Tag Archives: Rick Perry

Cruz in for a Bruisin’?

Posted on by
1

You can really tell who’s doing his or her job in Washington by the media’s reaction. Ted Cruz, the newly elected Republican senator from Texas, must be doing a superb job. The New York Times and the Democrats are pounding him. If he didn’t threaten them and shake things up, they’d ignore him.

Drudge has a New York Times piece by Jonathan Weisman, published yesterday, at the top of the page. It’s entitled “Texas Senator Goes on Attack and Raises Bipartisan Hackles.” It is priceless, really, in its fatuous disdain.

As the Senate edged toward a divisive filibuster vote on Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be defense secretary, Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, sat silent and satisfied in the corner of the chamber — his voice lost to laryngitis — as he absorbed what he had wrought in his mere seven weeks of Senate service.
Mr. Hagel, a former senator from Mr. Cruz’s own party, was about to be the victim of the first filibuster of a nominee to lead the Pentagon. The blockade was due in no small part to the very junior senator’s relentless pursuit of speeches, financial records or any other documents with Mr. Hagel’s name on them going back at least five years. Some Republicans praised the work of the brash newcomer, but others joined Democrats in saying that Mr. Cruz had gone too far.

Imagine! Cruz was satisfied that he had helped cripple Hagel’s nomination. He was actually happy that someone he considers inept and dangerous might not be confirmed. Even to the point of losing his voice, the Times adds. Clearly, he must be some kind of weird vigilante, eh?

Cruz was “relentless” in finding out information about Hagel from financial records and his actual words as long, long, long ago as five years. (During the primaries time was not so important to the Times and the Washington Post which hounded Rick Perry about going out on land that decades ago had a rock on it with a slur on it, even though he had no connection to it at all.) Maybe the media would like to go back to some of Barack Obama’s speeches and take a look at them. Or at the purchase of his house from criminal Tony Rezko. Nah, that kind of stuff wasn’t important to the future of 300 million Americans’ future.

The next sentence of the article raises the word media love to bandy about: McCarthyism. That’s supposed to send the public into tizzies of fear and loathing. Actually McCarthy has been unfairly maligned in American history if you go back and take an honest look.

The term was thrown at him by California Senator Barbara Boxer. Not that the liberal progressive Democrat would want to finger him for her own purposes.

In just two months, Mr. Cruz, 42, has made his presence felt in an institution where new arrivals are usually not heard from for months, if not years. Besides suggesting that Mr. Hagel might have received compensation from foreign enemies, he has tangled with the mayor of Chicago, challenged the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat on national television, voted against virtually everything before him — including the confirmation of John Kerry as secretary of state — and raised the hackles of colleagues from both parties.

He could not be more pleased. Washington’s new bad boy feels good.

“I made promises to the people of Texas that I would come to Washington to shake up the status quo,” he said in e-mailed answers to questions, in lieu of speaking. “That is what I intend to do, and it is what I have done in every way possible in the responsibilities that have been granted to me.”

How dare Cruz! Making waves? Doesn’t he know his place? As a new senator he should lay low. Like the former Senator Obama? Shouldn’t we know if our future Defense Secretary took money from other nations? Is Mayor Rahm Emanuel unassailable, even when he threatens the second amendment? Should Cruz not engage in debate with Chuck Schumer? The implication is that Schumer is better than Cruz and he should acknowledge it. Why not vote against Kerry? Most normal Americans did once and probably would again.

That makes him a “bad boy.” Could we get some more bad in the Senate like him? Guess his fellow Texans voted him in to relegate that huge state’s voice to a whisper because they are not as worthy of opinions as places like D.C. or Rhode Island.

In a body known for comity, Mr. Cruz is taking confrontational Tea Party sensibilities to new heights — or lows, depending on one’s perspective. Wowed conservatives hail him as a hero, but even some Republican colleagues are growing publicly frustrated with a man who has taken the zeal of the prosecutor and applied it to the decorous quarters of the Senate.

Comity in the Senate? You mean like when Senator Hillary Clinton stood up and said that President Bush knew the 9/11 attack was coming and went all Truther? Or when Harry Reid spews his venom?

They spit out Tea Party like it was cancer. The “some Republican colleagues” are squishes like Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Corker who don’t want to cause waves – just get reelected. I think the times require someone with the “zeal of a prosecutor,” don’t you?

“He basically came out and made the accusation about money from North Korea or money from our enemies, and he just laid out there all of this accusatory verbiage without a shred of evidence,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. “In this country we had a terrible experience with innuendo and inference when Joe McCarthy hung out in the United States Senate, and I just think we have to be more careful.”

By repeating Senator Boxer’s charge of McCarthyism, McCaskill is telling us the Democrat line of attack on Cruz. Yawn.

Cruz defends himself:

“Comity does not mean avoiding the truth,” he added. “And it would be wrong to avoid speaking the truth about someone’s record and past policy positions, even if doing so inevitably subjects me to personal criticism from Democrats and the media.”

