So Republicans hold 52 Senate seats that could be 54 after December 6th!
In an earlier post, we predicted that "practicality and discipline" could yield ten seats for Republicans. They are a razor thin margin from that outcome! The question becomes, "now what?"
It comes as no surprise that Barack Obama isn't happy. In fact, he appears slightly disoriented. In his eyes not enough people voted and those who did were in the wrong states. His agenda? Well, it will continue, come hell or high water.
Many including myself believe that he is baiting Republicans. An impeachment attempt could return support to his column. The best way to make this happen would be to do something unthinkable. Such as execute an Executive order that would give amnesty to millions of undocumented persons currently in America.
The midterms are history. Obama is not concerned with re-election. He did make a promise to certain constituencies. Thus far, he hasn't delivered on it. In short, what does he have to lose?
While the public is weary of gridlock, the wind in no longer at the President's back. Smart money suggests that the legislature will address immigration reform during the next six months. However, as Speaker Boehner warned, the President's decision to act alone could "muddy the water" to the extent that nothing could be accomplished.
Some Republican Neo-Cons are hinting that the party should be satisfied to "take the low hanging fruit," such as Keystone and Corporate tax reform. True, there is sufficient support amoung Democrats to gain a consensus. Equally true is the fact that if the President balked on either, he would be further blamed for the gridlock that persists in Washington. There is only one problem!
He doesn't care!
Republicans will have six months to focus on righting many of the wrongs that have prevailed during the past six "nasty" years! The issue most Americans have on the top of their list is "Obamacare." True, it will be a fight. But, there may be enough votes to override a veto.
Politically, it's a gamble, albeit not a huge one. There is bi-partisan support for getting rid of parts of the Affordable Health Care Act. Reality dictates that the overall plan is too flawed to even tweak. Better to kill it now, without further adieu!
Republicans need to come up with an alternative that is easy to understand, that includes everyone. The plan needs to be based on Americans' number one want: "To lower health insurance premiums." Let's face it! We have a "health insurance problem," not a "health care problem."
A "half-penny national sales" tax, that would be used exclusively to set up a nationwide catastropic/continuous care pool," would be fair. Everyone would participate. Everyone would have access. The pool would only kick in when an annual claim or collective claims reached $10,000. At that point, the pool would cover 80% of the cost. The percentage would climb to 85% at $50,000 and cap at 90% when the tally reached $100,000.
The plan would be allow insurance companies to cross state lines. And, it would include "loser pays tort reform."
Without question, such a proposal would gain bi-partisan support. The issue of "pre-existing conditions" would be answered. And, due to the increase in competition, everyones' premiums would go down!
Barack Obama would be placed in an awkward position. If he opposed the measure, he would be advocating exclusion for roughly 40 million countrymen.
It wouldn't matter! Probably 75 Senators would vote for the alternative. The Affordable Health Care Act would be history. Republicans would be heroes with the American people.
Republicans could then accuse Democrats of attempting to "slip Socialism through the back door via their fated bill," further damaging the Democrat brand. It could have a devastating impact on the 2016 election!
Certainly there are those who would oppose the alternative. And there would obviously need to be considerations requiring further study. But the overall impact would be increased compeitition and less defensive medicine.
An argument can be made to implement the "Cat/Con" pool at the state level. This would almost certainly make the plan more efficient. And, there is always the possibility that insurance companies could co-op the pool.
Any way you cut it, this plan is far superior to the Affordable Care Act. It comes down to Republicans practicing what they have preached.
Friday, November 7, 2014
Monday, October 27, 2014
Thwarting Voter Fraud Key to America's Future
With pivotal midterm elections a week away, the anticipation of voter fraud looms!
Amazingly, many who will vote are not U.S. citizens. How could this happen? It's not supposed to! Is it?
The need for voter identification, ranging from merely presenting a drivers license to actual I.D. cards, is under hot debate. Democrats see it as an attempt to disenfrachise the poor and underprivileged. Libetarians fear that I.D.'s will make it easier for "big brother" to keep tabs on us. Yet, the majority of America concludes that it is only sure way to maintain election integrity.
This is the most dangerous terrain possible for an America seeking to stay together. Contested elections are the last thing needed by a nation so ideologically divided.
The discussion actually came to a head in 2000. 517 Florida votes were the difference between a George W. Bush Presidency and an Al Gore Pressidency. In the end, it was the Supreme Court that made the final call.
Republicians have placed a lot of time, emotion and resources on retaking the Senate. To not win would throw their faithful into a gloom that would be years overcoming. Democrats are guardedly hopeful. Some, such as Evan Bayh are predicting that the outcome will not be known until after Louisiana and Georgia's expected run-offs are decided.
In best case, Republicans will have a good night. Which would translate to winning seven or eight seats. This would send Harry Reid to the back of the room. Certain bills, previously blocked by the Senate Majority leader would be allowed a floor vote. Barack Obama would find opposition to most court appointments. Beyond that, who knows?
Maintaining integrity in our process can't be understated. A contested election could go a long way toward spawning a civil war in America. It is truly amazing, if not alarming, to note how many conservatives are quietly squirreling away weapons. This is why it is imperative that our states begin dialog over the need to peacefully separate, in worse case.
There is enough land in America to go around. There is oil, natural gas, coal, farmland and the world's best "human" capital. One America wants to take advantage of it all, returning to the "lets get ahead" days of the past. The other has been seduced by the promise of "social justice!"
Why not simply draw a boundary and co-exist. There would be no reason that would could not remain friends, allies and trading partners, as with Canada! In a "clash of perceptions," there is no right or wrong. The side with the most power wins.
Is it too late?
Nobody truly knows. But, the quickest way to find out is to experience one or more disputed Senate elections next month. If we do, all bets are off.
A second civil war in America will be ideological, not sectional. It will be the ultimate battle between liberals and conservatives. If the military sides with conservatives as it is expected to do, it will be over in a few weeks. The liberals will lose decisively. There would be massive immigration to Canada, Europe, South America, even Africa.
In best case, none of this will happen. The Republicans will eek out a win in the Senate and the issue will be prolonged for another two years. But what then?
Do Americans truly trust their Washington, D.C. leadership? Indications are, they don't! And this reveals the root of the problem!
Not all politicians are bad. In fact, most genuinely strive to better lives for their constituents. It comes down to the perception of Washington. Barack Obama has damaged D.C.'s credibility with false promises, outright lies and an overall abuse of power. All too many Americans are ready to simply give up; try something new, including a new country!
Amazingly, many who will vote are not U.S. citizens. How could this happen? It's not supposed to! Is it?
The need for voter identification, ranging from merely presenting a drivers license to actual I.D. cards, is under hot debate. Democrats see it as an attempt to disenfrachise the poor and underprivileged. Libetarians fear that I.D.'s will make it easier for "big brother" to keep tabs on us. Yet, the majority of America concludes that it is only sure way to maintain election integrity.
