To the surprise of some, a Hillary Clinton Presidential nomination isn't welcomed by all Democrats.
Last week, Texas Governor, Rick Perry challenged New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo to a one-on-one debate. All issues would be on the table. The Perry camp proposed to hold the debate in New York this past week. Cuomo never responded.
As of late, Perry has been scouring the Northeast inviting business' to relocate to Texas. High tax New York has been a target. In an effort to counter these defections, the Empire State has launched it's own overture; effectively waiving business taxes for ten years for companies relocating to New York.
Perry's motivation is two-pronged. A debate with Cuomo would allow him to further showcase the benefits of Texas, it's business friendliness and reasonable cost of living. It would also create the perfect opportunity to quell doubts of his debating ability.
The 2012 Republican debates were none too kind to Rick Perry! In addition to receiving arguably the most "hard ball" questions from the moderators, he caught it from both the right and the left; from fellow Republicans!
Mitt Romney took exception to Perry's description of Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme." This was true. Romney, a strong debator translated the label to insinuate that Perry opposed Social Security. This was untrue.
In his recent book, "Fed Up" Perry had questioned the solvency of Social Security. One of the MSNBC moderators reminded that Karl Rove had labeled Social Security a "toxic issue." Suddenly Perry was debating almost the entire Republican field, as well as the debate moderators.
Next up was the HPV Vaccine and Michelle Bachmann pounced on it! Perry manfully admitted that it was a mistake. The goal of the vaccine had been "to prevent cancer." His "pro life" argument seemingly fell on deaf ears. In typical Bachmann style, the "gadfly" Congresswoman(Donald Trump's word) colored fact with fiction in blasting Perry. Ironically, the legislation was never actually implemented.
From there it was the tuition tax waiver for children "illegally in the country through no fault of their own." The Texas legislature decided by vote of 177 to four, to treat these Texas high school graduates as Texans, exempting them from out-of-state tuition for state colleges and universitites. Perry signed off on it.
Romney, Bachmann and Rick Santorum demagogued Perry mercilessly! The real damage came when debate sponsor, the Tampa Tea Party booed Perry. Republicans may have lost the general election that night.
It is never easy debating a multitude of opinions, simultaneously. But that is what Perry did. The tuition question required simple 10th amendment logic. It was a decision that was Texas' alone. Romney, Bachmann and Santorum believed that Perry should have vetoed the bill. Never mind the fact that there was a near unanimous Congressional consensus favoring waiver!
In the end, Republican faithful concluded that Perry was a poor debator. Some softened their scrutiny when they learned of Perry's back surgery the previous summer. Sadly, in the minds of many, the ability to debate has become more important than actual job performance. A successful debate with Cuomo would lay to rest any and all concerns.
Why would Andrew Cuomo entertain Perry's overture? For starters, it presents the chance to tell America that New York is serious about job creation. Company departures due to both taxes and other reasons are problematic. Just last month Remington Fire Arms announced that it was moving it's plant and 2000 jobs to Alabama. The state's restrictive laws on firearms and Cuomo's apparent contempt for the 2nd amendment are cited as "motivations."
A high profile debate would give Andrew Cuomo the platform to position himself as the alternative to Hillary Clinton. He of the "correct" mindset where social issues are concerned. And, he has Executive experience, something that Mrs. Clinton lacks.
Democrat primaries traditionally have presented alternatives. In most cases it was establishment versus challenger. In 1968 Hubert Humphrey held off Henry "Scoop" Jackson. After losing the general election to Richard Nixon, the former Vice President returned in '72 but was upset by George McGovern.
We recall Ted Kennedy's unsuccessful challenge of then seated President Jimmy Carter in 1980. And who could forget Walter Mondale's "where's the beef" question layed on Gary Hart in the 1984 primary.
By 1988 the party has slipped further to the left. Al Gore was considered the "conservative," Jesse Jackson the "liberal" which landed Massachusetts Governor, Michael Dukakis in the coveted center.
Sporting three consecutive general election losses, Democrats faced a dilemma. Mario Cuomo, considered the frontrunner, shocked party members by staying out of the race. This opened the door for Bill Clinton and his promise of a "New Democratic Party" with a "new kind of Democrat." Aided by Ross Perot's third party candidacy, Clinton won, not receiving 50% of the total vote.
In 2000 Vice President, Al Gore assumed the frontrunner mantle, holding off New Jersey Senator, Bill Bradley. We know the story of 2008. For Andrew Cuomo to emerge as Hillary's rival for the nomination would not be inconsistent with history.
Worrisome for the Democrat Establishment is "what if" Cuomo gained early traction with the base? Nationally defining his America versus that of Rick Perry's might be all that was needed! In politics it is all about perception. And money. Cuomo would have both.
Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren is already seen as a "true believer" by party ideologues. Her jumping on Cuomo's bandwagon would be viewed as "the coming together of two great progressive minds." Suddenly it would be the "future of the party versus the past." The true "pulse" of America versus the "status quot." Warren is currently being mentioned as a Presidential possibility.
Could this development realistically materialize? Heavens yes! To Progressive purists Cuomo-Warren would be the dynamic duo, the ultimate "Crusaders for Social Justice." Especially in comparison to "Wall Streetish" Hillary Clinton. Today's "Progressives view Hillary in much the same manner that the Tea Party views Jeb Bush: "watered down."
A Cuomo-Perry debate would vividly portray the contrasting visions of America. But it wouldn't be about Liberal versus Conservative, rather "how much autonomy" should the individual states be afforded?
This is obviously not the debate that Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush would seek in their envisioned face-off.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Probable Hillary Nomination Creates Opportunity for GOP
All signs indicate that America's power structure has settled on a Jeb-Hillary face-off in 2016. There is certainly comfort in such a scenario. Yet, today we have a different America; an America more divided than ever. Extreme ideologies create a spawning ground for a multitude of outcomes.
In an October issue of "The Nation" magazine, Richard Kim labeled a Hillary Clinton candidacy as "no new ideas here." Kim surmised. "It's hard to imagine a Democrat of national stature more ill-equipped to speak to the nation's populist mood."
Are we suggesting that there might be "trouble in paradise" for Democrats? You bet!
According to Berkeley economist, Emmanuel Saez, "the top one percent captured 95 percent of all income gains in the so-called recovery, while the bottom 99 percent barely gained at all."
Not a good report card for Democrats, considering that they have held the White House since '08 and the Senate since '06. In fact, it's evidence that the status quot may be worth voting against. Doesn't matter whom the option might be. Even the "right" Republican could garner consideration.
Kim's article reveals several counts of "Crony Capitalism." Topping that list was Doug Band, Bill Clinton's former body man, "who managed to turn his lowly position as jacket holder and BlackBerry keeper into a consulting business that afforded him $8.8 million in Manhattan real estate."
With 2014 moving toward the one-third point, few strong alternatives to Hillary are appearing. Joe Biden draws more guffaws than praises; from his own party members! Andrew Cuomo is feared to bring about another Bush-Dakukis verdict. Martin O'Malley is too much of an unknown.
The far left embraces Massachusett's Junior Senator, Elizabeth Warren. And why not! She thinks that a $25 per hour minimum wage is salvation in America. Her knowledge of business and economics is comparable to Mike Ditka's expertise in home economics!
Kim's conclusion: "If Hillary wins the nomination it will likely be because she scared off potential insurgents and shut down the debate early."
That's what generally happens when you have a monster war chest and elite connections. The problem is you must take care of those who helped you. It's called "the spoils system."
Hillary supporters point to polls, showing her running far ahead of all Republicans. They speak confidently that she would be a first; an experienced woman with credentials. But has anyone really put those "credentials" under a microscope?
In short, Republicans may face a very beatable Democrat in 2016. Their challenge will be to nominate a real alternative to Hillary Clinton. The pattern has been to nominate someone safe, preferably a moderate who appeals to swing voters in the suburbs of Philadelphia and Chicago. Herein lies the problem.
Unless Illinois finds a way to expell Cook County, the state is out-of-reach for Republicans in 2016. Pennsylvania could go "red;" if the Catholic Church would endorse the Republican candidate. But it won't! In spite of it's vehement opposition to both abortion and same sex marriage, like all contemporary churches, the numero uno concern has been "preserving and protecting tax exempt status!"
Can Jeb Bush defeat Hillary Clinton? Yes. But, he is not the only Republican who could.
There was a brief window in 2012 when it looked like Rick Santorum might shock the world. His supporters were openly talking about New Mexico Governor, Susanna Martinez as a possible running mate. The power brokers were actually becoming alarmed.
Two Roman Catholics against a gay rights advocate, holding a twenty-year seat in Jeremiah Wright's congregation, did not bode well. Eventually, even a stagnant institution such as the Roman Catholic Church must make a stand! The Establishment's saving grace was Mitt Romney. His LDS affiliation made it politically correct for the GOP to keep religion out of the discussion.
Perhaps Christians are content with the status quot. Going to a service and hearing a mealy mouthed sermon on "grace and fellowship," is safe. Discussing real issues, such as the "moral decline of America" is laced with pitfalls and fraught with peril!
Winning the 2016 election may be as easy as "mobilizing Evangelicals while simultaneously reaching out to Catholics." The majority of the latter continues to vote Democrat, in spite of Democrats embracement of same sex marriage and government funded abortions!
Americans are seeing a nationwide decline in overall moral standards. The difficulty of arresting this decline amounts to "bigness." The country is simply too large to instigate a resurrection of values from Washington, D.C.. It must be orchestrated at the state level.
This is why Jeb Bush would not be the best choice. While having a good heart, this sincere man may hold too much of a "big government orientation" to embrace a "bottom up," resurgency. For illustrative purposes, imagine the following scenario:
"Alabama passes a law that legalizes classroom prayer in the public schools. A member of the student body complains. The ACLU sends attorneys to halt the practice. Their argument of "separation of church and state" is challenged. Alabama contends that the 10th amendment gives them the right to allow prayer in both the school and the individual classroom. The Governor summons the state militia, mandating that the ACLU representitives be escorted to the state lines."
What would a President Jeb Bush do in this case? In fact, this is a good question for every Republican candidate. Isn't the President sworn to uphold the Constitution? The question is, "does the 10th amendment supercede subsequent rulings that would infringe on an individual state's right?"
We know that Hillary Clinton would say, "definitely not!" It's probable that Jeb Bush would concur. But what about America? Would Americans support a state's individual preference for such a question?
This is where Conservatives can introduce the solution: "Birds of a feather should flock together."
Perhaps most of Massachusetts would oppose this hypothetical action in Alabama. Conversely, Alabamans might not support "Mass Care;" or abortion on demand clinics that surround African American neighborhoods in Chicago and New York City.
Good, bad or indifferent, this is how the framers set up America. Or, as Rick Perry suggested, "move," to states more reflective of one's own values!
Hillary Clinton's inside track creates a wonderful opportunity for Republicans. They can play it safe with a Bob Dole, John McCain, or Mitt Romney. Or, they can reach out for a disciple of real change.
It begins with finding an issue that transcends.
In an October issue of "The Nation" magazine, Richard Kim labeled a Hillary Clinton candidacy as "no new ideas here." Kim surmised. "It's hard to imagine a Democrat of national stature more ill-equipped to speak to the nation's populist mood."
Are we suggesting that there might be "trouble in paradise" for Democrats? You bet!
According to Berkeley economist, Emmanuel Saez, "the top one percent captured 95 percent of all income gains in the so-called recovery, while the bottom 99 percent barely gained at all."
