This post should not be seen as an endorsement of Governor Mike Huckabee.
In listening to the Governor's statement yesterday, his entire strategy came in focus.
1. Push his opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership, while identifying those Republicans who supported it.
2. Win Iowa
3. Win South Carolina
4. Sweep the "S.E.C." primary, ultimately forcing Ted Cruz our of the race
5. Mobilize Evangelicals
Sound simple? It could work!
Huckabee has concluded correctly that New Hampshire is a lost cause for any Southern conservative. It is a "blue" state that may lose one of the last two "red" Senate seats in the Northeast in 2016. Jeb Bush and Donald Trump are campaigning vigorously there. Wise to write it off!
Huckabee won Iowa in 2008. No reason why he can't repeat his performance. It's more moderate. It's a caucus state. There are huge numbers of Evangelicals in the Hawkeye state.
South Carolina will not be a strong state for Jeb Bush. Lindsey Graham isn't well liked in the Palmetto state, even though he represents it in the Senate. I could see Graham endorsing Huckabee, however. Trump, Carson and Fiorina have limited penetration in South Carolina.
The "S.E.C." primary will include Huckabee's native Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia and Kentucky. The later has recently gone to a caucus format, enabling them to move up from their late May slot. To sweep these states will be difficult, but not impossible. It is Huck's back yard. He will court support from Senators Sessions, Corker, Pardue, Alexander, Cotton, even, God forbid, McConnell and Cochran!
This does not sound promising. In fact, it sounds like continuation of the status quot! But before we completely write off Huckabee, we should weigh some considerations.
Huckabee will mobilize Evangelical voters. He first, however, needs to bring them unanimously into his fold. This translates to defeating his biggest rival for these voters: Ted Cruz. If Cruz has not secured one state by March first, he will likely drop out of the race. To some, this would be the death knoll for the conservative movement. I say, not so fast!
Our people need to think less ideologically and more strategically. We have three freshman Senators vying for he top job. Are we certain that we want to go in that direction. Our current Chief Executive was a freshman Senator. Most will agree. It hasn't turned out too well!
We must also remember that "no president has ever been elected when not carrying his home state. EVER! Trump is from New York. Fiorina is from California. Carson is from Michigan. Christie is from New Jersey. Do you think Republicans will win any those states? I don't!
Arkansans, Republican and Democrat, who lived in the state during the time of the Clintons and Huckabee will tell you how much MORE effective Huck was as Governor than Bill. True, Clinton is adored by the mainstream media. But he served at a time when Dems controlled 80% of the state house. Huck showed up the first day as Lieutenant Governor to find the door of his office nailed shut!
Huckabee was Governor of Arkansas when Arkansas was a deep blue state. That he accomplished more in four years than Bill did in twelve years is indisputable. The remaining seven years of his reign amounted to more of the same! His success came through creativity and ingenuity.
Where Bill saw "the natural state" as a "ward of Washington," Huck saw it as an "emerging industrial powerhouse." Have you been to Northwest Arkansas lately? Or Northeast Arkansas lately? Have you been to Faulkner county. Or Saline County? Point made! It wasn't like that when Bill ran things! Whether you favor Huck for the nomination or not, speaking as a native Arkansan, I am extremely proud of what he did for my home state!
Here is something else for Republicans to consider. Huckabee received 53% of the Hispanic vote in the 2003 Gubernatorial election. And, are you ready? 46% of African American votes!
Huckabee has always appealed to "blue collar" Democrat voters. The T.P.P. falls right into his playbook. Huck, Trump and Santorum were the first who came out against it. They were eventually joined by Perry, Paul, Carson and Jindal. Bush, Rubio, Graham, Kasich, Christie, Fiorina, Pataki supported it. Cruz was for it, before he was against it!
Support or opposition to T.P.P. could become a key campaign issue. Hillary mulled it over before eventually denouncing it. Huckabee and Trump gave concrete reasons why the deal was a stinker.
Many conservatives consider Huckabee too chummy with the establishment. After all, he did support David Dewhurst and Mitch McConnell's Senate bids.
McConnell's was a no brainer! His opponent was current Kentucky Republican nominee, Matt Bevin in the primary. Bevin is Tea Party, but lacked the resources to do what it took to win in November. The general election pitted him against Alison Lundergan Grimes. Grimes, a rising Democrat star, was considered "as toxic" as Missouri's Claire McCaskill. Those who know her refer to her as "Nancy Pelosi with a Kentucky drawl." It took McConnell's war chest to expose her.
Dewhurst is a master fundraiser and solid party man. Cruz was simply too much of an unknown. It might also be noted that Dewhurst is a native Texan. Cruz grew up on the East Coast. He was born in Canada.
Those who have watched Huckabee's Fox News program will admit that his style is disarming, actually somewhat folksy, if not smarmy. But, he impresses me as a man who could get things done in Washington. This he did in Arkansas when working with a heavily Democrat legislature. Better yet, he didn't do it in the manner that Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Rather than flip flop,compromising himself for the purpose of cutting deals, he did something truly exceptional. He appealed to legislatures' southern standards, convincing them that they were on the wrong team. Many switched parties as a result!
There are approximately 97 million Evangelicals in the United States. In 2012 only 29% of them turned out. Amazingly 22% of those who did broke for Barack Obama. It is a mathematical certainty that Huckabee can produce a greater turnout that Mormon, Mitt Romney. In fact, it's highly possible that he might get as many as 40%, even 45% of them to the polls. If he does, he will win the general election.
We must also remember that Mike Huckabee likely has more "dirt" on the Clintons than anyone in the GOP field. In his folksy, smarmy, matter-of-fact manner, he would, in the most subtle way, insinuate that Mrs. Clinton would be more appropriately housed in a correctional institution than in the white house.
The media is somewhat handcuffed by Huckabee's delivery. It would go something like this:
"Mrs. Clinton is a secular humanist and dedicated public servant, who has devoted her life to making a contribution in Washington, D.C.."
To the mainstream media, this amounts to a "benign, if not a mildly flattering" assessment.
To an Evangelical, it equates to, "a Washington insider who is an atheist and clearly symbolizes the current problem in America."
As nominees go, Huckabee would arguably be a slightly stronger general election candidate than Ted Cruz. And, he is to the right of Jeb Bush. While he lacks foreign policy credentials, choosing his close friend, Marco Rubio as his running mate would shore up that void. And, Huckabee has Executive experience. He ran a small Southern state for eleven years and clearly was instrumental in turning it from blue to red. Not to mention from a "ward of Washington" to an "emerging industrial power house.!" In essence, from a loser to a winner.
Huckabee is not a career politician. Most of his life has been spent as a Minister and a Broadcaster. He is an excellent communicator. He is as warm and engaging as Barack Obama is cool and detached.
Even more importantly, Huckabee did not come from a privileged background. Americans are looking for someone they can identify with. Like Marco Rubio and Rick Perry, Huck came from a lower middle class household where living on a budget was a way of life. He would not be a candidate for Dems expected "class warfare" campaign certain be the fruit of a Trump or Fiorina selection.
