Jeb Bush: Reagan and George H.W. Bush Would Have 'Hard Time' In Modern GOP

I couldn't agree more.  Would also like to add George W. Bush to the list because he doesn't fit the mold of today's selfish Republicans.

Now I am beginning to wonder if Bush 41 saw Romney as someone who would work across the aisle and that is why he supported him so hard originally in 2008 because it never made sense.  Romney was an independent during the Reagan/Bush years starting in 1976 and ending in 1994.  During the 12 years of Reagan/Bush, Romney was not even a member of the Republican Party.  No wonder today's Republican Party is so different with Romney people in charge.  Did Romney play up to Bush 41 getting him on his side initially with pandering and telling him what he wanted to hear?  We will never know but Romney will say and do anything to get elected as evidenced with trying to buy this election with his friends from Wall Street and K Street not to mention his Mormon church who happens to be building a large mall.  Wonder if they have their money offshore in the Cayman's like Romney and Bain Capital?

If Romney treating this election like a hostile takeover he orchestrated with companies when he was head of Bain Capital?  It sure looks like it from the perspective of a lot of Republicans.  If you don't agree with Romney, you are supposed to sit down, shut up, and vote for him in November no matter what.

While I was outside this morning tackling my grass, I was trying to figure out why today's Republican Party is so different and so anti when the word compromise arises even if it is for the good of the whole Country.  Then I come in the house for a break and read this statement from Jeb and all a sudden it makes sense.

I am flabbergasted at times the words that come out of the House and now you can add Romney to that list. Even Scott Walker threw Romney under the bus about Wisconsin as Romney didn't have a clue what the Wisconsin deal was all about.  It wasn't about not hiring teachers, firemen, and police officers, it was about public service unions and their overreach:

“The answer’s not more big government. I know in my state, our reforms allowed us to protect firefighters, police officers and teachers. That’s not what I think of when I think of big government.”

Is George W Bush going to be the last nominee of the Republican Party who is a compassionate person which doesn't fly in today's Republican Party which is turning into the party of greed as evidenced by the protection of wealthy taxpayers and their low tax rates for starters. When I saw House Republicans want to cut food stamps in this economy but keep the low tax rates for the wealthy, I just shook my head.  That same group has also cut the budget of the US Forest Service who is facing wildfires once again this year.  Is this group about just let the West burn -- nothing there.  Looks like we are back to being flyover country except when Romney wants money from donors.

Then we have the logjam of the transportation budget to fund roads and bridges in our states.  Know some say it is not necessary but when you live in a state that is 49th and you have unsafe bridges, that doesn't fly.  Is the real reason that the House knows that road and bridge money equals shovel ready jobs that contractors are waiting to start filling?  Would House Republicans be that insensitive to real jobs being created for work on our Nation's highways in order to make Obama look bad and get Romney elected.  I cannot even believe I typed that statement but that is the way it is looking.

Federal highways should be fully funded but the Republicans in the House are stonewalling.  The way some Republicans including House members acted when the poor job numbers came in with the high fiving and being so happy, it dawned on my that just maybe this logjam is on purpose to make Obama's reelection harder while the American people in many instances continue to struggle.  Do I think they would really do that?  If you read my email from all these so-called 'conservative' groups that have sprung up, you wouldn't consider it a far fetched idea.  I am literally appalled at some of what I am reading.

I am so disgusted with this group of Republicans and have been saying that for sometime.  Finally looks like I have my answer -- this is not the party of Reagan but the part of greed and a party that could care less about regular people and their struggles as evidenced from some of their comments.  Now the GOP nominee goes after teachers, police and firemen saying we have enough and for good measure throws in the federal civil service employees as the reason for the economic disaster.  He plans to cut over 150,000 when he takes office no matter the number of new mandates which caused a lot of the hiring.

Republicans went after Perry with a vengeance on immigration and what was done to Bush 43 on immigration I still cannot believe.  We cannot deport all those people as our economy would collapse.  Are we supposed to deport parents of children born here or are they going to take away the citizenship of those children as some Republicans have suggested?

I don't know this Republican Party and frankly think they have lost all 'common sense' but then I know Democrats who are saying the same thing about the  Democrat Party.  We have a group of House members on both sides that are part of the 'my way or no way' class and if they don't get their way, they take the ball and go home.  To them their agenda is more important then the good for all America and the word 'compromise' is a dirty word even if it is the right thing to do. Neither party has all the right answers.  Some have turned into pretzels to match Romney and his agenda just like some Democrats have done with Obama.  WHY? They forget they don't just represent their Party in the House but represent every last person in their district be they Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Reform, or no party affiliation.    

Jeb Bush: Reagan, George H.W. Bush Would Have 'Hard Time' In Modern GOP
By Jonathan Miller Updated: June 11, 2012 | 10:23 a.m.
June 11, 2012 | 10:03 a.m. 

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said on Monday that both his father, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan would have a “hard time” finding a place in today’s GOP, according to BuzzFeed.

"They would have a hard time if you define the Republican party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn't allow for finding some common ground," Bush said, according to the website.  

He added: "Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time – they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support," he said. Reagan "would be criticized for doing the things that he did."

In February, Bush said he found the tone of the GOP nomination process “a little troubling.”

Source:  National Journal

What Obama and Romney Have in Common: Healthcare and Love for High Gas Prices

UPDATE 03/23/2012, 3:07 cdt

The Rick Santorum campaign has sent out a statement following Romney's attack that Santorum was supporting Obama over Romney but that is not what Santorum was talking about. Romney's camp did what they do best which is taking someone's comments out of context.


Rick's response is here:

"I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney's policies mirror Barack Obama's. 

I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it's easy to see why - Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts. 

Voters have to be excited enough to actually go vote, and my campaign's movement to restore freedom is exciting this nation. If this election is about Obama versus the Obama-Lite candidate, we have a tough time rallying this nation. It's time for bold vision, bold reforms and bold contrasts. This election is about more than Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum - this campaign is about freedom and I will fight to restore your freedoms."

I am not voting for Obama either but that doesn't mean that I am voting for Romney.


******

All of us know that in 2009 Romney told Obama he should look at RomneyCare to use for ObamaCare including the mandates on individuals to buy health insurance.

So, the laws, while not identical, share many core elements. Next, we wondered if the federal law was indeed based on the Massachusetts law. 

Again, it’s difficult to know what people in Congress and in the White House looked at as they drafted the final health care law. But according to independent reports, they consulted people who worked on the Massachusetts law.