This is the most dangerous terrain possible for an America seeking to stay together. Contested elections are the last thing needed by a nation so ideologically divided.
The discussion actually came to a head in 2000. 517 Florida votes were the difference between a George W. Bush Presidency and an Al Gore Pressidency. In the end, it was the Supreme Court that made the final call.
Republicians have placed a lot of time, emotion and resources on retaking the Senate. To not win would throw their faithful into a gloom that would be years overcoming. Democrats are guardedly hopeful. Some, such as Evan Bayh are predicting that the outcome will not be known until after Louisiana and Georgia's expected run-offs are decided.
In best case, Republicans will have a good night. Which would translate to winning seven or eight seats. This would send Harry Reid to the back of the room. Certain bills, previously blocked by the Senate Majority leader would be allowed a floor vote. Barack Obama would find opposition to most court appointments. Beyond that, who knows?
Maintaining integrity in our process can't be understated. A contested election could go a long way toward spawning a civil war in America. It is truly amazing, if not alarming, to note how many conservatives are quietly squirreling away weapons. This is why it is imperative that our states begin dialog over the need to peacefully separate, in worse case.
There is enough land in America to go around. There is oil, natural gas, coal, farmland and the world's best "human" capital. One America wants to take advantage of it all, returning to the "lets get ahead" days of the past. The other has been seduced by the promise of "social justice!"
Why not simply draw a boundary and co-exist. There would be no reason that would could not remain friends, allies and trading partners, as with Canada! In a "clash of perceptions," there is no right or wrong. The side with the most power wins.
Is it too late?
Nobody truly knows. But, the quickest way to find out is to experience one or more disputed Senate elections next month. If we do, all bets are off.
A second civil war in America will be ideological, not sectional. It will be the ultimate battle between liberals and conservatives. If the military sides with conservatives as it is expected to do, it will be over in a few weeks. The liberals will lose decisively. There would be massive immigration to Canada, Europe, South America, even Africa.
In best case, none of this will happen. The Republicans will eek out a win in the Senate and the issue will be prolonged for another two years. But what then?
Do Americans truly trust their Washington, D.C. leadership? Indications are, they don't! And this reveals the root of the problem!
Not all politicians are bad. In fact, most genuinely strive to better lives for their constituents. It comes down to the perception of Washington. Barack Obama has damaged D.C.'s credibility with false promises, outright lies and an overall abuse of power. All too many Americans are ready to simply give up; try something new, including a new country!
Sunday, October 19, 2014
A New Beginning in the New America
Just Imagine!
Our existing U.S. Constitution; sans the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments! Now, let us add two new amendments.
The first would make it unlawful for politicians to exclude themselves from any law or mandate passed, such as the Affordable Care Act. In short, any legislation passed would be required to include everyone!Senate and Congressional term limits would be included in this legislation.
The second would be the proposed English language amendment discussed in my book.
Make sense? Maybe! Unfortunately, this would be close to impossible under our existing framework.
In a previous post a "Red State Convention" was proposed. The primary objective would be to reform or replace the Republican Party. Yet many suggest that we would be "whistling Dixie!" Are we past the point of no return?
Assuming that we are, what would be an alternative? The country is clearly divided. In fact, it has not been this divided since 1861. But this is 2014. We have television. We have the Internet. Unlike 1861, this is not the "age of innocence." Nobody relishes an "1860's style" bloodbath!
A clash of perceptions exists in America.
One side wants more and bigger government. The other wants less and smaller government. A surprisingly large number of Americans will accept fewer invidual liberties. Arguably more profess their "willngness to die" for more individual freedoms.
A part of America wants to build a wall around itself, leaving world problems to chance. Another part of America strives to police the world, profiting along the way. Still another faction says, "let's go the proven route of peace through strength."
One faction believes that human induced global warming is today's "most pressing issue." The other side concludes that man made global warming is "a hoax."
There are differences on economics that stretch beyond party lines. Most prolific is the decades old "Keynesian versus Supply Side" debate.
Then there is the "Centralist versus Federalist" argument. Likewise crossing party lines, one group advocates a large, Washington, D.C. based government. The other seeks to return more decision making to the individual states.
Cynicism exists in America to a greater degree than at any time in history. People have lost faith and trust in their political leadership. There is a growing belief that the present system breeds corruption. Newly elected believers depart for Washington with the best of intentions, only to succumb to a "culture" that naturally proliferates with tenure.
Our "American experiment" is relatively new, when compared historically to other societies. It has survived much, including a Civil War. Yet from that event, many of the original premises that served as benchmark for the nation's founding were lost.
In convening on a national scale to discuss the future of the country, we would be allowing the states to step forth and determine their individual destinies. Are we talking secession? From a certain point of view we are! Running parallel to this paradigm is another definition. It is called "Contraction."
Semantics? Actually not! Secession equates to individual states, one by one, breaking their bond with the Union. Contraction entails a "majority of states, bonded by similar standards, aspirations, ideals and economic goals, "excluding" states harboring ideologies considered malignant to their general welfare."
This is indeed something new! And yet, you could see it coming. Take a moment to note the election results over the past two decades. At first glance, a line does exists in America. With closer study, these lines become more defined by rural versus urban.
Politicians seeking to do away with the electoral college never mention the impact on smaller states. They know that with the right "tweaking," namely abolishment of the electoral college, they can consolidate power in larger states, holding large cities. Rural America would be left "high and dry," reverting to a lower standard of living with less say in lawmaking as compared to Metro areas. Such exists in Russia today.
When legislatures of individual states convene in their state capitals they will decide if they are "in or out." Even recently "blue" states such as Illinois and Michigan will decide that "being left behind" would result in potentially "cataclysmic" circumstances. In essence, "better to be "in," excluding or "contracting from" one or more counties who differ ideologically.
This may be an over simplification, albeit not by much. Midwestern states such as Illinois, Michigan,Wisconsin and even Minnesota are often "one or two counties" away from flipping. This is confirmed by recent Gubernatorial elections. You could add Pennsylvania to the list! Remove Philadelphia and Delaware counties and Mitt Romney would have won the state decisively in 2012.
Impossible? Think again!
The majority of the nation's wealth is in the ground or on top of it. Under the new framework, land previously owned by the federal government would revert back to the individual states. The national debt would be divided proportionately. Any and all banking debt owed to to banks not in the "New America" would be repudiated.
Radical? Perhaps. But, in full study of the Federal Reserve and the money that has been stolen from the American people over the past 100 years, the idea becomes more plausible. As G. Edward Griffin pointed out in his book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," Northeastern and Europeon banking interests have accumulated trillions at the expense of the American people. Time for payback is at hand.
The West, or most of it, would predictably opt for inclusion. California's impossible preference for "six states," would suddenly become possible. Eastern Washington and Oregon's dream of their state of "Lincoln" would be within reach. Large states such as Texas and Florida might become North and South, doubling their representation in the Senate.