Finally, unlike Cruz, Carson and Trump, Huckabee has been vetted thoroughly. This is critical when moving to the next round.
In short, there are many things to like about Mike Huckabee. True, the left abhors him. His standing firmly with Kentucky County Clerk, Kim Davis on her refusal to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, offended some of the more "trendy" Republicans. But it demonstrated Huck's conviction on a critically important issue.
Kim Davis also separated Huck from Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham and John Kasich, who took the "Neo-Con" path of "the decision has been made and the law is the law." Huckabee was dead right about two things: (a) per the 10th amendment, it was the state and not the federal governments call and (b) if allowed, where would it end? Never forget, this is also about the 1st amendment!
For this reason alone, I would rank Huckabee ahead of all four of the aforementioned.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Is Marco Rubio the Most Electable Republican?
For all the bigots, birthers and ideologues out there, I hope you're ready for Hillary!
At this juncture, perhaps the two most qualified candidates for the Republican nomination have dropped out. Leaving conservative faithful's choices that are, at best, risky. My definition of "risky" amounts to "easiest for Hillary Clinton to defeat!"
Donald Trump isn't the one! Even if he secures the nomination, it will be difficult for him to lure sufficient women and Hispanics to collect 270 electoral votes.
Carly Fiorina is a smart, somewhat colorful player. But, she is rich. Extremely rich; the result of a multi-million dollar parachute, courtesy of Hewlett-Packard. Did anyone review Barbara Boxer's Senate attack ads? You could expect more of the same from the superbly hypocritical Hillary. Remember Bank of America CEO, Ken Lewis? For those who don't, he ran his company into the ground, exiting with a cool 65 million! Americans are tired of millionaire CEO's turning in less than stellar report cards while exiting with buckets of cash!
And for God's sake, forget Ben Carson. Not because he got it right about Moslems! He just doesn't have the experience for the top job. A cabinet position? Absolutely! But this is no game! We must get it right.
The key is to win. The media is in the tank for Hillary. Opponents can expect nothing short of the most biased coverage in election history. And make no mistake! She will be the nominee. Bernie Sander's accomplished his objective: to slide her ten degrees or so to the left. Joe Biden still might get in. But, if he does it will be only because something extraordinary, such as an indictment comes down within the next 30 days.
Ted Cruz has secured a place in the hearts of conservatives. He has truly said all of the right things. But where is he realistically? Those who know him will attest to his intellectual brilliance. Same could be said about Dr. Carson! But, we're talking about accomplishments, real accomplishments! Shutting the government down or threatening to do so doesn't qualify.
There are the Karl Rovers who continue to relish the idea of a Jeb Bush Presidency. But, the anti-Bush syndrome is so high at this moment that something amazing will need to take place. On paper, Bush did a reasonably good job in Florida. He is slightly to the right of his brother and father. As Rick Perry once said, "if his last name was Smith, he would be a shoo in."
Mike Huckabee has Executive experience and is in touch with "blue collar" America. But, he has no money. True, he could gain some early momentum by winning in Iowa. And he likely has more "dirt" on the Clintons than any candidate. But, it still might not be enough to win those purple states.
Marco Rubio may be the most electable Republican option. And, his retreat from the "Gang of Ocho," modifying his position is encouraging. Where Cruz is a decided Ideologue, Rubio appears to be a pragmatic. His positions on certain issues such as Climate change, Common Core and Obamacare are carbon copies of Cruz' positions.
Worrisome are his stances on globalization. The "I-Square" proposal is a stinker. For those not familiar, it would triple the number of international student visas while expanding the guest worker program. Too many benefactors would be from Islamic nations who are exporters of terrorism. Bad idea, Marco!
John Kasich is perceived by the Tea Party as "a RINO." But, he may be one of the more electable Republicans. His state is a "must win."
In short, Republicans have two quandaries'. Nominating a candidate who can get the job done while making sure that the chosen one can beat Hillary Clinton.
The Evangelical right would love to see a Cruz-Huckabee ticket. But, I can't see it. And, I don't think it will be Trump-Cruz. Too many negatives on too many fronts. Even solid conservatives compare the Texas Senator to a "television evangelist."
Marco Rubio's wife is a devout Evangelical. He admits to attending Christ Fellowship, the Saddle Creek church, with her more often than Mass. And, having worked on his campaign, I can attest to his deep religious conviction. His positions on defense, Iran, Russia, China and certainly Cuba are right on target with conservatives.
On defeating Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio gets all "A's". Jeb Bush called him the "most gifted orator" he had ever seen. I can imagine what he would do to Hillary in a debate, even with her receiving expected help from the moderators! Cruz is known for his debating skills. But, in the debates he has come off as "canned."
America likes underdogs. That amounts to someone who came from very humble circumstances and vaulted to the top. Rubio did this. Cruz did it to a lessor extent. And, Ted was a superb student at Princeton and Harvard. Which brings me to the next consideration. Do we want another Ivy Leaguer in the White House. The last non-Ivy Leaguer was Ronald Reagan. I must admit! I have "cold feet" where Harvard Lawyers are concerned!
Globalist tendencies aside, Marco Rubio looks to be the best overall option. He will be only 45 when November 2016 rolls around. Young people see him as a "rock star." Immigrants look upon him as a champion. Both groups broke for Barack Obama in '08 and '12.
Obviously Ted Cruz has his advocates. But I see him as unelectable as Rubio is electable. No candidate is perfect, after all. Rubio's orientation is purely "supply side." Not because he talked about it! But, because he sponsored it, during his tenure as Florida House Speaker.
Texas will go "red" no matter who the Republicans nominate. But Florida will be determined by which candidate splits the Hispanic vote. Hispanics make up 27% of the Sunshine state's electorate. Smart money says that Rubio and Bush are the only two candidates who could do this. Ultimately the question becomes, "are you ready for Hillary?"
By the way, I think John Kasich would be an excellent choice for Vice President.
At this juncture, perhaps the two most qualified candidates for the Republican nomination have dropped out. Leaving conservative faithful's choices that are, at best, risky. My definition of "risky" amounts to "easiest for Hillary Clinton to defeat!"
Donald Trump isn't the one! Even if he secures the nomination, it will be difficult for him to lure sufficient women and Hispanics to collect 270 electoral votes.
Carly Fiorina is a smart, somewhat colorful player. But, she is rich. Extremely rich; the result of a multi-million dollar parachute, courtesy of Hewlett-Packard. Did anyone review Barbara Boxer's Senate attack ads? You could expect more of the same from the superbly hypocritical Hillary. Remember Bank of America CEO, Ken Lewis? For those who don't, he ran his company into the ground, exiting with a cool 65 million! Americans are tired of millionaire CEO's turning in less than stellar report cards while exiting with buckets of cash!
And for God's sake, forget Ben Carson. Not because he got it right about Moslems! He just doesn't have the experience for the top job. A cabinet position? Absolutely! But this is no game! We must get it right.