Then we have the infamous statements from Florida's Attorney General Pam Bondi

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Romney supporter, went on The Record last night. The Florida Republican told Greta Van Susteren that Mitt wants Romneycare in every state. 

She also said she would be on Romney’s Health Care Advisory Team when he’s president.

From Gateway Pundit:

So Romney and his co-conspirators in the GOP establishment are now planning a National Healthcare Task Force to impose top-down government run national healthcare on all 50 states!!

We know on healthcare that Romney and Obama have similar ideas since Obama followed a lot of RomneyCare for his ObamaCare, but we are also learning that they share a love of high gas prices:

March 22, 2012 by V2AWhat Obama and Romney Have in Common: Love for High Gas Prices 

Curiously overlooked, though, is just what a shift this rhetoric is from the approach that Romney took on the issue of gas prices while governor of Massachusetts. Befitting his profile as a moderate Republican who cared about the environment, Governor Romney responded to price spikes by describing them as the natural result of global market pressures and by calling for increases in fuel efficiency—the same approach that he now derides Obama for taking as president. 

At moments, Romney went so far as to make high gas prices out to be a welcome reality for the foreseeable future, one that people needed to learn to live with. When lieutenant governor Kerry Healey, a fellow Republican, called for suspending the state’s 23.5 cent gas tax during a price spike in May 2006, Romney rejected the idea, saying it would only further drive up gasoline consumption. “I don’t think that now is the time, and I’m not sure there will be the right time, for us to encourage the use of more gasoline,” Romney said, according to the Quincy Patriot Ledger’s report at the time. “I’m very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay.”   

Source:  Vision to America

Rick Santorum finally had the nerve to go on the record and say what many of us have been posting on blogs and in comments on various websites that Romney and his policies when the facts come out are not all that different from Obama.  Since we know what Obama is like, why would we go to someone like Etch-A-Sketch Romney who is planning a restart on what he believes or going back to his true moderate to liberal beliefs.  If anyone swallows that spin coming out of the Romney camp on the Etch-A-Sketch remark, then you are not analyzing what has been happening.  Since the Republican establishment is so intent on giving us Romney as our candidate, are they going to pull the strings on Romney because they are not close to being conservative either.

SAN ANTONIO -- Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn't the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy. 

Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast. 

"You win by giving people a choice," Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. "You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there." 

Santorum added: "If they're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future." 

Santorum was referencing Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom's comment Wednesday that "everything changes" for the fall campaign. "It's almost like an Etch A Sketch," he said on CNN. "You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again." 

The remark reignited criticism of Romney as the type of politician who will say or do anything to win.

Excerpt:  Read More at:  Huffington Post 

In fact some of the Republican moderates to liberals would be just as happy to see conservatives sent packing from the GOP.  It has become more obvious as this election has gone on that they could care less about what conservatives who are making up around 70% of the anti-Romney vote in the states think.  We are supposed to sit down, shut up, and vote against our conscience for the flip flopper Romney in the fall.  Not happening.

We found this statement to be on point:

I believe this places the liberals and moderates at the disadvantage, since conservative leaders have considerable experience at organizing grass-roots activism and building hugely influential movements out of almost nothing. The conservative wing of the Republican Party wants to keep the GOP, but doesn’t need it. Their moderate and liberal rivals need the GOP very badly. 

First of all conservatives are better organized and have an ability if they want to put a third party together and become viable very fast IMO.  The grassroots long before the Tea Party were the backbone of conservative campaigns throughout the country.  We showed what can be done in 2004 when the establishment came down hard against Senate Coburn.  Grassroots rolled up their sleeves, went to work, and beat the Clinton candidate big time even though the powers at be like Karl Rove had cut off Coburn fundraising.

That energy and enthusiasm can be taken nationwide if necessary so the establishment is playing with fire this time trying to ram Romney down our throats when his record is much closer to Obama then it is to conservatives.  He is not a very good actor at being conservative as you can see right through the attempts.  The people of Mississippi let Romney know what they thought of his pandering.

With over 70% of the votes in most primaries, except in very liberal states, for the conservative candidates, it shows conservatives are not happy with Romney.  This notion from the Romney camp we are going to be on board in the fall is not going to happen IMO.  The establishment types were warned with McCain not to try to try it again yet McCain looks very conservative compared to Romney.  I actually supported McCain after Rudy withdrew but I know a lot of conservatives who held their noses and voted for him.  Without Sarah Palin on the ticket, he would have had even less votes.

Why has the establishment pushed Romney at conservatives so hard and why have some conservatives endorsed Romney and not other candidates?  Read the Pink Flamingo today who has an excellent article, Nuking Newt, which details what has been happening in this campaign and it does not bode well for the establishment candidate Romney in the fall.  All his attacks against fellow Republicans have taken a big toll and most of us figure that the Democrats are going to give it back at him in spades while some of us sit and tell the establishment "We Told You So" as we will not be taken fore granted again by the moderate to liberal establishment types in the GOP.

It is doubtful any endorsement these days carries all that much weight. Bush 41 had a similar profile to Romney during his political career. Like Romney, Bush came from wealth, flip-flopped on abortion and was unreliable on the key economic issue of his day (substitute his “read my lips” switch on raising taxes for Romneycare). So it’s not likely that Tea Partiers and social conservatives, most of whom never had much use for George W. Bush’s father in the first place, will be swayed by his support for Romney.

Is Bush 41 trying to get even with conservatives for turning their backs on him after he worked with the Democrats after saying "Read my Lips:  No New Taxes" to raise taxes?  Is this also why Congressman Quayle is having trouble with the establishment types going after him since his father who was the Vice President was against the deal made by Bush 41?  As we have seen, the Bush Family carries grudges which they used against Rick Perry in this Presidential primary and tried to take him out with Kay Bailey in the Governor's primary in 2010.  Now Kay Bailey is back on the attack against Perry in Texas over women's health issues.  Bush 41 and his cronies don't give up which leads us to wonder if this election pushing Romney is get even with Newt and others who they blame for Bush 41 losing:

Some of the most enraged over the change in policy were other Republicans, including House Whip Newt Gingrich, the Senate leadership, and Vice President Dan Quayle. They felt Bush had destroyed the Republicans' most potent election plank for years to come. That the Republican leadership was not consulted before Bush made the deal also angered them. This perceived betrayal quickly led to a bitter feud within the Republican Party. When Sununu called Gingrich with the news, Gingrich hung up on him in anger. When Senator Trent Lott questioned the reversal, Sununu told the press that "Trent Lott has become an insignificant figure in this process."  Republican National Committee co-chair Ed Rollins, who issued a memo instructing Republican congress members to distance themselves from the president if they wished to be re-elected, was fired from his position.  

