Perry for President?

[barracuda]

I'm about as conservative as they come, and I dislike Perry. Perry is not a good choice for president, but for whatever reason we keep having to choose between the lesser of the evils. Obama is an absolutely terrible President. I am so sick of hearing about the Bush inheritance and the Bush hangover - that is all BS. This is Obama's presidency. He screwed it up. He went so far off the left rocker that all but the most extreme Leftist democrats were unhappy and running from him...Then he loses the house in 2010 and he tries to be more centrist, but nobody believes him - now he has the far left mad at him too. Nobody likes him. He is a one term loser.

Perry is awful - a horrible choice, but if I have to choose between the worst President in my lifetime, and Perry (who may well be the 2nd worst president in my lifetime) I will choose Perry. Just about anyone could do a better job than Obama.

I dont have a realistic choice that I like. Ron Paul appeals to me more than anyone else in the race, but he has some crazy ideas that dont sit well on several issues....Ron Paul won't ever get the RNC nomination - he is hated by the establishment money, and you can't win without money.

I'm petrified of Perry - the Mainstream media likes him...that alone means he is just another poor choice.

I agree with you on Perry, but I'd say Obama has been a mediocre president. To say he's been absolutely terrible would infer that he's done something scandalous or severely damaging to the country. When I say he's mediocre, it's because he tries too hard to compromise with extremists instead of exposing their lunacy and fighting back. I do have to give him credit for working in an insanely partisan atmosphere - probably the most difficult of any recent president - but I still knock him for regularly caving in. Probably my biggest disappointment in this regard is not doing enough to regulate Wall St and the banks to prevent another economic disaster. But he has also accomplished quite a few important things that go mostly unknown or forgotten by the public at large.

[west20th]

I'm glad Perry believes in Texas' right to secede, because that's exactly what we should do if he is elected President. I don't want to live in a country where Perry is President, and we've suffered enough under his rule.

It is very sad that the governor of Texas doesn't know it's Constitution well enough to know that we have no right or choice to secede. Actually, I'm pretty sure he knows that. He is just a slimy, pandering politician of the worst kind.

[Highway6]

That would mean David Dewhurst becomes governor of Texas, which IIRC, is one of Perry's cronies.

Dewhurst is contemplating running for KBH's senate seat. Which means we could be in a position in 2012 if they both win, where the the Texas Congress appoints both our Lt Gov and Gov.

That being said.. hopefully Perry doesn't get the nomination. I'm still waiting for Christie to jump in.

[Marksmu]

So much for the party of "personal responsibility" ever accepting any.

It was not the republicans who steered the bus towards the cliff. It was the democrats. The democrats have had a majority in BOTH houses since 2007. Bush was president, but Congress does all the work.

Bush was a disappointment because he was too liberal, but to lay the blame for the current state of affairs on his administration completely ignores the fact that the democrats have been driving for 4 VERY long years. Obama may have inherited a recession but that recession began under the pathetic leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The recession got worse after Obama was elected because businesses are scared to death to invest in this country for fear of being regulated out of existence. Bush raised the debt by 400 billion/yr but is blamed for the deficit. Obama raised the debt by 1.3 trillion in one year and its still Bush's fault. What a joke!

So much for the democrats ever accepting responsibility for their actions....google "Obama blames" the results show an ego maniac unable to accept any blame whatsoever for the mess we are in. Its literally page after page of fingerpointing from the most "non-partisan" president ever. The guy is a loser!

[Mister X]

^ Spoken like a true Fox Zombie. Speaking of losers, whatever happened to John McCain anyway?

[west20th]

It was not the republicans who steered the bus towards the cliff. It was the democrats. The democrats have had a majority in BOTH houses since 2007. Bush was president, but Congress does all the work.

Bush was a disappointment because he was too liberal, but to lay the blame for the current state of affairs on his administration completely ignores the fact that the democrats have been driving for 4 VERY long years. Obama may have inherited a recession but that recession began under the pathetic leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The recession got worse after Obama was elected because businesses are scared to death to invest in this country for fear of being regulated out of existence. Bush raised the debt by 400 billion/yr but is blamed for the deficit. Obama raised the debt by 1.3 trillion in one year and its still Bush's fault. What a joke!

So much for the democrats ever accepting responsibility for their actions....google "Obama blames" the results show an ego maniac unable to accept any blame whatsoever for the mess we are in. Its literally page after page of fingerpointing from the most "non-partisan" president ever. The guy is a loser!

Reid and Pelosi had control since 01-07 and the economy pretty much crapped out in 08-08. Arguably, Bush was a better politician and had his way with them for the remainder of his term. Regardless of what McCain said, the fundamentals were not strong in 07-08. The swirling down the crapper starting well before 01-07. So you can say with a straight face the GOP, with almost total control from '01-'09 had nothing to do with the collapse?