The key is to win. The media is in the tank for Hillary. Opponents can expect nothing short of the most biased coverage in election history. And make no mistake! She will be the nominee. Bernie Sander's accomplished his objective: to slide her ten degrees or so to the left. Joe Biden still might get in. But, if he does it will be only because something extraordinary, such as an indictment comes down within the next 30 days.
Ted Cruz has secured a place in the hearts of conservatives. He has truly said all of the right things. But where is he realistically? Those who know him will attest to his intellectual brilliance. Same could be said about Dr. Carson! But, we're talking about accomplishments, real accomplishments! Shutting the government down or threatening to do so doesn't qualify.
There are the Karl Rovers who continue to relish the idea of a Jeb Bush Presidency. But, the anti-Bush syndrome is so high at this moment that something amazing will need to take place. On paper, Bush did a reasonably good job in Florida. He is slightly to the right of his brother and father. As Rick Perry once said, "if his last name was Smith, he would be a shoo in."
Mike Huckabee has Executive experience and is in touch with "blue collar" America. But, he has no money. True, he could gain some early momentum by winning in Iowa. And he likely has more "dirt" on the Clintons than any candidate. But, it still might not be enough to win those purple states.
Marco Rubio may be the most electable Republican option. And, his retreat from the "Gang of Ocho," modifying his position is encouraging. Where Cruz is a decided Ideologue, Rubio appears to be a pragmatic. His positions on certain issues such as Climate change, Common Core and Obamacare are carbon copies of Cruz' positions.
Worrisome are his stances on globalization. The "I-Square" proposal is a stinker. For those not familiar, it would triple the number of international student visas while expanding the guest worker program. Too many benefactors would be from Islamic nations who are exporters of terrorism. Bad idea, Marco!
John Kasich is perceived by the Tea Party as "a RINO." But, he may be one of the more electable Republicans. His state is a "must win."
In short, Republicans have two quandaries'. Nominating a candidate who can get the job done while making sure that the chosen one can beat Hillary Clinton.
The Evangelical right would love to see a Cruz-Huckabee ticket. But, I can't see it. And, I don't think it will be Trump-Cruz. Too many negatives on too many fronts. Even solid conservatives compare the Texas Senator to a "television evangelist."
Marco Rubio's wife is a devout Evangelical. He admits to attending Christ Fellowship, the Saddle Creek church, with her more often than Mass. And, having worked on his campaign, I can attest to his deep religious conviction. His positions on defense, Iran, Russia, China and certainly Cuba are right on target with conservatives.
On defeating Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio gets all "A's". Jeb Bush called him the "most gifted orator" he had ever seen. I can imagine what he would do to Hillary in a debate, even with her receiving expected help from the moderators! Cruz is known for his debating skills. But, in the debates he has come off as "canned."
America likes underdogs. That amounts to someone who came from very humble circumstances and vaulted to the top. Rubio did this. Cruz did it to a lessor extent. And, Ted was a superb student at Princeton and Harvard. Which brings me to the next consideration. Do we want another Ivy Leaguer in the White House. The last non-Ivy Leaguer was Ronald Reagan. I must admit! I have "cold feet" where Harvard Lawyers are concerned!
Globalist tendencies aside, Marco Rubio looks to be the best overall option. He will be only 45 when November 2016 rolls around. Young people see him as a "rock star." Immigrants look upon him as a champion. Both groups broke for Barack Obama in '08 and '12.
Obviously Ted Cruz has his advocates. But I see him as unelectable as Rubio is electable. No candidate is perfect, after all. Rubio's orientation is purely "supply side." Not because he talked about it! But, because he sponsored it, during his tenure as Florida House Speaker.
Texas will go "red" no matter who the Republicans nominate. But Florida will be determined by which candidate splits the Hispanic vote. Hispanics make up 27% of the Sunshine state's electorate. Smart money says that Rubio and Bush are the only two candidates who could do this. Ultimately the question becomes, "are you ready for Hillary?"
By the way, I think John Kasich would be an excellent choice for Vice President.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Still Time For Rick Perry With Aid of Key Issue
Oh, those low information voters!
August concludes in unlikely fashion. Donald Trump is ahead and apparently getting stronger. Ben Carson is solidly in second place and Jeb Bush is struggling to stay in third in Republican primary polls? Or, is he actually in fourth place; behind Texas Senator, Ted Cruz?
Granted, it is early. Obviously too early to call the race. But, there seems to be a pattern. Loud and clear the American people are saying, "we're done with career politicians. It's time for an outsider!"
Anger, frustration and overall emotion are powerful influencers! It goes to show that many of these poll resondents are not armed with all of the information. If they were, Rick Perry would be enjoying a double digit lead in the polls. As things stand, his campaign is on life support. Politico predicted that the former governor would be the first to throw in the towel!
Perry should be more than frustrated! A farmer for the first forty-two years of his life, only taking a five year-break from the plow to serve as an Air Force pilot, he represents the perfect mix: Civilian, military and public service.
Republican opponents acknowledge his successfull 14-year governorship. So do the majority of Independents and even a notable percentage of registered Democrats.
As the son of West Texas tenant farmers who rose to Commissioner of Agriculture, Perry's resume sounds like the perfect script for the Iowa caucuses! Yet, last week Sam Clovis, who had earlier said that Donald Trump lacked a "moral center," dumped Perry in favor of "the Donald." Do I see a little "Kent Sorenson" in Clovis'decision?
Perry, to his credit, had not been overaly critical of the GOP field. Other than some useless jabs at Trump and mild taps at Governors, John Kasich and Chris Christie, he has been relatively benign.
Time to take the gloves off? Yes, but in a different way!
Donald Trump has placed his finger on a nerve ending. It is called "outsourcing." People are tired of hearing rationale that suggests that "we ship jobs overseas because the world is changing and we now live in a global socieity."
That's easy to say when you get yours on the first and the fifteenth, as politicians do!
Last cycle, Rick Santorum found out quickly that "K" Street will open up the coffers against anyone at odds with the status quot. Santorum's words revealed a closet protectionist. Trump is in the same court. The difference is, "the Donald" has money! And, he could care less about political correctness!
Perry's camp should take note of this fire that first Santorum in 2012 and now Trump has stoked. Amazingly, there is an opening that can vault Perry past, the entire field! From the "Showman Trump to the Charlatan Cruz to the choice of Fortune 500 globalists', Bush, to the Surgeon who is often reminiscent of Bill Cosby before the scandals!"
Identity Theft is the world's fastest growing crime. To make it an issue sounds noble. To concretely link it to offshore oursoucing would be unequivocally brilliant.
Hundreds of thousands of low wage jobs, courtesy of Chase, A T & T, Direct TV and others, are being handled in India, the Phillipines, Malaysia and Mexico. To be sure, Liberals might scoff at positions that would often pay less than $10 per hour. But, these voices are typically in non-right-to work states. When considering the fact that benefits come with these positions, a $16,000 or $17,000 per year job begins to look better. Especially if you are just getting out of school or are an older worker.
Even more to the liking of "blue collar" America would be the preclusion of offshore help in the debt recovery industry. Huge numbers of Americans are dismayed by errant credit reporting that result in mistakes on their credit reports. This results in reduced borrowering power for the consumer. And, of course, greater profits for the banks.