Many also felt that, while perhaps necessary, the reneging was badly handled. Bush's statement on the issue was simply posted on the notice board in the press room. There was no attempt to sell or defend the reversal. It was also very sudden; there was no attempt to slowly convince the American people of the perceived necessity of raising taxes. No figures with influence on the conservative base were recruited to endorse and try and sell the about-face. 

Eventually taxes were raised in the new budget. In September, Bush released a new budget proposal, backed by the congressional leadership, which notably included an immediate five-cent per gallon increase on the federal gasoline tax, and a phased increase of even higher fuel taxes in subsequent years. To the surprise of the Bush administration, this plan was rejected in the House of Representatives. Over a hundred conservative Republicans, led by Gingrich, voted against it because of its tax increases

Looks like Bush 41 and Romney have a lot in common from their upbringing to raising gasoline taxes as I highlighted in the paragraph above.  Never thought Bush 41 was all that conservative and put Dan Quayle on the ticket to appease conservatives.  Know that Bush's sons wanted Quayle off the ticket in 1992 but wasn't sure of the reason.  Was it because Quayle didn't go along with the deal Bush 41 cut on his own with the Democrats?  Is this also why the media went after Quayle so hard when he was Vice President so he couldn't run for President?   Is this also why Dan Quayle's son, Ben Quayle, who is running for reelection to Congress is being attacked by fellow Republicans from out of state?

Is Romney expected to be the second term of Bush 41 he never had as he was defeated in a three way race as a lot of conservatives went to Ross Perot?  Is this what all of this mess is about -- sticking it to conservatives once again?  If it is, Bush 41 and his cronies didn't learned a thing from 1992 or 1996.

All these questions and no answers right now but sooner or later the truth will come out.  For now suffice to say that Bush 41 and his cronies in the GOP are continuing to push Romney to the detriment of the entire Republican Party.  If you cannot support Romney, there will be other choices, but one thing that must happen is for Republicans to Keep the House and Take the Senate so that whoever is President has to deal with Conservative official holders.

Conservative Repudiating the Insiders of the Republican Party aka Rockefeller Republicans

We are finding out daily how much the 'insiders' of the Republican Party are dissatisfied with our current candidates for President because Fox News and some websites like the Weekly Standard keep pushing it so much.  First, they have probably figured out that their chosen one Romney is not doing near as well as expected and  second the 'insiders' don't want someone from outside their arrogant circle.  Voters on the other hand seem to be pretty satisfied with their choices.

The bottom line, then, is that there is a difference between an electorate that is undecided and an electorate that is unhappy with its choices. It may turn out that GOP voters would welcome a new candidate -- few voters will ever tell a pollster that they don't want any more choices -- but that does not mean they are dissatisfied with what they have now. The much-discussed dissatisfaction, such as it is, is concentrated among Republican party insiders, not voters.

Just who are these 'insiders' of the Republican Party or as a lot of us call them 'establishment', 'country-club' or 'Rockefeller Republicans.'  IOTW, the members of the Republican Party who consider themselves the elitist insiders and who supported President George HW Bush over President Reagan in 1980.  Most have some ties back to the Nixon White House.  "Who is a Rockefeller Republican?"   The American Spectator has the best definition to date I have seen:

The Rockefeller Republican became immutably identified as someone whose philosophical moorings and political instincts lay not in the Constitution but rather with the American progressive movement and the liberal Establishment that movement had become. Or, as Rockefeller's longtime intra-party rival Ronald Reagan once described the problem to Time magazine:

"I think the division of the Republican Party grew from pragmatism on the part of some, the Republicans who said, 'Look what the Democrats are doing and they're staying in power. The only way for us, if we want to have any impact at all, is somehow to copy them.' This was where the split began to grow, because there were other people saying, 'Wait a minute. There is great danger in following this path toward Government intervention.'"

Reagan never left any doubt as to the fact that in his use of the word "some" he was decidedly including Nelson Rockefeller. 

Note this is from a earlier debate but is apt:

But Rockefeller was wrong. He had misjudged conservatives completely.

Which is precisely the pattern of misjudgment that Mitt Romney is exhibiting with every increasing moment he spends campaigning for the very Republican presidential nomination that eluded Nelson Rockefeller.

From the first time we heard about Romney considering running in 2008, we immediately put him in the 'Rockefeller' wing of the Republican Party.  His Dad who ran for President was good friends with Bush 41 and the rest of the establishment from the Nixon years.  When Romney wanted to give a major speech on his Mormon religion, Bush 41 immediately opened up the Bush Library at A&M for the speech.  Did any other candidate get the same treatment?  Not at all.

The one thing that is very odd was Senator Jim DeMint endorsing Romney in 2008 who was the 'establishment' candidate and then he goes out in 2010 and supports some candidates who never should have been running they were so far out of mainstream conservatism.  Why?  Who was DeMint carrying the water?  His choices helped ensure that Republicans did not take the Senate as he used the Tea Party Express (TPE) to work the states for the primaries giving us some odd candidates.  Does that mean that TPE is working for someone other than the rank and file Tea Party members?  Food for thought but when you connect dots that seems to be what you are finding.

When first reading the article that was sent to me, I didn't look that closely at the picture that accompanied the article, but I have now.  See if you see a problem with the picture being used for an article written last night:

First of all, Governor Pawlenty has dropped out of the race, and second, Rick Perry, John Huntsman, and Gary Johnson are not included in the photograph.  Don't you think when you have an article about voters being pretty satisfied with Republican candidate choices, that you would have a current picture?  BTW, this is the fault of the copy desk not the author of the article but the question comes to mind 'WHY' would the person insert this article that leaves out candidates?

The myth of Republican unhappiness with the fieldbyByron York Chief Political Correspondentposted 09/27/2011 

Recent efforts to coax New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie into running for president are the latest example of continuing dissatisfaction among some Republican insiders with the existing GOP presidential field. "Unhappy with field, GOP courts Christie," reports MSNBC. Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, called Herman Cain's victory in Saturday's Florida GOP straw poll "a vote of no confidence" in frontrunners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. "These are very weak frontrunners," Kristol said, urging Christie to enter the race as he had earlier hoped that Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryan would run. John Heilemann, author of the '08 campaign bestseller Game Change, says the feeling is particularly strong among top Republican donors. "There's no doubt that there is a clamor in a lot of the Republican donor class, in this city [New York] and other cities right now, for Chris Christie," Heilemann said Tuesday. "It's deafening." 