[Marksmu]

^ Spoken like a true Fox Zombie. Speaking of losers, whatever happened to John McCain anyway?

We found common ground. McCain is a loser.

[Highway6]

Ya know.. disagreeing with someone who's politics are different isn't a bad thing... but making the point to give them a -1 every time they open their mouth... ?

We get it Mister X.. you hate Marksmu.. but if you'd at least skip a post every now and then, it might not be so obvious.

[Marksmu]

Reid and Pelosi had control since 01-07 and the economy pretty much crapped out in 08-08. Arguably, Bush was a better politician and had his way with them for the remainder of his term. Regardless of what McCain said, the fundamentals were not strong in 07-08. The swirling down the crapper starting well before 01-07. So you can say with a straight face the GOP, with almost total control from '01-'09 had nothing to do with the collapse?

Did not say republicans had nothing to do with the collapse....We could have done without the added debts of Iraq/Afghanistan. However,t with democrats in complete control of congress from 2007 on I can say that republicans did not have control after January of 2007. They were sidelined. Left only to filibuster and even then they eventually lost most issues. Bush could only veto. He signed more crappy legislation from the democrat congress than he did good; which is precisely why republicans in congress filibustered so often in that 2 year period.

Part of the reason the economy crapped out was because of political instability. Democrats wanted to go FAR left - republicans did not. Congress showed its inability to compromise and business responded to it by becoming risk averse, and waiting to see what happened in 2008 with the presidency. After it was apparent that Obama was going to be elected things worsened...Business now had to worry about being over-regulated, and taxed so they continued to hoard cash. The housing crisis, which was caused by reckless Democrat policies to put every American in a home, regardless of income, helped deepen the crisis....Business contraction worsened the housing crisis as the housing bubble burst completly.

There is plenty of blame to go around, Republicans over spent more than their fair share, but democrat policies are anti-business, and an anti-business government is not a good thing to have during a crisis.

That is the way I see it. Important to note that Congress was just as polarized an ineffective at agreement long before the tea party came into existence.

[Mister X]

Ya know.. disagreeing with someone who's politics are different isn't a bad thing... but making the point to give them a -1 every time they open their mouth... ?

We get it Mister X.. you hate Marksmu.. but if you'd at least skip a post every now and then, it might not be so obvious.

Shut up or your next! I'll ruin your rep too! Just Kidding.

Seriously tho, thank you for paying attention to my minuses. Yes, I do hate MarkSMU and I do find reading his misguided opinion post painful, predictable, and pointless - and I don't care if it's obvious or not. I shall not hold back my minuses for no internet dim-wit. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Just kidding again. I don't really hate Mark or think he's a dim-wit. I just never seem to agree with his opinions. Isn't that what minuses are for? They aren't hurting anyone.

I am Mister X and I approve of this post.

[west20th]

Did not say republicans had nothing to do with the collapse....We could have done without the added debts of Iraq/Afghanistan. However,t with democrats in complete control of congress from 2007 on I can say that republicans did not have control after January of 2007. They were sidelined. Left only to filibuster and even then they eventually lost most issues. Bush could only veto. He signed more crappy legislation from the democrat congress than he did good; which is precisely why republicans in congress filibustered so often in that 2 year period.

Part of the reason the economy crapped out was because of political instability. Democrats wanted to go FAR left - republicans did not. Congress showed its inability to compromise and business responded to it by becoming risk averse, and waiting to see what happened in 2008 with the presidency. After it was apparent that Obama was going to be elected things worsened...Business now had to worry about being over-regulated, and taxed so they continued to hoard cash. The housing crisis, which was caused by reckless Democrat policies to put every American in a home, regardless of income, helped deepen the crisis....Business contraction worsened the housing crisis as the housing bubble burst completly.

There is plenty of blame to go around, Republicans over spent more than their fair share, but democrat policies are anti-business, and an anti-business government is not a good thing to have during a crisis.

That is the way I see it. Important to note that Congress was just as polarized an ineffective at agreement long before the tea party came into existence.

I'm going to make one more point and step back from this argument. This is a Perry thread. Congress is gridlocked because Boehner is an ineffective leader and the GOP minority in the Senate requires 60 votes on EVERYTHING as a matter of course. They don't care if they are for a bill or against it. They have no solutions. The plan? B itch, obstruct and re-gain power.

[TheNiche]

It is very sad that the governor of Texas doesn't know it's Constitution well enough to know that we have no right or choice to secede. Actually, I'm pretty sure he knows that. He is just a slimy, pandering politician of the worst kind.

