our two-party system was rigged. Really? Are we that cynical?
The 2012 Republican primary does support such thinking. Do we recall when Mitt Romney begin losing ground to Rick Santorum. For a brief instant, it looked like the former Pennsylvania Senator might actually win Michigan and with it, the primary! It was at that time that the Fortune 500 coffers opened up on behalf of Governor Romney. His campaign survived.
It was equally disquieting to note that these same sources were contributing to the Obama campaign, effectively hedging their bets! There was concern that Santorum's message hinted "protectionism." This is inconsistent with the globalist mindset.
A Christie versus Hillary campaign offers the same benefits as a Mitt versus Obama face off. True, there are some differences. In reality, however we are talking about "slightly different variations of the same ideology." Case in point: "Romney, Obama, Clinton and Christie are "Keynesians."
Losing Christie as a candidate creates a quandary for the Establishment. Who is their next best option?
Ideally it would be Jeb Bush. His father was a noted Keynesian. He knows the ropes. While more socially conservative than Christie, he is trusted by big business. Like his brother, he thinks globally. He would unite the Republican Party. But there is one major problem with the former Florida Governor: He may not be interested in the job!
Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker has been on the tongues of "blue state" Republicans. But does he have the desire to make a go in 2016? Ohio Governor, John Kasich, has likewise been mentioned. But, like Walker, he may not be ready to map a 50-state campaign.
From there, the field becomes even more murky. One liberal blog even suggested that the "big boys" secretly wished for Mitt Ronmney to make another go in 2016!
Obviously, the remaining GOP possibilities concern the Republican Establishment. It may come down to determining who is "most safe" for their interests.
Earlier in the week, Governor Mike Huckabee was listed by one poll as the leader of potential 2016 Republican Presidential contenders. Would the Establishment back him? Possibly. His television show on Fox News has introduced him to the country. He has a warm and reassuring presence. He won the Iowa primary in 2008. Like Bill Clinton, he is from Hope, Arkansas.
Governor Huckabee also knows more about the Clinton's than anyone. His soft, satirical wit would paint the former Secretary of State into the corner of "secular globalism," effectively "demonizing" her, in a nice way! This creates complications. Plus, his "fair tax" is purely a consumption tax. We're talking "major change" in the tax structure.
Governor Rick Perry is more likely to seek the office than either Mike Huckabee or Jeb Bush. While business friendly, Perry believes in the 10th amendment, as in, "states rights." He could prove unpredictable.
From there the field rapidly spirals into an oblivion of uncertainties. These power brokers do not like or want something that they can't put their finger on!
In many ways, the implosion of Governor Christie may be the best thing that could happen to the Republican Party. There is a need for something new. But the Establishment doesn't want "new." They want dependable. They like knowing the outcome, before it is upon them. Mitt Romney and Chris Christie are as close ideologically as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are.
The same thinking prevailed in 1976 when Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford were the nominees. George H.W. Bush was their preference in 1980.
In is encouraging to remember that Ronald Reagan won the nomination in 1980, proving that the system is not rigged! Keynesian Bush initially called Reagan's "supply side" economics "voodoo economics." But, he became Reagan's Vice President and served admirably.
It is probable that whomever the eventual nominee, a similar concession will be made. It comes down to money. These guys have it! Without it, a 50-state campaign in today's America is next to impossible.
Who would have ever thought that something as seemingly minor as a traffic jam could change the face of history! But it might.
As the story unfolds, pundits are scrambling to determine if it will be the end of Christie's Presidential aspirations. While the jury is still out, it would appear that the noose is closing!
With the Establishment, there is cause for concern. Some have suggested that the New Jersey Governor represented the parties' "best chance" to reclaim the White House. If memory serves me correctly, these same strategists were telling the party that it was Mitt Romney who represented Republicans "best chance" to defeat Barack Obama.
I recall the son of a former CIA operative ruefully admitting that is was all "predetermined." His analogy was food for thought.
"It's like a red team and a blue team playing for the same university." His comparison suggested that our two-party system was rigged. Really? Are we that cynical?
The 2012 Republican primary does support such thinking. Do we recall when Mitt Romney begin losing ground to Rick Santorum. For a brief instant, it looked like the former Pennsylvania Senator might actually win Michigan and with it, the primary! It was at that time that the Fortune 500 coffers opened up on behalf of Governor Romney. His campaign survived.
It was equally disquieting to note that these same sources were contributing to the Obama campaign, effectively hedging their bets! There was concern that Santorum's message hinted "protectionism." This is inconsistent with the globalist mindset.
A Christie versus Hillary campaign offers the same benefits as a Mitt versus Obama face off. True, there are some differences. In reality, however we are talking about "slightly different variations of the same ideology." Case in point: "Romney, Obama, Clinton and Christie are "Keynesians."
Losing Christie as a candidate creates a quandary for the Establishment. Who is their next best option?