Crazy? One Ohio Economist explained, "had the TARP money gone directly to pay off conforming home mortgages, it would have resulted in a giant stimulus. Instead, the money was given to the banks, who used it to buy other banks or simply stuck it in their vaults."
It has been estimated that there is sufficient petroleum reserves to serve our current populations' needs for "2,041 years." We have approximately 27% of the planet's known coal reserves. The U.S. possesses more natural gas than any country in the world. We have the earth's finest farm land. Why not set our sights on being the "world's supermarket and filling station?"
Instead, our malignant part has voted to stifle and regulate, benefiting the privileged and the well placed only. A new America brings such practice to an abrupt end!
Insane? What I consider insane is the eight or so globalist banking cartels holding a collective net worth that exceeds 100 trillion U.S. dollars! Interestingly enough, nobody knows for certain "how" they amassed such wealth!
Where would be the starting point? Obviously it must begin with a convention. From there, the most visible bi-product of Barack Obama's true aim; "to weaken America," would be pointed out and corrected. This translates to rebuilding the military, as Ronald Reagan did in the eighties. It would likewise send a clear signal to all Americans that any question regarding the "legality of contraction," would not be determined by "Philiadelphia lawyers!"
We would then make Social Security and Medicare permanently solvant, Healthcare really affordable and Education both affordable and attainable. Considering the nation's overall wealth, this should be a "breeze!"
Of equal significance would be the implementation of a "dollar that was worth a dollar." In essence, "a dollar that was 100% backed by commodities." The old Federal Reserve Note might adequately serve our Malignant counterparts. But "cranking up the printing presses" would no longer be an option in the New America.
How many souls would make up the "New America?" Estimates would span "betweeen 240 and 260 million." A future immigration direction would target applicants based on qualification, as is done by Canada.
Those currently in the country illegally would be given four distinct choices. (a) Service in the military, (b) Service in the Peace Corp, (c) Service in the Engineers(a option that will be discussed in a future post) or (d) Deportation.
In reality, the New America would need every hand! Freed from the fetters of government, there would be a boom like never in history. The "desire to get ahead," would replace the current "let's line up at the trough for our share of the boonies."
Yes, concerns would abound regarding "what would happen" in large, "blue state," cities such as Chicago and Detroit. Would there be riots? Or would the state militias, aided by common interest, new America states join to suppress any uprisings.
An option would be to "hermetically seal" problematic counties, cutting all ground transportation. Inhabitants would be allowed to immigrate to parts of the Continent not included in the new America. Or, they could participate in "Operation Homecoming," a concept that will be discussed in a future post.
There would be protests from "naysayers" throught the transition. And predictably heavy migration from Americans outside the New America, yearning to be a part of it.
The real litmus test would amount to "who loves America and what she truly stands for." It goes back to the decades old pronouncement: "America. Love it or leave it."
In this illustration, those loving the America our founders envisioned would effectively amputate the parts seeking to compromise it.
Our existing U.S. Constitution; sans the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments! Now, let us add two new amendments.
The first would make it unlawful for politicians to exclude themselves from any law or mandate passed, such as the Affordable Care Act. In short, any legislation passed would be required to include everyone!Senate and Congressional term limits would be included in this legislation.
The second would be the proposed English language amendment discussed in my book.
Make sense? Maybe! Unfortunately, this would be close to impossible under our existing framework.
In a previous post a "Red State Convention" was proposed. The primary objective would be to reform or replace the Republican Party. Yet many suggest that we would be "whistling Dixie!" Are we past the point of no return?
Assuming that we are, what would be an alternative? The country is clearly divided. In fact, it has not been this divided since 1861. But this is 2014. We have television. We have the Internet. Unlike 1861, this is not the "age of innocence." Nobody relishes an "1860's style" bloodbath!
A clash of perceptions exists in America.
One side wants more and bigger government. The other wants less and smaller government. A surprisingly large number of Americans will accept fewer invidual liberties. Arguably more profess their "willngness to die" for more individual freedoms.
A part of America wants to build a wall around itself, leaving world problems to chance. Another part of America strives to police the world, profiting along the way. Still another faction says, "let's go the proven route of peace through strength."
One faction believes that human induced global warming is today's "most pressing issue." The other side concludes that man made global warming is "a hoax."
There are differences on economics that stretch beyond party lines. Most prolific is the decades old "Keynesian versus Supply Side" debate.
Then there is the "Centralist versus Federalist" argument. Likewise crossing party lines, one group advocates a large, Washington, D.C. based government. The other seeks to return more decision making to the individual states.
Cynicism exists in America to a greater degree than at any time in history. People have lost faith and trust in their political leadership. There is a growing belief that the present system breeds corruption. Newly elected believers depart for Washington with the best of intentions, only to succumb to a "culture" that naturally proliferates with tenure.
Our "American experiment" is relatively new, when compared historically to other societies. It has survived much, including a Civil War. Yet from that event, many of the original premises that served as benchmark for the nation's founding were lost.
In convening on a national scale to discuss the future of the country, we would be allowing the states to step forth and determine their individual destinies. Are we talking secession? From a certain point of view we are! Running parallel to this paradigm is another definition. It is called "Contraction."
Semantics? Actually not! Secession equates to individual states, one by one, breaking their bond with the Union. Contraction entails a "majority of states, bonded by similar standards, aspirations, ideals and economic goals, "excluding" states harboring ideologies considered malignant to their general welfare."
This is indeed something new! And yet, you could see it coming. Take a moment to note the election results over the past two decades. At first glance, a line does exists in America. With closer study, these lines become more defined by rural versus urban.
Politicians seeking to do away with the electoral college never mention the impact on smaller states. They know that with the right "tweaking," namely abolishment of the electoral college, they can consolidate power in larger states, holding large cities. Rural America would be left "high and dry," reverting to a lower standard of living with less say in lawmaking as compared to Metro areas. Such exists in Russia today.
When legislatures of individual states convene in their state capitals they will decide if they are "in or out." Even recently "blue" states such as Illinois and Michigan will decide that "being left behind" would result in potentially "cataclysmic" circumstances. In essence, "better to be "in," excluding or "contracting from" one or more counties who differ ideologically.
This may be an over simplification, albeit not by much. Midwestern states such as Illinois, Michigan,Wisconsin and even Minnesota are often "one or two counties" away from flipping. This is confirmed by recent Gubernatorial elections. You could add Pennsylvania to the list! Remove Philadelphia and Delaware counties and Mitt Romney would have won the state decisively in 2012.
Impossible? Think again!
The majority of the nation's wealth is in the ground or on top of it. Under the new framework, land previously owned by the federal government would revert back to the individual states. The national debt would be divided proportionately. Any and all banking debt owed to to banks not in the "New America" would be repudiated.
Radical? Perhaps. But, in full study of the Federal Reserve and the money that has been stolen from the American people over the past 100 years, the idea becomes more plausible. As G. Edward Griffin pointed out in his book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," Northeastern and Europeon banking interests have accumulated trillions at the expense of the American people. Time for payback is at hand.