Not a good report card for Democrats, considering that they have held the White House since '08 and the Senate since '06. In fact, it's evidence that the status quot may be worth voting against. Doesn't matter whom the option might be. Even the "right" Republican could garner consideration.
Kim's article reveals several counts of "Crony Capitalism." Topping that list was Doug Band, Bill Clinton's former body man, "who managed to turn his lowly position as jacket holder and BlackBerry keeper into a consulting business that afforded him $8.8 million in Manhattan real estate."
With 2014 moving toward the one-third point, few strong alternatives to Hillary are appearing. Joe Biden draws more guffaws than praises; from his own party members! Andrew Cuomo is feared to bring about another Bush-Dakukis verdict. Martin O'Malley is too much of an unknown.
The far left embraces Massachusett's Junior Senator, Elizabeth Warren. And why not! She thinks that a $25 per hour minimum wage is salvation in America. Her knowledge of business and economics is comparable to Mike Ditka's expertise in home economics!
Kim's conclusion: "If Hillary wins the nomination it will likely be because she scared off potential insurgents and shut down the debate early."
That's what generally happens when you have a monster war chest and elite connections. The problem is you must take care of those who helped you. It's called "the spoils system."
Hillary supporters point to polls, showing her running far ahead of all Republicans. They speak confidently that she would be a first; an experienced woman with credentials. But has anyone really put those "credentials" under a microscope?
In short, Republicans may face a very beatable Democrat in 2016. Their challenge will be to nominate a real alternative to Hillary Clinton. The pattern has been to nominate someone safe, preferably a moderate who appeals to swing voters in the suburbs of Philadelphia and Chicago. Herein lies the problem.
Unless Illinois finds a way to expell Cook County, the state is out-of-reach for Republicans in 2016. Pennsylvania could go "red;" if the Catholic Church would endorse the Republican candidate. But it won't! In spite of it's vehement opposition to both abortion and same sex marriage, like all contemporary churches, the numero uno concern has been "preserving and protecting tax exempt status!"
Can Jeb Bush defeat Hillary Clinton? Yes. But, he is not the only Republican who could.
There was a brief window in 2012 when it looked like Rick Santorum might shock the world. His supporters were openly talking about New Mexico Governor, Susanna Martinez as a possible running mate. The power brokers were actually becoming alarmed.
Two Roman Catholics against a gay rights advocate, holding a twenty-year seat in Jeremiah Wright's congregation, did not bode well. Eventually, even a stagnant institution such as the Roman Catholic Church must make a stand! The Establishment's saving grace was Mitt Romney. His LDS affiliation made it politically correct for the GOP to keep religion out of the discussion.
Perhaps Christians are content with the status quot. Going to a service and hearing a mealy mouthed sermon on "grace and fellowship," is safe. Discussing real issues, such as the "moral decline of America" is laced with pitfalls and fraught with peril!
Winning the 2016 election may be as easy as "mobilizing Evangelicals while simultaneously reaching out to Catholics." The majority of the latter continues to vote Democrat, in spite of Democrats embracement of same sex marriage and government funded abortions!
Americans are seeing a nationwide decline in overall moral standards. The difficulty of arresting this decline amounts to "bigness." The country is simply too large to instigate a resurrection of values from Washington, D.C.. It must be orchestrated at the state level.
This is why Jeb Bush would not be the best choice. While having a good heart, this sincere man may hold too much of a "big government orientation" to embrace a "bottom up," resurgency. For illustrative purposes, imagine the following scenario:
"Alabama passes a law that legalizes classroom prayer in the public schools. A member of the student body complains. The ACLU sends attorneys to halt the practice. Their argument of "separation of church and state" is challenged. Alabama contends that the 10th amendment gives them the right to allow prayer in both the school and the individual classroom. The Governor summons the state militia, mandating that the ACLU representitives be escorted to the state lines."
What would a President Jeb Bush do in this case? In fact, this is a good question for every Republican candidate. Isn't the President sworn to uphold the Constitution? The question is, "does the 10th amendment supercede subsequent rulings that would infringe on an individual state's right?"
We know that Hillary Clinton would say, "definitely not!" It's probable that Jeb Bush would concur. But what about America? Would Americans support a state's individual preference for such a question?
This is where Conservatives can introduce the solution: "Birds of a feather should flock together."
Perhaps most of Massachusetts would oppose this hypothetical action in Alabama. Conversely, Alabamans might not support "Mass Care;" or abortion on demand clinics that surround African American neighborhoods in Chicago and New York City.
Good, bad or indifferent, this is how the framers set up America. Or, as Rick Perry suggested, "move," to states more reflective of one's own values!
Hillary Clinton's inside track creates a wonderful opportunity for Republicans. They can play it safe with a Bob Dole, John McCain, or Mitt Romney. Or, they can reach out for a disciple of real change.
It begins with finding an issue that transcends.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Why Democrats Fear Marco Rubio
Arianna Huffington called him "the Obama of the right."
Bill O'Reilly described him as "a moderate."
Birthers say that he is not "a natural born citizen."
Judson Phillips, the owner of renowned Tea Party Nation blog, recently said a friend called Rubio "a Democrat wearing a Republican suit."
Conservatives grind their teeth when thinking of his role in the "Gang of Ocho."
So what gives? Has the Marco Rubio of 2010 morphed into something of a different persuasion?
For those who have read his book, not to mention followed his votes, you know. Marco continues to be one of the most reliable conservative voices on the hill. Yet, his position on immigration reform is moderate. Especially when compared to that of Tom Tancredo!
Rubio does support the Dream Act, up to a point. He favors a "path" to citizenship for children illegally in the country, through no fault of their own. He draws the line where extended family members are concerned. This is decidedly to the right of George W. Bush, Jeb Bush and John McCain.
Rubio recently introduced "the War on Poverty." It smacks of Federalism. He is critical of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." He touts vocational education. His vision follows the Chinese proverb, "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life."
Some recall 2006 when then House Speaker Rubio introduced a "Tax Swap," that would have eliminated property taxes for all homesteaded Floridians. In 2008, he supported Governor Mike Huckabee's "Fair Tax" proposal.
An advocate of Supply Side Economics, Marco Rubio speaks of his admiration for Ronald Reagan. Largely influenced by his Grandfather, Rubio took the American Dream literally. He has always seen small business as the key job creator. He lovingly talks of "business' being started in bedrooms and basements."
Born in Miami in 1971, most of his life was spent in West Miami, an enclave of middle class, Cuban Americans. There was a six-year hiatus, when the family moved to Las Vegas. He speaks fondly of life there as "the son of a bartender and a hotel maid."
Marco Rubio loves football. An avid Dolphin's fan, he actually attended his freshmen year on a football scholarship at a small college in Missouri. Later, after meeting Michael Irving in the tunnell of Pro Players stadium, and noting his size, he decided that a future in the NFL was out of reach. His wife, the former Jeanette Dousdebes, was later a Dolphin's cheerleader.
From Tarkio college, Rubio transferred to Santa Fe Juco, before finishing at the University of Florida at Gainesville. He then attended Law School at the University of Miami. In the end, he had a monster student loan debt on his back and continues to make the $900 per month payment.
His book, "An American Son," details his 2010 Senatorial campaign against then Governor, Charlie Crist. Those close to Rubio's camp will admit that there was a lot of "bad blood" that remained afterward between them and Stuart Stevens. Stevens managed Crist's and later Mitt Romney's campaign.
Many recall Rubio's extremely late endorsement of Romney. Both Dick Morris and Karl Rove urged Romney to take Rubio as his running mate. Most suspect that there still may be lingering bad feelings from the Senate campaign.
In retrospect, Rubio's not running with Romney may prove to be a blessing! The two men's backgrounds and ideologies are quite different. In fact, Rubio's positions on states rights and the 10th amendment are more reflective of Rick Perry's.
Like Perry, Rubio is a strong social conservative. A devout Roman Catholic, he has been more inclined as of late, to attend the Evangelical,"Christ Fellowship" church with Jeanette. His book reveals a man of deep faith and a strong relationship with Jesus Christ.
Where Democrats are most concerned is how Rubio is perceived by the "low interest" voters. As one Louisville Kentucky based, Democrat strategist coined, "he doesn't fall into your classic Republican stereotype. Against Hillary Clinton, we could end up with a 2008; in reverse!"
America has traditionally favored the underdog. In November 2016, Rubio will be 45 years-old. That's older than both John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton were when they ran in 1960 and 1992 respectively. In 2016, Hillary Clinton will be 69.
Worse still for Dems is the perception that Rubio is a true Centrist. Conservatives say that they don't trust him. Birthers say that he is not eligible to be President. Even Fox News calls him a Moderate.
By the same token, immigrants adore Marco Rubio. To Millennials, he is a "rock star." It must also be noted that in the Florida Senate race he received 58% of the "female under 40" vote. All three groups were won decisively by Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Will Marco Rubio run for President? I think it's safe to say "no," if Jeb Bush throws his hat into the ring. However, if Jeb passes, the possibilities are excellent.
Jeb was Marco's original mentor, calling Rubio "the greatest orator that he had seen." As with immigration, the two greatly differ on Education. Jeb is vocally supportive of "Common Core." Rubio opposes it, agreeing with Perry that the best solution for the Department of Education is "abolishment."
As Rubio pointed out in his book, Obama was "a compelling figure, with an extraordinary gift for public speaking." Yet,"hidden beneath his centrist message, was a decidedly left-of-center policy agenda. His personality and language gave the impression of moderation. But his ideas and voting record revealed a dogmatic, big-government liberal."
Yet, the low interest voters gave him the keys to the White House!
It is certainly understandable why Democrats fear Marco Rubio.
Bill O'Reilly described him as "a moderate."
Birthers say that he is not "a natural born citizen."
Judson Phillips, the owner of renowned Tea Party Nation blog, recently said a friend called Rubio "a Democrat wearing a Republican suit."
Conservatives grind their teeth when thinking of his role in the "Gang of Ocho."
So what gives? Has the Marco Rubio of 2010 morphed into something of a different persuasion?
For those who have read his book, not to mention followed his votes, you know. Marco continues to be one of the most reliable conservative voices on the hill. Yet, his position on immigration reform is moderate. Especially when compared to that of Tom Tancredo!
Rubio does support the Dream Act, up to a point. He favors a "path" to citizenship for children illegally in the country, through no fault of their own. He draws the line where extended family members are concerned. This is decidedly to the right of George W. Bush, Jeb Bush and John McCain.
Rubio recently introduced "the War on Poverty." It smacks of Federalism. He is critical of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." He touts vocational education. His vision follows the Chinese proverb, "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life."
Some recall 2006 when then House Speaker Rubio introduced a "Tax Swap," that would have eliminated property taxes for all homesteaded Floridians. In 2008, he supported Governor Mike Huckabee's "Fair Tax" proposal.
An advocate of Supply Side Economics, Marco Rubio speaks of his admiration for Ronald Reagan. Largely influenced by his Grandfather, Rubio took the American Dream literally. He has always seen small business as the key job creator. He lovingly talks of "business' being started in bedrooms and basements."
Born in Miami in 1971, most of his life was spent in West Miami, an enclave of middle class, Cuban Americans. There was a six-year hiatus, when the family moved to Las Vegas. He speaks fondly of life there as "the son of a bartender and a hotel maid."