Besides making it illegal to outsource debt recovery, Perry could propose some changes in how debt recovery could be adminisistered. Starting with a law that would make reporting of any debt under $500 illegal. Many Americans are plague by tiny, mostly medical debts that result from providers refusing to follow the guidelines of the "Fact Act."
Such standards would infuriate Fortune 500 companies! But, their money has already been placed on Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. They are hedging their bets, in hope that one, preferably both, will be nominated.
Perry will be the first to make Identity Theft a center piece of his campaign. There will be others who will do the same. But this Populist preference would allow Perry to leapfrog four or five Republican opponents. The remainder will be forced to compare their records to his and go down like "cheese to a knife."
This strategy would neatly set a trap for Perry's rivals, namely Trump. "The Donald" couldn't oppose the plan. If it did, it would look like he was only interested in the companies, not the individual; ultimately setting himself up for a class warfare campaign. Which, of course, he would lose.
Millions of frustrated Americans are coming to the conclusion that America needs a strong man in the white house. We do. But, we must also remember that we are not Russia.
Trump is rich and he is confident. But, the majority of Americans would rather have a President that they would want to have a beer with. Perry comes off as humble as Trump arrogant. But both me have enjoyed success.
The necessary 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House never leaves centerpoint. And that will come down to which Republican candidate can secure female and Hispanic votes.
Trump backers say he can and they may have a point. The Democrat field doesn't look particularly strong. But, we have a long way to go.
I would put my money on the candidate with the record. It's probable that most non-Trump Republicans feel the same way.
August concludes in unlikely fashion. Donald Trump is ahead and apparently getting stronger. Ben Carson is solidly in second place and Jeb Bush is struggling to stay in third in Republican primary polls? Or, is he actually in fourth place; behind Texas Senator, Ted Cruz?
Granted, it is early. Obviously too early to call the race. But, there seems to be a pattern. Loud and clear the American people are saying, "we're done with career politicians. It's time for an outsider!"
Anger, frustration and overall emotion are powerful influencers! It goes to show that many of these poll resondents are not armed with all of the information. If they were, Rick Perry would be enjoying a double digit lead in the polls. As things stand, his campaign is on life support. Politico predicted that the former governor would be the first to throw in the towel!
Perry should be more than frustrated! A farmer for the first forty-two years of his life, only taking a five year-break from the plow to serve as an Air Force pilot, he represents the perfect mix: Civilian, military and public service.
Republican opponents acknowledge his successfull 14-year governorship. So do the majority of Independents and even a notable percentage of registered Democrats.
As the son of West Texas tenant farmers who rose to Commissioner of Agriculture, Perry's resume sounds like the perfect script for the Iowa caucuses! Yet, last week Sam Clovis, who had earlier said that Donald Trump lacked a "moral center," dumped Perry in favor of "the Donald." Do I see a little "Kent Sorenson" in Clovis'decision?
Perry, to his credit, had not been overaly critical of the GOP field. Other than some useless jabs at Trump and mild taps at Governors, John Kasich and Chris Christie, he has been relatively benign.
Time to take the gloves off? Yes, but in a different way!
Donald Trump has placed his finger on a nerve ending. It is called "outsourcing." People are tired of hearing rationale that suggests that "we ship jobs overseas because the world is changing and we now live in a global socieity."
That's easy to say when you get yours on the first and the fifteenth, as politicians do!
Last cycle, Rick Santorum found out quickly that "K" Street will open up the coffers against anyone at odds with the status quot. Santorum's words revealed a closet protectionist. Trump is in the same court. The difference is, "the Donald" has money! And, he could care less about political correctness!
Perry's camp should take note of this fire that first Santorum in 2012 and now Trump has stoked. Amazingly, there is an opening that can vault Perry past, the entire field! From the "Showman Trump to the Charlatan Cruz to the choice of Fortune 500 globalists', Bush, to the Surgeon who is often reminiscent of Bill Cosby before the scandals!"
Identity Theft is the world's fastest growing crime. To make it an issue sounds noble. To concretely link it to offshore oursoucing would be unequivocally brilliant.
Hundreds of thousands of low wage jobs, courtesy of Chase, A T & T, Direct TV and others, are being handled in India, the Phillipines, Malaysia and Mexico. To be sure, Liberals might scoff at positions that would often pay less than $10 per hour. But, these voices are typically in non-right-to work states. When considering the fact that benefits come with these positions, a $16,000 or $17,000 per year job begins to look better. Especially if you are just getting out of school or are an older worker.
Even more to the liking of "blue collar" America would be the preclusion of offshore help in the debt recovery industry. Huge numbers of Americans are dismayed by errant credit reporting that result in mistakes on their credit reports. This results in reduced borrowering power for the consumer. And, of course, greater profits for the banks.
Besides making it illegal to outsource debt recovery, Perry could propose some changes in how debt recovery could be adminisistered. Starting with a law that would make reporting of any debt under $500 illegal. Many Americans are plague by tiny, mostly medical debts that result from providers refusing to follow the guidelines of the "Fact Act."
Such standards would infuriate Fortune 500 companies! But, their money has already been placed on Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. They are hedging their bets, in hope that one, preferably both, will be nominated.
Perry will be the first to make Identity Theft a center piece of his campaign. There will be others who will do the same. But this Populist preference would allow Perry to leapfrog four or five Republican opponents. The remainder will be forced to compare their records to his and go down like "cheese to a knife."
This strategy would neatly set a trap for Perry's rivals, namely Trump. "The Donald" couldn't oppose the plan. If it did, it would look like he was only interested in the companies, not the individual; ultimately setting himself up for a class warfare campaign. Which, of course, he would lose.
Millions of frustrated Americans are coming to the conclusion that America needs a strong man in the white house. We do. But, we must also remember that we are not Russia.
Trump is rich and he is confident. But, the majority of Americans would rather have a President that they would want to have a beer with. Perry comes off as humble as Trump arrogant. But both me have enjoyed success.
The necessary 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House never leaves centerpoint. And that will come down to which Republican candidate can secure female and Hispanic votes.
Trump backers say he can and they may have a point. The Democrat field doesn't look particularly strong. But, we have a long way to go.
I would put my money on the candidate with the record. It's probable that most non-Trump Republicans feel the same way.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Trump's Display May Finally Force Americas' Hand
2016 will likely be remembered as the year when the Republican base failed to make up it's mind!
Candidates were either "too moderate, too polarizing, too focused on social issues, too religious, too inexperienced, too Libertarian, too reminiscent of a Tele-Evangelist, too dogmatic or simply too "dumb" to be worthy of the nomination.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump told it like it was and ultimately drew the wrath of the brass.
Perhaps the party leadership had it coming! But, John McCain's experience as a P..O.W. is something few would covet. Call McCain what you will! But his record of service to his country should not be scoffed!
Trump probably will fade from front runner status; if you can call it that. Polls this early in the process are a bit ridiculous anyway!
