Another year. Another CPAC.
Nothing has really changed. The conference is dominated by "twenty-somethings," bright eyed, bushy tailed and utterly clueless on what it takes to win an election.
Let's begin with their hero, Rand Paul. Paul is "a collection of insights derived from father Ron and John Stossell." Ideas with no clear path on how to implement them.
Austerity measures are fine; as long as we are only talking about those not receiving any sort of entitlement from Uncle Sam. Discussion about abolishing the Federal Reserve has merit. But, with most mainstreamers, it's confusing if not baffling. Isolationism will always have proponents. Unfortunately for Paul, the opposition has deep pockets!
A Paul versus Clinton general election, would probably be a repeat of Goldwater-Johnson. Of course, these "twenty-somethings" were not around in '64. They didn't witness the scare tactics employed by LBJ's clever team. Hillary would take a page from the past, use her massive war chest and scare the socks off much of America. The sad aspect is Rand could be a great future Presidential candidate! It's a timing thing.
Paul's dilemma equates with choosing between running for President or running for Senate re-election. The latter would be a slam dunk victory. The former would most likely cost Republicans a Senate seat that they could not afford to lose. True, Rand is challenging this Kentucky law. He even has solicited the help of Hal Heiner and other hopefuls who aspire to be the next Kentucky governor. Standing in his way however, is Kentucky Secretary of State, Alison Lundergan Grimes who deeply covets that Senate seat for herself.
Ted Cruz made as good of a speech as can be made. He unquestionably has the pulse of the Tea Party. His words ring true: It has become the "people versus Washington." Yet, outside of shutting the government down, I haven't heard of a long lasting strategy to bring about necessary reform. Maybe it's because there isn't a long lasting strategy on the table.
Ironically, Paul could lay the groundwork for such a plan. But it would require patience on his part. Run for President in '16 and hope for the best. Or, return for a second senate term and sponsor a term limits amendment to the constitution. True, it would royally "piss off" the old guard! Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Thad Cochran and others would call Rand "everything but a white man!" Yet, this action must be done. We have seen how quick the old guard was to compromise conservatives with the DHS issue!
It's probable that Congressional and Senate leadership would not allow a floor vote on a term limits measure. But, Paul would have proven his point: Only through a constitutional convention or a Convention of States can corrective measures be adopted. At that point, Kentucky's now Junior Senator would be ready to run for President. Preferably after winning the Kentucky Governors mansion in '23.
Meanwhile, we must deal with 2016 and winning the general election. I think it's safe to say that ANY Republican would be preferable to Hillary Clinton. Yet, it appears that many staunch conservatives would opt to stay home if Jeb Bush were the choice. Amid some "boos" the former Florida Governor's responses to Sean Hannity's questions bordered on impressive. Yet, Jeb is clearly enamored with immigrants. He has expressed truisms that many long time Americans consider antagonistic. His support for "top down" education, albeit from the state and not federal level, is a deal breaker for many. His immigration position isn't too far from his brothers.
Marco Rubio would be an intriguing option and he truly had his game face on this past Friday. But can he (a) secure the necessary financial support if Jeb Bush chooses to run and (b) can he overcome the same liability haunting both Cruz and Paul: "Junior Senator with no Executive experience."
Scott Walker encountered a bump but was impressive overall at CPAC. He is seen as "the answer" in a lot of GOP circles. He is a Governor who has stood up to major Democrat constituencies. He is plain spoken, appealing to Nascar Dads. He has Executive experience and has a solid record of accomplishment in a "deep blue state." His anti-union stance is polarizing, but refreshing.
Rick Perry gave another fiery speech, reminding CPAC members both of the landscape of a troubled world and his own accomplishments while serving as governor of Texas. In truth nobody would have expected a question about the environment at a CPAC convention. But it served Perry well as he recounted surprisingly solid improvements in CO2 levels, ozone levels and more.
A conservative political action committee conference is probably not the place to discuss "building new constituencies or broadening the tent." But it should be! A successful convention amounts to leaving with a true plan of securing general election victory. Those backers of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have neither.
Scott Walker supporters see him as the anti-Washington, anti-establishment voice of forgotten America. But, can Walker secure 40% of America's Hispanic vote? Furthermore, can he win his home state? Wisconsin has not gone "red" since 1984. No president has ever been elected when not carrying his home state.
Marco Rubio would obviously attract Hispanics. His ideas are fresh and pertinent. His views on foreign affairs "click" with defense contractors. Friday he let it be known that he did not want to spend a lifetime in politics.
Rick Perry is expected to run. He will be accompanied by a record that surpasses all suitors. But, can he get the necessary attention. Will his failed 2012 campaign haunt him? Money won't be a problem for the former Texas Governor. Outside of Jeb Bush, no other candidate will be better financed. For Perry, it's a simple matter of convincing Republican voters that he is electable. His stalwarts will argue that he is the only candidate who can appeal to Establishment, attract Tea Partiers, and mobilize Evangelicals.
While emotion may have ruled at CPAC, Republican strategists are quietly determining what it will take to secure the necessary 270 electoral votes. This translates into "how to win Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada." In most cases the "bottom of the ticket" may be the difference.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Monday, February 16, 2015
"Deeds," not Words, Key in Finding Bush Alternative
The Russians have a saying.
"Scazat ee daylat nee pohozhnee. Ahnee rozhnee."
Translated it amounts to, "words and deeds are not the same. They are different."
In American slang it goes something like, "the proof's in the pudding!"
2015 will be a pivotal year in America. Republicans will attempt to find the best possible alternative to likely Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton. At stake is throwing a roadblock in Democrat's final push toward Communism in America.
It won't be easy. The Democrats have their true believers. The have embraced the term "social justice" and are now applying it to Cuba and the "Fidelistos."
Many in the Republican leadership are already evauluating the wisdom of a concession of sorts. In other words, concentrating on the "low hanging fruit," as GOP strategist, Dick Morris explains. This translates to tweaking the existing system. "Fundalmental change," in the minds of Morris, Karl Rove and the senior leadership is beyond realistic expectation.
Jeb Bush is considered their "safe savior." Hillary herself has quietly admitted that "beating Bush in his home state will be a challenge." Top minds in the Bush camp are already whispering the name "John Kasich" as Bush's running mate. These people are nobody's fools. They know that to lose Florida and Ohio would create electoral problems for Clinton.
What about the Tea Party Republicans who arguably pulled the party from the gutter in 2010? It's fairly obvious that Jeb Bush is not their man! In the minds of the leadership, it doesn't matter! Given the choice of Hillary or Bush, these troubled voters will "hold their noses and pull the level for Jeb." After all, anything would be better than Hillary! Besides, these same people voted for his brother! In most cases, TWICE! Rumor has it that Jeb might actually be a wee bit to the right of "Dubya!" So, get over it!
Could things be more clear?
True, much of the party base is proclaiming that they will not vote for Jeb under any circumstance. The GOP Establishment is banking on their change of heart when November 2016 rolls around. Meanwhile, conservatives can splinter as they did in 2012. True, there will be more to choose from. But, Jeb will be a stronger candidate than Mitt Romney. That's why Romney opted out of the race. Look for Romney to endorse Bush sometime in 2016.