Marco Rubio loves football. An avid Dolphin's fan, he actually attended his freshmen year on a football scholarship at a small college in Missouri. Later, after meeting Michael Irving in the tunnell of Pro Players stadium, and noting his size, he decided that a future in the NFL was out of reach. His wife, the former Jeanette Dousdebes, was later a Dolphin's cheerleader.
From Tarkio college, Rubio transferred to Santa Fe Juco, before finishing at the University of Florida at Gainesville. He then attended Law School at the University of Miami. In the end, he had a monster student loan debt on his back and continues to make the $900 per month payment.
His book, "An American Son," details his 2010 Senatorial campaign against then Governor, Charlie Crist. Those close to Rubio's camp will admit that there was a lot of "bad blood" that remained afterward between them and Stuart Stevens. Stevens managed Crist's and later Mitt Romney's campaign.
Many recall Rubio's extremely late endorsement of Romney. Both Dick Morris and Karl Rove urged Romney to take Rubio as his running mate. Most suspect that there still may be lingering bad feelings from the Senate campaign.
In retrospect, Rubio's not running with Romney may prove to be a blessing! The two men's backgrounds and ideologies are quite different. In fact, Rubio's positions on states rights and the 10th amendment are more reflective of Rick Perry's.
Like Perry, Rubio is a strong social conservative. A devout Roman Catholic, he has been more inclined as of late, to attend the Evangelical,"Christ Fellowship" church with Jeanette. His book reveals a man of deep faith and a strong relationship with Jesus Christ.
Where Democrats are most concerned is how Rubio is perceived by the "low interest" voters. As one Louisville Kentucky based, Democrat strategist coined, "he doesn't fall into your classic Republican stereotype. Against Hillary Clinton, we could end up with a 2008; in reverse!"
America has traditionally favored the underdog. In November 2016, Rubio will be 45 years-old. That's older than both John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton were when they ran in 1960 and 1992 respectively. In 2016, Hillary Clinton will be 69.
Worse still for Dems is the perception that Rubio is a true Centrist. Conservatives say that they don't trust him. Birthers say that he is not eligible to be President. Even Fox News calls him a Moderate.
By the same token, immigrants adore Marco Rubio. To Millennials, he is a "rock star." It must also be noted that in the Florida Senate race he received 58% of the "female under 40" vote. All three groups were won decisively by Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Will Marco Rubio run for President? I think it's safe to say "no," if Jeb Bush throws his hat into the ring. However, if Jeb passes, the possibilities are excellent.
Jeb was Marco's original mentor, calling Rubio "the greatest orator that he had seen." As with immigration, the two greatly differ on Education. Jeb is vocally supportive of "Common Core." Rubio opposes it, agreeing with Perry that the best solution for the Department of Education is "abolishment."
As Rubio pointed out in his book, Obama was "a compelling figure, with an extraordinary gift for public speaking." Yet,"hidden beneath his centrist message, was a decidedly left-of-center policy agenda. His personality and language gave the impression of moderation. But his ideas and voting record revealed a dogmatic, big-government liberal."
Yet, the low interest voters gave him the keys to the White House!
It is certainly understandable why Democrats fear Marco Rubio.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Bridging the Republican Divide
Are we talking about an impossibility? Maybe.
It depends on how much Republicans want to avoid a Hillary Clinton presidency. The problem is, some party members might secretly be more comfortable with Hillary than some of the Republican contenders!
Does anyone recall Rick Perry referring to Mitt Romney as "Obama lite?" Most probably didn't catch what amounted to a mild slur. In effect, he was pointing out actual similarities between ideologies. Romney was "left" of the base, in fact "so left" of the Tea Party that he essentially ignored them.
You wonder if the Fortune 500 companies cared who won! We do know, that when Rick Santorum began closing the gap, their coffers opened wide on behalf of Governor Romney! They were likewise contributing to the Obama campaign.
There is also the argument of knowing "when" to take a chance and when to play it safe. "Playing it safe," generally always points to supporting the moderate or sticking with an unpopular incumbant. In the case of Delaware in 2010 and Kentucky in 2014, it makes sense. But in other instances, such as Mississippi in 2014, it's an excuse.
Look at Alaska. Even with no Sarah Palin the field is crowded. Joe Miller, the Tea party favorite defeated Lisa Murkowski in the 2010 GOP primary. An Establishment backed write in campaign kept Lisa Murkowski in the Senate.
Miller is back in 2014 and facing two Establishment Republicans.
Karl Rove likes Dan Sullivan. On paper, it would be difficult to do much better! A Marine Corp vet, Sullivan graduated with a B.S. in Economics from Harvard prior to taking a J.D. from Georgetown University. Condoleeza Rice has joined Rove in endorsing Sullivan.
Mead Treadwell, a product of Harvard's business school, is the current Lt. Governor and is showing a slight lead in some early polls. He recently shook up his staff.
Miller's resume is equally impressive. A graduate of West Point, he received his law degree from Yale.
Miller is the youngest of the three hopefulls at 47. He is originally from Kansas. Sullivan is 50-years old and from Ohio. Treadwell, the oldest at 58 hails from Connecticut.
Alaska is a "deep red" state. Mitt Romney won it by 14 points in 2012. Incumbant Democrat,Mark Begich has largely been a "rubber stamp" for the President's Agenda. Obamacare is especially unpopular in the "Last Frontier." Polls indcate that he would lose to any of the three Republican options.
The question becomes, "what" distinguishes Sullivan from the other two candidates and "why" is Karl Rove vigorously raising money for his campaign? Perhaps this is a non-factor. But, it should be noted.
Like his former boss, Condi Rice, Sullivan is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. Is this significant? Maybe. While George W. Bush was not a member of this globalist organization, Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Henry Paulson and Dick Cheney are, or were. Maybe it's merely a coincidence.
To google CFR reveals some big names! Starting with Bill and Chelsea Clinton. Hillary was a member until this year.
Let's wind the clock back to 1980. Establishment favorite, George H.W. Bush had won Iowa and was leading in the New Hampshire polls. Ronald Reagan was on the ropes. Then, he produced leaflets, citing(accurately) Bush the Elder's membership in the Tri-Lateral Commission. Did it change the game? We may never know. What we do know is that Reagan won the New Hampshire primary and went on to clinch the nomination, taking Bush as his running mate.
In a previous post, we briefly reviewed Russian history. It was implied that "New Conservatives," were actually "evolved Trotskyites." Are we suggesting that the Republican Establishment is composed of "New Conmservatives?"
No. But, the crossover is alarmingly consistent. It begins with an apparent preference for big government.
Rand Paul defined the divide. In his book, the "Tea party Goes to Washington," he described New Conservative(Neo-Con) desire for a "large, Washington D.C. based government, whose purpose is to advance and facilitate conservative principles." According to Paul, "Constitutional Conservatives" seek "a more literal translation of the constitution." In effect, they are the "strict constructionists."
So what! Who cares! Aren't we splitting hairs?
No. In actuality, we are getting to the real "meat" of the conservative argument. For years, the Republican Establishment has been a haven for New Conservatives. Originally, these Republicans were considered liberals by many, if not most, Southern Democrats. With the Democrats' gradual exclusion of them, these "boll weevils" flocked to the GOP. Their new best friend was Ronald Reagan.
The Republican Party welcomed their numbers. Their ideas were another thing!
Those ideas did not fall totally on deaf ears! Traditional Republicans in Midwestern, Great Plains and Mountain states realized that they had an ideological, if not spiritual connect with these former "Dixiecrats." It began with an understanding of Reagan's "New Federalism" and the need for it's implementation throughout America.
Obviously "Federalism" calls for decentralization of govenment. This contradicts the basic psyche of New Conservatism.
Probably the most glaring exhibition of "New Conservative" versus "Constitutional Conservative" came in the 2010 Texas Gubernatorial Primary. It pitted, "Constitutionalist," Rick Perry(yeah, he was an ex-boll weevil) against "Neo-Con" Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Texans were exposed first hand to the true contrast. New Conservatives were none too pleased with the outcome!
It might also be noted that Karl Rove headed up "Team Hutchinson."
Is this impasse too deep? For some, possibly. But, definitely not all! Certainly not Rove! It comes down to "desire and willingness." Republicans must possess a strong desire to win elections. Secondly, there must be a willingness to "read the tea leaves" and change accordingly.
The party base is no longer in the East. In fact, today's GOP has become the party of the "South, Plains and Mountains," with the "Midwest on the cusp." The Demographics of the county have changed. Republicans must reach out to "non-W.A.S.P.S" if they want to again be the majority party.
From there the debate moves to the question of "Hamilton or Jefferson."
Alexander Hamiliton believed in a strong central government, run by the best educated, most affluent. In his opinion, this could be done more effectively from a central point, the fewer involved the better! It is surprisingly reflective of today's political culture in Washington, D.C..
Thomas Jefferson was for the little guy, the common man. His argument stemmed from the desire to "not have an American nobility," as Europe held. Jefferson believed that the greatest protection from such a fate was decentralization of government. In short, bring government closer to the people!
Certainly no conservative would appreciate being compared to Leon Trotsky. Yet, Trotsky was a decent human being, when compared to Joseph Stalin! Needless to say, the two men loathed each other. Yet, while their methodologies were quite different, their ideologies were one in the same. It can be summerized as follows:
"Big government is the best government. Big government is best facilitated from one central point. Big Government is most effectively administered under the auspices of the privileged few!" It is not even necessary that all of this "privileged few" be actual countrymen."
When viewed in this light, a recoil is predictable. And that may be what it takes to whip the Republican Party into shape! After all, the alternative is a Hillary Clinton Presidency! For those not having a problem with that outcome, it may be time to print exit VISAS!
My guess is, the bulk of the party will stay home, later acknowledging that "Republicans such as Colin Powell, Charlie Crist and the late Arlen Specter" were never needed; were actually the problem!
Having experienced this "cleansing" the GOP can move on to drafting a winning 2016 Presidential ticket. The determination must be based upon three criterior:
(a) "Constitutional Conservative," not "Neo-Con."
(b) Demographically expanded appeal.
(c) Adequate resources to mount a fifty-state campaign.
Will not there be some leaders who combine the tendencies of both brands of conservatism?
Not really. In truth, that would impossible! A "Constitutional Conservative" is like gold. It won't mix. You either believe in Jeffersonian principles or you don't!
Neo-Cons took the wrong road when they forget the most sacred principle;
"that small government is the best government." When they did this they became vulnerable to Socialist corruption. In the end, they forgot the most sacred axiom in a free society:
"When people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."
Ultimately, those favoring big government will depart in favor of their true "soul mate," the Democrat Party. Arlen Specter did. So did Charlie Crist and Lincoln Chaffee. Good riddance! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
The misguided but well intended will likely retrace their steps, analyze and evaluate, returning wiser and more effective.
Will this be an immediate thing? No. It didn't happen overnight and may take years. Reformers must be cognizant of this reality. And there is one very positive offshoot of our revelation!
Where Neo-Cons may be "evolved Trokskyites," today's Democrat's represent Trotsky's rival, Joseph Stalin! For those who doubt this connection, I would encourage you to view Congressman, Curtis Bower's 93-minute documentary, "Agenda-Grinding America Down." It all fits.
Meanwhile, the true believers, the true lovers of liberty will effectively bridge that divide. Impossible? Sometimes all it takes is a "gut check." In this case, "remembering who we are."
It depends on how much Republicans want to avoid a Hillary Clinton presidency. The problem is, some party members might secretly be more comfortable with Hillary than some of the Republican contenders!