Ideally it would be Jeb Bush. His father was a noted Keynesian. He knows the ropes. While more socially conservative than Christie, he is trusted by big business. Like his brother, he thinks globally. He would unite the Republican Party. But there is one major problem with the former Florida Governor: He may not be interested in the job!
Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker has been on the tongues of "blue state" Republicans. But does he have the desire to make a go in 2016? Ohio Governor, John Kasich, has likewise been mentioned. But, like Walker, he may not be ready to map a 50-state campaign.
From there, the field becomes even more murky. One liberal blog even suggested that the "big boys" secretly wished for Mitt Ronmney to make another go in 2016!
Obviously, the remaining GOP possibilities concern the Republican Establishment. It may come down to determining who is "most safe" for their interests.
Earlier in the week, Governor Mike Huckabee was listed by one poll as the leader of potential 2016 Republican Presidential contenders. Would the Establishment back him? Possibly. His television show on Fox News has introduced him to the country. He has a warm and reassuring presence. He won the Iowa primary in 2008. Like Bill Clinton, he is from Hope, Arkansas.
Governor Huckabee also knows more about the Clinton's than anyone. His soft, satirical wit would paint the former Secretary of State into the corner of "secular globalism," effectively "demonizing" her, in a nice way! This creates complications. Plus, his "fair tax" is purely a consumption tax. We're talking "major change" in the tax structure.
Governor Rick Perry is more likely to seek the office than either Mike Huckabee or Jeb Bush. While business friendly, Perry believes in the 10th amendment, as in, "states rights." He could prove unpredictable.
From there the field rapidly spirals into an oblivion of uncertainties. These power brokers do not like or want something that they can't put their finger on!
In many ways, the implosion of Governor Christie may be the best thing that could happen to the Republican Party. There is a need for something new. But the Establishment doesn't want "new." They want dependable. They like knowing the outcome, before it is upon them. Mitt Romney and Chris Christie are as close ideologically as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are.
The same thinking prevailed in 1976 when Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford were the nominees. George H.W. Bush was their preference in 1980.
In is encouraging to remember that Ronald Reagan won the nomination in 1980, proving that the system is not rigged! Keynesian Bush initially called Reagan's "supply side" economics "voodoo economics." But, he became Reagan's Vice President and served admirably.
It is probable that whomever the eventual nominee, a similar concession will be made. It comes down to money. These guys have it! Without it, a 50-state campaign in today's America is next to impossible.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Perry's Marijuana Position Reflects Practicality, Wisdom
Governor, Rick Perry shocked the conservative universe with his January 24th surprise support for decriminalization of Marijuana. As Breibart.com put it, "Republicans have gone wimpy."
"Wimpy?" Try practical!
Governor Perry is acknowledging that the 50-year war on drugs has been, at best marginally effective, at worst, a failure. In Texas alone there has been a record number of arrests for possession. This has translated to millions spent on law enforcement. And, as Perry concluded, the majority of Texas and the country favors decriminalization.
"Shocked," might be a better word for it! That was Ana Yanez-Correa's word for it! Yanez-Correa is the Director of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, a non-profit advocacy group that favors drug treatment over incarceration for Marijuana possession.
Yanez-Correa said that she was impressed with Perry's courage. "Perry has gone through a shift; he's evolved. He represents the transition the state has gone through from being really, really tough to being more sensible about it."
Perhaps Perry is positioning himself for a 2016 Presidential run. While he has always opposed outright legalization of Marijuana, he has made it clear that the final decision belonged to the individual state. This past Friday,Perry repeated his assertion.
In Perry's view, "Marijuana legalization, abortion and same sex marriage" should be decided by the individual state. States should set their own policies. "Then," as he surmised,"people will decide where they want to live."
"I am a staunch supporter of the 10th amendment." Perry explains. In effect, the federal government should not interfere with the laws of individual state.
Has Perry moved toward the proverbial center? Not really. In fact, he has done something that should have already been done: He has drawn a line in the sand, firing the first salvo in Republicans' quest to "define conservatism."
In a previous post, we referenced Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul's definition of "Constitutional Conservatism" and "New Conservatism." As Paul defined, "New Conservatists(Neo-Cons) support a large central government" with a purpose "to advance and facilitate conservative principles."
"Constitutional Conservatives," such as Rick Perry, support a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, if the 10th amendment never referenced Marijuana, abortion or same sex marriage as the duty of the federal government, then it must be individual states' responsibility.
To many stalwart conservatives, Perry must, in actuality, be a liberal. Perhaps. But, it this is the conclusion, the same distinction should be applied to Thomas Jefferson.
Many conservatives have become so enmeshed in Neo-Con doctrine that they have turned their back on our original founders perception of America. What would Jefferson and James Madison have said about these questions?
Obviously, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein and Charlie Schumer view the Constitution from the standpoint of "are you kidding!" But what about supposed conservatives? Do they really harbor a paradigm that is significantly different?