Sadly, "the Donald" may have already done the damage. If he is the nominee, he will face long odds. The hypocritical Hillary will position him as "an Oligarch," out of touch with the common man. If he runs as a third party candidate, which is highly possible, he will essentially hand the Clintons keys to the White House.
I recall the movie "Gettysburg," when General John Buford proclaimed that he "could see" the upcoming Union defeat," as plain as day." His decisive action and dogged determination may have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Such insightful thinking must prevail for conservative America, if the nation is to be spared a Hillary presidency.
Maybe it's too late. GOP national won't acknowledge such. But Democrats are gloating visibly over the perceived "blue wall." They are now counting Nevada, New Hampshire and New Mexico as "safely blue." To look at their projected tally, they already have 257 electoral votes in the bag! Virginia and her 13 votes are said to be essentially won. It only takes 270 electoral votes to win.
I would like to believe that conservative America will cease to think emotionally and commence thinking strategically. It won't happen! We simply have too many options. Don't think it might not get nasty! There is a deep divide in the party. Donald Trump has further accentuated it!
There are those who retain hope that Hillary Clinton will somehow implode. Won't happen. With most of the media in the tank for her, she can simply run out the clock. Don't think a national debate will change much. 95% of voters will have made their decision by the time that the debates roll around.
So what options remain?
Even though there are a lot of Americans who would shudder at this option, let's seriously ponder it.
Hillary is elected. Texas says, "we're done!" Oklahoma follows suit. Nobody would argue that both states legally can exit the union. In fact, based on a previous article in Salon magazine, their exodus might be welcomed by some. Would it end there?
It has been written that the left, including Barack Obama himself might actually relish the departure of some of the red states. It would certainly make it easier to finish imposing a totalitarian, Marxist style government on what remained of America. The million dollar questions are,
"Could it really happen?"
"Where would the lines be drawn?
"How would the resources and debt be divided,"
"How would the military hardware be distributed?"
"How would the rest of the world react to it?"
"Would career politicians listen to their constituents?"
There are literally dozens of scenarios. The safest scenario is "do nothing; thing's might work out." I am afraid that this is wishful thinking!
The United States has not been this divided since 1861. This time the divide is not sectional. It is ideological. We have major disagreements on health care, same sex marriage, abortion, gun control, foreign policy, wealth distribution, the environment, immigration, voter I.D. laws, education and federalism. In short, we have a "clash of perceptions."
I hold very little optimism for a satisfactory conclusion engineered by the Republican party. More constructive would be for the states to have an adult conversation, shake hands and go separate ways. There is no reason why that it could not be peaceful and constructive. We could be friends, trading partners and allies; as we are with Canada! Americans would be given the choice of Americas, with migration as an option for everyone.
Naysayers would contend that it would weaken the overall fabric of the West and freedom. But they don't know this. When we return to the original premise of our constitution, we realize that our founders saw "strong states" as the key to a strong nation.
Today we have one group who sees the country as "the United American States." The other stubbornly insists that it truly is "the United States of America."
Here we clash! Can it be said that either side is right or wrong? In reality, this argument has been brewing for centuries. It only needed a Donald Trump to force the country to accept it.
Candidates were either "too moderate, too polarizing, too focused on social issues, too religious, too inexperienced, too Libertarian, too reminiscent of a Tele-Evangelist, too dogmatic or simply too "dumb" to be worthy of the nomination.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump told it like it was and ultimately drew the wrath of the brass.
Perhaps the party leadership had it coming! But, John McCain's experience as a P..O.W. is something few would covet. Call McCain what you will! But his record of service to his country should not be scoffed!
Trump probably will fade from front runner status; if you can call it that. Polls this early in the process are a bit ridiculous anyway!
Sadly, "the Donald" may have already done the damage. If he is the nominee, he will face long odds. The hypocritical Hillary will position him as "an Oligarch," out of touch with the common man. If he runs as a third party candidate, which is highly possible, he will essentially hand the Clintons keys to the White House.
I recall the movie "Gettysburg," when General John Buford proclaimed that he "could see" the upcoming Union defeat," as plain as day." His decisive action and dogged determination may have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Such insightful thinking must prevail for conservative America, if the nation is to be spared a Hillary presidency.
Maybe it's too late. GOP national won't acknowledge such. But Democrats are gloating visibly over the perceived "blue wall." They are now counting Nevada, New Hampshire and New Mexico as "safely blue." To look at their projected tally, they already have 257 electoral votes in the bag! Virginia and her 13 votes are said to be essentially won. It only takes 270 electoral votes to win.
I would like to believe that conservative America will cease to think emotionally and commence thinking strategically. It won't happen! We simply have too many options. Don't think it might not get nasty! There is a deep divide in the party. Donald Trump has further accentuated it!
There are those who retain hope that Hillary Clinton will somehow implode. Won't happen. With most of the media in the tank for her, she can simply run out the clock. Don't think a national debate will change much. 95% of voters will have made their decision by the time that the debates roll around.
So what options remain?
Even though there are a lot of Americans who would shudder at this option, let's seriously ponder it.
Hillary is elected. Texas says, "we're done!" Oklahoma follows suit. Nobody would argue that both states legally can exit the union. In fact, based on a previous article in Salon magazine, their exodus might be welcomed by some. Would it end there?
It has been written that the left, including Barack Obama himself might actually relish the departure of some of the red states. It would certainly make it easier to finish imposing a totalitarian, Marxist style government on what remained of America. The million dollar questions are,
"Could it really happen?"
"Where would the lines be drawn?
"How would the resources and debt be divided,"
"How would the military hardware be distributed?"
"How would the rest of the world react to it?"
"Would career politicians listen to their constituents?"
There are literally dozens of scenarios. The safest scenario is "do nothing; thing's might work out." I am afraid that this is wishful thinking!
The United States has not been this divided since 1861. This time the divide is not sectional. It is ideological. We have major disagreements on health care, same sex marriage, abortion, gun control, foreign policy, wealth distribution, the environment, immigration, voter I.D. laws, education and federalism. In short, we have a "clash of perceptions."
I hold very little optimism for a satisfactory conclusion engineered by the Republican party. More constructive would be for the states to have an adult conversation, shake hands and go separate ways. There is no reason why that it could not be peaceful and constructive. We could be friends, trading partners and allies; as we are with Canada! Americans would be given the choice of Americas, with migration as an option for everyone.
Naysayers would contend that it would weaken the overall fabric of the West and freedom. But they don't know this. When we return to the original premise of our constitution, we realize that our founders saw "strong states" as the key to a strong nation.
Today we have one group who sees the country as "the United American States." The other stubbornly insists that it truly is "the United States of America."
Here we clash! Can it be said that either side is right or wrong? In reality, this argument has been brewing for centuries. It only needed a Donald Trump to force the country to accept it.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Republican Candidates Should Answer These Questions
Three questions should accompany each and every one of the Republican Presidential candidates:
(1) Do you believe in the 10th amendment?
(2) Do you love your home state more than the federal union?
(3) Do you believe that the military, including all veterans, and the law enforcement officials nationwide would follow you?