Does anyone recall Rick Perry referring to Mitt Romney as "Obama lite?" Most probably didn't catch what amounted to a mild slur. In effect, he was pointing out actual similarities between ideologies. Romney was "left" of the base, in fact "so left" of the Tea Party that he essentially ignored them.
You wonder if the Fortune 500 companies cared who won! We do know, that when Rick Santorum began closing the gap, their coffers opened wide on behalf of Governor Romney! They were likewise contributing to the Obama campaign.
There is also the argument of knowing "when" to take a chance and when to play it safe. "Playing it safe," generally always points to supporting the moderate or sticking with an unpopular incumbant. In the case of Delaware in 2010 and Kentucky in 2014, it makes sense. But in other instances, such as Mississippi in 2014, it's an excuse.
Look at Alaska. Even with no Sarah Palin the field is crowded. Joe Miller, the Tea party favorite defeated Lisa Murkowski in the 2010 GOP primary. An Establishment backed write in campaign kept Lisa Murkowski in the Senate.
Miller is back in 2014 and facing two Establishment Republicans.
Karl Rove likes Dan Sullivan. On paper, it would be difficult to do much better! A Marine Corp vet, Sullivan graduated with a B.S. in Economics from Harvard prior to taking a J.D. from Georgetown University. Condoleeza Rice has joined Rove in endorsing Sullivan.
Mead Treadwell, a product of Harvard's business school, is the current Lt. Governor and is showing a slight lead in some early polls. He recently shook up his staff.
Miller's resume is equally impressive. A graduate of West Point, he received his law degree from Yale.
Miller is the youngest of the three hopefulls at 47. He is originally from Kansas. Sullivan is 50-years old and from Ohio. Treadwell, the oldest at 58 hails from Connecticut.
Alaska is a "deep red" state. Mitt Romney won it by 14 points in 2012. Incumbant Democrat,Mark Begich has largely been a "rubber stamp" for the President's Agenda. Obamacare is especially unpopular in the "Last Frontier." Polls indcate that he would lose to any of the three Republican options.
The question becomes, "what" distinguishes Sullivan from the other two candidates and "why" is Karl Rove vigorously raising money for his campaign? Perhaps this is a non-factor. But, it should be noted.
Like his former boss, Condi Rice, Sullivan is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. Is this significant? Maybe. While George W. Bush was not a member of this globalist organization, Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Henry Paulson and Dick Cheney are, or were. Maybe it's merely a coincidence.
To google CFR reveals some big names! Starting with Bill and Chelsea Clinton. Hillary was a member until this year.
Let's wind the clock back to 1980. Establishment favorite, George H.W. Bush had won Iowa and was leading in the New Hampshire polls. Ronald Reagan was on the ropes. Then, he produced leaflets, citing(accurately) Bush the Elder's membership in the Tri-Lateral Commission. Did it change the game? We may never know. What we do know is that Reagan won the New Hampshire primary and went on to clinch the nomination, taking Bush as his running mate.
In a previous post, we briefly reviewed Russian history. It was implied that "New Conservatives," were actually "evolved Trotskyites." Are we suggesting that the Republican Establishment is composed of "New Conmservatives?"
No. But, the crossover is alarmingly consistent. It begins with an apparent preference for big government.
Rand Paul defined the divide. In his book, the "Tea party Goes to Washington," he described New Conservative(Neo-Con) desire for a "large, Washington D.C. based government, whose purpose is to advance and facilitate conservative principles." According to Paul, "Constitutional Conservatives" seek "a more literal translation of the constitution." In effect, they are the "strict constructionists."
So what! Who cares! Aren't we splitting hairs?
No. In actuality, we are getting to the real "meat" of the conservative argument. For years, the Republican Establishment has been a haven for New Conservatives. Originally, these Republicans were considered liberals by many, if not most, Southern Democrats. With the Democrats' gradual exclusion of them, these "boll weevils" flocked to the GOP. Their new best friend was Ronald Reagan.
The Republican Party welcomed their numbers. Their ideas were another thing!
Those ideas did not fall totally on deaf ears! Traditional Republicans in Midwestern, Great Plains and Mountain states realized that they had an ideological, if not spiritual connect with these former "Dixiecrats." It began with an understanding of Reagan's "New Federalism" and the need for it's implementation throughout America.
Obviously "Federalism" calls for decentralization of govenment. This contradicts the basic psyche of New Conservatism.
Probably the most glaring exhibition of "New Conservative" versus "Constitutional Conservative" came in the 2010 Texas Gubernatorial Primary. It pitted, "Constitutionalist," Rick Perry(yeah, he was an ex-boll weevil) against "Neo-Con" Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Texans were exposed first hand to the true contrast. New Conservatives were none too pleased with the outcome!
It might also be noted that Karl Rove headed up "Team Hutchinson."
Is this impasse too deep? For some, possibly. But, definitely not all! Certainly not Rove! It comes down to "desire and willingness." Republicans must possess a strong desire to win elections. Secondly, there must be a willingness to "read the tea leaves" and change accordingly.
The party base is no longer in the East. In fact, today's GOP has become the party of the "South, Plains and Mountains," with the "Midwest on the cusp." The Demographics of the county have changed. Republicans must reach out to "non-W.A.S.P.S" if they want to again be the majority party.
From there the debate moves to the question of "Hamilton or Jefferson."
Alexander Hamiliton believed in a strong central government, run by the best educated, most affluent. In his opinion, this could be done more effectively from a central point, the fewer involved the better! It is surprisingly reflective of today's political culture in Washington, D.C..
Thomas Jefferson was for the little guy, the common man. His argument stemmed from the desire to "not have an American nobility," as Europe held. Jefferson believed that the greatest protection from such a fate was decentralization of government. In short, bring government closer to the people!
Certainly no conservative would appreciate being compared to Leon Trotsky. Yet, Trotsky was a decent human being, when compared to Joseph Stalin! Needless to say, the two men loathed each other. Yet, while their methodologies were quite different, their ideologies were one in the same. It can be summerized as follows:
"Big government is the best government. Big government is best facilitated from one central point. Big Government is most effectively administered under the auspices of the privileged few!" It is not even necessary that all of this "privileged few" be actual countrymen."
When viewed in this light, a recoil is predictable. And that may be what it takes to whip the Republican Party into shape! After all, the alternative is a Hillary Clinton Presidency! For those not having a problem with that outcome, it may be time to print exit VISAS!
My guess is, the bulk of the party will stay home, later acknowledging that "Republicans such as Colin Powell, Charlie Crist and the late Arlen Specter" were never needed; were actually the problem!
Having experienced this "cleansing" the GOP can move on to drafting a winning 2016 Presidential ticket. The determination must be based upon three criterior:
(a) "Constitutional Conservative," not "Neo-Con."
(b) Demographically expanded appeal.
(c) Adequate resources to mount a fifty-state campaign.
Will not there be some leaders who combine the tendencies of both brands of conservatism?
Not really. In truth, that would impossible! A "Constitutional Conservative" is like gold. It won't mix. You either believe in Jeffersonian principles or you don't!
Neo-Cons took the wrong road when they forget the most sacred principle;
"that small government is the best government." When they did this they became vulnerable to Socialist corruption. In the end, they forgot the most sacred axiom in a free society:
"When people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."
Ultimately, those favoring big government will depart in favor of their true "soul mate," the Democrat Party. Arlen Specter did. So did Charlie Crist and Lincoln Chaffee. Good riddance! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
The misguided but well intended will likely retrace their steps, analyze and evaluate, returning wiser and more effective.
Will this be an immediate thing? No. It didn't happen overnight and may take years. Reformers must be cognizant of this reality. And there is one very positive offshoot of our revelation!
Where Neo-Cons may be "evolved Trokskyites," today's Democrat's represent Trotsky's rival, Joseph Stalin! For those who doubt this connection, I would encourage you to view Congressman, Curtis Bower's 93-minute documentary, "Agenda-Grinding America Down." It all fits.
Meanwhile, the true believers, the true lovers of liberty will effectively bridge that divide. Impossible? Sometimes all it takes is a "gut check." In this case, "remembering who we are."
Sunday, March 30, 2014
"America's Forgotten" Could Swing 2016 Election
Much has been written about America's "working poor." Yet it seldom went further than some "brushover" condolences and vague statistics. Do we know who these Americans truly are?
Henry Olsen evidently does! In his June 6th, 2011 National Review article, "Dangerous Dissaffection," he introduced the "Dissaffecteds."
According to Olsen's research, 77% are white. 89% do not have a college degree. Two-thirds are classified as "Independents." Most have leaned Republican in recent times. Pundits often describe them as the "blue collar swing vote."
The majority of these Americans earn less than $30,000 per year. 44% are parents. 63% of their households were impacted in a major way by the recession. 71% had a household member unemployed in the past year.
Per Olsen, 28% gave favorable ratings to Barack Obama. Only 22% had said that they would vote to re-elect him. This was at press time of the article. Could something have changed between May 2011 and November 2012?
It certainly wasn't the perception of the two parties. Republicans are viewed favorably by a wide margin over Democrats. In that same survey only 14% of those polled indicated their satisfaction with the federal government. Only 19% said that they "trusted the government to do the right thing always or most of the time."
At first glance, these voters would appear to be firmly in the Republican camp. However, negative vibes toward the left, doesn't necessarly translate to "staunch conservativism." Republicans discovered this in 2010; when they experienced election losses in some solidly Republican districts. So, what makes these people tick?
Perhaps it amounts to a better understanding of what they deem important! Most staunch conservatives see "a balanced budget through the elimination of government programs" key in economic solidity. Not so with these voters! Most would rather keep their programs and see a balance budget as a lessor priority. Primarily because, their perception of our political leadership is cynical at best! They need and count on their Social Security and Medicare! When any politician hints of entitlement reductions, they assume that they will be taking most of the brunt!
Opposition to entitlement reform isn't necessarily consistent with oppostion to lower taxes. Most side with Republicans on the need for both lower taxes and less liberalism. But conservative support does not extend to being the world's commissary! In layman's term, "taking care of Americans here at home, first!" As in, "charity begins at home!"
Olsen's findings revealed that while 59% of staunch conservatives seek program cuts, only 17% of Disaffecteds do. Only 34% of staunch conservatives wanted a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes, 65% of Disaffecteds did. And get this! Only 15% of "Disaffecteds" polled wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare for the purpose of deficit reduction. This was the smallest percentage of any of the Pew typologies. It was actually eleven points lower than voters classified as "solid liberals."
Here is another hint. Disaffecteds are not wild about free trade! New York-26 reflected as much when Tea Party alternative, Jack Davis made it an issue. These same voters swung several traditionally Democrat districts to Scott Walker in Wisconsin in 2010, only to do "a 180" and back Democrat candidates in a Supreme Court election the following year.
Is Disaffected synonymous with the Tea party? No. In fact, 67% have no opinion of the Tea Party, highest of any Pew group. While 72% of staunch conservatives supported the Tea Party, only 19% of Disaffecteds did.
Indications are that Disaffecteds have a slightly more favorable view of labor unions as compared to staunch conservatives. This is further reflected by the tally of 57% who indicated that "free trade" agreements were bad for America.
In short, Disaffecteds can be classified as "somewhat conservative," but not "very conservative." They decidedly find more common ground with conservatives than liberals. But, they are wary. Talk of "austerity measures" amounts to "what little they have will be taken from them." Or, as Olsen phrased, "Republicans cannot reform entitlements if they are seen as motivated by money or as imposing their abstract vision on hard-pressed Americans'reality."