There's no doubt the talk is accurate. Some Republican elites, not just members of the commentariat but also big GOP money men, are in fact unhappy with the field. But what about the voters? Is dissatisfaction with the Republican field widespread among the people who will actually decide the next GOP presidential nominee? 

Not really. "I do not know of any widespread unhappiness," says pollster Scott Rasmussen. 

"Our polling shows that the vast majority of Republicans still are not certain how they would vote, but that's a sign that it's still very early in the process, not a sign of unhappiness."
"I'm not sure I've seen any," says Republican pollster David Winston. "There is this sense that since we haven't gotten to a clear, decisive winner, then that means there must be dissatisfaction.  

But it could mean that people are still thinking it through." 

Anecdotal impressions support what the pollsters say. I have been in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida in recent weeks and talked with a lot of voters. While a few are unhappy with their choices -- there are always some voters who feel that way -- there just does not seem to be much overall dissatisfaction with the field. Voters realize there is no perfect candidate in the race -- that might be an understatement this time around -- but that doesn't mean they believe there is some perfect candidate out there over the horizon, waiting to enter the race. 

State-level polling also does not suggest that dissatisfaction is widespread among Republican voters. A recent Suffolk University poll of New Hampshire voters found that 68 percent say they are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the field, while 30 percent say they are very dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied. Breaking down those numbers, 16 percent say they are very satisfied and 52 percent say they are somewhat satisfied with the field. Among dissatisfied voters, 19 percent say they are somewhat dissatisfied, while 11 percent say they are very dissatisfied. Rasmussen says that 11 percent -- the number of people who are most intensely unhappy -- is a very, very small number. 

"I am somewhat irritated with the desire to pick a winner now," says Rasmussen. "Most voters still have the quaint notion that the election will be held in 2012, not 2011…My view of the GOP race is that Romney has won the establishment semi-finals by beating Pawlenty and Huntsman. Now, the outsider candidate has to be selected. GOP voters would prefer to vote for an outsider, but want to make sure it's the right outsider, and no one has closed that sale yet. Establishment Republicans (and some Democrats) seem puzzled that GOP voters aren't flocking to Romney, and that's probably causing some of the stories you're hearing about." 

The bottom line, then, is that there is a difference between an electorate that is undecided and an electorate that is unhappy with its choices. It may turn out that GOP voters would welcome a new candidate -- few voters will ever tell a pollster that they don't want any more choices -- but that does not mean they are dissatisfied with what they have now. The much-discussed dissatisfaction, such as it is, is concentrated among Republican party insiders, not voters.   

Excerpt:  Read More at Washington Examiner

There is no better example than how the Republican insiders/establishment are not conservative then their pushing Governor Chris Christie (NJ) to run.  As we highlighted in the article below, Christie is not a conservative on most issues.  The video from his campaign in October 2009 looks like a Democrat video with all the references to Obama but yet this is the man the insider/establishment wants?  

Look at it more in-depth and you discover that Fox News is a willing accomplice with the insiders/establishment types but then Ailes goes back to the Nixon years right along with their group.  Is that the tie that binds them all as part of the Rockefeller wing which has become very diminished over the years?  That group controls a lot of wealthy donors who want to keep the soft money policy in place, but they don't come close to controlling the votes of rank and file Republican conservatives.

Cannot believe after all these years, we are still seeing that same group from Nixon along with some of their sons trying to control an election once again.  Their idea that someone is 'entitled' to run is so wrong in so many ways and what gave us Bob Dole.  They want to give us a throw-away candidate so in the next election we can elect someone of their choosing.

When President Reagan was nominated in 1980, it put a massive roadblock in their plans.  What did the Nixon group do -- threaten not to support Reagan if he didn't choose George HW Bush for Vice President who was one of the leaders of the Rockefeller wing.  That may have been one of the worst mistakes Reagan ever made.

Now this same group is once again trying to choose our nominee.  Fortunately, it is not going to happen so they won't get their wish to have a weak candidate so that Jeb Bush can run in 2016.  Time for the Rockefeller Republicans to understand they may be wealthy but they do not control the Republican Party at the local level.  We can can actually think for ourselves and don't need some guys in a board room telling us how to vote.

If you want an establishment candidate, vote for Romney who is supported by the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party led by Bush 41 with the help of Karl Rove.  If you want a candidate who is one of us, conservative, and has a track record of jobs for Texas, then your candidate is Rick Perry.  Very simple -- Rockefeller insider types versus the conservatives of the Republican Party.  As the sons and daughters of parents who supported Barry Goldwater and then Ronald Reagan, we are now saying to the elitists to get on board or get out of the way as the day of their picking our candidates will NEVER happen again.  No more moderate liberals who flip flop need apply to run for President of the United States under the Republican banner.

IBD Editorial: Romney's Doomed '3rd Rail' Attack on Perry

Is it possible since Romney has Bush 41 and Rove on his side, that he and his supporters think all of the Bush people are going to support Romney?  How else can you explain the Romney people giving Marc Thiessen, a former Bush 43 speech writer, their plan of action?  If so, that was stupid.

Conservative are more galvanized then I have seen them since 1980 in wanting to turn the Country around and want someone who understands what they are going through on a daily basis with this horrible economy.  In 1980 it was high interest rates with inflation.  Now it is lack of jobs, raises, and inflation with groceries and gasoline even if the powers at be in Government won't admit it as they took them out of the inflation criteria.  Go buy groceries and see prices going up almost every week and then tell us there is no inflation.

This is what happens when someone very wealthy runs for office -- they are out of touch with most Americans who work for a living to buy a home, a car, pay utility bills, buy groceries and gas for the car while hoping to have enough left over for cell phones and cable TV.  Vacations were pretty much out of the picture for a lot of people this year with the high cost of gas since taking a family on a trip by air is expensive not to mention the cost hotels and meals.

Romney is getting ready to tear down a 3,000 sq foot home on the beach in La Jolla, CA to build a $12M mansion.  I don't care if he builds a $20M mansion, but trying to tell most of us he understands as he is unemployed himself is a total insult.  With those comments, it became personal for me after what I have seen happen in the last few years.  Want no part of a candidate who builds a $12M mansion and compares himself to someone who is really unemployed.