If the answer is "no" to any of these three questions, candidates should be precluded from further nomination consideration.
Cut and dry? Maybe. But, consider this.
We will have sixteen or more possible nominees. The good news is, "Democrats will have no clue as to what Republicans are doing." The bad news is, "we have some real "stinkers" in the field!
Rand Paul distinguished the difference between "Con-Con" and "Neo-Con" in his book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington." Kudos for Rand! We really got a taste of the distinction in the recent Trans Pacific vote.
There is a saying. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Isn't it time that we practiced what we preached?
What about those who saw both sides of the issue? I can't condemn anyone. But, I can review their voting record. As in, their chances to vote! Missing the chance is as good as saying, "I don't care! I have bigger things in mind!"
How about the military? Have we truly given this question much thought? Their support could be the difference between a rally that made the six o'clock news and something much bigger...
And finally, "how much do we love our home state?" Are we with her? Or, did she merely give us the necessary platform to move on with our careers?
The time is short. Soon, we will be forced to make a call: "The contenders versus the pretenders." We must pass the emotion test and begin looking at reality. Can we honestly say that our preference is capable of leading a nation in the time of ultimate turmoil? In the tradition of Abraham Lincoln?
If the answer is "I don't know," perhaps it's time to experience that crucial, pivotal paradigm shift. Before, it's too late!
Oh! By the way! If you haven't already figured it out...Donald Trump is running to take out Jeb Bush, in the tradition of Ross Perot. He knows that he can't win. But, he can make certain that Jeb does not win. Even if the Republican Establishment crams him down the throat of the base, which is likely the plan. Does anyone remember Ross Perot?
For those who are secretly resigned to vote for Bush, because he is allegedly the "most electable," never forget! If Trump runs as a third party candidate, Hillary will win. And Trump might run! Has anyone checked to see how much he has given Democrat candidates over the past twenty years?
Back to the original questions. Check the candidates from A to Z. Take a moment to forgo the question of "who" is the "most glib," who is the perceived "slickest debater."
Try to merely focus on results. As in, a previous report card...Then return to the three questions asked previously. For the sake of what's left of this once great nation...
Are we there yet?
I rest my case...
(1) Do you believe in the 10th amendment?
(2) Do you love your home state more than the federal union?
(3) Do you believe that the military, including all veterans, and the law enforcement officials nationwide would follow you?
If the answer is "no" to any of these three questions, candidates should be precluded from further nomination consideration.
Cut and dry? Maybe. But, consider this.
We will have sixteen or more possible nominees. The good news is, "Democrats will have no clue as to what Republicans are doing." The bad news is, "we have some real "stinkers" in the field!
Rand Paul distinguished the difference between "Con-Con" and "Neo-Con" in his book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington." Kudos for Rand! We really got a taste of the distinction in the recent Trans Pacific vote.
There is a saying. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Isn't it time that we practiced what we preached?
What about those who saw both sides of the issue? I can't condemn anyone. But, I can review their voting record. As in, their chances to vote! Missing the chance is as good as saying, "I don't care! I have bigger things in mind!"
How about the military? Have we truly given this question much thought? Their support could be the difference between a rally that made the six o'clock news and something much bigger...
And finally, "how much do we love our home state?" Are we with her? Or, did she merely give us the necessary platform to move on with our careers?
The time is short. Soon, we will be forced to make a call: "The contenders versus the pretenders." We must pass the emotion test and begin looking at reality. Can we honestly say that our preference is capable of leading a nation in the time of ultimate turmoil? In the tradition of Abraham Lincoln?
If the answer is "I don't know," perhaps it's time to experience that crucial, pivotal paradigm shift. Before, it's too late!
Oh! By the way! If you haven't already figured it out...Donald Trump is running to take out Jeb Bush, in the tradition of Ross Perot. He knows that he can't win. But, he can make certain that Jeb does not win. Even if the Republican Establishment crams him down the throat of the base, which is likely the plan. Does anyone remember Ross Perot?
For those who are secretly resigned to vote for Bush, because he is allegedly the "most electable," never forget! If Trump runs as a third party candidate, Hillary will win. And Trump might run! Has anyone checked to see how much he has given Democrat candidates over the past twenty years?
Back to the original questions. Check the candidates from A to Z. Take a moment to forgo the question of "who" is the "most glib," who is the perceived "slickest debater."
Try to merely focus on results. As in, a previous report card...Then return to the three questions asked previously. For the sake of what's left of this once great nation...
Are we there yet?
I rest my case...
Monday, June 15, 2015
Trans Pacific Vote Exposes True Priorities for Presidential Contenders
Was anyone keeping close watch on "which" Republican Presidential candidate came out in favor of the Trans Pacific Treaty? Donald Trump evidently was!
Anyone who watched "the Donald," this morning on Fox News was likely taken aback. Not only did Trump oppose the treaty. He made it sound like anyone who didn't cared little for the American people. As in, "only the Fortune 500 companies and their Lobbyists" mattered. Makes one really feel significant!
I used to actually like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. Now I feel that both should be replaced. After all, who wants leaders who are attempting to stab you in the back! And, how could they possibly be willing to cede their influence to a President nearly all party members don't trust?
I heard the argument! If we don't do it, China will. Or, we're finally getting Japan to the table. Better make hay while the sun shines! Viet Nam? I guess it's okay for the Dictator of Brunei to have the same "one vote, one country" as we have?
For those who may have missed it, Lindsay Graham, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush favored it. In the end, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina and, of course, Donald Trump opposed it.
Candidates' perception of the bill may lend insight into their overall position regarding free trade. Rick Perry initially voiced optimism for the deal. Then, he reversed his position, explaining that "we need to read it prior" to committing. Carly Fiorina added, "the devil's in the details."
Although proponents may find a thousand and one reasons why it's a good deal, nobody is denying the legislation would cost America jobs. I sat on the fence until the 11th hour. Then, I call my Congressman, leaving a voice mail message that urged him to vote against it.
A lot of pundits will dismiss the bill's acceptance or rejection as a sidebar. But, I could see Hillary Clinton(who waffled on it before finally admitting that she disapproved) using "support" for the bill as a negative. Even though her opposition was "vague and mushy," in comparison to Rand Paul's, she'll make it sound like she was always vehemently opposed to it.
Perhaps the biggest surprise(and disappointment) among Tea Party Republicans was Ted Cruz' support of the bill. Bush, Christie and Graham were expected to vote for it. Scott Walker shocked some with his support. But, we must always remember that a Wisconsin Republican isn't going to be as conservative as a Southern Republican.
The fact that Hillary followed Elizabeth Warren's lead is not surprising. What is most disquieting is the large number of Republicans who supported it. It would appear that some either didn't know or leaned on the party leadership for an answer.
Anyone who watched "the Donald," this morning on Fox News was likely taken aback. Not only did Trump oppose the treaty. He made it sound like anyone who didn't cared little for the American people. As in, "only the Fortune 500 companies and their Lobbyists" mattered. Makes one really feel significant!