Conservative Republicans' biggest problem is based on "purity." Only those with minimal experience are exempted from ultra zealous scrutiny that generally accompanies years in office. It is much easier to trust someone with no resume and reassuring words. Deeds draw attention and usually criticism. But character comes from them. And with it a right to say, "give me your blessing; not because I deserve it, but because I have earned it!"
Deeds come in the form of positive change. And, the only place that you can assess them is when a candidate's record comes under the microscope. Anything less is only talk.
Tea Party Republicans can choose the 2016 nominee. But they must grow up to do it. It begins with evaluating a candidate's accomplishments in a previous office. We must also look at issues that will ultimately make the difference with that 10% that will remain undecided, up until the last moment.
Two issues considered Democrat strengths by their partisan media cohorts are "education and the environment." As the Republican leadership concludes, Jeb Bush had a respectable record with the environment. Plus, he promoted Charter Schools, which proved to be a huge success in Florida. On both counts he trumps Hillary Clinton decisively!
Hillary had little to say about preserving Florida's wetlands. Her opposition to Charter schools left the impression that she was in bed with the teachers union.
While Bush may edge Clinton on Environmental issues, he places a distant second to Texas Governor, Rick Perry in this arena. Under Perry's watch, CO2 emissions have been cut in half. The ozone levels are down 24%! Texas is the nation's leading producer of wind.
Credit Maine with recording the highest rate of Hispanic high school graduation rates(86%) in America. Texas finished second with 82%, according to an ABC poll. Yet, while Maine is less than two percent Hispanic, Texas is 42%.
Equally notable is the increase in Hispanics in higher education. According to Politifacts, by the end of 2012, Hispanics in higher education had increased 118% since 2001. Hispanic college graduation rates were up 228% during that same time!
Texas students overall had climbed from 33rd to 4th nationally in math and reading scores.
It gets even better!
One of Rick Perry's signature initiatives has been "lowering the cost" of a college education. As of May, 2013, there were 13 Texas College institutions that offered a four-year degree(eight full time semesters) for $10,000. A large number of those taking advantage of the tuition reduction are minority students.
For liberals who talk about Texas' "sub-par" health care system, think again! The costs have come down because the "loser pays tort reform" has lowered physicians E & O expense! For those not convinced, ask the 34,000 new doctors who have recently relocated to Texas!
Obviously no candidate in either party can trump these accomplishments while in elected office. Yet, many stalwart Tea Party advocates would rather talk about an HPV vaccine that was never implemented or a tuition waiver that was favored by 177 of 181 Texas legislatures. You hear accusations such as Perry's alleged closeness with Mississippi's Barbour clan. Or, the fact that he supported David Dewhurst's failed Senate effort against Ted Cruz in 2012. But are these deal breakers?
Scott Walker is the recent poster boy for Republicans not wanting Bush. The question emerging is "can he win thye necessary 40% of Latino vctes?" Anything less will likely yield a "Mitt Romney type" verdict...
Ted Cruz talks beautifully. Without question, he is a brilliant man. Yet what has he actually accomplished while in office, outside of shutting the government down? Besides, wouldn't he be more valuable to the conservative cause as a Supreme Court Justice?
We know that Rand Paul has his base and we should listen to them. Perry's orientation is more closely in tune with Paul's than any other candidate. Case in point: Both Perry and Paul have acknowledged that social issues such as "Gay Marriage, Abortion and Marijuana legalization" should be left up to the state's exclusive judgment, in accordance to the 10th amendment. This could be huge in states such as Colorado and Oregon.
As logical as it may sound. As impressive as the record reflects, there remains this idea that "only a moderate" can win in key GOP circles. But are not the accomplishments recorded under Perry's watch important for all Americans?
It will still come down to finding 270 electoral college votes. Bush braintrusts believe that they have found a way. Do any of the other candidates have a similar path?
Perry would need to win Florida. While he might do better than Mitt Romney did, there are still concerns. My conclusion is that if he were to tap Marco Rubio for his running mate, he would accomplish two objectives.
(1) He would win Miami-Dade County. Democrats path to victory in Florida runs through Dade County. Rubio is like a "rock star" to this county of 2.6 million where 70% of the residents speak Spanish as their first language.
(2) Rubio could effectively canvas New Mexico and Nevada and with the help of their Latino Republican Governors could lure Hispanic voters to the Republicans. New Mexico is 47% Hispanic, Nevada 25%. Rubio actually live in the latter six years.
This would probably be enough. Perry's appeal to "blue collar" Democrats and Independents is especially strong. In the end, it's possible that he would secure more Buckeye votes than Bush. Even, if Bush had the Governor of Ohio as his running mate!
Iowa and Virginia finals can be determined by Evangelical turnout. It's a mathematical certainty that a Perry-Rubio ticket would motivate more to the voting booths than Romney's 33.7%. There are 89 million Evangelicals in America. Only 30 million voted in 2012. Shockingly 22% of them broke for Barack Obama.
In short, Perry can win the White House. While he might not be "Mr. Perfect" in the eyes of Tea Party purists, most all will admit that he would be better than Bush. Odds are he is the only Republican who can both topple Bush and later defeat Hillary Clinton.
Never forget than "money" will play a key role in this election. Can anyone besides Bush and Perry come up with enough to challenge Clinton? This consideration more than most, must be considered going forward...
So, we come to the question of "who has accomplished the most in a similiar, albeit smaller position?" From the economy, to education, to the environment to healthcare, it is decisively Rick Perry. True, he scares the "willies" out of the Democrats. And, to an extent, much of the Republican Establishment. His speaks of a "downsize" of the federal government.
It amounts to a total outsider, who comes off as a gun slinger. Such individuals are threatening to those entrenched in old ways.
However, most conclude that this is what is truly needed in today's Washington.
"Scazat ee daylat nee pohozhnee. Ahnee rozhnee."
Translated it amounts to, "words and deeds are not the same. They are different."
In American slang it goes something like, "the proof's in the pudding!"
2015 will be a pivotal year in America. Republicans will attempt to find the best possible alternative to likely Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton. At stake is throwing a roadblock in Democrat's final push toward Communism in America.
It won't be easy. The Democrats have their true believers. The have embraced the term "social justice" and are now applying it to Cuba and the "Fidelistos."
Many in the Republican leadership are already evauluating the wisdom of a concession of sorts. In other words, concentrating on the "low hanging fruit," as GOP strategist, Dick Morris explains. This translates to tweaking the existing system. "Fundalmental change," in the minds of Morris, Karl Rove and the senior leadership is beyond realistic expectation.
Jeb Bush is considered their "safe savior." Hillary herself has quietly admitted that "beating Bush in his home state will be a challenge." Top minds in the Bush camp are already whispering the name "John Kasich" as Bush's running mate. These people are nobody's fools. They know that to lose Florida and Ohio would create electoral problems for Clinton.
What about the Tea Party Republicans who arguably pulled the party from the gutter in 2010? It's fairly obvious that Jeb Bush is not their man! In the minds of the leadership, it doesn't matter! Given the choice of Hillary or Bush, these troubled voters will "hold their noses and pull the level for Jeb." After all, anything would be better than Hillary! Besides, these same people voted for his brother! In most cases, TWICE! Rumor has it that Jeb might actually be a wee bit to the right of "Dubya!" So, get over it!
