Open Memo To GOP: Do Not Force Trump To Go Third Party

Bill Clinton has a lot of people to thank for his success and at the top of his list is Ross Perot. Had not the egomaniacal billionaire harbored an irrational malice towards George H. W. Bush, there would never have been a first Clinton administration, nor a second, nor a possible third. As with his own mother, Bill Clinton cannot truly repay Ross Perot for all the goodness he has bestowed upon him.

There are a lot of parallels with Ross Perot and Donald Trump. They are two wealthy, confident, blustering, non-career politicians who break the usual candidate molds. Both men have a talent for turning a phrase. Ironically or otherwise it is our relationship with Mexico that best defines their political narratives. Perot was an outspoken critic of North America Free Trade Agreement. Trump is an outspoken critic of illegal immigration.

Perot was third party from the onset. Trump showed loyalty to the GOP and jumped into their game. Now we are being told that the big tent is not as big as we thought it was. There is a rumored move to have The Donald banned from the debates despite his lead in the polls. That would be a big mistake. Do you want anyone to watch your debates? If so, include Trump.

There is also the distinct possibility that if Trump is banned from the debates he will run his own debate on another network that will outdraw the GOP debate. This guy is no sissy. He will push back. Better to have him as a friend than an enemy.

There is a simple message here: Fight, dammit, fight! If Huckabee had shown this kind of fight in 2008, he would have been his party's nominee. Had Rick Perry, or even Rick Santorum, taken the same "tell it like it is" approach in 2012, Mitt Romney would have been second on the ticket.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the GOP needs Donald Trump more than Donald Trump needs the GOP.

Team Players

The requisite ego of men and women who seek the presidency is such that they sometimes think lower office is beneath them. I get that. These are alpha dogs. They don't want to be ordered around by a blogger with a megaphone. Got it.

And I will reiterate that I am not even a Republican, I just vote that way by default given the sorry excuses for human beings who now hold office for the other party. And I have a thing about career politicians having an impact on this country our forefathers never envisioned. With those disclaimers out of the way, something can be said for people who have paid their dues to their party.

If Michelle Bachmann (or Sarah Palin for that matter) are finished with politics, good for them. Two ladies who paid their dues. However, if Bachmann seeks higher office later I will hold it against her that she did not challenge the vulnerable Al Franken. Palin's situation is different. The GOP seems to have a good chance of defeating Mark Begich--a man who came to power only because of his family name and bogus charges leveled against Ted Stevens. But if Begich hangs on, that is a mark against future candidate Palin.

I am disturbed by the Ben Carson for president movement. If Donald Trump was in the mix, I would say the same things about him.  Yes, we should recruit from diverse backgrounds. In the old days, almost every public official had a real job (as opposed to a community organizer or an office hopper in gerrymandered districts.) LBJ was a teacher. Hubert Humphrey was a pharmacist. Mayor Daley worked in the stockyards. Ronald Reagan was an actor. Job experience was the norm.

That is not to say one should entirely skip public office. Dwight Eisenhower would not win a primary today. Times change.

There are three basic reasons why a candidate should hold public office before seeking the White House:

1. If a candidate has any bone chips in his closet (Herman Cain) they need to be exposed before they hit the Iowa State Fair.

2. No matter how good a campaigner one might be, the presidency is a different game (Rick Perry 2012.)

3. The challenges of the presidency are daunting and ideally one would hold public office before taking on the big job. I agree with Ann Coulter that a governor or even a big city mayor brings executive experience that legislators do not attain. I am slow to disqualify all Senators and Congressmen but I understand the executive bias.

If Ben Carson seeks the presidency in 2016, I cannot support him. In part because he is not ready for prime time and would get tripped up on the campaign trail and in part because he is not a team player. If he was serious about spreading his values into the public arena he would not sit out Congressional and Gubernatorial races in his home state of Maryland. He might also consider seeking the Senate in 2016.

Donald Trump is a publicity seeker at heart and I doubt if he would run for president if he had other means of staying in the spotlight. Should he seek the big job after backing off from multiple New York Senate and Governor's races, I for one will not support him. Not a team player.

So Mitt Romney is running again in 2016? Ho hum. If Mitt challenged Ed Markey for his Senate seat I would see him in another light. If he defeated Markey, even better. Unfortunately, Mitt is not a team player.

I am no Jeb Bush fan but had he defeated--or even just challenged-- Bill Nelson in 2012,  I would have some respect for the man. Jeb Bush, not a team player.

Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico who was both popular and controversial, might have won a Senate seat in 2012. Instead, he became the Libertarian candidate. Why? I have no idea. He could have challenged again in 2014. Nope. Not just a non-team player, also a series of bad career moves.

