.

.

Monday, January 12, 2015

2016…WE MAY BE DEAD BEFORE WE EVEN START…


Apparently many of those Republicans who are now on the verge of throwing their hats into the ring that is the 2016 presidential campaign, seem to be of the opinion that presenting themselves as conservatives is just not the proper tack to take.  Mitt Romney, for instance, recently told friends that he believes poverty must be part of the discussion as he mulls running for the White House just four years after Democrats attacked him for being out of touch with the lives of average Americans.  Apparently such a heinous act is excusable if you happen to be Democrat.

And then there’s Ohio Gov. John Kasich who is, dare I say, another one of those who many refer to as being a RINO, and is also said to possess presidential aspirations.  Rumor had it that he was going to use his inaugural address today to reiterate his policy of helping "people in the shadows."  “People in the shadows?” I didn’t hear his speech so I have no idea if he actually went through with it.  But I do know that it was during his inauguration speech that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker vowed to give students a quality education, "regardless of background or birthright."

And then we have former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush who, upon launching his new political action committee, Right to Rise, just this month, described his potential campaign in a style that could easily be described as being one in the populist mold.  Bush said, "Millions of our fellow citizens across the broad middle class feel as if the American dream is now out of their reach; that our politics are petty and broken; that opportunities are elusive; and that the playing field is no longer fair or level."  While some of that may be true, Bush seems to ignore, or gloss over, why that might be.

And I think it quite fair to say that Bush’s characterization of the economic and social challenges that we are made to face here in these United States didn’t sound all that much different from what we hear from the presumed Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton, as well as other bona fide progressives who may yet become contenders, such as the senior senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.  Add to that the fact that Bush is a strong supporter of both Common Core and amnesty, and it becomes understandable why so many are somewhat lukewarm in offering up their support.

"You talk to any pollster, on the Democratic side or the Republican side, they’re in complete agreement on the idea that there has to be an economic populist message," said Matthew Dowd, a top strategist for former president George W. Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns. "Then it comes down to 'Are there credible solutions and is there a credible candidate?'"  Now I may not be the ‘expert’ that Mr. Dowd is, or thinks he is, but I’m thinking not much of that makes any sense.  What’s needed is a ‘conservative’ message that stands in stark contrast to the blather we hear from Democrats.

Bush appears ready to combat his potential Democrat rivals in the coming 2016 contest when it comes to those policy issues that they have long considered as being their own in past elections: poverty, income equality, economic prosperity, and middle-class wage stagnation.  And I have no problem with him wanting to take on those issues but only as long as his proposed solutions are real conservative solutions.  If what he will come to propose is nothing different than what’s being advocated by his liberal Democrat opponents, then why should anyone vote for him? 

We’re told that there are 45 million Americans now living at or below the poverty line, according to recent census estimates, which says that the average family income is under $52,000.  As proof of wage stagnation, the median is 8 percent lower than it was in 2007, adjusted for inflation, and 11 percent below 2000.  Those policies which have long been touted by progressives as being the solution to all of these problems have only succeeded in only making things much worse.  So why would we simply want more of the same?  We need a different approach, a conservative approach!

"Since the late 1970s, wages for the bottom 70 percent of earners have been essentially stagnant, and between 2009 and 2013, real ­wages fell for the entire bottom 90 percent of the wage distribution," Lawrence Mishel of the liberal Economic Policy Institute wrote in a paper published this month.  And it’s Bush’s website that reads, "Too many of the poor have lost hope that a path to a better life is within their grasp."  And let’s not forget who created the policies that caused this loss of hope, the same hope that we were told we could all believe in, if only we voted for Barry.

So what we appear to be seeing play out here is what I think is the perfect example of that little proverb that says, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  Because if the Republicans insist upon running another RINO in 2016, the likes of a Bob Dole, a John McCain, a Mitt Romney or like, albeit to a lesser degree, I would say, a George Bush, they will most certainly guarantee that another election will most certainly be lost, and the country simply cannot afford that.  The last time a Republican won decisively was when Reagan won.

Reagan presented to the American electorate what he saw as being conservative solutions to what progressive policies had brought about.  And while many will argue that this is a different time than when Reagan won, but Reagan was forced to clean up what was the incredible mess left behind by Jimmy Carter.  Remember the gas lines, the 16 percent inflation, the 22 percent interest rates, and the 70 percent marginal tax rates under Carter?  And Reagan’s conservative solutions turned things around and resulted in the longest peacetime economic expansion in history. 

No comments:

Post a Comment