Could things be more clear?
True, much of the party base is proclaiming that they will not vote for Jeb under any circumstance. The GOP Establishment is banking on their change of heart when November 2016 rolls around. Meanwhile, conservatives can splinter as they did in 2012. True, there will be more to choose from. But, Jeb will be a stronger candidate than Mitt Romney. That's why Romney opted out of the race. Look for Romney to endorse Bush sometime in 2016.
Conservative Republicans' biggest problem is based on "purity." Only those with minimal experience are exempted from ultra zealous scrutiny that generally accompanies years in office. It is much easier to trust someone with no resume and reassuring words. Deeds draw attention and usually criticism. But character comes from them. And with it a right to say, "give me your blessing; not because I deserve it, but because I have earned it!"
Deeds come in the form of positive change. And, the only place that you can assess them is when a candidate's record comes under the microscope. Anything less is only talk.
Tea Party Republicans can choose the 2016 nominee. But they must grow up to do it. It begins with evaluating a candidate's accomplishments in a previous office. We must also look at issues that will ultimately make the difference with that 10% that will remain undecided, up until the last moment.
Two issues considered Democrat strengths by their partisan media cohorts are "education and the environment." As the Republican leadership concludes, Jeb Bush had a respectable record with the environment. Plus, he promoted Charter Schools, which proved to be a huge success in Florida. On both counts he trumps Hillary Clinton decisively!
Hillary had little to say about preserving Florida's wetlands. Her opposition to Charter schools left the impression that she was in bed with the teachers union.
While Bush may edge Clinton on Environmental issues, he places a distant second to Texas Governor, Rick Perry in this arena. Under Perry's watch, CO2 emissions have been cut in half. The ozone levels are down 24%! Texas is the nation's leading producer of wind.
Credit Maine with recording the highest rate of Hispanic high school graduation rates(86%) in America. Texas finished second with 82%, according to an ABC poll. Yet, while Maine is less than two percent Hispanic, Texas is 42%.
Equally notable is the increase in Hispanics in higher education. According to Politifacts, by the end of 2012, Hispanics in higher education had increased 118% since 2001. Hispanic college graduation rates were up 228% during that same time!
Texas students overall had climbed from 33rd to 4th nationally in math and reading scores.
It gets even better!
One of Rick Perry's signature initiatives has been "lowering the cost" of a college education. As of May, 2013, there were 13 Texas College institutions that offered a four-year degree(eight full time semesters) for $10,000. A large number of those taking advantage of the tuition reduction are minority students.
For liberals who talk about Texas' "sub-par" health care system, think again! The costs have come down because the "loser pays tort reform" has lowered physicians E & O expense! For those not convinced, ask the 34,000 new doctors who have recently relocated to Texas!
Obviously no candidate in either party can trump these accomplishments while in elected office. Yet, many stalwart Tea Party advocates would rather talk about an HPV vaccine that was never implemented or a tuition waiver that was favored by 177 of 181 Texas legislatures. You hear accusations such as Perry's alleged closeness with Mississippi's Barbour clan. Or, the fact that he supported David Dewhurst's failed Senate effort against Ted Cruz in 2012. But are these deal breakers?
Scott Walker is the recent poster boy for Republicans not wanting Bush. The question emerging is "can he win thye necessary 40% of Latino vctes?" Anything less will likely yield a "Mitt Romney type" verdict...
Ted Cruz talks beautifully. Without question, he is a brilliant man. Yet what has he actually accomplished while in office, outside of shutting the government down? Besides, wouldn't he be more valuable to the conservative cause as a Supreme Court Justice?
We know that Rand Paul has his base and we should listen to them. Perry's orientation is more closely in tune with Paul's than any other candidate. Case in point: Both Perry and Paul have acknowledged that social issues such as "Gay Marriage, Abortion and Marijuana legalization" should be left up to the state's exclusive judgment, in accordance to the 10th amendment. This could be huge in states such as Colorado and Oregon.
As logical as it may sound. As impressive as the record reflects, there remains this idea that "only a moderate" can win in key GOP circles. But are not the accomplishments recorded under Perry's watch important for all Americans?
It will still come down to finding 270 electoral college votes. Bush braintrusts believe that they have found a way. Do any of the other candidates have a similar path?
Perry would need to win Florida. While he might do better than Mitt Romney did, there are still concerns. My conclusion is that if he were to tap Marco Rubio for his running mate, he would accomplish two objectives.
(1) He would win Miami-Dade County. Democrats path to victory in Florida runs through Dade County. Rubio is like a "rock star" to this county of 2.6 million where 70% of the residents speak Spanish as their first language.
(2) Rubio could effectively canvas New Mexico and Nevada and with the help of their Latino Republican Governors could lure Hispanic voters to the Republicans. New Mexico is 47% Hispanic, Nevada 25%. Rubio actually live in the latter six years.
This would probably be enough. Perry's appeal to "blue collar" Democrats and Independents is especially strong. In the end, it's possible that he would secure more Buckeye votes than Bush. Even, if Bush had the Governor of Ohio as his running mate!
Iowa and Virginia finals can be determined by Evangelical turnout. It's a mathematical certainty that a Perry-Rubio ticket would motivate more to the voting booths than Romney's 33.7%. There are 89 million Evangelicals in America. Only 30 million voted in 2012. Shockingly 22% of them broke for Barack Obama.
In short, Perry can win the White House. While he might not be "Mr. Perfect" in the eyes of Tea Party purists, most all will admit that he would be better than Bush. Odds are he is the only Republican who can both topple Bush and later defeat Hillary Clinton.
Never forget than "money" will play a key role in this election. Can anyone besides Bush and Perry come up with enough to challenge Clinton? This consideration more than most, must be considered going forward...
So, we come to the question of "who has accomplished the most in a similiar, albeit smaller position?" From the economy, to education, to the environment to healthcare, it is decisively Rick Perry. True, he scares the "willies" out of the Democrats. And, to an extent, much of the Republican Establishment. His speaks of a "downsize" of the federal government.
It amounts to a total outsider, who comes off as a gun slinger. Such individuals are threatening to those entrenched in old ways.
However, most conclude that this is what is truly needed in today's Washington.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Rick Perry Riding Point Against Tyranny
Travis County, Texas is known statewide as a "liberal cesspool."
Outsiders to the state are quick to ask "why" is a District Attorney from Travis County given statewide latitude; as is the case with the Public Integrity Unit? Fair question!
The newswires are buzzing with Governor Rick Perry's seemingly politically motivated indictment. A Travis County Grand Jury argues that they are "not questioning Perry's right to exercise a veto." Perry's retort is simple. "Look at the video, if you're not convinced!"
He's referencing Rosemary Lehmberg, the Travis County District Attorney and the drunken escapade that landed her 22 days in the county clinker. Without question, it was an embarrassment for Travis County Democrats. They let Lehmberg know about it! But, resign she didn't! And, as the defense insists, a lot of Texas tax payer money was on the line. And we were not talking about just any position!
Governor Perry contended that his decision to veto the 7.5 million dollars needed for the Public Integrity Unit was solely due to his lack of confidence in Lehmberg. He doubted that any Chief Executive would have responded differently. After all, District Attorney is the chief law enforcement official.