I used to actually like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. Now I feel that both should be replaced. After all, who wants leaders who are attempting to stab you in the back! And, how could they possibly be willing to cede their influence to a President nearly all party members don't trust?
I heard the argument! If we don't do it, China will. Or, we're finally getting Japan to the table. Better make hay while the sun shines! Viet Nam? I guess it's okay for the Dictator of Brunei to have the same "one vote, one country" as we have?
For those who may have missed it, Lindsay Graham, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush favored it. In the end, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina and, of course, Donald Trump opposed it.
Candidates' perception of the bill may lend insight into their overall position regarding free trade. Rick Perry initially voiced optimism for the deal. Then, he reversed his position, explaining that "we need to read it prior" to committing. Carly Fiorina added, "the devil's in the details."
Although proponents may find a thousand and one reasons why it's a good deal, nobody is denying the legislation would cost America jobs. I sat on the fence until the 11th hour. Then, I call my Congressman, leaving a voice mail message that urged him to vote against it.
A lot of pundits will dismiss the bill's acceptance or rejection as a sidebar. But, I could see Hillary Clinton(who waffled on it before finally admitting that she disapproved) using "support" for the bill as a negative. Even though her opposition was "vague and mushy," in comparison to Rand Paul's, she'll make it sound like she was always vehemently opposed to it.
Perhaps the biggest surprise(and disappointment) among Tea Party Republicans was Ted Cruz' support of the bill. Bush, Christie and Graham were expected to vote for it. Scott Walker shocked some with his support. But, we must always remember that a Wisconsin Republican isn't going to be as conservative as a Southern Republican.
The fact that Hillary followed Elizabeth Warren's lead is not surprising. What is most disquieting is the large number of Republicans who supported it. It would appear that some either didn't know or leaned on the party leadership for an answer.
Friday, June 12, 2015
Brokered Convention Might be Ultimate Outcome for GOP
Even though millions still don't get it, Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee in 2016.
In spite of a somewhat "choppy" start, believe it. Jeb will finish third in Iowa, first in New Hampshire and second in South Carolina. Then he will capture Florida's winner take all primary. Despite the crowded field, it's a mathematical certainty that he will hold the lead in delegates when July 2016 approaches.
Is this 2012? It would appear so. What happened to the other candidates? After all, there were better than 20 of them! Scott Walker, for one looked so promising! It would be expected that Chris Christies supporters will eventually line up behind Jeb. And, John Kasich's decision not to run makes sense. Experts starting with Karl Rove will agree: The Ohio Governor would make an excellent running mate for Bush. Even the Clinton camp shudders at the "electoral problem" that would result from a Bush-Kasich ticket!
I guess Karma wins out! But wait! Are not there advocates of "Semper Fi" who contend, "they'll stay home" if Bush is the nominee? Yes. And, they mean it! But, isn't there another way? Maybe!
Iowa will be the key. Like Mitt Romney, Bush isn't going to spend a lot of time there. He has an organization that will deliver some delegates. But winning the "Hawkeye State" is not an imperative for his overall victory. New Hampshire is a state that he will zero in on. If he defeats Christie, which is probable, he'll be in excellent shape. But, let's return to Iowa for a moment.
Rick Perry's handlers have evidently decided that the campaign begins and ends in Iowa. If the former Texas Governor finishes first or second, he will be alive. And he just might! Rick Santorum visited all 99 counties in '12. As history reflects, he defeated Mitt Romney by a nose. Perry, by rights, should be stronger than the former Pennsylvania Senator. Iowans like to rub elbows with candidates. Unlike 2012, Perry is healthy and has nothing but time on his hands. He is as good at retail politicking as anyone. He grew up on a farm, attended Texas A & M and flew C-130's in the Air Force. He is as warm and charismatic as Scott Walker is dry and detached. Walker will likely be the favorite in Iowa.
What about Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Ben Carson? Won't they make some noise in the early primaries?
In a recent Dallas Morning News article, Todd J. Gillman compared and contrasted Cruz and Perry. In reality, the men hold almost identical positions on all issues. Perry points out that the biggest difference is he's practiced while Cruz has only preached. Yet it goes beyond ideology.
Politics has be said to be "poetry" in it's own right. This may be the greatest distinction between the two Texans.
"Texas has two strong candidates," said Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership program at the conservative American Principles in Action group and chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship under President George W. Bush.
But, he added, "Rick Perry inspires people. Ted Cruz annoys people."
Compared with Perry, Aguilar said, "Cruz has a Latino problem, and it's ironic, because he is Latino." Not good, for the junior Senator!
Rand Paul might snag some Libertarian votes in New Hampshire. He might hold his own in Iowa. But, how deep can his campaign go? Perhaps to the end! He has Ron's base pretty much intact. This is highly significant. While the Kentucky Senator may come up short, in a brokered convention, his delegates could be pivotal.
Ben Carson? I cannot honestly see him going anywhere. He is simply too moderate for Tea Party Republicans. Evangelicals have a lot to choose from this time around, including Governor Mike Huckabee.
Marco Rubio is already being mentioned as a Vice Presidential option. He does have Norman Braman and a story. The truth of his financial struggles will actually work to his advantage. But can he do well enough in the early states to secure a foothold? Nevada, a state where he spent five formative years as a youth, could be his best bet. But can he defeat Bush in Florida?
Oh, what a mess! And so reminiscent of 2012. Bush has money and an organization. He can plod along, watching opponents fall by the wayside. In the end, he'll gain their endorsements and have things wrapped up by Independence Day. Unless...
Only the Tea Party stands in Bush's way to the nomination. Expect Bush to have the lead. But, if he doesn't have sufficient delegates to clinch the nomination, as Tom DeLay points out, we might be looking at a "brokered" convention. This would be bad for the Bush camp.
Money, as always, will be critical. This is why it is important to look past the sizzle of any candidate. There is also general election electability. A brokered convention that yielded an unelectable general election nominee would be disastrous! But who actually is electable? Bush backers insist their guy is. So do both Perry and Rubio's people.
Can Cruz or Paul win? And, for that matter, can Scott Walker win?
At the Lexington, Kentucky Lincoln Day dinner, I listened to Sixth District Congressman, Andy Barr's read on possible Republican tickets. He believes that "a Walker-Rubio ticket" will pay dividends for the GOP. He might be right! But, he also admits that Walker has a problem with Latino voters.
"They just don't know him," Andy professes. "I guess it's about exposure. Hopefully Rubio would bridge the shortfall."
Hopefully! While Rubio polls very strong with South Americans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans, he is still, according to a recent Gallup poll, only in the "mid-thirties" with Mexican voters. Good, but not great! And, not as good as Jeb Bush or Rick Perry! All three candidates speak fluent Spanish.
Which would lead me to conclude that Perry would be a better overall candidate than Scott Walker. He did score 44% of Latino voters in 2010 Texas Senatorial general election. These Hispanics were mostly Mexicans. And if Cruz indeed has a "Latino problem" as Aguilar insists, Republicans may be on their way to that brokered convention, if Perry bests Walker in Iowa!