Is Romney so clueless that he doesn't understand young people are upset that Social Security they have paid into over the years is most likely either not going to be there, or they will receive a small pension if something is not done.  Most young people understand Social Security needs action not just bandaids and words to ensure solvency.  Romney is against raising the cutoff for how long people have to pay into social security which is now $106,000.  Why?  He calls it a tax increase -- most of us call it fair.  If someone makes $105,000 and has to pay social security on his whole income, why doesn't someone making $250,000 a year have to pay social security on his whole income?  

Any way you slice it, Social Security is a ponzi scheme for young workers whether Romney wants to admit the truth or not.  Commentary Magazine has this to say:

Whatever the case, on substance, Perry is quite right. For younger people, Social Security is almost the definition of a Ponzi scheme. It takes money from the current generation in order to pay out money to support (among others) current retirees. Younger workers are led to believe they are putting money away for their retirement when in fact, they’re giving money away to others. There is no “trust fund” and no “lock box” – and because of demographics the younger generation cannot count on anything like the support past generations have received.

Romney attacks on Perry on the 3rd rail are going to backfire like the attacks on the letter that he sent to Hillary Clinton when he was the Texas Ag Commissioner:

In a letter to Clinton, who is now U.S. Secretary of State, Perry wrote: “I think your efforts in trying to reform the nation’s health care system are most commendable.” 

“I would like to request that the task force give particular consideration to the needs of the nation’s farmers, ranchers, and agriculture workers, and other members of rural communities,” Perry continued, noting his administration’s focus on economic development for rural Texans. 

“Rural populations have a high proportion of uninsured people, rising health care costs, and often experience lack of services.”… 

Asked by TheDC about the 1993 letter, Perry’s presidential campaign defended it, saying the full scope of Clinton’s healthcare plan was not yet known when Perry signed it. 

“You need to read the letter,” top Perry political strategist Dave Carney told The Daily Caller. 

“He praised her efforts in trying to tackle the issue and urged her not to overlook rural Americans. The letter was at the onset of her efforts before she proposed anything. No one could have imagined the horrible monstrosity she cooked up, in fact not to be outdone until ObamaCare years later.”

Rove has lost it after all those years inside the beltway if he thinks that Romney is going to pick up steam and votes by wanting Social Security to remain the status quo or getting someone to release this letter to Hillary that shows Perry was looking out for the farmers and ranchers.

In fact, with all of Romney's flip flops in recent months he is reminding us of another Massachusetts candidate, John Kerry, who was legendary when it came to flip flopping on the issues.  Romney is rapidly closing in on him.  Not only is Romney sounding like the flip flopper John Kerry but when Romney launched his campaign on April 11, 2011, he stole the slogan of his campaign from Kerry:

Mitt Romney's launched his exploratory committee today with a dynamic new slogan: "Believe in America." 

If that slogan sounds a little familiar, that's because it was the title of John Kerry's cross-country tour in August of 2004, as CNN reported a two-week, 3,500-mile, coast-to-coast trip, dubbed the 'Believe in America' tour, that will take them to 21 states and 40 cities."

Romney and his people cannot even come up with an original slogan using the one for Kerry instead.  Tell me again why he is running for President.

Romney is also sounding more like Bill Clinton by the day with putting his finger in the wind to see which way it is blowing on Global Warming and now Social Security and then doing a flip flop.  Add his 'me too' mentality like now saying he may go into Iowa after dissing their straw poll in order to take on Perry in Iowa is laughable.  He wanted no part of Iowa but now may challenge Perry in Iowa?  Good Luck with that in a farm state like Iowa.  What is he going to do offer Iowans more of an ethanol subsidy and make the rest of the country mad?

The Romney campaign has the look of 2008 when he was put on his heels by McCain and never recovered.  He started grasping at straws then and is now doing the same thing.  He never should have run in 2012 when he couldn't beat McCain in 2008.  Now more people I know are even more galvanized against Romney for saying he was going to support McCain and help him win when he dropped out but he did virtually nothing in the campaign.  It is payback time!

Editorial: Romney's Doomed '3rd Rail' Attack On Perry 

Posted 06:16 PM ET 

Election '12: Mitt Romney reportedly intends to use the "third rail of politics" — touch Social Security and you die — to kill Rick Perry. But the winning strategy next year may be something novel for politicians: the truth. 

For unexplained reasons, Mitt Romney's people in New Hampshire told former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen about their grand strategy to defeat Texas Gov. Rick Perry — and the plan couldn't be more out of sync with the anger currently raging at the Republican grassroots. 

"Romney strategists are quick to note that in his book, 'Fed Up!,' Perry writes that 'By any measure, Social Security is a failure' and calls the program 'something we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now' that was created 'at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government,'" Thiessen wrote in the Washington Post on Monday. 

The Romneyites promise their man "will use Perry's book to scare seniors in early-primary states with large retiree populations, such as Florida and South Carolina." And, he says, they'll charge that Perry is against the very idea of Social Security and Medicare. 

There is, dare we say, a RINO-sized problem with Romney taking this approach. The former Massachusetts governor is already at a disadvantage as the least conservative, establishment-favored major candidate in what for rank-and-file Republican voters are very anti-establishment times. 

On top of explaining away his "Obomney Care" health reform, plus flip-flops on carbon emission restrictions, the minimum wage, capital gains taxes, abortion and other issues, does Romney really want to be guardian of the big-government status quo on entitlements too? 

Perry rightly has charged that "Deceptive accounting has hoodwinked the American public into thinking that Social Security is a retirement system and financially sound, when clearly it is not." 

Perry compares it to an "illegal Ponzi scheme."Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast 

He obviously knew such stark language would give ammo to opponents in a presidential run. 

"But by remaining quiet," Perry wrote in his book, "politicians are really saying they think the American people won't understand it if we share the grim details of our financial future ... Is that how we should respect our fellow citizens? By underestimating their intelligence, their desire to retire with greater stability, or their commitment to the next generation?" 

The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare now exceed $100 trillion. Perry might just think laying out the frightful facts about entitlements to the American people is the way to the White House. 

Moreover, targeting Perry on Social Security would be yet another Romney flip-flop: In early 2008 he told Glenn Beck he supported "giving people more of their income going in, or their Social Security withdrawal going into, private accounts." 

Can Rick Perry use his high voltage rhetoric to switch that electrified "third rail of politics" to another track? 

Instead of reform-minded politicians being the ones in danger, will those who support spending as usual have to beware the voters?  