So, if it is not politically motivated, what it is? Malice cannot be proven! True, Perry isn't exactly popular with far leftists. And, in exercising his veto, he was saying "nyet" to funding for one of the few "left leaning" departments remaining in the Lone Star state! But isn't this type disagreement dealt with in the voting booths?
Republicans are not happy with Barack Obama, especially in regard to measures such as Obamacare, Keystone, and Dodd-Frank. The President has threatened to veto any and all repeal legislation that may come through the Legislature. This is the way out system of government works. If Republicans don't like it, they can elect someone from their party in 2016.
Could not Republicans indict Barack Obama for refusal to see it their way?
This is essentially the argument made by both Alan Dershowitz and Lanny Davis. Such action would amount to nothing less than the "criminalization of politics." As the former warned, such action is "befitting of totalitarian governments." In essence, it would amount to a "Sovietization" of the American legal system.
Make no mistake! Alan Dershowitz and Lanny Davis are no fans of Rick Perry! Both are professed Progressives. Their problem stems with the the attempted sedition that Perry's indictment portrays. When opposition uses the legal system to advance their agenda, we embark upon a dangerous path.
As fate would have it, Rick Perry finds himself "riding point" on perhaps the greatest illustration of the difference between "freedom" and "tyranny" in a generation. Lehmberg supporters ultimately land on the side of "suppression." It amounts to "acquiesce or consequences!" Never mind that the captain visually demonstrated both her irresponsibility and ineptitude.
Predicted outcome? The Perry camp surmises that Judge Bart Richardson is "careful." The process is quite extensive. Yet it is remembered how the Travis County Grand Juries indicted Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Tom DeLay! Both were proven innocent. In the case of DeLay, it came with great cost.
The left has made it a standard to use the court system to advance measures that had failed legislatively. Travis County takes it a step further. Theirs is to prosecute any and all in disagreement. For them, Perry is especially dangerous.
Rick Perry is a former Democrat. He actually managed Al Gore's 1988 Texas Presidential campaign. He hails from a working class background. He brings more experience to the table than any candidate. Furthermore, his experience is Executive experience. His state is the second largest and one of the more diverse. His governorship is arguably the most successful in U.S. history, beginning with the economy and ending with border security and the environment. Last but not least, Perry flew C-130's in the Air Force. Demitry Medvedev described him as "a cowboy with deep understanding of military affairs."
The bottom line: Rick Perry connects with "Joe Six-Pack." This translates to appealing to "blue collar" Democrats and Independents, voters already skeptical about a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Perry even maintains active membership into he AFL-CI0, although he is staunchly "right to work."
The end conclusion is Perry will fix what ails America, domestically and abroad. The left sees him as the ultimate threat. He is plain spoken, personable and cordial, a stark contrast from the airy Barack Obama. Once in the White House he will be more than a "tap dancer" or an"accommodation artist."
When weighing the thought of a Perry Presidency versus one held by Hillary Clinton, or "Republicrats," Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, it is understandable why liberals would go so far as to advocate a "Soviet style" system of justice.
Outsiders to the state are quick to ask "why" is a District Attorney from Travis County given statewide latitude; as is the case with the Public Integrity Unit? Fair question!
The newswires are buzzing with Governor Rick Perry's seemingly politically motivated indictment. A Travis County Grand Jury argues that they are "not questioning Perry's right to exercise a veto." Perry's retort is simple. "Look at the video, if you're not convinced!"
He's referencing Rosemary Lehmberg, the Travis County District Attorney and the drunken escapade that landed her 22 days in the county clinker. Without question, it was an embarrassment for Travis County Democrats. They let Lehmberg know about it! But, resign she didn't! And, as the defense insists, a lot of Texas tax payer money was on the line. And we were not talking about just any position!
Governor Perry contended that his decision to veto the 7.5 million dollars needed for the Public Integrity Unit was solely due to his lack of confidence in Lehmberg. He doubted that any Chief Executive would have responded differently. After all, District Attorney is the chief law enforcement official.
So, if it is not politically motivated, what it is? Malice cannot be proven! True, Perry isn't exactly popular with far leftists. And, in exercising his veto, he was saying "nyet" to funding for one of the few "left leaning" departments remaining in the Lone Star state! But isn't this type disagreement dealt with in the voting booths?
Republicans are not happy with Barack Obama, especially in regard to measures such as Obamacare, Keystone, and Dodd-Frank. The President has threatened to veto any and all repeal legislation that may come through the Legislature. This is the way out system of government works. If Republicans don't like it, they can elect someone from their party in 2016.
Could not Republicans indict Barack Obama for refusal to see it their way?
This is essentially the argument made by both Alan Dershowitz and Lanny Davis. Such action would amount to nothing less than the "criminalization of politics." As the former warned, such action is "befitting of totalitarian governments." In essence, it would amount to a "Sovietization" of the American legal system.
Make no mistake! Alan Dershowitz and Lanny Davis are no fans of Rick Perry! Both are professed Progressives. Their problem stems with the the attempted sedition that Perry's indictment portrays. When opposition uses the legal system to advance their agenda, we embark upon a dangerous path.
As fate would have it, Rick Perry finds himself "riding point" on perhaps the greatest illustration of the difference between "freedom" and "tyranny" in a generation. Lehmberg supporters ultimately land on the side of "suppression." It amounts to "acquiesce or consequences!" Never mind that the captain visually demonstrated both her irresponsibility and ineptitude.
Predicted outcome? The Perry camp surmises that Judge Bart Richardson is "careful." The process is quite extensive. Yet it is remembered how the Travis County Grand Juries indicted Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Tom DeLay! Both were proven innocent. In the case of DeLay, it came with great cost.
The left has made it a standard to use the court system to advance measures that had failed legislatively. Travis County takes it a step further. Theirs is to prosecute any and all in disagreement. For them, Perry is especially dangerous.
Rick Perry is a former Democrat. He actually managed Al Gore's 1988 Texas Presidential campaign. He hails from a working class background. He brings more experience to the table than any candidate. Furthermore, his experience is Executive experience. His state is the second largest and one of the more diverse. His governorship is arguably the most successful in U.S. history, beginning with the economy and ending with border security and the environment. Last but not least, Perry flew C-130's in the Air Force. Demitry Medvedev described him as "a cowboy with deep understanding of military affairs."
The bottom line: Rick Perry connects with "Joe Six-Pack." This translates to appealing to "blue collar" Democrats and Independents, voters already skeptical about a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Perry even maintains active membership into he AFL-CI0, although he is staunchly "right to work."
The end conclusion is Perry will fix what ails America, domestically and abroad. The left sees him as the ultimate threat. He is plain spoken, personable and cordial, a stark contrast from the airy Barack Obama. Once in the White House he will be more than a "tap dancer" or an"accommodation artist."
When weighing the thought of a Perry Presidency versus one held by Hillary Clinton, or "Republicrats," Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, it is understandable why liberals would go so far as to advocate a "Soviet style" system of justice.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Paul's Presidential Run Should be Delayed until '24, '28.
The seeds of revolution are written all over Rand Paul's Presidential aspirations.