Mr. Cruz was among the 22 senators who voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, among the 34 who voted against raising the debt ceiling, among the 19 who tried to cut off military sales to Egypt, among the 36 who opposed a relief package for the regions hit by Hurricane Sandy, and among the three senators who voted against Mr. Kerry’s confirmation.

Want to bet most of his fellow Texans would have voted that way themselves? I know I would have.

After she raised the specter of McCarthyism, Ms. McCaskill was asked if she had spoken to Mr. Cruz about her concerns.

“I’m not sure it would do any good,” she said. “Do you?”

That sounds like a man of conviction who respects the truth and won’t be shaken from acknowledging it. Would we had an army of Cruz in the Senate!

Bye, Bye Ann Coulter

Posted on by
Reply

Ann Coulter was speaking at a Republican Lincoln Day Dinner and in less than three minutes managed to slam Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Republicans in general and Fox News.

Additionally she seems to have forgotten what took place in the Democrat presidential primaries in 2008.

She is so in the tank for Mitt Romney she has forgotten Reagan’s commandment not to knock other Republicans.

Mark Levin slaps her down:

In the Name of God – Go!

Posted on by
Reply

AFter Rick Santorum won both Alabama and Mississippi last night, it’s time for Newt to exit stage right.

Just a few days ago Gingrich’s spokesman called the two Southern states must wins. Those must wins didn’t happen and now he must go. If Gingrich can’t manage a win in his own backyard, where will he win? His role now is just spoiler for Rick Santorum, who clearly has momentum.

In his speech last night Gingrich said he would continue the fight to Tampa. Today there are calls by conservatives for him to eject sooner – like right now.

Gingrich is beginning to look like someone obsessed. He won South Carolina and pundits said that means he would probably win the nomination. But there is no given in that. Newt is looking like a faded Hollywood star still expecting the phone call announcing she has landed a big part. Sorry, Newt, but that phone isn’t going to ring.

If it does, it should be from Gov. Rick Perry. He did the right thing when his campaign imploded and got out of the race. He needs to call Gingrich and tell him it’s over. Man up, do the right thing and don’t hurt the party anymore.

Gringrich and Santorum’s delegate vote toll combined is 486. That outweighs Mitt’s 470 and shows where the party really is. If he is still bitter over the stinging ads Romney ran against him in Florida, Gingrich should take his revenge and throw his support to Santorum.

Jamie Weinstein at the Daily Caller writes “Newt Opts to burn down the GOP house.” He’s right and that shouldn’t happen.

If Callista or Perry can’t reach him, though, perhaps Sheldon Adelson can. He’s Newt’s big money backer, but he may be turning. John Harwood of NBC said he spoke with a friend of Adelson who indicated Adelson has written his last check for Newt.

Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller argues this:

While the idea Gingrich could or would win a brokered convention seems absurd, it is likely that continuing to accrue delegates would give him additional bargaining leverage going into the Republican convention in Tampa this summer.

But there are good reasons for Gingrich to reject that cynical strategy. First, if he truly believes Mitt Romney is a “Massachusetts moderate” masquerading as a conservative, then he owes it to Republican voters to give former Sen. Rick Santorum a clean shot at wresting the nomination from him. I’m pretty sure Santorum has earned it.

Second, staying in the race — merely in order to play a king maker or to curry favor at a later time — is hardly the most honorable or inspiring reason to remain in a race. Gingrich would be essentially asking donors to contribute money to a campaign he knows cannot win — and he would be asking voters to cast their votes for a candidate he knows can’t win.

Then Allahpundit at Hot Air finds this from

PPP: “Our NC GOP poll coming out tomorrow shows an 8 point shift toward Santorum if Newt was out. Nothing but a spoiler at this point.” If Newt wants revenge on Romney for spoiling his chances in Iowa and Florida, dropping out and endorsing Santorum is his best option.

Then Santorum could go head to head with Romney in a more fair fight. Otherwise Romney might win the nomination. With clips like this one, the out of touch Romney might just snatch defeat from the jaws of victory:

Ouch. That out of touch attitude will just open the path to an Obama reelection.

Whose Money Is it?

Posted on by
Reply

This article was sent to me by someone who said it touched a nerve in her. It’s a pretty good and understandable rant.

“Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a ‘federal benefit payment’?
Something to think about: the only thing wrong with this calculation is they forgot to figure in the people who died before they collected their Social Security. Where did that money go?

This is another example of what Rick Perry called ‘treason in high places’? Get angry and pass this on!
Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that’s close to $220,500.
If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you’d have $892,919.98.
If you took out only 3% per year, you’d receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you’re 95 if you retire at age 65) and that’s with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you’d have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.
The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever had.
Entitlement my butt, I paid cash for my social security insurance! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn’t make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!
Congressional benefits – free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days – now that’s welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement entitlements?
We’re “broke” and can’t help our own seniors, veterans, orphans, homeless.
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile , and Turkey . And now Pakistan – home of bin Laden. Literally, billions of dollars!
Our retired seniors living on a ‘fixed income’ receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour hundreds of billions of $$$$$$’s and tons of food to foreign countries!
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? Imagine if the government gave US the same support they give to other countries.
Sad isn’t it?”