Amazingly enough, Disaffecteds have been pretty much ignored by both parties. In spite of the fact that these "blue collar whites" make up 40% percent of the electorate!
Republicans produced a 2012 ticket that combined "Mr. Grey Poupon" with "right wing social engineering." It might explain how Barack Obama jumped from 22% to a second term!
Conversely, Disaffecteds aren't impressed with Democrats' promise of a "$10 minimum wage and a handout." Smart money suggests that they will not favor a Hillary Clinton
Presidency, unless the Republicans revert to the type of nominee produced in 2008 and 2012.
Much to the chagrin of Democrats, Obamacare may not make the cut with these voters. At best, some see it as a "wash." Most, however, view it as a "backdoor" cut to Medicare, thus a deal breaker.
Indications suggest that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democrats in general don't have "their back." That's why they are open to Republican alternatives. The key will be to assure them that they won't be left holding the bag; on the short end of the stick!
Specifically, "make Social Security solvent and protect Medicare from expected pillage resulting from the Affordable Care Act." If Republicans can convince Disaffecteds that they mean business regarding these two concerns, they're in!
Any promise of "returning jobs to American shores" scores points with Disaffecteds. Pew polls suggest that while they may have protectionist leanings, they might be open to cuts in the corporate tax, if it produces more jobs.
Any talk of good paying jobs, such as energy sector jobs, not requiring a lot of education hits their hot button! Reducing a bloated federal government payroll will be applauded by these voters. Most become outraged when informed of the public to private wage/benefit disparities.
These Americans need a champion, a president who they can relate to. Ronald Reagan called described them as "ordinary people who did extraordinary things." His was based on genuine empathy for the average guy.
Do we have any candidates who can make that kind of connect with this critical, yet seemingly forgotten segment of America? For starters, what differentiated Ronald Reagan from the four Presidents who have since served in the White House?
Disaffecteds are obviously not "blue bloods." Thus, Ivy League credentials don't impress them. If anything, a President like Reagan lacking in such a pedigree might be seen as a plus!
Immigration reformers should be especially careful with these Americans. "Across the board Amnesty" is seen as a greenlight for increased competition for what few jobs have been available to them.
While Olsen's research reveals a mild oppostion to "overseas military adventures," it is suspected that many Disaffecteds are veterans. No doubt a lot served in Desert Storm and Viet Nam, not to mention Irag and Afghanistan. Reagan's explanation of "peace through strength" was understood and largely supported.
Republicans can win the 2016 Presidency, if they can connect with these oft-forgotten Americans. The questions are "how" and through "whom?"
In a personal way, Reagan presented a message that linked peace and prosperity to Federalism. When he proclaimed that "government, not people had lived too well," they listened. When he proposed to "reduce the cost of government," they correctly linked that reduction to wage cuts and layoffs for federal workers, not entitlement cuts. When Reagan talked about inflation as the "most cruel of taxes," they put it all together.
Defining Jeffersonism, then differentiating it from Democrat and Neo-Con Hamiltonism might be considered "too cerebral." It will depend on the messenger. The message itself is fairly cut and dry.
Hamilton was for the Partician. He believed that decisions of government were best left to the rich, powerful and the well educated.
Jefferson was for the common man. He concluded that the best defense against an American nobility was decentralization.
Today's Democrats and Republican "New Conservatives" share the Hamitonian paradigm. In a nutshell, it's either "you're not significant" or "we know what's best so do as you are told."
It effect, the key to winning the hearts, minds and votes of America's forgotten may be as simple as reminding them that they are not forgotten. Solvent Social Security and Medicare, affordable college tuition and real health insurance reform top their wish list. Also included are accessible money for mortgage financing and the basic services such as fire and police protection.
The Jeffersonian argument that "all can be better handled at the state level" will be welcomed and supported by Disaffecteds.
Closing the deal with Disaffecteds will be as easy as "believability." As with Reagan, they must first like the candidate. Then, they must be able to relate to the candidate. Finally, they must see evidence of a candidate's previous success.
Disaffecteds are not "low interest" voters. While overly cynical, they are more familiar with issues than one might think. When they conclude that a candidate can "walk the walk," as well as "talk the talk," they will happily jump on the bandwagon!
In recent times, Republicans were evidently not paying attention to this huge voter contingent. "Why" is a question for another day and a different post.It might have something to do with party leadership.
Democrats may have taken Disaffecteds for granted. Or, maybe the real truth is, they don't fall under the auspices of one of the Dems long list of special interest groups.
In any case, these "ordinary people," could yield "extraordinary" results at the voting booths! The question becomes, "has America's political establishment become so far removed from America that they fail to see "who" truly is America?
Henry Olsen evidently does! In his June 6th, 2011 National Review article, "Dangerous Dissaffection," he introduced the "Dissaffecteds."
According to Olsen's research, 77% are white. 89% do not have a college degree. Two-thirds are classified as "Independents." Most have leaned Republican in recent times. Pundits often describe them as the "blue collar swing vote."
The majority of these Americans earn less than $30,000 per year. 44% are parents. 63% of their households were impacted in a major way by the recession. 71% had a household member unemployed in the past year.
Per Olsen, 28% gave favorable ratings to Barack Obama. Only 22% had said that they would vote to re-elect him. This was at press time of the article. Could something have changed between May 2011 and November 2012?
It certainly wasn't the perception of the two parties. Republicans are viewed favorably by a wide margin over Democrats. In that same survey only 14% of those polled indicated their satisfaction with the federal government. Only 19% said that they "trusted the government to do the right thing always or most of the time."
At first glance, these voters would appear to be firmly in the Republican camp. However, negative vibes toward the left, doesn't necessarly translate to "staunch conservativism." Republicans discovered this in 2010; when they experienced election losses in some solidly Republican districts. So, what makes these people tick?
Perhaps it amounts to a better understanding of what they deem important! Most staunch conservatives see "a balanced budget through the elimination of government programs" key in economic solidity. Not so with these voters! Most would rather keep their programs and see a balance budget as a lessor priority. Primarily because, their perception of our political leadership is cynical at best! They need and count on their Social Security and Medicare! When any politician hints of entitlement reductions, they assume that they will be taking most of the brunt!
Opposition to entitlement reform isn't necessarily consistent with oppostion to lower taxes. Most side with Republicans on the need for both lower taxes and less liberalism. But conservative support does not extend to being the world's commissary! In layman's term, "taking care of Americans here at home, first!" As in, "charity begins at home!"
Olsen's findings revealed that while 59% of staunch conservatives seek program cuts, only 17% of Disaffecteds do. Only 34% of staunch conservatives wanted a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes, 65% of Disaffecteds did. And get this! Only 15% of "Disaffecteds" polled wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare for the purpose of deficit reduction. This was the smallest percentage of any of the Pew typologies. It was actually eleven points lower than voters classified as "solid liberals."
Here is another hint. Disaffecteds are not wild about free trade! New York-26 reflected as much when Tea Party alternative, Jack Davis made it an issue. These same voters swung several traditionally Democrat districts to Scott Walker in Wisconsin in 2010, only to do "a 180" and back Democrat candidates in a Supreme Court election the following year.
Is Disaffected synonymous with the Tea party? No. In fact, 67% have no opinion of the Tea Party, highest of any Pew group. While 72% of staunch conservatives supported the Tea Party, only 19% of Disaffecteds did.
Indications are that Disaffecteds have a slightly more favorable view of labor unions as compared to staunch conservatives. This is further reflected by the tally of 57% who indicated that "free trade" agreements were bad for America.
In short, Disaffecteds can be classified as "somewhat conservative," but not "very conservative." They decidedly find more common ground with conservatives than liberals. But, they are wary. Talk of "austerity measures" amounts to "what little they have will be taken from them." Or, as Olsen phrased, "Republicans cannot reform entitlements if they are seen as motivated by money or as imposing their abstract vision on hard-pressed Americans'reality."
Amazingly enough, Disaffecteds have been pretty much ignored by both parties. In spite of the fact that these "blue collar whites" make up 40% percent of the electorate!
Republicans produced a 2012 ticket that combined "Mr. Grey Poupon" with "right wing social engineering." It might explain how Barack Obama jumped from 22% to a second term!
Conversely, Disaffecteds aren't impressed with Democrats' promise of a "$10 minimum wage and a handout." Smart money suggests that they will not favor a Hillary Clinton
Presidency, unless the Republicans revert to the type of nominee produced in 2008 and 2012.
Much to the chagrin of Democrats, Obamacare may not make the cut with these voters. At best, some see it as a "wash." Most, however, view it as a "backdoor" cut to Medicare, thus a deal breaker.
Indications suggest that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democrats in general don't have "their back." That's why they are open to Republican alternatives. The key will be to assure them that they won't be left holding the bag; on the short end of the stick!
Specifically, "make Social Security solvent and protect Medicare from expected pillage resulting from the Affordable Care Act." If Republicans can convince Disaffecteds that they mean business regarding these two concerns, they're in!
Any promise of "returning jobs to American shores" scores points with Disaffecteds. Pew polls suggest that while they may have protectionist leanings, they might be open to cuts in the corporate tax, if it produces more jobs.
Any talk of good paying jobs, such as energy sector jobs, not requiring a lot of education hits their hot button! Reducing a bloated federal government payroll will be applauded by these voters. Most become outraged when informed of the public to private wage/benefit disparities.
These Americans need a champion, a president who they can relate to. Ronald Reagan called described them as "ordinary people who did extraordinary things." His was based on genuine empathy for the average guy.
Do we have any candidates who can make that kind of connect with this critical, yet seemingly forgotten segment of America? For starters, what differentiated Ronald Reagan from the four Presidents who have since served in the White House?
Disaffecteds are obviously not "blue bloods." Thus, Ivy League credentials don't impress them. If anything, a President like Reagan lacking in such a pedigree might be seen as a plus!
Immigration reformers should be especially careful with these Americans. "Across the board Amnesty" is seen as a greenlight for increased competition for what few jobs have been available to them.
While Olsen's research reveals a mild oppostion to "overseas military adventures," it is suspected that many Disaffecteds are veterans. No doubt a lot served in Desert Storm and Viet Nam, not to mention Irag and Afghanistan. Reagan's explanation of "peace through strength" was understood and largely supported.
Republicans can win the 2016 Presidency, if they can connect with these oft-forgotten Americans. The questions are "how" and through "whom?"
In a personal way, Reagan presented a message that linked peace and prosperity to Federalism. When he proclaimed that "government, not people had lived too well," they listened. When he proposed to "reduce the cost of government," they correctly linked that reduction to wage cuts and layoffs for federal workers, not entitlement cuts. When Reagan talked about inflation as the "most cruel of taxes," they put it all together.
Defining Jeffersonism, then differentiating it from Democrat and Neo-Con Hamiltonism might be considered "too cerebral." It will depend on the messenger. The message itself is fairly cut and dry.
Hamilton was for the Partician. He believed that decisions of government were best left to the rich, powerful and the well educated.
Jefferson was for the common man. He concluded that the best defense against an American nobility was decentralization.
Today's Democrats and Republican "New Conservatives" share the Hamitonian paradigm. In a nutshell, it's either "you're not significant" or "we know what's best so do as you are told."
It effect, the key to winning the hearts, minds and votes of America's forgotten may be as simple as reminding them that they are not forgotten. Solvent Social Security and Medicare, affordable college tuition and real health insurance reform top their wish list. Also included are accessible money for mortgage financing and the basic services such as fire and police protection.