In a April 2013 post, we examined the century old Communist argument. There is mounting evidence that Neo-Cons are evolved Trotskyites. Thus, the perception that conservatism must originate from Washington D.C. is really a smoke screen for "big government is the best government."
In Texas, Perry took a long look at the result of the war on drugs, Marijuana specifically and concluded that arrests and convictions for possession wasn't the answer. Give him credit for admitting the inevitable! It comes from the wisdom that most true conservatives support his position.
This steadfast strength and courage is precisely why Rick Perry can be elected President in 2016. He realizes that most party Dogmatics have been unknowingly seduced by Neo-Con ideology. Yet the majority of Republicans, not to mention Americans are with him.
The standard Neo-Con position would suggest that Washington mandate, "Marijuana possession should be a crime from coast-to-coast. Period! Never mind what residents in that state might decide!"
Rick Perry is not a child of privilege. He grew up on a farm in a tiny West Texas town, in a family of limited means. He has always been a man of the people. In his travels throughout the state, he quietly took their pulse. A desire for more practical marijuana laws surfaced.
The Texas preference may be different from that in Colorado, Alabama or New York. But in Perry's(and almost certainly Jefferson's) opinion, the decision should be made in Denver, Mountgomery or Albany.
Not in Washington, D.C.!
"Wimpy?" Try practical!
Governor Perry is acknowledging that the 50-year war on drugs has been, at best marginally effective, at worst, a failure. In Texas alone there has been a record number of arrests for possession. This has translated to millions spent on law enforcement. And, as Perry concluded, the majority of Texas and the country favors decriminalization.
"Shocked," might be a better word for it! That was Ana Yanez-Correa's word for it! Yanez-Correa is the Director of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, a non-profit advocacy group that favors drug treatment over incarceration for Marijuana possession.
Yanez-Correa said that she was impressed with Perry's courage. "Perry has gone through a shift; he's evolved. He represents the transition the state has gone through from being really, really tough to being more sensible about it."
Perhaps Perry is positioning himself for a 2016 Presidential run. While he has always opposed outright legalization of Marijuana, he has made it clear that the final decision belonged to the individual state. This past Friday,Perry repeated his assertion.
In Perry's view, "Marijuana legalization, abortion and same sex marriage" should be decided by the individual state. States should set their own policies. "Then," as he surmised,"people will decide where they want to live."
"I am a staunch supporter of the 10th amendment." Perry explains. In effect, the federal government should not interfere with the laws of individual state.
Has Perry moved toward the proverbial center? Not really. In fact, he has done something that should have already been done: He has drawn a line in the sand, firing the first salvo in Republicans' quest to "define conservatism."
In a previous post, we referenced Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul's definition of "Constitutional Conservatism" and "New Conservatism." As Paul defined, "New Conservatists(Neo-Cons) support a large central government" with a purpose "to advance and facilitate conservative principles."
"Constitutional Conservatives," such as Rick Perry, support a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, if the 10th amendment never referenced Marijuana, abortion or same sex marriage as the duty of the federal government, then it must be individual states' responsibility.
To many stalwart conservatives, Perry must, in actuality, be a liberal. Perhaps. But, it this is the conclusion, the same distinction should be applied to Thomas Jefferson.
Many conservatives have become so enmeshed in Neo-Con doctrine that they have turned their back on our original founders perception of America. What would Jefferson and James Madison have said about these questions?
Obviously, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein and Charlie Schumer view the Constitution from the standpoint of "are you kidding!" But what about supposed conservatives? Do they really harbor a paradigm that is significantly different?
In a April 2013 post, we examined the century old Communist argument. There is mounting evidence that Neo-Cons are evolved Trotskyites. Thus, the perception that conservatism must originate from Washington D.C. is really a smoke screen for "big government is the best government."
In Texas, Perry took a long look at the result of the war on drugs, Marijuana specifically and concluded that arrests and convictions for possession wasn't the answer. Give him credit for admitting the inevitable! It comes from the wisdom that most true conservatives support his position.
This steadfast strength and courage is precisely why Rick Perry can be elected President in 2016. He realizes that most party Dogmatics have been unknowingly seduced by Neo-Con ideology. Yet the majority of Republicans, not to mention Americans are with him.
The standard Neo-Con position would suggest that Washington mandate, "Marijuana possession should be a crime from coast-to-coast. Period! Never mind what residents in that state might decide!"
Rick Perry is not a child of privilege. He grew up on a farm in a tiny West Texas town, in a family of limited means. He has always been a man of the people. In his travels throughout the state, he quietly took their pulse. A desire for more practical marijuana laws surfaced.
The Texas preference may be different from that in Colorado, Alabama or New York. But in Perry's(and almost certainly Jefferson's) opinion, the decision should be made in Denver, Mountgomery or Albany.
Not in Washington, D.C.!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)