IBD Editorial Weighs in on Rove's Tactics toward Gov Perry

We were not going to post this but then I was reminded by a good friend that yesterday's articles came from The Daily Beast and we needed to show that a conservative site is also going after Rove.  IBD editorial fills that with their article last night.  This time Rove picked the wrong fight and frankly hope he is discredited for good.  It is time to stop the elitist establishment from trying to pick our candidates by using underhanded and unethical tactics to take out who they don't want.

The money quote of this article that Rove, Bush 41, Karen Hughes, and others loyal to Bush 41 behind the attacks on Perry with dirty tricks would be wise to read and then look at themselves in the mirror:

It also shows Rove and his friends in high places aren't putting party and country first.

That one sentence from an IBD Editorial says it all about Rove and the Bush 41 cabal.  They have put themselves ahead of everything as they attempt to play kingmaker once again in the Republican Party.  This time it is not going to work just like it didn't work with Kay Bailey in the Texas Governor's race primary last year.

What are they afraid of with Governor Perry?   Could it be that like President Reagan, that Perry would interrupt the agenda of Big Government types.  From the comments on many message boards, the Bush 41 cabal with Rove out in front trying to tank Perry is not playing well with conservatives. Does this group want four more years of Obama to make more money?  Is this what this is all about or are they concerned that Governor Perry would have a real energy policy for the United States to become self sufficient along with Canada?  That would cut off their good friends in Saudi.

Does Rove have any credibility left except for Fox News and the Wall Street Journal?  Liberals must love him for trying to take out Governor Perry as he launched his campaign.  Why does the Bush Family want Romney elected so bad?

Now going after Paul Ryan using Indiana Governor Daniels and Wisconsin Governor Walker makes no sense.  Paul Ryan has zero executive experience the same thing we went after Obama for not having.  At least Obama had run a statewide race -- Ryan hasn't even done that.  Would Rove be so underhanded to get Ryan to run to hurt Perry's numbers so Romney could win.  You can bet on that one and then he would offer Ryan the VP to get him to drop out.

Ryan is a family man with young children who has said he doesn't want to run but that doesn't stop Rove, Jeb Bush, and others from wanting him in the race.  Why would establishment Republicans want Ryan in the race -- he did support TARP but why else?  They should leave him alone and let him keep doing his job as Budget Chairman.  He is a policy wonk and doing a good job as Chairman -- is this actually more about getting him to step down as Budget Chairman?  I don't trust anything coming out of that bunch today -- not a thing.

Does Walker think that Rove is going to rush into rescue him if there is a recall since Walker did back off on Perry yesterday?  As for Daniels, I know people in Indiana who do not like him and cannot wait for a real conservative, Mike Pence, to become Governor.  Is Rove going to try to take him out as well?  Seems to be his aim to put moderates in office and take out conservatives.

IBD Editorial writers are also onto Karl Rove and his tactics against Perry:

But there is also an obvious resentment against Perry as a non-Ivy League upstart whose Tea Party principles might discredit the big spending of the Bush presidency with which Rove is so well associated. 

All the GOP candidates — Perry most certainly included — have yet to pass through the crucible of extended public scrutiny, but Perry's solid record as a jobs-generating governor could be the winning formula for 2012.  For Rove and other establishment Republicans to try to sabotage him on the heels of his announcement was a dream come true for the liberal-dominated media, who are only too happy to portray the GOP as disunited against Obama.

We thought this question from IBD says it all:

Is Karl Rove, architect of George W. Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004, trying to subvert the candidacy of another Texas, Governor Rick Perry?

Looks like Rove overstepped big time with his attempt to take out Governor Perry and then try to get others in the race to take him out.   This is unbelievably stupid for Rove to pull this crap and shows he puts Bush 41 and his cabal first over what is best for America.

To Governor Perry's credit he has not said a word, but that doesn't mean his supporters are going to sit idly by and allow Rove to try and pull this underhanded dropping of news articles, going on TV saying things that are in a grey area of the truth or generally being an unethical person but then that is nothing new going back to when he ran for College Republican Chair.  History speaks for itself.  This time it is not going to work but at least Rove has shown Republicans what he is all about -- conservatives with experience need not apply.

Perry Vs. Petty: A Fight That Republicans Can Do Without 

Posted 06:07 PM ET, August 18, 2011

Election '12: GOP consultant Karl Rove's provincial squabbles with Texas Gov. Rick Perry have no place in the national discourse. The Republican establishment had best set its eyes on the prize: defeating Obama. 

Perry's entry into the presidential sweepstakes certainly has livened things up, at a time when President Obama's popularity plunges and a shaky economy gets even shakier. One unpleasant surprise, however, is the reaction of some of Perry's fellow Republicans. 

Consider what's been happening in the race for the GOP nod. 

Rep. Michele Bachmann, the winner of last weekend's Iowa straw poll, has exceeded expectations as a hard-fighting, articulate ally of the Tea Party movement, mounting a credible challenge to the party establishment's favored candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Bachmann's rise shows that a lot of Americans don't think a garden variety Republican is what's needed to reverse Obama's radicalism. 

But to say it's tough for a member of the House of Representatives to be elected president is an understatement. It's happened only once in U.S. history, in 1880 after a deadlocked GOP convention took 36 ballots to nominate dark horse James Garfield, the Republicans' minority floor leader. 

Perry enters the scene as a savior of sorts — just as passionate against Obama's expansion of government as Bachmann but with over a decade of executive experience governing one of the nation's largest states. And it's a state whose private-sector job growth is exactly what suffering American workers need nationally. 

So why is it that, practically on cue, odd noises are coming from Republicans such as Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, whom Rove wanted to run for president, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who's been admirably taking on his state's public sector unions (with the help of hundreds of thousands of dollars of TV ads by Rove's Crossroads GPS group)? Daniels and Walker are reportedly pushing Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to run for president, although Walker did laud Perry on Fox News Wednesday. 

We bow to no one in our admiration for Ryan, who has had the guts and smarts to propose detailed solutions to America's spending crisis. But like Bachmann, the 41-year-old House Budget Committee chairman has no executive experience. 

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast 

What is Rove's game? The old Texas political hand and architect of the Bush 2000 and 2004 victories has been going out of his way to undermine Perry. For instance, after Perry said it would be "almost treasonous" for Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to print more money, the man who helped place a Texas cowboy in the White House told Fox News this week it made Perry sound like "he's a cowboy from Texas." 

Actually, it's about time someone took on the Fed on the national stage and its years of easy money that poisoned mortgages and wrecked the global economy. 