The 2016 Republican field is beginning to take shape. Surprisingly, both Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush plan to make a go of it. To Tea Party Republicans, this is glorious news! After 2012's Establishment plurality selection, it would be only fitting that Bush and Romney split the Establishment vote. Better yet, with them in the race, it's a good bet than other hopefuls such as Chris Christie and Scott Walker pass on a presidential run.
Nobody really knows what to make of Marco Rubio. Will he take on his mentor, Jeb Bush? And, if so, where will his money come from? Four years ago, the idea of a Rubio run would have excited Paul's Tea Party constituents. Post "Gang of Ocho," is a different landscape. Yet, in potentially alienating some voters, Rubio has evidently picked up others. Bill O'Reilly shocked a lot of us when he called Rubio "a moderate."
Most of the country expects Rick Perry to eventually enter the race. Perry says he's ready, having made the necessary preparations. His fiery speech at last weekends Iowa Freedom Summit reflected a clear agenda for 2016. This isn't 2012. Expect a different candidate when he does enter. Perhaps he is awaiting word on if the Travis County indictment will have legs. Most experts contend that it won't. But, it's hanging around is not good. Conversely a dismissal will bode well for Perry.
Mike Huckabee is apparently considering getting into the fray. His new book, "Guns, God, Grits and Gravy," epitomizes the hopes, promises and frustrations of mainstream America. It also paints a sordid picture of Americas ruling class. Those close to the Huckabee camp realize that money will be the biggest problem for the former Arkansas Governor. They also know that their hero holds the trust of a block of voters capable of swinging the election.
Will Ted Cruz throw his hat into the ring? Pure conservatives pray that he will. Cruz says all of the right things. In many ways, he is the conservative reflection of Barack Obama himself. While evidently as conservative as Obama has proven liberal, Cruz holds many simularities to the President:
A. Harvard Lawyer
B. Great Orator
C. Decided Ideologue
D. Razor Thin Resume
E. Questionable Eligibility
F. Lack of Executive Experience
The last factor in itself may be reason enough for Rand Paul to delay his candidacy. Paul doesn't have the looming question of eligibility that Cruz must contend with. But he does have a Kentucky law that must be considered.
Rand Paul cannot run for President and run for Senate re-election. Current Secretary of State and Mitch McConnell's opponent of last fall's Kentucky Senate race, Alison Lundergan Grimes is anticipating Paul's presidential announcement. Assuming that it comes, she might take what remains of her war chest and run for Paul's seat. This would be bad for Republicans! Grimes has been called, "Nancy Pelosi with a Kentucky drawl."
A growingly asked question: "Should Paul go full throttle into his quest for the presidency in '16? Or, should he wait, increasing his overall name recognition, while growing his constituency?
Should Paul decide to seek re-election, he will be difficult to beat. As a second term Senator, he could better formulate his argument for a later White House run. It would begin with making good on what 79% of America wants: Senate and Congressional term limits. Paul would be in ideal position to sponsor the measure. In doing so, he would become the chief spokesman for taking on the Washington political hierarchy.
The delay would likewise offer Paul time to clarify two positions inconsistent with those of the GOP base: His opposition to voter I.D. cards and his perceived "dovish" approach to foreign policy.
Successsful or not, Rand Paul can assert himself as the anti-establishment, anti-career politician voice. It would be easy for him to subsequently return to Kentucky and run for Governor in 2023. At that juncture, Rand would be 60 years old.
True, Paul's inner circle might resist Rand waiting until 2024 or 2028 to run for President. Yet, when considering the competition, waiting might be the most prudent strategy. There are two problems with Paul's message:
1) It takes on an apparatus that is largely unknown by most Americans.
2) It is easy to misrepresent and even easier to demagogue.
To tackle the former, groundwork is necessary and allies are desperately needed. Both will be discussed in a future post.
The latter amounts to a prediction of what Hillary Clinton would do, if she were Paul's general election opponent. Hillary has no record to run on. But, she will have a "truckload" of cash with which to launch a negative scare campaign against Rand Paul. This is something that the Kentucky Junior Senator must avoid.
The Republican field is crowded. The good news is, it could become much less crowded overnight. It will depend on the maturity of Tea Party Republicans. When they come to grips with the fact that Ted Cruz would be a better Supreme Court Justice than President and Ben Carson is about as qualified to be President as Charles Barkley, they'll be there!
Marco Rubio remains the wildcard. If he finds "dinero sufficiente," look out! Smart money predicts "he won't; if Jeb runs!" At that point, look for Marco to entertain any and all VP overtures.
Meanwhile Rand Paul should nurture his precious seed. In truth, it isn't ready to be sown. What must come first is a "cleansing" of the current order. All indications would conclude that only Rick Perry has both the will and stamina to make this happen.
The 2016 Republican field is beginning to take shape. Surprisingly, both Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush plan to make a go of it. To Tea Party Republicans, this is glorious news! After 2012's Establishment plurality selection, it would be only fitting that Bush and Romney split the Establishment vote. Better yet, with them in the race, it's a good bet than other hopefuls such as Chris Christie and Scott Walker pass on a presidential run.
Nobody really knows what to make of Marco Rubio. Will he take on his mentor, Jeb Bush? And, if so, where will his money come from? Four years ago, the idea of a Rubio run would have excited Paul's Tea Party constituents. Post "Gang of Ocho," is a different landscape. Yet, in potentially alienating some voters, Rubio has evidently picked up others. Bill O'Reilly shocked a lot of us when he called Rubio "a moderate."
Most of the country expects Rick Perry to eventually enter the race. Perry says he's ready, having made the necessary preparations. His fiery speech at last weekends Iowa Freedom Summit reflected a clear agenda for 2016. This isn't 2012. Expect a different candidate when he does enter. Perhaps he is awaiting word on if the Travis County indictment will have legs. Most experts contend that it won't. But, it's hanging around is not good. Conversely a dismissal will bode well for Perry.
Mike Huckabee is apparently considering getting into the fray. His new book, "Guns, God, Grits and Gravy," epitomizes the hopes, promises and frustrations of mainstream America. It also paints a sordid picture of Americas ruling class. Those close to the Huckabee camp realize that money will be the biggest problem for the former Arkansas Governor. They also know that their hero holds the trust of a block of voters capable of swinging the election.
Will Ted Cruz throw his hat into the ring? Pure conservatives pray that he will. Cruz says all of the right things. In many ways, he is the conservative reflection of Barack Obama himself. While evidently as conservative as Obama has proven liberal, Cruz holds many simularities to the President:
A. Harvard Lawyer
B. Great Orator
C. Decided Ideologue
D. Razor Thin Resume
E. Questionable Eligibility
F. Lack of Executive Experience
The last factor in itself may be reason enough for Rand Paul to delay his candidacy. Paul doesn't have the looming question of eligibility that Cruz must contend with. But he does have a Kentucky law that must be considered.
Rand Paul cannot run for President and run for Senate re-election. Current Secretary of State and Mitch McConnell's opponent of last fall's Kentucky Senate race, Alison Lundergan Grimes is anticipating Paul's presidential announcement. Assuming that it comes, she might take what remains of her war chest and run for Paul's seat. This would be bad for Republicans! Grimes has been called, "Nancy Pelosi with a Kentucky drawl."
A growingly asked question: "Should Paul go full throttle into his quest for the presidency in '16? Or, should he wait, increasing his overall name recognition, while growing his constituency?