The Jeffersonian argument that "all can be better handled at the state level" will be welcomed and supported by Disaffecteds.
Closing the deal with Disaffecteds will be as easy as "believability." As with Reagan, they must first like the candidate. Then, they must be able to relate to the candidate. Finally, they must see evidence of a candidate's previous success.
Disaffecteds are not "low interest" voters. While overly cynical, they are more familiar with issues than one might think. When they conclude that a candidate can "walk the walk," as well as "talk the talk," they will happily jump on the bandwagon!
In recent times, Republicans were evidently not paying attention to this huge voter contingent. "Why" is a question for another day and a different post.It might have something to do with party leadership.
Democrats may have taken Disaffecteds for granted. Or, maybe the real truth is, they don't fall under the auspices of one of the Dems long list of special interest groups.
In any case, these "ordinary people," could yield "extraordinary" results at the voting booths! The question becomes, "has America's political establishment become so far removed from America that they fail to see "who" truly is America?
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Is Rick Perry Electable?
My brother, a solid conservative, broached me with the inevitable question.
Yesterday, a native Kentuckian who had recently fled Chicago's liberalism, voiced comparable concerns. As she surmised,"I've got no problem with Governor Perry. I know how he believes and I know that he's done a good job in Texas. But could he keep from tripping over himself in an election campaign."
She was taken aback when I revealed the fact that he had undergone major back surgery on the eve of the 2012 primary. Her response was, "Oh, that explains everything!" In other words, "I can accept that. Do you think everyone will?"
It is not that Governor Perry did anything irreparable! He promised to eliminate three Washington D.C. departments. Then, he forgot one of the three departments that he proposed to eliminate! On national TV, no less! Following the debate, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standand predicted that Perry's campaign had ended that night. At the time, I thought Kristol was overly presumptuous. In the end, he proved correct.
Adoph Hitler, of all people, proclaimed a truism that may be worth noting: "Short memories have always been an innate attribute of the masses."
It is encouraging that Perry drew applause from his fiery speech at CPAC convention, earlier this month! A friend in Nevada thought, "Perry was on his game. Too bad he didn't come off that way two years ago!"
Fortunately, tomorrow is another day! Better yet, only Republicans seem to remember that debate gaffe of 2011. And, of course, it was a gaffe and nothing more. The question becomes, "can Republicans move past it and focus on what's really pressing? After all, this is supposed to be about "who" is best qualified to be leader of the free world. Not, "who" is the "slickist debator!"
The response given to my brother was, "Do you think that Perry can win the same states that Mitt Romney won?" Predictably, he said "yes."
A Kansas City conservative told me that, while he likes Perry he considers the Texas Governor, "a regional candidate." What he wasn't able to map was "how much of the country" is included in that region! In other words, what states could he win, over and above the states that Romney's losing effort delivered?
There are signs that the Perry camp may be attempting to determine the boundaries of that map. Unlike Mitt Romney, Perry has drawn strong support from Hispanic voters. His 44% tally in the Texas 2010 Gubernatorial election should be remembered. This is almost certainly better than Scott Walker or Rand Paul would deliver!
Those close to the Governor will tell you that Perry has his own "Dream Act" on the drawing board. It will almost certainly be "left" of Tom Tancredo's "unconditional deportation for all," much to the chagrin of those on the far right of the issue. Many recall how Perry was "booed" at a Tea Party sponsored debate when he defended the Texas legislature's near unamimous approval to waive out-of-state tuition requirements for children of illegal aliens.
Immigration reform is actually not the most pressing issue for Latin surnamed Americans, according to some the latest research. Firmly ahead are both "the economy and jobs" and "currency stability." Perry is clearly riding point on both.
As one Perry supporter concluded, "Dan Patrick talks about an "invasion from the south." Not only is it antagonistic, it's ignorant!Immigration reform doesn't translate to "how to get around the law!" It about fixing a broken system. And, to suggest that this is Hispanics' only interest, is insulting, if not demeaning! It's like Democrats insinuation that women vote solely on, "reproductive rights."
Colorado is one of the more heavily female states, percentage of population wise. It is also taking the lead on recreational Marijuana development. And it is 18% Hispanic. At first glance, it would appear destined for the "blue" column.
Could Perry's recent advocation of "decriminalization" have anything to do with this? Perry also cited Marijuana as a "state issue," in accordance with the 10th amendment. Both positions were noted by Rocky Mountain state residents.
New Mexico is 47% Hispanic. Nevada is 25%. Both have Hispanic Republican Governors.
Unlike Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, the majority of Florida's Hispanic population(27% of the state's total) is not Mexican. Most hail from Carribean, Central and South America nations, as well as a large percentage from Europe. Sunshine state insiders predict that Perry would need to do as well as Jeb Bush did with these voters to win Florida.
Marco Rubio could make an impact with all four states if he were Perry's running mate. While some Republican "birthers" might howl, a predictable sequence of outcomes will unfold.
(a) Florida goes from "toss-up," to "leaning Republican."
(b) Nevada goes from "toss-up, slight leaning Democrat" to "toss-up,slightly leaning Republican."
(c) New Mexico goes from "leaning Democrat" to "toss-up."
(d) Colorado goes from "toss-up, slightly leaning Democrat" to "toss-up, slightly leaning Republican."
Florida is an easy read! Rubio is loved by the large Cuban population and admired by practically all of the state's Hispanic voters. Jeb Bush would endorse the ticket. While there are deep enclaves of Democrat voters within the state, it would be difficult to win if they tallied less than half of Florida's Hispanic votes.
Perry's position on Marijuana almost certainly neutralized some down votes in Colorado! Rubio would be of help with many of the "low interest" voters. In the 2010 Florida Senate election, he received 58% of the "female under 40" vote. A similar outcome would push the state solidly in the "red" column.
Nevada will be close. But Perry's staunch "10ther posture" should pay dividends with the recreation community. Rubio actually lived in the Silver state. Childhood accounts of his life as the "son of a bartender and a hotel maid," will resonate with Nevada's Hispanic community.
Like Florida, Nevada and Colorado, New Mexico last was carried by a Republican in 2004. Where Perry might receive as much as 40-45% of the Hispanic vote in the "Land of Enchantment," Rubio could push it above 50%. Without question, he could articulate the Republican alternative as well as anyone in America. Especially on Spanish language television and radio.
The message would be simple: "Perry's economic report card and the record of job creation in neighboring Texas can work for the entire country."
To the surprise of many, "unconditional amnesty" is not supported by the majority of Hispanics. In fact, it's disdained! Marco Rubio would expertly compare Perry's plan to Democrats and in doing so, dismiss any and all reservations that might be held toward the Republican alternative.
The "grand counterpunch" would amount to Obama's anemic economy with the promise of "more of the same," from his successor. New Mexico is a poor state. Many New Mexicans have relatives living south of the border. The idea of a hidden Democrat plan to devalue the currency as a deficit reduction measure, could be masterfully presented by Rubio. The specter of inflation and subsequent currency devaluation has haunted generations of Hispanics.
All intangibles suggest that this Republican ticket would do no worse than a "split" of the Hispanic vote in all four states. It might yield a majority! Yet, merely a "split" would be a disaster for Democrats!
Thus, by recovering Colorado,Florida,New Mexico and Nevada, the electoral count would climb to 252, assuming that the states won in '12 stay home! That is still 18 votes short. But, it should answer the original question, "is Rick Perry electable?"
From Democrats perspective, this scenario represents an electoral problem. Even if they managed to hang on to Ohio, Republicans could clinch the Presidency by winning Virginia and Iowa. Both states have heavy Evangelical numbers. Unlike Mitt Romney, Perry would be able to mobilize them.
Ultimately it will come down to the GOP's ability to win those four key swing states. Jeb Bush might win them. Many would argue that both Rubio and Ted Cruz could win all four. Could we say the same for any of the other potential suitors?
So, is Rick Perry electable? Perhaps the better question is, "is any candidate more electable than Rick Perry?"
The country appears to be burned out on Bushes! At best, Jeb would have a difficult time uniting the base. This is Perry's strongest suit. The Tea Party will turnout. The Establishment will open up their coffers. The religious right will mobilize.
Marco Rubio will turn 43 in May. As Perry's running mate, he would bring Immigrants and Millennials to the party. He would likewise be positioning himself for a future Presidential run. His being on the bottom of the ticket could translate to "two or three" percentage points in the Republicans favor.
Unlike Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz was not born in the United States. This essentially precludes him from the Presidency.
When evaluating the question of "electability," it becomes fairly subjective and opinionated. Perhaps a more productive question would be that of voting practices. Do we really trust these machines? And what about photo I.D. cards? How are they "discriminatory?"
Then there are the debates! Are we certain that it is necessary to even have them? Based on the past two elections, the big winner was the media. Republicans have been far too agreeable on moderator selector. Not to mention debate sponsors!
It would appear that these issues should be on the top of Republican "wish" lists. Regarding electability, the first consideration should be "which candidate will be most effective if elected President?"
Should the conversation go there, the original question will return:
"Why not forgo the primary and ask Governor Perry to be the Republican nominee?"
Yesterday, a native Kentuckian who had recently fled Chicago's liberalism, voiced comparable concerns. As she surmised,"I've got no problem with Governor Perry. I know how he believes and I know that he's done a good job in Texas. But could he keep from tripping over himself in an election campaign."
She was taken aback when I revealed the fact that he had undergone major back surgery on the eve of the 2012 primary. Her response was, "Oh, that explains everything!" In other words, "I can accept that. Do you think everyone will?"
It is not that Governor Perry did anything irreparable! He promised to eliminate three Washington D.C. departments. Then, he forgot one of the three departments that he proposed to eliminate! On national TV, no less! Following the debate, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standand predicted that Perry's campaign had ended that night. At the time, I thought Kristol was overly presumptuous. In the end, he proved correct.
Adoph Hitler, of all people, proclaimed a truism that may be worth noting: "Short memories have always been an innate attribute of the masses."
It is encouraging that Perry drew applause from his fiery speech at CPAC convention, earlier this month! A friend in Nevada thought, "Perry was on his game. Too bad he didn't come off that way two years ago!"
Fortunately, tomorrow is another day! Better yet, only Republicans seem to remember that debate gaffe of 2011. And, of course, it was a gaffe and nothing more. The question becomes, "can Republicans move past it and focus on what's really pressing? After all, this is supposed to be about "who" is best qualified to be leader of the free world. Not, "who" is the "slickist debator!"
The response given to my brother was, "Do you think that Perry can win the same states that Mitt Romney won?" Predictably, he said "yes."
A Kansas City conservative told me that, while he likes Perry he considers the Texas Governor, "a regional candidate." What he wasn't able to map was "how much of the country" is included in that region! In other words, what states could he win, over and above the states that Romney's losing effort delivered?
There are signs that the Perry camp may be attempting to determine the boundaries of that map. Unlike Mitt Romney, Perry has drawn strong support from Hispanic voters. His 44% tally in the Texas 2010 Gubernatorial election should be remembered. This is almost certainly better than Scott Walker or Rand Paul would deliver!
Those close to the Governor will tell you that Perry has his own "Dream Act" on the drawing board. It will almost certainly be "left" of Tom Tancredo's "unconditional deportation for all," much to the chagrin of those on the far right of the issue. Many recall how Perry was "booed" at a Tea Party sponsored debate when he defended the Texas legislature's near unamimous approval to waive out-of-state tuition requirements for children of illegal aliens.
