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