The West, or most of it, would predictably opt for inclusion. California's impossible preference for "six states," would suddenly become possible. Eastern Washington and Oregon's dream of their state of "Lincoln" would be within reach. Large states such as Texas and Florida might become North and South, doubling their representation in the Senate.
Crazy? One Ohio Economist explained, "had the TARP money gone directly to pay off conforming home mortgages, it would have resulted in a giant stimulus. Instead, the money was given to the banks, who used it to buy other banks or simply stuck it in their vaults."
It has been estimated that there is sufficient petroleum reserves to serve our current populations' needs for "2,041 years." We have approximately 27% of the planet's known coal reserves. The U.S. possesses more natural gas than any country in the world. We have the earth's finest farm land. Why not set our sights on being the "world's supermarket and filling station?"
Instead, our malignant part has voted to stifle and regulate, benefiting the privileged and the well placed only. A new America brings such practice to an abrupt end!
Insane? What I consider insane is the eight or so globalist banking cartels holding a collective net worth that exceeds 100 trillion U.S. dollars! Interestingly enough, nobody knows for certain "how" they amassed such wealth!
Where would be the starting point? Obviously it must begin with a convention. From there, the most visible bi-product of Barack Obama's true aim; "to weaken America," would be pointed out and corrected. This translates to rebuilding the military, as Ronald Reagan did in the eighties. It would likewise send a clear signal to all Americans that any question regarding the "legality of contraction," would not be determined by "Philiadelphia lawyers!"
We would then make Social Security and Medicare permanently solvant, Healthcare really affordable and Education both affordable and attainable. Considering the nation's overall wealth, this should be a "breeze!"
Of equal significance would be the implementation of a "dollar that was worth a dollar." In essence, "a dollar that was 100% backed by commodities." The old Federal Reserve Note might adequately serve our Malignant counterparts. But "cranking up the printing presses" would no longer be an option in the New America.
How many souls would make up the "New America?" Estimates would span "betweeen 240 and 260 million." A future immigration direction would target applicants based on qualification, as is done by Canada.
Those currently in the country illegally would be given four distinct choices. (a) Service in the military, (b) Service in the Peace Corp, (c) Service in the Engineers(a option that will be discussed in a future post) or (d) Deportation.
In reality, the New America would need every hand! Freed from the fetters of government, there would be a boom like never in history. The "desire to get ahead," would replace the current "let's line up at the trough for our share of the boonies."
Yes, concerns would abound regarding "what would happen" in large, "blue state," cities such as Chicago and Detroit. Would there be riots? Or would the state militias, aided by common interest, new America states join to suppress any uprisings.
An option would be to "hermetically seal" problematic counties, cutting all ground transportation. Inhabitants would be allowed to immigrate to parts of the Continent not included in the new America. Or, they could participate in "Operation Homecoming," a concept that will be discussed in a future post.
There would be protests from "naysayers" throught the transition. And predictably heavy migration from Americans outside the New America, yearning to be a part of it.
The real litmus test would amount to "who loves America and what she truly stands for." It goes back to the decades old pronouncement: "America. Love it or leave it."
In this illustration, those loving the America our founders envisioned would effectively amputate the parts seeking to compromise it.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
"Peoples Democratic Republic of America..."
Here is a fact that dismays Americans: "Arguably 20% of America is Marxist."
True, it is more prominent in certain parts of the country. I recall asking a friend from Massachusetts who had recently visited China, "what was it like in a Communist country?" He responded, "Massachusetts is more Communist that China."
New York City exemplifies Socialism with nearly every politician selected. It is difficult to turn a blind eye to the "virtues" that Cory Booker brings to the table as New Jersey's freshman Senator. Vermont has produced Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean. 85% of Philadelphia voted for Barack Obama in 2012.
Marxist? This may be an exaggeration, albeit not my much!
With the exception of New Hampshire in 2000, New England, New York, New Jersey,Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware have been carried by Democrats in every Presidential election this century. These states have voiced a clear preference for a larger role for government, effectively a "cradle to grave" relationship between people and government.
True, Pennslyvania sans Philadelphia and Delaware counties was carried by Mitt Romney in 2012. Ditto for most of Maryland's counties. New York, north of the 43rd and west of the 75th would be a "Tennessee sized, Red State." Yet, even with these missing parts the population would top 60 million; more than Great Britain!
It is clearly evident that this "Socialist leaning arm" of America prefers a path somewhat different from Southern and Middle America. Maybe it's time to grant them their wish, simultaneously allowing the bulk of America to refrain from an experiment that has failed at every juncture...
When a finger, hand or limb is determined gangrenous, two steps can be taken. The infected area is left untended, spreading and causing death to the entire body. Or, the infected limb is amputated, saving the remainder of the body.
This analogy should serve as benchmark for the "Pro-Contraction" argument.
To save America as we know it, a review of the the constitution must take place. Some existing amendments must be repealed. And, two new amendments must be added. To do this, three-fourths of the states must ratify. Under our present 50-state union, this would be difficult.
Repealing the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments would be an outright impossiblilty. Adding an English language amendment, making legal voter I.D. laws, would be difficult under the existing framework. However, if these Northeastern states were simply not there to vote, the impossible would become very possible.
"Bucking tradition" would be the main argument against contraction. Most Americans would passively say, "we just couldn't do it." There would need to be an effective counter argument.
"Money" and the promise of "more of it," answers the call! The Northeast holds most of the debt in the United States. If a new United States chose to "repudiate," as Russia did following the Soviet Union's collapse, "bucking tradition," might make sense.
Sound incredible? Read G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island." Upon conclusion, one might consider such action, "just and appropriate."
Wouldn't many anti-Marxist Americans depart the "Peoples Democratic Republic of America?" Yes! But, their replacements would likely outnumber them!
Americans are ruefully acknowledging that many of our people don't want to work. It is simply easier to live modestly but comfortably, accepting government assistance. In a "progressive" country such as the "Peoples Democratic Republic of America," first priority would be "equality and social justice for all."
No doubt there would be those who would take exception. It must be remembered that this culture was nurtured by advocates of wealth distribution. Unlike their vision, this version of wealth distribution goes beyond middle class bank accounts. Essentially it taps their wealth.
The "new" America will be a topic for a future post. Like our current America it would include 50 states. Unlike the current United States, it would be shorn of historical mistakes that have put us in the fix that we are currently in.
Left behind would be collateral damage, fruits of our on going, America experiment. "The Peoples Democratic Republic of America," and the "Elysium Confederation" would be the two most visible.
True, it is more prominent in certain parts of the country. I recall asking a friend from Massachusetts who had recently visited China, "what was it like in a Communist country?" He responded, "Massachusetts is more Communist that China."
New York City exemplifies Socialism with nearly every politician selected. It is difficult to turn a blind eye to the "virtues" that Cory Booker brings to the table as New Jersey's freshman Senator. Vermont has produced Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean. 85% of Philadelphia voted for Barack Obama in 2012.