Immigration reform is actually not the most pressing issue for Latin surnamed Americans, according to some the latest research. Firmly ahead are both "the economy and jobs" and "currency stability." Perry is clearly riding point on both.
As one Perry supporter concluded, "Dan Patrick talks about an "invasion from the south." Not only is it antagonistic, it's ignorant!Immigration reform doesn't translate to "how to get around the law!" It about fixing a broken system. And, to suggest that this is Hispanics' only interest, is insulting, if not demeaning! It's like Democrats insinuation that women vote solely on, "reproductive rights."
Colorado is one of the more heavily female states, percentage of population wise. It is also taking the lead on recreational Marijuana development. And it is 18% Hispanic. At first glance, it would appear destined for the "blue" column.
Could Perry's recent advocation of "decriminalization" have anything to do with this? Perry also cited Marijuana as a "state issue," in accordance with the 10th amendment. Both positions were noted by Rocky Mountain state residents.
New Mexico is 47% Hispanic. Nevada is 25%. Both have Hispanic Republican Governors.
Unlike Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, the majority of Florida's Hispanic population(27% of the state's total) is not Mexican. Most hail from Carribean, Central and South America nations, as well as a large percentage from Europe. Sunshine state insiders predict that Perry would need to do as well as Jeb Bush did with these voters to win Florida.
Marco Rubio could make an impact with all four states if he were Perry's running mate. While some Republican "birthers" might howl, a predictable sequence of outcomes will unfold.
(a) Florida goes from "toss-up," to "leaning Republican."
(b) Nevada goes from "toss-up, slight leaning Democrat" to "toss-up,slightly leaning Republican."
(c) New Mexico goes from "leaning Democrat" to "toss-up."
(d) Colorado goes from "toss-up, slightly leaning Democrat" to "toss-up, slightly leaning Republican."
Florida is an easy read! Rubio is loved by the large Cuban population and admired by practically all of the state's Hispanic voters. Jeb Bush would endorse the ticket. While there are deep enclaves of Democrat voters within the state, it would be difficult to win if they tallied less than half of Florida's Hispanic votes.
Perry's position on Marijuana almost certainly neutralized some down votes in Colorado! Rubio would be of help with many of the "low interest" voters. In the 2010 Florida Senate election, he received 58% of the "female under 40" vote. A similar outcome would push the state solidly in the "red" column.
Nevada will be close. But Perry's staunch "10ther posture" should pay dividends with the recreation community. Rubio actually lived in the Silver state. Childhood accounts of his life as the "son of a bartender and a hotel maid," will resonate with Nevada's Hispanic community.
Like Florida, Nevada and Colorado, New Mexico last was carried by a Republican in 2004. Where Perry might receive as much as 40-45% of the Hispanic vote in the "Land of Enchantment," Rubio could push it above 50%. Without question, he could articulate the Republican alternative as well as anyone in America. Especially on Spanish language television and radio.
The message would be simple: "Perry's economic report card and the record of job creation in neighboring Texas can work for the entire country."
To the surprise of many, "unconditional amnesty" is not supported by the majority of Hispanics. In fact, it's disdained! Marco Rubio would expertly compare Perry's plan to Democrats and in doing so, dismiss any and all reservations that might be held toward the Republican alternative.
The "grand counterpunch" would amount to Obama's anemic economy with the promise of "more of the same," from his successor. New Mexico is a poor state. Many New Mexicans have relatives living south of the border. The idea of a hidden Democrat plan to devalue the currency as a deficit reduction measure, could be masterfully presented by Rubio. The specter of inflation and subsequent currency devaluation has haunted generations of Hispanics.
All intangibles suggest that this Republican ticket would do no worse than a "split" of the Hispanic vote in all four states. It might yield a majority! Yet, merely a "split" would be a disaster for Democrats!
Thus, by recovering Colorado,Florida,New Mexico and Nevada, the electoral count would climb to 252, assuming that the states won in '12 stay home! That is still 18 votes short. But, it should answer the original question, "is Rick Perry electable?"
From Democrats perspective, this scenario represents an electoral problem. Even if they managed to hang on to Ohio, Republicans could clinch the Presidency by winning Virginia and Iowa. Both states have heavy Evangelical numbers. Unlike Mitt Romney, Perry would be able to mobilize them.
Ultimately it will come down to the GOP's ability to win those four key swing states. Jeb Bush might win them. Many would argue that both Rubio and Ted Cruz could win all four. Could we say the same for any of the other potential suitors?
So, is Rick Perry electable? Perhaps the better question is, "is any candidate more electable than Rick Perry?"
The country appears to be burned out on Bushes! At best, Jeb would have a difficult time uniting the base. This is Perry's strongest suit. The Tea Party will turnout. The Establishment will open up their coffers. The religious right will mobilize.
Marco Rubio will turn 43 in May. As Perry's running mate, he would bring Immigrants and Millennials to the party. He would likewise be positioning himself for a future Presidential run. His being on the bottom of the ticket could translate to "two or three" percentage points in the Republicans favor.
Unlike Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz was not born in the United States. This essentially precludes him from the Presidency.
When evaluating the question of "electability," it becomes fairly subjective and opinionated. Perhaps a more productive question would be that of voting practices. Do we really trust these machines? And what about photo I.D. cards? How are they "discriminatory?"
Then there are the debates! Are we certain that it is necessary to even have them? Based on the past two elections, the big winner was the media. Republicans have been far too agreeable on moderator selector. Not to mention debate sponsors!
It would appear that these issues should be on the top of Republican "wish" lists. Regarding electability, the first consideration should be "which candidate will be most effective if elected President?"
Should the conversation go there, the original question will return:
"Why not forgo the primary and ask Governor Perry to be the Republican nominee?"
Sunday, March 16, 2014
American Down, Not Out, Long Awaited Leader in Our Midst!
A plague is upon America.
Actually, it is more like a growing sickness. It's called hopelessness. Our people are giving up. The passion that lead to the founding of this great country is gradually giving way to cynicism and apathy.
It is easy to blame Barack Obama. He certainly hasn't been that "uniter" of men as promised. In fact,he has proven to be opposite of what was advertised on the campaign trail.
At best, he will be remembered as the facilitator of the "left wing status quot." Didn't John McCain predict that he was "running for Jimmy Carter's second term?" At worst, he will be remembered for his efforts to "grind America down."
I recall the President saying that he wasn't the "candidate of fat cat, Wall Street bankers." Words and deeds are two different things, totally separate." Or, at least that's what the Russian say. Concretely put, the gap between rich and poor has widened more during Barack Obama's watch than any other Presidency in history!
The more politically astute admit that "all of this is above Obama's head." One Nashville insider rendered some profound history: "the powers" met with Obama's parents years before he ran for the White House, mapping out his future Presidential victory. It was all part of a grand plan. The "long range goal" was to "bring America in line" with the rest of the world. In other words, to "lessen" America.
I recall a Pennsylvania friend, the son a CIA operative who described our current American system as "red team versus blue team, playing for the same university." He advised me to "forget about saving the world or bringing about significant change." Just accept it and "try to make a couple of bucks and enjoy your children."
As the eternal optimist, my retort was, "are you sure about this." He was. And, when I watched the 2012 Presidential campaign unfold, his insight was clearly manifested.
Another great conservative, who resides in Nebraska refers to them as the "string pullers." Any positive reform will never have a chance because the "string pullers" will not allow it! But wait! We shouldn't talk about these things! It's how one gets killed!
Strangely enough, some are talking about the roots of our predicament. Fortunately, the "fat cats" never have taken Ron Paul seriously. Nor, did they consider G. Edward Griffin's writing, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," any more than a "right wing ranting" from an unbalanced opportunist!
A growing number of Americans are taking note, however. They are younger and yes, slightly naive. Or, that's what the Establishment has long concluded. The assumption is that the Millennials will reach age 40, realize that the situation is beyond remedy and eventually take the advice of the son of the ex-CIA Operative.
I recall a Lexington, Kentucky Broker-Dealer who reminded, "we're talking about career politicians. John Boehner spoke to our group just last week. He asked us for ideas." Yet, with every idea or suggestion, it had "already been proposed" or "they were working on it." He ruefully acknowledged, "then, they'll be off to Washington, D.C. for more of the same."
Judson Wheeler Phillips, the owner of Tea Party Nation, a nationally renowned conservative blog, recently published a thoughtful post on "eligibility." The question was, "did Obama's father change his citizenship?" Evidence suggests that he did. And, even if Obama changed it back, would this not have disqualified him for the presidency?
This revelation would indeed be the ultimate political hot potato! As a longtime Lousiana friend predicted, "they" wouldn't allow it to come up because, "we'd be talking about a civil war." In other words, "what Americans don't know won't hurt them!"
In essence, "our Democracy has become an Oligarchy."
History has proven that all Democracies eventually become Oligarchies. Yet, the United States was not founded as a Democracy. Our forefathers thoughtfully created a Republic. Confused? Perhaps we should define both "Republic" and "Democracy."
Definition of Republic- "A political order where the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and represenitives responsible to them."
Definition of Democracy? There is no clear consensus! Are we referring to "Direct Democracy? Representitive Democracy? Constitutional Democracy?" For the sake of clarity we'll define Democracy as "by the people; rule of the majority."
In theory, the latter would sound more inclusive. But, as Benjamin Franklin pointed out, "tea is typically too hot to drink when first poured into a cup. Therefore, one first pours a part of what's in the cup into the saucer before drinking it."
In other words, our ultimate protection from an American nobility is the slowness of the system created by our founders. A prime example is the U.S. Senate. The founders designated United States Senators to be elected by the individual state Senates. The 17th amendment changed that. Today, U.S. Senators are elected by the people directly. Isn't that preferable?
At first glance, it might be. What's unseen is the reduced authority granted to the individual states that resulted from the 17th amendments ratification.
Many Americans seek to abolish the electoral college. Wouldn't that be a more true measure of the will of the majority? Sure it would be. But, the power would be ultimately concentrated in seven or eight states. Smaller states would in effect, be relinquishing their voice in Presidential elections.
This question is not something new! Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton waged an endless debate on "how much" power should remain in Washington and how much should be administered at state level.
Hamilton wanted a stronger central government. In his mind, the average American lacked the education and general knowledge to self govern. Jefferson wanted to protect future Americans from the same social and political aristrocracy that they had left behind in England. The necessary antidote was the 10th amendment.
What does the 10th amendment have to do with checking a gradual shift from Democracy to Oligarchy? Possibly everything!
Hamilton's vision of America amounted to more centralized control. This, in itself, creates a country more susceptible to influence from the few, the rich and the powerful. Hamilton was the voice of these entities.
Conversely, Jefferson spoke for the common man. He determined that their best protection from oppression was de-centralization. He feared that a big and powerful government could create "what they had fled Europe from!"
Sadly, much of Jefferson's insight has been forgotten. In Washington D.C., we see today, what he feared the most: Ultra-wealthy, well connected, political aristocrats, who have made "governing" their careers. They have been largely supported and facilitated by a burgeoning bureaucracy.
It has been the Oligarchs who have perpetuated the life spans of these careerists. As Griffin coined, "it takes only about $125,000 to buy a Congressman." And so it goes!
Is this the end? Not hardly! As another "Agency" acquaintance stated, "we're going to get move involved in these upcoming elections. The place to be is in Texas. It could get messy in, say Miami."
A prediction? A possible warning?