Of course there is a right to secede. The Constitution is just words on paper. If a state should reject that and adopt other words on paper, they can do that. The federal government may disagree. That state may be subject to military intervention...which would be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, if the federal government still maintains that they are or should be a state. Kind of a catch 22.

[west20th]

Of course there is a right to secede. The Constitution is just words on paper. If a state should reject that and adopt other words on paper, they can do that. The federal government may disagree. That state may be subject to military intervention...which would be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, if the federal government still maintains that they are or should be a state. Kind of a catch 22.

My point was that the Texas constitution does not spell out the right to secede. That is an urban legend.

[TheNiche]

My point was that the Texas constitution does not spell out the right to secede. That is an urban legend.

The federal and state constitutions are silent on lots of things, both general and specific in subject matter. And for good reason! The ninth and tenth amendments were very deliberately included in the bill of rights, after all.

The secession issue was a contentious one (obviously), but the courts ruled that states cannot secede. That doesn't mean that this is good law, but it is the law. Moveover, whatever kind of deals Texas had worked out as part of its annexation, the Reconstruction-era state constitution approved by congress pretty much eliminated them.

But again. The point is moot. It's all just words.

[trymahjong]

The New York Times has an opinion in today's paper. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/us/politics/20repubs.html

[plumber2]

Our current Democratic party chairman in Galveston County used to be a state representative and sat next to Rick Perry in the legislature. This was back when Rick Perry was still a democrat. Lyold stated that sitting next to Rick Perry was like sitting next to a girl. He said Rick was constantly primping himself, fixing his hair and making sure that he was included in all of the right gatherings and invited to the right parties. He was a scocial climber back then and quickly followed the lobbyist's and their money to the Republican party.

When I learned later that the media were comparing Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson as both former cheerleaders, it all made sense. This guy belongs in Hollywood, not Washington D.C..

[20thStDad]

I keep seeing little pieces here and there digging up dirt on Perry, more so than other candidates at this point. Hopefully that can gain some momentum and end his run early. I really don't want to see him any more.

[TheNiche]

I keep seeing little pieces here and there digging up dirt on Perry, more so than other candidates at this point. Hopefully that can gain some momentum and end his run early. I really don't want to see him any more.

I see all these hit pieces, locally and nationally, as a sign that powerful people fear the ramifications of a Perry candidacy. Successful or not, a Perry campaign will cause a great deal of collateral damage to both parties.

[VicMan]

I see all these hit pieces, locally and nationally, as a sign that powerful people fear the ramifications of a Perry candidacy. Successful or not, a Perry campaign will cause a great deal of collateral damage to both parties.

Has anybody written any articles about when powerful people determine that a candidate would cause damage to the status quote? About how powerful people try to persuade the voting public and/or the primary voters with op-eds? Are they journal articles that one has to download from a research service?

[TheNiche]

Has anybody written any articles about when powerful people determine that a candidate would cause damage to the status quote? About how powerful people try to persuade the voting public and/or the primary voters with op-eds? Are they journal articles that one has to download from a research service?

Not that I'm aware of. I'm not sure how a researcher would quantify that sort of thing on any sort of consistent basis throughout history.

The closest parallel that I could draw is Jimmy Carter, a flagrantly-Christian governor of a southern state that ran as an anti-incumbent. The key difference there was that Carter had media backing. Perry does not. ...but this time, the people's perceptions (and consumption patterns) of mass media are far more varied.

[trymahjong]

Ben Stein offers economic lesson to Rick Perry

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/21/sunday/main20095127.shtml

[trymahjong]

Ben Stein offers economic lesson to Rick Perry

http://www.cbsnews.c...n20095127.shtml

The New York Post offers it's advice. . . . .

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gop_big_pushes_giuliani_for_vice_QYDqzc0zOIxkT1eX7Ds4JO

[LTAWACS]

Ben Stein offers economic lesson to Rick Perry

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/21/sunday/main20095127.shtml

Ben Stein offering economic lessons to Perry is like Stein offering biology lessons to Dawkins. What does that creationist know about anything? It's amazing that CBS still gave that loon some credence by printing that story. Ugh.

[ricco67]

Ben Stein offering economic lessons to Perry is like Stein offering biology lessons to Dawkins. What does that creationist know about anything? It's amazing that CBS still gave that loon some credence by printing that story. Ugh.

Yet we listen to you.

Regardless of a person's personal beliefs, it is possible for them to be knowledgeable economics. From what I've gotten from Stein has been on point when you look at it in hindsight.

[editor]

For those of you interested in this sort of thing, there is a Rick Perry Tracker app in the iTunes store for your various iDevices:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/rick-perry-tracker-2012/id469771432?mt=8

[ricco67]

<makes gagging noise>