Marxist? This may be an exaggeration, albeit not my much!
With the exception of New Hampshire in 2000, New England, New York, New Jersey,Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware have been carried by Democrats in every Presidential election this century. These states have voiced a clear preference for a larger role for government, effectively a "cradle to grave" relationship between people and government.
True, Pennslyvania sans Philadelphia and Delaware counties was carried by Mitt Romney in 2012. Ditto for most of Maryland's counties. New York, north of the 43rd and west of the 75th would be a "Tennessee sized, Red State." Yet, even with these missing parts the population would top 60 million; more than Great Britain!
It is clearly evident that this "Socialist leaning arm" of America prefers a path somewhat different from Southern and Middle America. Maybe it's time to grant them their wish, simultaneously allowing the bulk of America to refrain from an experiment that has failed at every juncture...
When a finger, hand or limb is determined gangrenous, two steps can be taken. The infected area is left untended, spreading and causing death to the entire body. Or, the infected limb is amputated, saving the remainder of the body.
This analogy should serve as benchmark for the "Pro-Contraction" argument.
To save America as we know it, a review of the the constitution must take place. Some existing amendments must be repealed. And, two new amendments must be added. To do this, three-fourths of the states must ratify. Under our present 50-state union, this would be difficult.
Repealing the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments would be an outright impossiblilty. Adding an English language amendment, making legal voter I.D. laws, would be difficult under the existing framework. However, if these Northeastern states were simply not there to vote, the impossible would become very possible.
"Bucking tradition" would be the main argument against contraction. Most Americans would passively say, "we just couldn't do it." There would need to be an effective counter argument.
"Money" and the promise of "more of it," answers the call! The Northeast holds most of the debt in the United States. If a new United States chose to "repudiate," as Russia did following the Soviet Union's collapse, "bucking tradition," might make sense.
Sound incredible? Read G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island." Upon conclusion, one might consider such action, "just and appropriate."
Wouldn't many anti-Marxist Americans depart the "Peoples Democratic Republic of America?" Yes! But, their replacements would likely outnumber them!
Americans are ruefully acknowledging that many of our people don't want to work. It is simply easier to live modestly but comfortably, accepting government assistance. In a "progressive" country such as the "Peoples Democratic Republic of America," first priority would be "equality and social justice for all."
No doubt there would be those who would take exception. It must be remembered that this culture was nurtured by advocates of wealth distribution. Unlike their vision, this version of wealth distribution goes beyond middle class bank accounts. Essentially it taps their wealth.
The "new" America will be a topic for a future post. Like our current America it would include 50 states. Unlike the current United States, it would be shorn of historical mistakes that have put us in the fix that we are currently in.
Left behind would be collateral damage, fruits of our on going, America experiment. "The Peoples Democratic Republic of America," and the "Elysium Confederation" would be the two most visible.
Monday, October 6, 2014
"Elysium Confederation-" One of the Three Americas
In a previous post we referenced "Three Americas," as a fourth alternative to a third party, "Splintering," or choosing a candidate by process of elimination. The "three Americas" are as follows:
1- The United States of America
2- The Peoples' Democratic Republic of America
3- Elysium Confederation
We will begin with the Elysium Confederation. The U.S.A. and the P.D.R.A. will be detailed in future posts.
"Elysium" would be composed of three of Venture Capitalist, Tim Draper's six Californias. Included in this 20 million strong nation would be West California, Silicon Valley and North California. The Capital would be San Francisco.
Chelsea Clinton would be handpicked to be Elysium's first president. She would be served by an advisory board that would include Californians Tom Steyer, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and Al Gore.
Over a bottle of Chardonnay(actually several bottles of Chardonnay), they would conceive a plan that would separate Elysium from the evils of a polluted and Eco-unfriendly world! It would begin by patiently explaining to Elysium subjects that "not everyone should be stewards of an automobile."
A $10,000 per year "Automobile usage contribution" would encourage subjects to discard personal automobile ownership and consider alternative transportation. The Elysium goverment would contract with the advisory board members, to establish "Elysium line," a electric train that would provide quality mass transist throughout the nation.
The "Fossil Fuel Dissolution Act," would add a 25% surcharge to all energy bills utilyzing fossil fuels. This would subsequently encourage the use of alternative energy sources such as Solar, Hydro and Wind.
In further efforts to conserve energy, Elysium subjects would be encouraged to occupy new, "green," apartment buildings. These superbly energy efficient quarters, would reduce unnecessary square footage, thus maximizing energy output per person. Water conservation would be increased because the need for toilets would be reduced.
The Bicycle would become the symbol of Elysium. Each bike purchase would gain a 20% tax credit. While Moped purchases would carry no tax credits, they would not require a usage contribution.
Industrial Hemp would become a key money crop for Elysium. Subjects would be encouraged to attire themselves in "one-piece I.H. coveralls," the unofficial uniform of Elysium.
President Bill Clinton would become the official spokesperson for the Vegan diet, encouraged for all Elysium subjects. This "no meat, no animal products" approach to healty lifestyles would be encouraged with a 25% surcharge on all meat and dairy products.
Elysium would be one of the world's top wine producing regions. As a result, plenty would be available for Elysium subjects. Recreational Marijuana would be endorced by the government as an alternative to distilled alcohol.
Sons of Massachusetts and honorary Elysium subjects, John Kerry and Ed Markey would be given a special place on the advisary board. So would Michelle and Barack Obama. Collectively, they would insure a clean, healthy, utopian existence for Elysium subjects.
1- The United States of America
2- The Peoples' Democratic Republic of America
3- Elysium Confederation
We will begin with the Elysium Confederation. The U.S.A. and the P.D.R.A. will be detailed in future posts.
"Elysium" would be composed of three of Venture Capitalist, Tim Draper's six Californias. Included in this 20 million strong nation would be West California, Silicon Valley and North California. The Capital would be San Francisco.
Chelsea Clinton would be handpicked to be Elysium's first president. She would be served by an advisory board that would include Californians Tom Steyer, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and Al Gore.
Over a bottle of Chardonnay(actually several bottles of Chardonnay), they would conceive a plan that would separate Elysium from the evils of a polluted and Eco-unfriendly world! It would begin by patiently explaining to Elysium subjects that "not everyone should be stewards of an automobile."
A $10,000 per year "Automobile usage contribution" would encourage subjects to discard personal automobile ownership and consider alternative transportation. The Elysium goverment would contract with the advisory board members, to establish "Elysium line," a electric train that would provide quality mass transist throughout the nation.
The "Fossil Fuel Dissolution Act," would add a 25% surcharge to all energy bills utilyzing fossil fuels. This would subsequently encourage the use of alternative energy sources such as Solar, Hydro and Wind.
In further efforts to conserve energy, Elysium subjects would be encouraged to occupy new, "green," apartment buildings. These superbly energy efficient quarters, would reduce unnecessary square footage, thus maximizing energy output per person. Water conservation would be increased because the need for toilets would be reduced.