Should Paul decide to seek re-election, he will be difficult to beat. As a second term Senator, he could better formulate his argument for a later White House run. It would begin with making good on what 79% of America wants: Senate and Congressional term limits. Paul would be in ideal position to sponsor the measure. In doing so, he would become the chief spokesman for taking on the Washington political hierarchy.
The delay would likewise offer Paul time to clarify two positions inconsistent with those of the GOP base: His opposition to voter I.D. cards and his perceived "dovish" approach to foreign policy.
Successsful or not, Rand Paul can assert himself as the anti-establishment, anti-career politician voice. It would be easy for him to subsequently return to Kentucky and run for Governor in 2023. At that juncture, Rand would be 60 years old.
True, Paul's inner circle might resist Rand waiting until 2024 or 2028 to run for President. Yet, when considering the competition, waiting might be the most prudent strategy. There are two problems with Paul's message:
1) It takes on an apparatus that is largely unknown by most Americans.
2) It is easy to misrepresent and even easier to demagogue.
To tackle the former, groundwork is necessary and allies are desperately needed. Both will be discussed in a future post.
The latter amounts to a prediction of what Hillary Clinton would do, if she were Paul's general election opponent. Hillary has no record to run on. But, she will have a "truckload" of cash with which to launch a negative scare campaign against Rand Paul. This is something that the Kentucky Junior Senator must avoid.
The Republican field is crowded. The good news is, it could become much less crowded overnight. It will depend on the maturity of Tea Party Republicans. When they come to grips with the fact that Ted Cruz would be a better Supreme Court Justice than President and Ben Carson is about as qualified to be President as Charles Barkley, they'll be there!
Marco Rubio remains the wildcard. If he finds "dinero sufficiente," look out! Smart money predicts "he won't; if Jeb runs!" At that point, look for Marco to entertain any and all VP overtures.
Meanwhile Rand Paul should nurture his precious seed. In truth, it isn't ready to be sown. What must come first is a "cleansing" of the current order. All indications would conclude that only Rick Perry has both the will and stamina to make this happen.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Present System at Odds With Average American
An interesting question surfaced from a long time Ohio conservative:
"What if the TARP money that was used to bail out the banks, had gone directly to the homeowners?
700 billion dollars, or something like that.
As the gentlemen surmised, "it would have worked like a giant stimulus package. People's mortgages would have been paid down or off. The lenders would have gotten their money. Everyone would have been happy!"
Well, not quite everyone! As he continued, "the banks didn't like that idea at all." You can't make money on interest when your not owed.
It would seem that 700 billion would not have made a dent in the nation's mortgage debt. Well, maybe a small dent!
"Think of it this way," the Ohio man added,"You set the max at the standand FHA cap of $271,200. And, only primary residences are allowed. No second homes. No investment real estate. If you live in a high cost area, you would still be subject to the same cap."
Wouldn't you still be quite a bit short?
He concluded in admitting that "yeah, it probably would have been short. But what if we had also taken the money used to bail out General Motors? After all, Chapter 11 wouldn't have been the end of the world for them!
"And, we could have diverted Obama's giant "stimulus package," which, as we all know, was nothing but an ensemble of chits and boonies for his supporters! Put it all together and you're talking about a lot of cheese!"
Too bad things aren't so simple!
In truth, the entire country bailed out a obscenely small number of people. They represented the better connected and in many cases, some of the best off! Meanwhile, the average American, AKA "Joe Six Pack," was thrown under the bus.
"And yet," the Ohioan reminded,"these decision makers knew what they were doing. You take John Boehner, for example. The guy controls an obnoxious amount of money. With money comes leverage. In other words, if a Congressman doesn't see things the Speaker's way, there will be the devil to pay! Or, should I say, that money won't find it's way into the disobedient Congressman's re-election coffers!"
Ugh!
In Boehner's thinking, the average guy simply doesn't understand how things work! There are too many "loose cannons," too many "well intentioned ideologues" who "don't understand when" to a part of the team. It's a matter of "picking your battles."
Good advice? Well coined wisdom? Or, maybe it's a simple of matter of 24 years in the House of Representatives.
In a recent post, the subject of term limits was briefly discussed, along with the possible sponsor of an amendment. In a perfect world, a simple debate and floor vote should be on the horizon. Sadly, we don't live in that utopia! We are talking about three fourths of the House and Senate surrendering the best jobs in the country. And, with it power and a lot of it!
There is a growing call for a Constitutional convention. Yet, even anti-etablishment, pseudo conservative, Glenn Beck warned of the "danger" of a "con con." Perhaps, there is another way.
Obviously, something needs to give in Washington. It likely will start with a tough, outside the beltway reformer, assuming Presidential duties in 2016. There is no argument that we need a Washington outsider, holding little if any ties to "K" street.
One of the quickest way to reduce the power of Lobbyiests is to shorten Congressional and Senate terms. It might also be a smart idea to term limit bureaucrats. A President, joined by a Senator and Congressman who jointly sponsored such an amendment would capture the nation's attention. Together, the trio could demonize any and all who opposed them.
I like this idea better than a Constitutional Convention, personally.
"What if the TARP money that was used to bail out the banks, had gone directly to the homeowners?
700 billion dollars, or something like that.
As the gentlemen surmised, "it would have worked like a giant stimulus package. People's mortgages would have been paid down or off. The lenders would have gotten their money. Everyone would have been happy!"
Well, not quite everyone! As he continued, "the banks didn't like that idea at all." You can't make money on interest when your not owed.
It would seem that 700 billion would not have made a dent in the nation's mortgage debt. Well, maybe a small dent!
"Think of it this way," the Ohio man added,"You set the max at the standand FHA cap of $271,200. And, only primary residences are allowed. No second homes. No investment real estate. If you live in a high cost area, you would still be subject to the same cap."
Wouldn't you still be quite a bit short?
He concluded in admitting that "yeah, it probably would have been short. But what if we had also taken the money used to bail out General Motors? After all, Chapter 11 wouldn't have been the end of the world for them!
"And, we could have diverted Obama's giant "stimulus package," which, as we all know, was nothing but an ensemble of chits and boonies for his supporters! Put it all together and you're talking about a lot of cheese!"
Too bad things aren't so simple!
In truth, the entire country bailed out a obscenely small number of people. They represented the better connected and in many cases, some of the best off! Meanwhile, the average American, AKA "Joe Six Pack," was thrown under the bus.
"And yet," the Ohioan reminded,"these decision makers knew what they were doing. You take John Boehner, for example. The guy controls an obnoxious amount of money. With money comes leverage. In other words, if a Congressman doesn't see things the Speaker's way, there will be the devil to pay! Or, should I say, that money won't find it's way into the disobedient Congressman's re-election coffers!"
Ugh!
In Boehner's thinking, the average guy simply doesn't understand how things work! There are too many "loose cannons," too many "well intentioned ideologues" who "don't understand when" to a part of the team. It's a matter of "picking your battles."
Good advice? Well coined wisdom? Or, maybe it's a simple of matter of 24 years in the House of Representatives.
In a recent post, the subject of term limits was briefly discussed, along with the possible sponsor of an amendment. In a perfect world, a simple debate and floor vote should be on the horizon. Sadly, we don't live in that utopia! We are talking about three fourths of the House and Senate surrendering the best jobs in the country. And, with it power and a lot of it!