I doubt if Pataki or Giuliani get back into the mix but if they do, I would say the same thing about them. Herman Cain is a resident of Georgia and the GOP has a lock on most state offices so maybe we can give him a pass. Gingrich is a resident of Virginia. Santorum is, oh who cares about Santorum?

If the GOP does not take the Senate in 2014, we might take a long look at the prima donnas who sat on the sidelines, sometimes for multiple elections. In 2016, the GOP needs to support a team player

Does The Republican Party Really Exist?

Talk radio loves to bash the GOP. "Rockefeller Republicans," "the donor class," "the political class," "RINO's" "Country Club Republicans."  Beck, Limbaugh and Levin rarely, if ever say anything good about the Republican Party. Even the ever-predictable Sean Hannity loves to point out that he is not a registered Republican.

Supposedly, the Grand Old Party has been infiltrated by unwashed Tea Party types. If the Tea Party is so damn influential why did all the cyber-beggars refuse to return David Brat's phone calls prior to his primary victory over Eric Cantor? What exactly do those Tea Party groups do besides rattle their begging cups?

The question, "Does The Republican Party Really Exist?" is of course a rhetorical one. We know they have a building and Reince Priebus is their chairman. Perhaps a better question is "what do they do?" Do they have phones and desktops at their headquarters? It seems that the most influential Republican is Karl Rove whose Crossroads America has no official ties to the Republican Party (as far as I know.)

The Republican Party seems to have faded away on the national level and they seem to have lost even more influence on the local level. The Massachusetts Republican Party was viable and competitive a decade ago. They are so dysfunctional that carpetbagger Scott Brown fled the state to better advance his career. New Hampshire still hosts a Republican Party but they are woefully disorganized and lose clout every election cycle. 2010 looks like a fluke now.

Of course, Republicans lack vision.  What is needed is ten or so popular ideas the whole party can support. Think Contract With America. They can agree with repealing the ACA but after that it gets murky. What is needed is a unifying purpose promoted by a great unifier.  A leader. Reince Priebus is not that man.

Why Not Another Contract With America?

Running a political party is probably harder than it looks but why don't the Republicans do what has worked for them in the past? In 1994 the GOP picked up 54 seats in an atmosphere that was not half as rancorous as it is today. They did this by promoting eight reforms and ten bills that were market-tested and hard to oppose. They called this The Contract With America.

It seems like a simple strategy. On most issues most of the time the Republican position lines up with the will of the people. They don't have to pass 3,000 page bills with fine print and a lot of horse trading to get their way. Unlike the Democrats, they don't have to deceive. (That is not to say that they are above deception but just that it is optional for Republicans.)

The GOP tried something like The Contract in 2010. It was a muddled document that was pretty much unreadable. The Republicans picked up 63 seats in November but they could have done even better. Dick Morris said that one hundred seats were in contention. Maybe with something a vision a little more concise...

Just six to ten bullet points that are already focus-group approved. Can you do that, Mr. Priebus? I didn''t think so.

Is This Why The GOP Will Not Fight Blatant Voter Fraud?

We know that something is wrong with the picture but we are no sure what? The Democrats have been caught repeatedly committing voter fraud and The Republican Party will not fight even the most obvious abuses? Why?

This explanation is that it stems from a consent decree stemming from Republican wrongdoing 30+ years ago. Roll over and salute Caesar. There is no opposition party. We are doomed.

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/06/30/why-the-gop-wont-challenge-vote-fraud/

Equal Time For Self-Professed Neo-Cons

Want to hear the articulated viewpoints (as opposed to default setting) of a mainstream Republican who believes the GOP should be the Lite version of the Democratic Party? If you don't want to hear from her, I understand that. But be forewarned that they are out there. The Less Filling Version of The Democratic Party presents a greater obstacle to any sort of genuine hope or change than do the William Ayers proxies.

As with a lot of flame throwers, the pink flamingo is everything she renounces. She is the intolerant bigot who misrepresents anyone who holds an opinion differing from her own. This is the inflammatory column that upset the Neo-Con. http://www.daily-times.com/farmington-columns/ci_22673544/there-once-was-place-called-america Not exactly a bombshell.

I do not worship Cleon Skousen, in part because I have never heard of the guy. I heard of Mark Skousen, the hard money, practical investment adviser. But Cleon has escaped my notice.

I wish the "normal" Republicans would follow their spiritual leader, Charlie Crist, to their promised land of the Democratic Party and revel in their Obama worship now and forever.

Why keep a Neo-Con on my blogroll? We need to remind ourselves what is out there.

We have a serious problem in this country.  No, it is not the deficit, military spending, NRA, guns, lack of guns, or anything of that ilk.  The problem is the growing intolerance for anyone who is of one’s political persuasion.  We’ve become a nation of political bigots, and it is only getting worse.   And, yes, The Pink Flamingo is concentrating on the far right and the tea parties.  


http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com/2013/03/03/tea-party-realities/