It would stand to reason that de-centralization, as Jefferson implied could alter the present scenario. Yet, much of the country would vehemently oppose a more literal interpretation of the 10th! And, less we forget, this discussion was previously taken up in 1861!
This is 2014. There is apathy. There is dispair. There is a measure of hopelessness, mixed with a historical amount of cynicism. Underneath it all is anger. Amazingly, this anger could quickly become "joy,' when the right path is shown by that long awaited leader.
Is this leader in sight? Actually, yes! And, is it ever obvious! Yet, as with the Jews and Jesus Christ, true messengers are often spurned due to their simplicity and familiarity!
The Democrats have it all together. They have a plan.They have a compliant, well organized machine, situated in the nations' nerve center. They have millions of loyal "subjects" who ask for no more than day-to-day subsistence.
The Republican Establishment has largely abandoned it's base. The watchwords have become, "Do as you are told," because it's about a "lessor of two evils."
Perhaps the underlying rationale held by these "leaders" is that "even the blue team" would be more predictable than selecting any Jeffersonian alternative! I am certain that Colin Powell would support this conclusion. So would my friend in Pennsylvania!
Are we talking secession? Are we talking an outright revolution?
For the former, no. For the latter, yes, in a manner of speaking!
The "revolution" insinuated would be a revolt against what amounts to a departure from what America was originally meant to be. In truth, we were founded as a Republic, not a Democracy. Decades of manipulation, starting with a near breakup of the union, placed us on this path. What we have today, is what our ancestors fled from when they immigrated to America.
Only a committed Jeffersonian can bring about this reversal. Only a leader who has seen the "opposite" side of the fence, can include "all" of America, and not merely part of it. Only a person of maturity and wisdom is capable of destroying an entrenched system that must be destroyed.
This isn't just about ideas and aspirations! To pull it off, there will need to be more than basic resolve! Executive experience is an imperative. So is on-the-job exposure to both economic and cultural diversity. And, most importantly, previous success beyond comparison!
Obviously, I am referring to Governor, Rick Perry! Not only for our 2016 Presidential election, but our "uncontested Republican nominee!"
We may get one last chance at reclaiming our Republic as we know it. It is time to set our differences aside and unite. If we can't we will, at best, be forced to settle for reclaiming a portion of it. At worst, we may lose our identity altogether. This is the verdict that so many fear.
As the American story unfolds, we are experiencing a "blight" that has stricken the very foundations of our soul; our psyche. Was it administered intentionally? Maybe! But, our fate hasn't been sealed. Or, at least, not yet!
Our salvation is two-fold. We must return to our original Judeo-Christian principles that inspired our founders. Of equal importance is the conclusion that Jefferson was right and Hamilton was wrong!
Each state should be seen as a separate laboratory, in peaceful competition. The end result: Strong states. Strong states make for a strong nation.
Best of all, government is "closer" to the people. Politicians are more accountable to their constituents and less so to special interests and lobbyists that have descended upon Washington, D.C. like vultures on a road kill.
Actually, it is more like a growing sickness. It's called hopelessness. Our people are giving up. The passion that lead to the founding of this great country is gradually giving way to cynicism and apathy.
It is easy to blame Barack Obama. He certainly hasn't been that "uniter" of men as promised. In fact,he has proven to be opposite of what was advertised on the campaign trail.
At best, he will be remembered as the facilitator of the "left wing status quot." Didn't John McCain predict that he was "running for Jimmy Carter's second term?" At worst, he will be remembered for his efforts to "grind America down."
I recall the President saying that he wasn't the "candidate of fat cat, Wall Street bankers." Words and deeds are two different things, totally separate." Or, at least that's what the Russian say. Concretely put, the gap between rich and poor has widened more during Barack Obama's watch than any other Presidency in history!
The more politically astute admit that "all of this is above Obama's head." One Nashville insider rendered some profound history: "the powers" met with Obama's parents years before he ran for the White House, mapping out his future Presidential victory. It was all part of a grand plan. The "long range goal" was to "bring America in line" with the rest of the world. In other words, to "lessen" America.
I recall a Pennsylvania friend, the son a CIA operative who described our current American system as "red team versus blue team, playing for the same university." He advised me to "forget about saving the world or bringing about significant change." Just accept it and "try to make a couple of bucks and enjoy your children."
As the eternal optimist, my retort was, "are you sure about this." He was. And, when I watched the 2012 Presidential campaign unfold, his insight was clearly manifested.
Another great conservative, who resides in Nebraska refers to them as the "string pullers." Any positive reform will never have a chance because the "string pullers" will not allow it! But wait! We shouldn't talk about these things! It's how one gets killed!
Strangely enough, some are talking about the roots of our predicament. Fortunately, the "fat cats" never have taken Ron Paul seriously. Nor, did they consider G. Edward Griffin's writing, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," any more than a "right wing ranting" from an unbalanced opportunist!
A growing number of Americans are taking note, however. They are younger and yes, slightly naive. Or, that's what the Establishment has long concluded. The assumption is that the Millennials will reach age 40, realize that the situation is beyond remedy and eventually take the advice of the son of the ex-CIA Operative.
I recall a Lexington, Kentucky Broker-Dealer who reminded, "we're talking about career politicians. John Boehner spoke to our group just last week. He asked us for ideas." Yet, with every idea or suggestion, it had "already been proposed" or "they were working on it." He ruefully acknowledged, "then, they'll be off to Washington, D.C. for more of the same."
Judson Wheeler Phillips, the owner of Tea Party Nation, a nationally renowned conservative blog, recently published a thoughtful post on "eligibility." The question was, "did Obama's father change his citizenship?" Evidence suggests that he did. And, even if Obama changed it back, would this not have disqualified him for the presidency?
This revelation would indeed be the ultimate political hot potato! As a longtime Lousiana friend predicted, "they" wouldn't allow it to come up because, "we'd be talking about a civil war." In other words, "what Americans don't know won't hurt them!"
In essence, "our Democracy has become an Oligarchy."
History has proven that all Democracies eventually become Oligarchies. Yet, the United States was not founded as a Democracy. Our forefathers thoughtfully created a Republic. Confused? Perhaps we should define both "Republic" and "Democracy."
Definition of Republic- "A political order where the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and represenitives responsible to them."
Definition of Democracy? There is no clear consensus! Are we referring to "Direct Democracy? Representitive Democracy? Constitutional Democracy?" For the sake of clarity we'll define Democracy as "by the people; rule of the majority."
In theory, the latter would sound more inclusive. But, as Benjamin Franklin pointed out, "tea is typically too hot to drink when first poured into a cup. Therefore, one first pours a part of what's in the cup into the saucer before drinking it."
In other words, our ultimate protection from an American nobility is the slowness of the system created by our founders. A prime example is the U.S. Senate. The founders designated United States Senators to be elected by the individual state Senates. The 17th amendment changed that. Today, U.S. Senators are elected by the people directly. Isn't that preferable?
At first glance, it might be. What's unseen is the reduced authority granted to the individual states that resulted from the 17th amendments ratification.
Many Americans seek to abolish the electoral college. Wouldn't that be a more true measure of the will of the majority? Sure it would be. But, the power would be ultimately concentrated in seven or eight states. Smaller states would in effect, be relinquishing their voice in Presidential elections.
This question is not something new! Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton waged an endless debate on "how much" power should remain in Washington and how much should be administered at state level.
Hamilton wanted a stronger central government. In his mind, the average American lacked the education and general knowledge to self govern. Jefferson wanted to protect future Americans from the same social and political aristrocracy that they had left behind in England. The necessary antidote was the 10th amendment.
What does the 10th amendment have to do with checking a gradual shift from Democracy to Oligarchy? Possibly everything!
Hamilton's vision of America amounted to more centralized control. This, in itself, creates a country more susceptible to influence from the few, the rich and the powerful. Hamilton was the voice of these entities.
Conversely, Jefferson spoke for the common man. He determined that their best protection from oppression was de-centralization. He feared that a big and powerful government could create "what they had fled Europe from!"
Sadly, much of Jefferson's insight has been forgotten. In Washington D.C., we see today, what he feared the most: Ultra-wealthy, well connected, political aristocrats, who have made "governing" their careers. They have been largely supported and facilitated by a burgeoning bureaucracy.
It has been the Oligarchs who have perpetuated the life spans of these careerists. As Griffin coined, "it takes only about $125,000 to buy a Congressman." And so it goes!
Is this the end? Not hardly! As another "Agency" acquaintance stated, "we're going to get move involved in these upcoming elections. The place to be is in Texas. It could get messy in, say Miami."
A prediction? A possible warning?
It would stand to reason that de-centralization, as Jefferson implied could alter the present scenario. Yet, much of the country would vehemently oppose a more literal interpretation of the 10th! And, less we forget, this discussion was previously taken up in 1861!
This is 2014. There is apathy. There is dispair. There is a measure of hopelessness, mixed with a historical amount of cynicism. Underneath it all is anger. Amazingly, this anger could quickly become "joy,' when the right path is shown by that long awaited leader.
Is this leader in sight? Actually, yes! And, is it ever obvious! Yet, as with the Jews and Jesus Christ, true messengers are often spurned due to their simplicity and familiarity!
The Democrats have it all together. They have a plan.They have a compliant, well organized machine, situated in the nations' nerve center. They have millions of loyal "subjects" who ask for no more than day-to-day subsistence.
The Republican Establishment has largely abandoned it's base. The watchwords have become, "Do as you are told," because it's about a "lessor of two evils."
Perhaps the underlying rationale held by these "leaders" is that "even the blue team" would be more predictable than selecting any Jeffersonian alternative! I am certain that Colin Powell would support this conclusion. So would my friend in Pennsylvania!
Are we talking secession? Are we talking an outright revolution?
For the former, no. For the latter, yes, in a manner of speaking!
The "revolution" insinuated would be a revolt against what amounts to a departure from what America was originally meant to be. In truth, we were founded as a Republic, not a Democracy. Decades of manipulation, starting with a near breakup of the union, placed us on this path. What we have today, is what our ancestors fled from when they immigrated to America.
Only a committed Jeffersonian can bring about this reversal. Only a leader who has seen the "opposite" side of the fence, can include "all" of America, and not merely part of it. Only a person of maturity and wisdom is capable of destroying an entrenched system that must be destroyed.
This isn't just about ideas and aspirations! To pull it off, there will need to be more than basic resolve! Executive experience is an imperative. So is on-the-job exposure to both economic and cultural diversity. And, most importantly, previous success beyond comparison!
Obviously, I am referring to Governor, Rick Perry! Not only for our 2016 Presidential election, but our "uncontested Republican nominee!"
We may get one last chance at reclaiming our Republic as we know it. It is time to set our differences aside and unite. If we can't we will, at best, be forced to settle for reclaiming a portion of it. At worst, we may lose our identity altogether. This is the verdict that so many fear.
As the American story unfolds, we are experiencing a "blight" that has stricken the very foundations of our soul; our psyche. Was it administered intentionally? Maybe! But, our fate hasn't been sealed. Or, at least, not yet!
Our salvation is two-fold. We must return to our original Judeo-Christian principles that inspired our founders. Of equal importance is the conclusion that Jefferson was right and Hamilton was wrong!
Each state should be seen as a separate laboratory, in peaceful competition. The end result: Strong states. Strong states make for a strong nation.
Best of all, government is "closer" to the people. Politicians are more accountable to their constituents and less so to special interests and lobbyists that have descended upon Washington, D.C. like vultures on a road kill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)