The Bicycle would become the symbol of Elysium. Each bike purchase would gain a 20% tax credit. While Moped purchases would carry no tax credits, they would not require a usage contribution.
Industrial Hemp would become a key money crop for Elysium. Subjects would be encouraged to attire themselves in "one-piece I.H. coveralls," the unofficial uniform of Elysium.
President Bill Clinton would become the official spokesperson for the Vegan diet, encouraged for all Elysium subjects. This "no meat, no animal products" approach to healty lifestyles would be encouraged with a 25% surcharge on all meat and dairy products.
Elysium would be one of the world's top wine producing regions. As a result, plenty would be available for Elysium subjects. Recreational Marijuana would be endorced by the government as an alternative to distilled alcohol.
Sons of Massachusetts and honorary Elysium subjects, John Kerry and Ed Markey would be given a special place on the advisary board. So would Michelle and Barack Obama. Collectively, they would insure a clean, healthy, utopian existence for Elysium subjects.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Conservatives Face Four Stark Choices
Conservatives in America have essentially four choices.
Choice number one amounts to starting a third party, possibly nominating Ben Carson or someone outside the political circuit. It generates strong emotions and would be the ultimate "in your eye" to the Republican Establishment. To many, telling them "it'll teach you a lesson, once and for all" would be worth it!
I call this the "Kamikaze pilot approach." If I didn't know better, I would think that a Democrat was behind it. After all, what strategy could do more to elect Hillary Clinton to the Presidency? A third party will not win. Even when the candidate is an experienced Chief Executive, as was the case with Teddy Roosevelt and his "Bull Moose" party during Ragtime. It never has...
Choice number two can be described as "Splintering." We witnessed this in 2012. Conservatives can't decide on any one candidate. Libertarians back Rand Paul. Fiscals get behind Donald Trump. Evangelicals choose Mike Huckabee. Tea Party opts for Ted Cruz. All the while, the Republican Establishment is uniting behind a Mitt Romney or a Jeb Bush.
In the end, we have a repeat of 2008 and 2012.Convervatives are divided. The party leadership picks the nominee. Conservatives are given a choice: Vote for our guy or stay home!
In actuality, Barack Obama and friends see a divided Republican party as the optimum future direction of America. They see the nation evolving into a one party system. A fragmented conservative front contributes to this aspiration.
Third Choice is to unite. The conservative groups outlined in an earlier post, choose one candidate who best represents all of the constituencies, including the Establishment. It would come down to answering the following questions:
(a) Which candidate would be able to energize Tea partiers, mobilize Evangelicals and be acceptable to Establishment?
(b) Which candidate would be capable of raising the money to run a 50-state campaign?
I refer to this choice as the "Elimination Approach." In essence, through process of elimination, we exclude nominees who,
(a) are unable to appeal to all of the three main segments
(b) are unable to attract low income, blue collar independents
(c) have never attracted more than 1/3 Hispanic voters in any election
(d) are tied to one prinipal issue
The "tie-breaker" considerations for the "Elimination Approach" should be as follows:
(1) Previous Executive experience
(2) Previous Military experience
Fourth Choice will be as the topic of a future post:
"The Three Americas."
America will still be composed of fifty states. But, some of her parts will be missing.
Google Tim Draper's "six Californias." Now google the recent(2013) movie hit that starred Matt Damon and Jody Foster. Three of Draper's six Californias, West California, North California and Silicon Valley will compose the new, 20 million strong nation, "Elysium." Chelsea Clinton could be their first President.
Turning east...Imagine New York, south of the 43rd parallel and east of the 75 parallel. Add New Jersey, Philadelphia and Delaware counties, Pennsylvania, six Maryland Counties and two of the three Delaware Counties. Now, throw in New England. Presto! We have, "The Peoples' Democratic Republic of America." The capital would be located in New York City. Michael Bloomberg would be named "Despot for Life."
Washington D.C. would become an "open city," more like a giant museum. It's historical documents would be available and accessible to citizens of the all three "Americas."
The Americas would enjoy a relationship comparable to Americas' current standing with Canada: "friends, allies and trading partners."
Choice number one amounts to starting a third party, possibly nominating Ben Carson or someone outside the political circuit. It generates strong emotions and would be the ultimate "in your eye" to the Republican Establishment. To many, telling them "it'll teach you a lesson, once and for all" would be worth it!
I call this the "Kamikaze pilot approach." If I didn't know better, I would think that a Democrat was behind it. After all, what strategy could do more to elect Hillary Clinton to the Presidency? A third party will not win. Even when the candidate is an experienced Chief Executive, as was the case with Teddy Roosevelt and his "Bull Moose" party during Ragtime. It never has...
Choice number two can be described as "Splintering." We witnessed this in 2012. Conservatives can't decide on any one candidate. Libertarians back Rand Paul. Fiscals get behind Donald Trump. Evangelicals choose Mike Huckabee. Tea Party opts for Ted Cruz. All the while, the Republican Establishment is uniting behind a Mitt Romney or a Jeb Bush.
In the end, we have a repeat of 2008 and 2012.Convervatives are divided. The party leadership picks the nominee. Conservatives are given a choice: Vote for our guy or stay home!
In actuality, Barack Obama and friends see a divided Republican party as the optimum future direction of America. They see the nation evolving into a one party system. A fragmented conservative front contributes to this aspiration.
Third Choice is to unite. The conservative groups outlined in an earlier post, choose one candidate who best represents all of the constituencies, including the Establishment. It would come down to answering the following questions:
(a) Which candidate would be able to energize Tea partiers, mobilize Evangelicals and be acceptable to Establishment?
(b) Which candidate would be capable of raising the money to run a 50-state campaign?
I refer to this choice as the "Elimination Approach." In essence, through process of elimination, we exclude nominees who,
(a) are unable to appeal to all of the three main segments
(b) are unable to attract low income, blue collar independents
(c) have never attracted more than 1/3 Hispanic voters in any election
(d) are tied to one prinipal issue
The "tie-breaker" considerations for the "Elimination Approach" should be as follows:
(1) Previous Executive experience
(2) Previous Military experience
Fourth Choice will be as the topic of a future post:
"The Three Americas."
America will still be composed of fifty states. But, some of her parts will be missing.
Google Tim Draper's "six Californias." Now google the recent(2013) movie hit that starred Matt Damon and Jody Foster. Three of Draper's six Californias, West California, North California and Silicon Valley will compose the new, 20 million strong nation, "Elysium." Chelsea Clinton could be their first President.
Turning east...Imagine New York, south of the 43rd parallel and east of the 75 parallel. Add New Jersey, Philadelphia and Delaware counties, Pennsylvania, six Maryland Counties and two of the three Delaware Counties. Now, throw in New England. Presto! We have, "The Peoples' Democratic Republic of America." The capital would be located in New York City. Michael Bloomberg would be named "Despot for Life."