There is a growing call for a Constitutional convention. Yet, even anti-etablishment, pseudo conservative, Glenn Beck warned of the "danger" of a "con con." Perhaps, there is another way.
Obviously, something needs to give in Washington. It likely will start with a tough, outside the beltway reformer, assuming Presidential duties in 2016. There is no argument that we need a Washington outsider, holding little if any ties to "K" street.
One of the quickest way to reduce the power of Lobbyiests is to shorten Congressional and Senate terms. It might also be a smart idea to term limit bureaucrats. A President, joined by a Senator and Congressman who jointly sponsored such an amendment would capture the nation's attention. Together, the trio could demonize any and all who opposed them.
I like this idea better than a Constitutional Convention, personally.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
The Ugliness Behind English Only Opposition
According to Washington D.C. based foundation, U.S. English, "87% of Americans" favor making English the official language in the United States. With this super majority, "why" hasn't the proposed legislation made it out of sub-committee?
There are opinions, ranging from the "foundations don't want passage, because they'll be out of a job," to "it will empower functionary illiterate voting blocks who are deemed "reliable" by power brokers.
In truth, there are many politicians who fear reprisal from the Hispanic community, now 16% of America. The very notion of repealing the voting rights act is considered racist. Yet, section five's interpretation opened the door to multi-lingual voting ballots. Adopting an English only standard is perceived to be harsh, ultimately discouraging voter participation.
The topic of my book, "E" is for English, amounts to presenting an alternative to the country; in the name of "creating a stronger, smarter, more secure America." The goal is "accelerated assimulation" of immigrants. The concept is based on the premise that America is a "melting pot, not a salad bowl." Forcing new Americans to adopt English as their primary language will grant them greater access to the American dream.
The proposal is comprehensive, normally a "dirty word" in conservative vocabularies. In addition to making English the official language and going "English only" in all government related activities, the amendment mandates "six years" of a second language for all public school participants, beginning in third grade.
The latter concept would be viewed by most conservatives as "more top down control from Washington." While such a mandate would be more comparable to a directive, it still would be seen as federal encroachment. While the individual school districts would be allowed to choose the second language options, the directive would be law.
The question becomes, "why?"
In an article written by Judy Willis, M.D., M.Ed., November 22, 2012, "recent studies of children growing up in bilingual settings revealed advantages over single lingual children. They included both increased attentive focus and cognition.
Compared to monolinguals, the studied bilingual children, who had five to ten years of bilingual exposure averaged higher scores in cognitive performance on tests and had greater attention focus, distraction resistance, decision making, judgment and responsiveness to feedback. The correlated neuroimaging (fMRI scans) of these children revealed greater activity in the prefrontal cortex networks directing these and other executive functions."
When seen in this light, we can quickly understand the true motives of New York Senator, Charlie Schumer and others who oppose English as official language. In actuality they are based on bigotry.
Making allowances for alternative language use "creates," in the words of former Florida Senator, Mel Martinez, "linguistical ghettos in America." When immigrants master English literacy, they are more difficult to control. Hence, those opponents of "English only" see a potential loss of power and influence over these constituents.
While 87% of the country may favor English as official language, nobody knows what percentage might support six years of a second language in the public schools! True, Hispanic families might embrace such a plan. But, what about the majority of Americans?
The proposal outlines a "slow ascent" strategy, designed to teach children, both the language and the history, geography and culture of those who speak it. The six-year journey would literally begin with comic book and video cartoons and end with a field trip to one of the countries utilizing the language.
Accompanying the ascent would be full immersion into "transformal grammar; the act of transforming sentences from surface structure to deep structure." All language is the same in deep structure. This proposal alone would outrage much of the education community.
Overall, the proposal is revolutionary. It represents more than a compromise. It attempts to make good on "something higher," as Abraham Lincoln described.
America would cement it's identity as an English speaking country. But it would simultaneously interject the European standard of "two languages are better than one."
From a parents perspective, maybe it's time for America to become a bit less colloquial, slightly less provincial. In the words of John F. Kennedy, "not because it is easy but because it is hard."
The concept of "English only" can likewise be utilized as a benchmark for future immigration reform. Should English literacy and Education become prequisites for legal immigration, the quality of our immigrants will improve drastically.
Our biggest single hurdle will be to overcome the nuisance notion of "political correctness." This, coupled with our ability to identify true bigots such as Senator Schumer can make for a better America.
An America where "inclusion," not "diversity" is the watchword.
There are opinions, ranging from the "foundations don't want passage, because they'll be out of a job," to "it will empower functionary illiterate voting blocks who are deemed "reliable" by power brokers.
In truth, there are many politicians who fear reprisal from the Hispanic community, now 16% of America. The very notion of repealing the voting rights act is considered racist. Yet, section five's interpretation opened the door to multi-lingual voting ballots. Adopting an English only standard is perceived to be harsh, ultimately discouraging voter participation.
The topic of my book, "E" is for English, amounts to presenting an alternative to the country; in the name of "creating a stronger, smarter, more secure America." The goal is "accelerated assimulation" of immigrants. The concept is based on the premise that America is a "melting pot, not a salad bowl." Forcing new Americans to adopt English as their primary language will grant them greater access to the American dream.
The proposal is comprehensive, normally a "dirty word" in conservative vocabularies. In addition to making English the official language and going "English only" in all government related activities, the amendment mandates "six years" of a second language for all public school participants, beginning in third grade.
The latter concept would be viewed by most conservatives as "more top down control from Washington." While such a mandate would be more comparable to a directive, it still would be seen as federal encroachment. While the individual school districts would be allowed to choose the second language options, the directive would be law.
The question becomes, "why?"
In an article written by Judy Willis, M.D., M.Ed., November 22, 2012, "recent studies of children growing up in bilingual settings revealed advantages over single lingual children. They included both increased attentive focus and cognition.
Compared to monolinguals, the studied bilingual children, who had five to ten years of bilingual exposure averaged higher scores in cognitive performance on tests and had greater attention focus, distraction resistance, decision making, judgment and responsiveness to feedback. The correlated neuroimaging (fMRI scans) of these children revealed greater activity in the prefrontal cortex networks directing these and other executive functions."
When seen in this light, we can quickly understand the true motives of New York Senator, Charlie Schumer and others who oppose English as official language. In actuality they are based on bigotry.
Making allowances for alternative language use "creates," in the words of former Florida Senator, Mel Martinez, "linguistical ghettos in America." When immigrants master English literacy, they are more difficult to control. Hence, those opponents of "English only" see a potential loss of power and influence over these constituents.
While 87% of the country may favor English as official language, nobody knows what percentage might support six years of a second language in the public schools! True, Hispanic families might embrace such a plan. But, what about the majority of Americans?
The proposal outlines a "slow ascent" strategy, designed to teach children, both the language and the history, geography and culture of those who speak it. The six-year journey would literally begin with comic book and video cartoons and end with a field trip to one of the countries utilizing the language.
Accompanying the ascent would be full immersion into "transformal grammar; the act of transforming sentences from surface structure to deep structure." All language is the same in deep structure. This proposal alone would outrage much of the education community.