Last year, with Perry a successful governor for nearly a decade, Rove took the extraordinary step of actively helping Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison try to unseat him. Perry beat Hutchison in the GOP primary handily, 51% to 30%, then easily defeated the Democrat in November, 55% to 42%.

....   

Excerpt:  Read More at IBD Editorial

Perry in Bedford, NH: I’m Not Alone in Fed Worries

Governor Perry should not have backed down for his comments as some have demanded.  People are seeing Rick Perry as a man who sticks to his principles and beliefs who is not afraid to tell it like it is.  As more and more details have come out on what Bernanke and Greenspan before him did to keep interest rates very low, we have to wonder why.  Is this follow the money trail?

Since Mr. Rove decided to make his comments in the article, we want to take this opportunity to say that Rove and Bush 41 have been backing Romney for sometime for President starting with the 2007 race -- just won't say it publicly like he did when he endorsed Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Texas primary and got Mitt Romney to also endorse her.  Anyone who knows anything about Texas politics knows that Rove is tied to Bush 41 who was pushing Kay Bailey to beat Perry and thus keep him from running for President against Romney.  Guess they didn't believe Perry he wasn't considering running or they didn't want to take the chance.

A little history lesson about the connection of Bush 41 and Karl Rove who ran a really dirty and nasty campaign for College Republican Chair in 1973 when Bush 41 was Chair of the RNC.  When it came down to a too close to call, Bush chose Rove over the other candidate who had smeared.  Since then he has been a loyal Bush 41 person as he owes his career to Bush 41.  Looking back have to wonder if some of the dirty tricks used against Reagan in 1980 came out of the Rove camp.  Wouldn't shock me as he was most likely behind the SC dirty tricks against John McCain.

How many negative articles on Perry have been dropped by Rove?  Imagine it is quite a few seeing that pro-Romney people have been writing negative articles about Perry that sound pretty much the same.  Would Rove be that underhanded -- in a NY minute.   I don't care what candidate someone is for but to write negative articles about your candidate's opponent and not disclose who you are supporting doesn't sound very ethical.

We are so happy to see Governor Perry stick to his principles now in New Hampshire campaigning:

Perry: I’m Not Alone in Fed WorriesWednesday, 17 Aug 2011 11:38 AM
By Martin Gould

Presidential candidate Rick Perry renewed his attack on the Federal Reserve on Wednesday, the day after a storm blew up after he suggested chairman Ben Bernanke could be close to committing treason. 

He said he is not alone in having concerns about the lack of transparency at the Fed during a campaign stop in Bedford, N.H.
“There have been a number of politicians who have stood up and really questioned the transparency of the Federal Reserve,” Perry said, according to the Washington Post. “They should open their books up. They should be transparent so that the people of the United States know what they are doing and how they are doing.

“Until they do that, there will continue to be questions about their activity and what their true goal is for the United States.” 

While on the stump in Iowa on Monday, Perry said that if Bernanke opted for another round of quantative easing – buying Treasury bonds to pump money into the economy – his action would be “almost treacherous or treasonous.” 

Since then he has been attacked from the left and right for his comment. President Barack Obama urged him to be “a little more careful” with his words, while George W. Bush White House advisor Karl Rove added, “You don’t want to accuse the Federal Reserve chairman of being guilty of a crime punishable by death.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Perry: I’m Not Alone in Fed Worries

Governor Rick Perry Bid Could Hurt Rove's Influence

Would say the headline says it all and it is about time.  In 1998 when Rick Perry ran for Lt Governor against Democrat John Sharp, this Republican always felt that Rove wanted Sharp to win so he could switch parties after he was elected with Governor Bush running for President as they would have more control.  Rove seemed to do everything he could not to help Perry but with the help of the Perry team he beat Sharp.  Then during last year's primary, Bush 41 got Rove to support Kay Bailey for Governor against Perry along with Bush 41 cronies like Baker and Cheney, and then got Mitt Romney to endorse Kay Bailey which was a stupid move on the part of Bush 41 and Rove.  Bush 41 also tried to pry Carney, Perry's consultant, away from Perry to Kay Bailey which was another move that backfired and poisoned the water even more between the Perry and Bush people.

Supported GW Bush in 2000, but also supported Rick Perry in 1998 and every election after that even though we lived in Oklahoma.  Thought some of the Bush people were too arrogant and treated Perry like he was a nobody at times which frankly disgusted me.  It has not set well since the 2004 election and especially after 2006 when the Democrats took over Congress with the reactions out of the Bush's to not only the Democrats but to Bill Clinton.  All the while Gov Perry is working to make Texas a leader in job growth and there are the Bush's along with Rove sniping at Perry.  Guess you could me a former Bush supporter because I support Rick Perry all the way to the White House.

Perry Bid Could Hurt Rove's Influence
Friday, 05 Aug 2011 12:10 PM
By Dan Weil

The relationship between top Republican strategist Karl Rove and Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been a frosty one dating back to the 1990s. And if Perry enters the presidential race, as now appears likely, the animosity between the two could have a major impact on how Republican money is doled out for next year’s election campaigns, Politico reports. 

Rove is leading a Republican effort to raise millions of dollars to defeat President Barack Obama and other Democrats. He was instrumental in building outside fundraising groups such as American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS).

But wealthy Texans, including some big-time Perry donors, have played a major role in bankrolling Rove’s cause. So what happens if Perry jumps into the presidential fray?
One donor to both American Crossroads and the Texas governor told Politico that if Perry wins the presidential nomination, his donors will stop giving to Rove. “Perry winning would be a deathblow for Rove,” the person said. 

Read more on Newsmax.com: Perry Bid Could Hurt Rove's Influence 

Roger Hedgecock: Donald Trump: The new Perot?

Some friends from San Diego first told me I would really enjoy listening to Roger Hedgecock's program and they were correct. Many times I have turned into his program on the net and never am disappointed.  This latest article from Hedgecock says what a lot of us have been thinking and what is driving the elitist, establishment Republicans up a wall.  Former President George HW Bush and his cronies who support Romney most likely are behind the pit bull, Rove who has gone way over the top with his attacks on Trump.  Unlike some others Rove has taken out, The Donald is fighting back!

For any one who doesn't know, Karl Rove got his start thanks to George HW Bush while he was the head of the RNC during the Nixon years and is still loyal. Bush 41 pushed Mitt Romney in 2008 and is once again pushing him for President. Why? Makes no sense unless it is the connection to his Dad. Romney does not go over well with a lot of the activists and grassroots. Most of us went to McCain instead of Romney which speaks volumes.