Washington D.C. would become an "open city," more like a giant museum. It's historical documents would be available and accessible to citizens of the all three "Americas."
The Americas would enjoy a relationship comparable to Americas' current standing with Canada: "friends, allies and trading partners."
Monday, September 22, 2014
Promise of "Chits & Boonies" Key to Democrat '16 Plan
Make no mistake! It will be difficult for Republicans to win 270 electoral votes in the 2016 Presidential election.
In analyzing Hillary Clinton's recent Democrat Leadership Conference speech, the party's 2016 game plan is clearly evident. It can be summed up as follows:
(a) Gender warfare
(b) Class warfare
(c) Reminder of "improving lives" for millions of Americans under Obama's leadership
(d) A continued quest for Social Justice
She will predict, "if Republicans take the White House, you can anticipate that the "spickets" will be eventually turned off!" In short, entitlements such as food stamps, medical care, college education, even cell phones will be reduced, if not eliminated.
As Mrs. Clinton passionately reminded, those on the top would make certain that there "was no ladder" for others to make their climb. In her view, this is especially the case with women in America.
The speech was pure demagoguery! It is a glimpse into the Democrats' 2016 Presidential strategy. American fate will be decided, then and there. Republicans have an outside shot. But, the path to victory is narrow. To change the expected outcome, Hillary opponents must set aside differences.
The Democrat leadership is making this case to it's base. Their point amounts to "retaining control of the White House is the primary objective." The message is clear and blunt. "Let's not blow it!"
With Hillary as the almost certain nominee, Democrats see the election as "theirs to lose."
Record numbers of Americans are on the government payroll. In higher pay areas such at the Northeast, Midwest and California, entitlements can be worth as much as $40,000 per year, cash or equivalent. Recipients are reported to enjoy home computers, giant flatscreen TV's,smart phones, comfortable housing, free healthcare and education. Rejoining the work force would amount to a paycut. Mobilizing these voters will be as easy as saying "no more payola if we lose!"
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democrat base defend these constituents. Their question: "Shouldn't these people be included in the American Dream, in the name of American fairness?" It comes down to "social justice."
As expected, "racism" will work it's way into the conversation. Minorities are positioned as downtrodden, abused, neglected and exploited. As Hillary promises, "justice for all" will be the main priority.
The wage difference between women and men will be the keynote Clinton argument. Using stinted numbers, all astericks deleted, Hillary will attempt to rally American women.
The promise of "chits and boonies," coupled with continued assertion of "you deserve them because you have a raw deal," is powerful. Perhaps un-American and certainly devious, but powerful. Bursting the bubble will take more than a few slick television commercials! Is there a winning counterpunch for Republicans?
Actually, yes!
In a previous post, we introduced the "disaffecteds." While some anti-Hillary people remain cynical, there is an argument that these seemingly forgotten voters can be rallied. After all, Ronald Reagan rallied them!
To turn out these "conservative wannabees," we must appeal to both their "need for security," and their "resentment of being left out." Common sense would suggest that any family struggling to make $35,000 per year, with two people working, will resent another family making more without working!
Democrats will tell them they "need to visit their local resource center,"(unemployment office) to "determine if they qualify" for one of the many new entitlement programs recently implemented. In other words, "no harm in trying!" And, "don't be discouraged" if you were denied the first time! We now have the "Affordable Health Care Act." And, if we can "gain cooperation from those greedy, Republicans," we might have a $10 per hour minimum wage soon!
Believe it or not, the Democrats' "glass jaw" has just been exposed!
These voters, who slightly lean Republican will not be impressed with such an overture! They want jobs! Real jobs! With benefits and retirement plans. Their opinion of those "at the government trough," is a combination of resentment and contempt.
Most of these potential voters are classified as "Independents." They aren't sold on Hillary! In many ways, they are looking for a reason to pull the lever for her opponent. Cagy Democrat strategists know this. Their plan is to launch a "scare campaign" against the Republican challenger. Hillary will be presented as the "safe" candidate.
This is why anyone seeking to avoid a Hillary Clinton Presidency must take heed!
From past experience Republicans have learned two important lessons:
(1) Attempting to "out Democrat the Democrats" has never worked.
(2) Third parties have never been successful.
Don't think for a moment that Hillary will not wage a "dirty fight." She has no record to run on. But she will have a "monster" warchest. Expect a massive negative advertising campaign against her opponent. The question becomes "which" potential nominee provides the least amount of fuel for her onslaught?
Mitt Romney will be the ideal opponent for "class warfare." She will replay the tape that Mother Jone's David Corn produced in 2012. The result would be predictable.
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta. She will refer to the constitution's requirement of "being born in the United States," which makes Cruz ineligible.
Rand Paul's votes and rhetoric will create the perfect ground for "scaring the pants off" working class Americans, not to mention minorities.
Mike Huckabee will be portrayed as the "religious fanatic" who supported Todd Akin in the 2012 Missouri Senate race.
A Scott Walker Presidency would be accompanied by a national "right to work law," effectively eliminating private sector unions in America.
Rick Santorum would make "repealing Roe versus Wade," his top priority, while pushing for legislation santifying marriage between a man and a woman.
A campaign against Jeb Bush would amount to a campaign against his Brother. Dubya's watch and the fallacies of it, ranging from Iraq to the banking meltdown would be recounted with vigor and great detail.
Chris Christie's stormy Governorship would be easy to run against.
Which essentially leaves Rick Perry...
The Travis County indictment could ultimately work to his advantage. Unlike Christie's "bridge gate," the evidence is faulty at best. Better yet, for Perry, it shows every indication of being politically motivated. The Travis County District Attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg has become a symbol of today's Democrat party. It will be difficult for Hillary Clinton not to take the path of Alan Dershowitz and denounce the indictment altogether!
The Establishment can live with Rick Perry. The Tea Party can embrace Rick Perry. Evangelical voters will turnout for the Texas Governor. Equally significant, these "forgotten Americans," the "Disaffecteds," will buy Rick Perry.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Perry isn't merely talk! He has a report card. And, it's a good one! In fact, when it comes to "Jobs and the Economy" there is none better! Perry will remind that there are "two million" less Americans working full time today than in 2008. He will attack Obama's job numbers with zeal.
Perry will also talk about "securing the borders." This is a critical issue to not only Disaffecteds, but the Republican base.
Lastly, he will talk about "peace through strength." This will score points with many non-Republicans. The Russians refer to Rick Perry as "a cowboy with deep understanding of millitary affairs." As a former Air Force C-130 pilot, this perception is predictable!
Most importantly, Rick Perry connects with the working poor. Growing up as the son of West Texas tenant farmers, he can relate to "not having an indoor toilet until he was six years old."
Perry's counter to Hillary's promise of "chits and boonies" will be "creation of millions of energy sector jobs" that offer high pay and benefits. These words may not amount to much in the ghettos of Detroit. But, they will resonate with Americas' working poor.