Overall, the proposal is revolutionary. It represents more than a compromise. It attempts to make good on "something higher," as Abraham Lincoln described.
America would cement it's identity as an English speaking country. But it would simultaneously interject the European standard of "two languages are better than one."
From a parents perspective, maybe it's time for America to become a bit less colloquial, slightly less provincial. In the words of John F. Kennedy, "not because it is easy but because it is hard."
The concept of "English only" can likewise be utilized as a benchmark for future immigration reform. Should English literacy and Education become prequisites for legal immigration, the quality of our immigrants will improve drastically.
Our biggest single hurdle will be to overcome the nuisance notion of "political correctness." This, coupled with our ability to identify true bigots such as Senator Schumer can make for a better America.
An America where "inclusion," not "diversity" is the watchword.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Paul's Term Limits Amendment Could Set Table for 2024
Term limits.
Enter Rand Paul, the Tea Party poster boy. The Junior Senator from Kentucky has advocated term limits. In fact, he has listed term limits as a key to reforming Washington.
A super majority of Americans agree with him, per Gallup and Quinnipiac. The question becomes, would sponsorship of such an amendment merit delaying his other ambition: to be President of the United States?
Paul hasn't decided on a Presidential run. Indications however, suggest that he is strongly considering it. Which generates the next question: "With a crowded field that is likely to include Jeb Bush and Rick Perry, wouldn't it be better for Paul to delay Presidential aspirations and settle for an almost certain re-election?"
Mitch McConnell doesn't support term limits. He answered the question in proclaiming that "we already have term limits." According to the new Senate Majority leader, "every six years consituents are given the opportunity to make a change."
"Besides," as McConnell concluded, "it takes every bit of two Senate terms to master navigation of the federal bureaucracy."
Support for term limits notwithstanding, expect McConnell to urge Paul to seek re-election. While there are some promising Republican Congressmen available, Rand Paul would be difficult, if not impossible to dislodge in a re-election bid. 2016 will be a "hold" year for Republicans. The party leadership is reluctant to take chances with a secure seat.
Actually, Paul might help his future presidential chances if he did stay out. A return to the Senate that featured his sponsorship of a term limits amendment would grant him national exposure! True, such action would anger Senate and Congressional long termers. If passed at least 75% of the seats would turnover in both House and Senate.
Let's examine McConnell's assertion. "Two, six-year terms to master bureaucracy navigation?" Are we kidding? Maybe not!
A term limits amendment would need to be accompanied by an all out effort to decentralize. As McConnell accurately surmised, the "Executive branch" has "grown to the point that it has unsurprassed power." Weakening the legislative branch, in theory could actually be dangerous. Or, are these the mere rantings of a six-term career politician, not wanting to resign from the best job in America?
Pretend, for the sake of the argument, that McConnell is correct. Would not it be wise to divert power away from Washington, in favor of the individual states? Texas Governor, Rick Perry thinks so! If Perry has his way, the Education, Energy and Commerce Departments will be eliminated.
Former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush sees it on slightly different terms. While the federal bureaucracy may need to be "tweaked and re-focused," it is an intregal part of American government. Probably the greatest example of the differences between these two successful Governors are their views on Common Core.
Paul is certainly more in step with Perry on this issue. But, where Perry is a pragmatist, Paul is an ideologue. He sees Washington as something that is essentially a failure. Bush sees it sorely in need of better and more efficient management. Perry advises everyone to "read the 10th amendment."
Rand Paul is more than a decade younger than Bush or Perry. Time is on his side. A return to the Senate will do nothing but allow him to grow stronger. He could complete a second Senate term and return to Kentucky for an almost certain Gubernatorial triumph. Whether it passed or didn't pass, sponsorship of a term limits amendment would position him as "anti-establishment, anti-career politician."
There continue to be Tea Partiers who stubbornly insist that Ted Cruz, Ben Carson or Allen West should be the Republican nominee! Realistically, anyone lacking Executive experience will be at a disadvantage, considering the field. Rand Paul could expertly position himself for a 2024 run, if he opted for this more secure path. He would still be only 61 years of age at that juncture.
Enter Rand Paul, the Tea Party poster boy. The Junior Senator from Kentucky has advocated term limits. In fact, he has listed term limits as a key to reforming Washington.
A super majority of Americans agree with him, per Gallup and Quinnipiac. The question becomes, would sponsorship of such an amendment merit delaying his other ambition: to be President of the United States?
Paul hasn't decided on a Presidential run. Indications however, suggest that he is strongly considering it. Which generates the next question: "With a crowded field that is likely to include Jeb Bush and Rick Perry, wouldn't it be better for Paul to delay Presidential aspirations and settle for an almost certain re-election?"
Mitch McConnell doesn't support term limits. He answered the question in proclaiming that "we already have term limits." According to the new Senate Majority leader, "every six years consituents are given the opportunity to make a change."
"Besides," as McConnell concluded, "it takes every bit of two Senate terms to master navigation of the federal bureaucracy."
Support for term limits notwithstanding, expect McConnell to urge Paul to seek re-election. While there are some promising Republican Congressmen available, Rand Paul would be difficult, if not impossible to dislodge in a re-election bid. 2016 will be a "hold" year for Republicans. The party leadership is reluctant to take chances with a secure seat.
Actually, Paul might help his future presidential chances if he did stay out. A return to the Senate that featured his sponsorship of a term limits amendment would grant him national exposure! True, such action would anger Senate and Congressional long termers. If passed at least 75% of the seats would turnover in both House and Senate.
Let's examine McConnell's assertion. "Two, six-year terms to master bureaucracy navigation?" Are we kidding? Maybe not!
A term limits amendment would need to be accompanied by an all out effort to decentralize. As McConnell accurately surmised, the "Executive branch" has "grown to the point that it has unsurprassed power." Weakening the legislative branch, in theory could actually be dangerous. Or, are these the mere rantings of a six-term career politician, not wanting to resign from the best job in America?
Pretend, for the sake of the argument, that McConnell is correct. Would not it be wise to divert power away from Washington, in favor of the individual states? Texas Governor, Rick Perry thinks so! If Perry has his way, the Education, Energy and Commerce Departments will be eliminated.
Former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush sees it on slightly different terms. While the federal bureaucracy may need to be "tweaked and re-focused," it is an intregal part of American government. Probably the greatest example of the differences between these two successful Governors are their views on Common Core.
Paul is certainly more in step with Perry on this issue. But, where Perry is a pragmatist, Paul is an ideologue. He sees Washington as something that is essentially a failure. Bush sees it sorely in need of better and more efficient management. Perry advises everyone to "read the 10th amendment."
Rand Paul is more than a decade younger than Bush or Perry. Time is on his side. A return to the Senate will do nothing but allow him to grow stronger. He could complete a second Senate term and return to Kentucky for an almost certain Gubernatorial triumph. Whether it passed or didn't pass, sponsorship of a term limits amendment would position him as "anti-establishment, anti-career politician."
There continue to be Tea Partiers who stubbornly insist that Ted Cruz, Ben Carson or Allen West should be the Republican nominee! Realistically, anyone lacking Executive experience will be at a disadvantage, considering the field. Rand Paul could expertly position himself for a 2024 run, if he opted for this more secure path. He would still be only 61 years of age at that juncture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)