Donald Trump has tapped into the Republican grassroots community because unlike what so many of the GOP candidates are doing by being differential to Obama and his Administration, Trump is taking them on with their failed policies and Obama's secret records.

If I see one more political official say they know that Obama was born in Hawaii and let's move on, I am going to scream. First of all, how do they know where he was born as the Certificate of Live Birth is useless. At that time any Tom, Dick, or Harry could walk up to their local issuing place and give the details of when a child was born with zero proof and then fill out the birth announcement for the paper to go along so the birth would be announced. Hawaii was looking for citizens which is even more reason for Obama to provide the long form. 

Can guarantee you that if any Republican wouldn't release their records, the Obama media would never stop demanding access to the records.  Look what happened to Pres GW Bush on his grades which he finally released. They never quit on his guard records actually reporting on phony records that were proved false but it didn't stop Dan Rather from continuing to say the documents were not correct but it didn't make them not true. HUH?

Donald Trump is willing to say what needs to be said thus tapping into support of the grassroots who are tired of the elites deciding who to run as being witnessed right now as Rove and others try to take out Trump and it is not working.

Trump is as appalled at the waste and corruption riddling the Obama government as more and more Americans are. Trump has put his reputation on the line, betting that his saying what everyday Americans are thinking will help shape the 2012 debate, force politicians to address the fiscal emergency and maybe even propel him into the White House.

I don't know about the latter, but if Trump succeeds in speaking for an increasingly gloomy America and makes the 2012 election a real debate about solutions, he will have performed a patriot's duty and, like Perot, be honored by his countrymen for his sacrifice.

If Trump makes it to the White House, I'm sure critics will have plenty of fodder for columns like this one, but who else would you rather have as president negotiating for America? I'll take the author of "The Art of the Deal."

Roger Hedgecock is correct who he would rather have negotiating for America -- we agree with him the author, Donald Trump, who wrote "The Art of the Deal" because Trump will be a tough negotiator.

Donald Trump: The new Perot?
Roger Hedgecock
Posted: April 25, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

Donald Trump, like Ross Perot 20 years ago, is a rich, successful, supremely confident salesman and patriot intensely dissatisfied with the competence of the present ruling political elite of both parties.

Trump is speaking out and speaking truth to Obama power like no one else. Like Perot before him, he's used to speaking his mind in blunt terms. He's not beholden to anyone. He scares the ruling elite. To the establishment, Trump has gone rogue.

I've seen this movie before.

In 1992, rich outsider Ross Perot loudly voices dissatisfaction that mirrors widespread public concerns not addressed by existing politicians. Insiders panic, fearing the power of a rogue voice unbeholden to the usual agendas and rich enough to be heard.

Critics tear at "gaffes" ("Larry, they doctored the photo"), paranoia ("they tried to kill me"), past business practices (Didn't his business make millions computerizing Medicare?), charge "racism" ("you people") – anything to stop the public from believing and following the outsider.

But Perot seemed right about a lot of things in 1992 and seems more right today than ever.

His prediction about the ultimate insolvency of Medicare was spot on. His opposition to wars not declared by Congress found support then and certainly rings true four ruinous wars and 20 years later. His criticism of NAFTA and "free trade" sounded like evil protectionism in 1992, but sounds like prophesy to many American ears today. Perot's 1992 advocacy of a balanced federal budget brings moans of "if only we had followed that advice" today.

Blocked from the presidential nomination by either party in 1992, Perot sought third-party recognition as the Reform Party in all 50 states, got it, dropped out of the race at the peak of his popularity, dropped back in right before the election and still got nearly 20 percent of the vote – enough to defeat the incumbent and elect Clinton.

Remembering the Perot experience, I doubt the closed-shop mentality of the political class will allow Trump a fair fight for the Republican presidential nomination.

The insider's character assassination of Donald Trump is intensifying.

Can The Donald starring as The Donald in "The Donald" be serious? Isn't this just another stunt to flatter his considerable ego? Critics flacking for the insiders call Trump a "clown," a "birther," "ignorant," "crazy" in print and worse in private.

But the rising hysteria of the insiders is in direct proportion to Trump's exploding out of political nowhere to capture a significant following and the pole position in early presidential opinion surveys.

In 2011, a significant majority of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, that a government-directed economic recovery funded with borrowed trillions is not working, that the Libya war-that-is-not-a-war is wrong on every level.

With persistent high unemployment, jobs fleeing overseas, constant war, government regulation, taxation and nanny state intrusions turning Americans off, Trump is the loudest voice telling us the Emperor has no clothes, no matter what the New York Times says.

When Trump points out that every country in the world except Obama's America is drilling for oil, gas, coal, gold, copper, etc, etc., to make money, create jobs and improve their citizens' standard of living, Americans are listening. Maybe to the Sierra Club it makes sense that we should not use the riches literally bubbling up under our feet, but to Trump and a majority of Americans, this is just plain nuts.

The Chinese are hacking our computers, threatening our aircraft carriers and undermining our economy. Not one American politician wants to talk about this.

Excerpt: Read more: Donald Trump: The new Perot?

For too long our elected officials at times have been very weak and deferential when talking to foreign leaders especially Obama not to mention Clinton or Carter. We loved it when George Bush stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center and told the terrorists:

“I can hear you! I hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon!” George Bush at WTC site on September 14, 2001

Then he named the Axis of Evil in his speech following 9/11. What happened to that President who wasn't afraid to take on the world?

We need a President who is as tough as nails and stands up for America from day one to the last day of his term. We want a President who the rest of the world respects but fears. We are seeing daily what it is like to have a President who only stands up to our allies like Great Britain and bends over for people who harbor our enemies along with our enemies. Obama has tried his best to get Chavez to really like him but Chavez does not respect a weak President and takes full advantage. Some negotiating team we have -- Obama and Hillary Clinton -- horrible combination.

Right now of all the people who have said they are considering running, only Donald Trump has the proven business and negotiating experience, along with a backbone. The chattering class are being driven up a wall as they once again figured they could choose the next Republican nominee -- not going to happen this time. No more Bob Dole's or John McCain's period -- men who were rewarded by the establishment clearing the way for them to run for President.

This time the establishment is not going to move Donald Trump out of the way no matter what. Americans want a real leader who believes we are an Exceptional Country and no one is going to take advantage of us -- Donald Trump is the ONLY person we see that meets that criteria.