Jeb Bush's worst nightmare is to have the nomination come down to he and Rick Perry. Not only because Perry can compete money wise. But, Perry's vision is based on the 10th amendment, not "Neo-Conservative" principles. Given the choice, Tea Party conservatives will flock to Perry. In spite of some mostly imagined flaws.
The key will be Iowa. If Perry finishes first or second in Iowa, he can win South Carolina. If Cruz bows out early, he might win "four or five" of the proposed "S.E.C. primary states:(Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee). Like Florida, Texas is a winner take all state.
In a brokered convention, it is highly conceivable that Tea Party Republicans, including all of Paul's Millennials, find their way to Perry. After all, he is "Ted Cruz with actual experience" and shares Paul's 10th amendment orientation...
Still looming is the impact Mike Huckabee might have on the electorate. The former Arkansas Governor does well in Caucus states. He may pick up enough delegates to play a role in a brokered convention. Like Rubio and Kasich, his name is certain to come up when discussing possible Vice Presidential selections.
In spite of a somewhat "choppy" start, believe it. Jeb will finish third in Iowa, first in New Hampshire and second in South Carolina. Then he will capture Florida's winner take all primary. Despite the crowded field, it's a mathematical certainty that he will hold the lead in delegates when July 2016 approaches.
Is this 2012? It would appear so. What happened to the other candidates? After all, there were better than 20 of them! Scott Walker, for one looked so promising! It would be expected that Chris Christies supporters will eventually line up behind Jeb. And, John Kasich's decision not to run makes sense. Experts starting with Karl Rove will agree: The Ohio Governor would make an excellent running mate for Bush. Even the Clinton camp shudders at the "electoral problem" that would result from a Bush-Kasich ticket!
I guess Karma wins out! But wait! Are not there advocates of "Semper Fi" who contend, "they'll stay home" if Bush is the nominee? Yes. And, they mean it! But, isn't there another way? Maybe!
Iowa will be the key. Like Mitt Romney, Bush isn't going to spend a lot of time there. He has an organization that will deliver some delegates. But winning the "Hawkeye State" is not an imperative for his overall victory. New Hampshire is a state that he will zero in on. If he defeats Christie, which is probable, he'll be in excellent shape. But, let's return to Iowa for a moment.
Rick Perry's handlers have evidently decided that the campaign begins and ends in Iowa. If the former Texas Governor finishes first or second, he will be alive. And he just might! Rick Santorum visited all 99 counties in '12. As history reflects, he defeated Mitt Romney by a nose. Perry, by rights, should be stronger than the former Pennsylvania Senator. Iowans like to rub elbows with candidates. Unlike 2012, Perry is healthy and has nothing but time on his hands. He is as good at retail politicking as anyone. He grew up on a farm, attended Texas A & M and flew C-130's in the Air Force. He is as warm and charismatic as Scott Walker is dry and detached. Walker will likely be the favorite in Iowa.
What about Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Ben Carson? Won't they make some noise in the early primaries?
In a recent Dallas Morning News article, Todd J. Gillman compared and contrasted Cruz and Perry. In reality, the men hold almost identical positions on all issues. Perry points out that the biggest difference is he's practiced while Cruz has only preached. Yet it goes beyond ideology.
Politics has be said to be "poetry" in it's own right. This may be the greatest distinction between the two Texans.
"Texas has two strong candidates," said Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership program at the conservative American Principles in Action group and chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship under President George W. Bush.
But, he added, "Rick Perry inspires people. Ted Cruz annoys people."
Compared with Perry, Aguilar said, "Cruz has a Latino problem, and it's ironic, because he is Latino." Not good, for the junior Senator!
Rand Paul might snag some Libertarian votes in New Hampshire. He might hold his own in Iowa. But, how deep can his campaign go? Perhaps to the end! He has Ron's base pretty much intact. This is highly significant. While the Kentucky Senator may come up short, in a brokered convention, his delegates could be pivotal.
Ben Carson? I cannot honestly see him going anywhere. He is simply too moderate for Tea Party Republicans. Evangelicals have a lot to choose from this time around, including Governor Mike Huckabee.
Marco Rubio is already being mentioned as a Vice Presidential option. He does have Norman Braman and a story. The truth of his financial struggles will actually work to his advantage. But can he do well enough in the early states to secure a foothold? Nevada, a state where he spent five formative years as a youth, could be his best bet. But can he defeat Bush in Florida?
Oh, what a mess! And so reminiscent of 2012. Bush has money and an organization. He can plod along, watching opponents fall by the wayside. In the end, he'll gain their endorsements and have things wrapped up by Independence Day. Unless...
Only the Tea Party stands in Bush's way to the nomination. Expect Bush to have the lead. But, if he doesn't have sufficient delegates to clinch the nomination, as Tom DeLay points out, we might be looking at a "brokered" convention. This would be bad for the Bush camp.
Money, as always, will be critical. This is why it is important to look past the sizzle of any candidate. There is also general election electability. A brokered convention that yielded an unelectable general election nominee would be disastrous! But who actually is electable? Bush backers insist their guy is. So do both Perry and Rubio's people.
Can Cruz or Paul win? And, for that matter, can Scott Walker win?
At the Lexington, Kentucky Lincoln Day dinner, I listened to Sixth District Congressman, Andy Barr's read on possible Republican tickets. He believes that "a Walker-Rubio ticket" will pay dividends for the GOP. He might be right! But, he also admits that Walker has a problem with Latino voters.
"They just don't know him," Andy professes. "I guess it's about exposure. Hopefully Rubio would bridge the shortfall."
Hopefully! While Rubio polls very strong with South Americans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans, he is still, according to a recent Gallup poll, only in the "mid-thirties" with Mexican voters. Good, but not great! And, not as good as Jeb Bush or Rick Perry! All three candidates speak fluent Spanish.
Which would lead me to conclude that Perry would be a better overall candidate than Scott Walker. He did score 44% of Latino voters in 2010 Texas Senatorial general election. These Hispanics were mostly Mexicans. And if Cruz indeed has a "Latino problem" as Aguilar insists, Republicans may be on their way to that brokered convention, if Perry bests Walker in Iowa!
Jeb Bush's worst nightmare is to have the nomination come down to he and Rick Perry. Not only because Perry can compete money wise. But, Perry's vision is based on the 10th amendment, not "Neo-Conservative" principles. Given the choice, Tea Party conservatives will flock to Perry. In spite of some mostly imagined flaws.
The key will be Iowa. If Perry finishes first or second in Iowa, he can win South Carolina. If Cruz bows out early, he might win "four or five" of the proposed "S.E.C. primary states:(Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee). Like Florida, Texas is a winner take all state.
In a brokered convention, it is highly conceivable that Tea Party Republicans, including all of Paul's Millennials, find their way to Perry. After all, he is "Ted Cruz with actual experience" and shares Paul's 10th amendment orientation...
Still looming is the impact Mike Huckabee might have on the electorate. The former Arkansas Governor does well in Caucus states. He may pick up enough delegates to play a role in a brokered convention. Like Rubio and Kasich, his name is certain to come up when discussing possible Vice Presidential selections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)