Unlike any Republican candidate, Perry can say to a Hillary challenge, "this is my record and I stand behind it! Now let's talk about your record; or lack thereof!"
Do Republicans honestly want to waste time and money on a primary?
In analyzing Hillary Clinton's recent Democrat Leadership Conference speech, the party's 2016 game plan is clearly evident. It can be summed up as follows:
(a) Gender warfare
(b) Class warfare
(c) Reminder of "improving lives" for millions of Americans under Obama's leadership
(d) A continued quest for Social Justice
She will predict, "if Republicans take the White House, you can anticipate that the "spickets" will be eventually turned off!" In short, entitlements such as food stamps, medical care, college education, even cell phones will be reduced, if not eliminated.
As Mrs. Clinton passionately reminded, those on the top would make certain that there "was no ladder" for others to make their climb. In her view, this is especially the case with women in America.
The speech was pure demagoguery! It is a glimpse into the Democrats' 2016 Presidential strategy. American fate will be decided, then and there. Republicans have an outside shot. But, the path to victory is narrow. To change the expected outcome, Hillary opponents must set aside differences.
The Democrat leadership is making this case to it's base. Their point amounts to "retaining control of the White House is the primary objective." The message is clear and blunt. "Let's not blow it!"
With Hillary as the almost certain nominee, Democrats see the election as "theirs to lose."
Record numbers of Americans are on the government payroll. In higher pay areas such at the Northeast, Midwest and California, entitlements can be worth as much as $40,000 per year, cash or equivalent. Recipients are reported to enjoy home computers, giant flatscreen TV's,smart phones, comfortable housing, free healthcare and education. Rejoining the work force would amount to a paycut. Mobilizing these voters will be as easy as saying "no more payola if we lose!"
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democrat base defend these constituents. Their question: "Shouldn't these people be included in the American Dream, in the name of American fairness?" It comes down to "social justice."
As expected, "racism" will work it's way into the conversation. Minorities are positioned as downtrodden, abused, neglected and exploited. As Hillary promises, "justice for all" will be the main priority.
The wage difference between women and men will be the keynote Clinton argument. Using stinted numbers, all astericks deleted, Hillary will attempt to rally American women.
The promise of "chits and boonies," coupled with continued assertion of "you deserve them because you have a raw deal," is powerful. Perhaps un-American and certainly devious, but powerful. Bursting the bubble will take more than a few slick television commercials! Is there a winning counterpunch for Republicans?
Actually, yes!
In a previous post, we introduced the "disaffecteds." While some anti-Hillary people remain cynical, there is an argument that these seemingly forgotten voters can be rallied. After all, Ronald Reagan rallied them!
To turn out these "conservative wannabees," we must appeal to both their "need for security," and their "resentment of being left out." Common sense would suggest that any family struggling to make $35,000 per year, with two people working, will resent another family making more without working!
Democrats will tell them they "need to visit their local resource center,"(unemployment office) to "determine if they qualify" for one of the many new entitlement programs recently implemented. In other words, "no harm in trying!" And, "don't be discouraged" if you were denied the first time! We now have the "Affordable Health Care Act." And, if we can "gain cooperation from those greedy, Republicans," we might have a $10 per hour minimum wage soon!
Believe it or not, the Democrats' "glass jaw" has just been exposed!
These voters, who slightly lean Republican will not be impressed with such an overture! They want jobs! Real jobs! With benefits and retirement plans. Their opinion of those "at the government trough," is a combination of resentment and contempt.
Most of these potential voters are classified as "Independents." They aren't sold on Hillary! In many ways, they are looking for a reason to pull the lever for her opponent. Cagy Democrat strategists know this. Their plan is to launch a "scare campaign" against the Republican challenger. Hillary will be presented as the "safe" candidate.
This is why anyone seeking to avoid a Hillary Clinton Presidency must take heed!
From past experience Republicans have learned two important lessons:
(1) Attempting to "out Democrat the Democrats" has never worked.
(2) Third parties have never been successful.
Don't think for a moment that Hillary will not wage a "dirty fight." She has no record to run on. But she will have a "monster" warchest. Expect a massive negative advertising campaign against her opponent. The question becomes "which" potential nominee provides the least amount of fuel for her onslaught?
Mitt Romney will be the ideal opponent for "class warfare." She will replay the tape that Mother Jone's David Corn produced in 2012. The result would be predictable.
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta. She will refer to the constitution's requirement of "being born in the United States," which makes Cruz ineligible.
Rand Paul's votes and rhetoric will create the perfect ground for "scaring the pants off" working class Americans, not to mention minorities.
Mike Huckabee will be portrayed as the "religious fanatic" who supported Todd Akin in the 2012 Missouri Senate race.
A Scott Walker Presidency would be accompanied by a national "right to work law," effectively eliminating private sector unions in America.
Rick Santorum would make "repealing Roe versus Wade," his top priority, while pushing for legislation santifying marriage between a man and a woman.
A campaign against Jeb Bush would amount to a campaign against his Brother. Dubya's watch and the fallacies of it, ranging from Iraq to the banking meltdown would be recounted with vigor and great detail.
Chris Christie's stormy Governorship would be easy to run against.
Which essentially leaves Rick Perry...
The Travis County indictment could ultimately work to his advantage. Unlike Christie's "bridge gate," the evidence is faulty at best. Better yet, for Perry, it shows every indication of being politically motivated. The Travis County District Attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg has become a symbol of today's Democrat party. It will be difficult for Hillary Clinton not to take the path of Alan Dershowitz and denounce the indictment altogether!
The Establishment can live with Rick Perry. The Tea Party can embrace Rick Perry. Evangelical voters will turnout for the Texas Governor. Equally significant, these "forgotten Americans," the "Disaffecteds," will buy Rick Perry.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Perry isn't merely talk! He has a report card. And, it's a good one! In fact, when it comes to "Jobs and the Economy" there is none better! Perry will remind that there are "two million" less Americans working full time today than in 2008. He will attack Obama's job numbers with zeal.
Perry will also talk about "securing the borders." This is a critical issue to not only Disaffecteds, but the Republican base.
Lastly, he will talk about "peace through strength." This will score points with many non-Republicans. The Russians refer to Rick Perry as "a cowboy with deep understanding of millitary affairs." As a former Air Force C-130 pilot, this perception is predictable!
Most importantly, Rick Perry connects with the working poor. Growing up as the son of West Texas tenant farmers, he can relate to "not having an indoor toilet until he was six years old."
Perry's counter to Hillary's promise of "chits and boonies" will be "creation of millions of energy sector jobs" that offer high pay and benefits. These words may not amount to much in the ghettos of Detroit. But, they will resonate with Americas' working poor.
Unlike any Republican candidate, Perry can say to a Hillary challenge, "this is my record and I stand behind it! Now let's talk about your record; or lack thereof!"
Do Republicans honestly want to waste time and money on a primary?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)