Back in 1991, as the presidential campaign cycle was gearing up and the vetting of prospective candidates was under way, a young, charismatic and attractive, but theretofore relatively obscure governor of a conservative southern state was invited to attend that year's Bilderberg conference, to "get acquainted" with the powerful and influential movers and shakers of the global elite.
Subsequently, this governor's media profile, favorable press coverage and support from this country's political establishment began to improve and increase markedly. He then easily secured his party's nomination and won the presidency in 1992 against a previously immensely popular incumbent president who ran an inexplicably lame, desultory and incompetent campaign.
His name was William Jefferson Clinton.
You say the question won't go away. Perhaps not, at least among those few who remember history, are able to perceive the long-term patterns of interconnected power relationships and connect the dots, and have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge them.
The question may not go away, but it will simply be ignored. The human capacity for denial and rationalization is almost infinite. When coupled with the abysmal ignorance of most of the citizenry, we have probably reached the point where it will be sufficient to finally complete the destruction of the constitutional Republic bequeathed to us by the Founders.
You have the Bill Clinton story right.
The differences between Clinton and Perry include
1) No internet in 1992
2) No tea party in 1992
No doubt that Bilderberg is an elite credit. But the tea party knows what Bilderberg is all about, and Bilderberg is completely unacceptable to tea party.
The argument can be made that Perry’s road to victory includes no tea party votes. That may be the case. I still think he’s not famous enough.