Thoughts on the Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Although pundits last night said Gingrich didn’t help himself in the debate and Romney did, they seemed about equal from my viewpoint. Neither one hit it out of the park. Santorum did, at times. Ron Paul had his charm, but he still looks like the one you’d X out when asked who doesn’t belong in this picture.

There is talk today that Wolf Blitzer, the CNN host, “blitzed” Newt, especially when it came to the Romney tax issue. He might have thrown Newt off his game a little, but he didn’t score. Blitzer followed John King in giving lengthy prologues to questions; when the moderator inserts himself like that it is off putting.

The scuffle between Newt and Mitt began right away. Blitzer asked Romney about an ad he’s running which has Gingrich saying Spanish is a ghetto language. Mitt denied it and Blitzer quoted the ad’s tag line “I’m Mitt Romney and I approve this message.” Ding.

Romney later accused Gingrich of promising everyone in each state a goody to get votes. That’s rich coming from Romney who someone described as a “bartender. He’ll give anyone whatever they want.”

When talk came to the home mortgage crisis, Paul gets credit for mentioning the Community Reinvestment Act that many consider the root of the problem.

I liked Newt’s idea about taking Social Security out of the budget. It should operate alone so as not to be held hostage to government financial battles.

The real and most important exchange came mid debate when they got on the topic of Obamacare. Santorum excelled. He hit Romney well on Romneycare, criticizing that there are 15 things the same in both it and Obamacare. He said that the “free ridership” Romney said was avoided in Massachusetts in actuality increased it five fold. Then Santorum emphasized that we cannot give the issue to Obama. Exactly.

Romney shocked me when he replied “it’s not worth getting angry about!” In that sentence he epitomized everything wrong with his candidacy. If there is any issue we all are angry about – and have a right to be angry about – it’s Obamacare. It gets to the heart of what’s wrong with the country today – constant government interference in our lives. And in this case, it’s a life and death issue.

That was the most important takeaway in the debate.

I was amused that when Ron Paul was asked about Hispanic interests he said, “The Hispanic community is especially attuned to the foreign policy of non intervention. Hispanics are more opposed to war than other communities.” That was a surprise, wasn’t it? You think of Mexican gangs and South American cartels and they do not seem averse to war.

Blitzer then went on to ask Paul what he would say if he were president and Fidel Castro called. “I’d ask him what he called about.” The doctor took the logical answer and smacked Blitzer down.

A woman in the audience asked the candidates’ views on Puerto Rican statehood. Strangely, Blitzer only asked Santorum who in essence said it was up to Puerto Ricans.

It got weird when Blitzer went on to ask why their wives would be the best First Lady. I didn’t know that was such a pressing issue. Ron Paul said because she had many children and was the author of the Ron Paul cookbook. That seemed a little demeaning, especially since he didn’t even give her name. Romney talked about his wife’s compassion after her MS and breast cancer. Newt went weird, too, saying that Callista wasn’t better than any of the other wives up there. If my husband said that, I’d say fine; anyone of them would have made just as good a wife as me? Take one. It wasn’t smart considering his previous wives.

Santorum said Karen was a nurse, got a law degree, had 7 children, lost one, wrote a book and has a special needs child. No one could top that.

The final question was why are you the one on stage most likely to beat Obama?

Ron Paul pointed to his civil liberties position and that he was not as bellicose as Obama.

Mitt said it’s because it’s a critical time and more or less everyone appreciates my greatness. He then appropriated Rick Perry’s position of being a Washington outsider for his own. Then he talked about the need for change, change especially in Washington. Now where have I heard that before, this time minus the hope?

Santorum pointed to his opposition to TARP, government health care and cap and trade. He said he was the only one who could win the industrial heartland and made that the centerpiece of his campaign. Santorum said he could win those critical states.

If I were a Floridian and not yet voted, the debate might have changed my mind. Santorum won the day.

Memphis Talk Show Host Pens Opinion Piece

Posted on by
Reply

WMPS the Point radio host Mark Skoda has written a piece at americanthinker.com entitled “South Carolina Can Settle the 2012 Un-Civil War.”

In it, he argues that Republicans should just lie back and let Romney win the primaries. Skoda recounts that he’s been to the primaries in New Hampshire and saw “people fired up” over Romney. Romney’s “historic back to back wins” in Iowa and New Hampshire indicate that he’s the only one with momentum who can beat Obama.

According to Skoda, Gingrich and Perry are behaving in an unacceptable manner, challenging Romney with the Bain business and going over “to the dark side.” In fact, he calls Gingrich “petulant,” “angry,” “curmudgeonly,” “unhinged,” “vengeful” and “destructive.”

That’s quite a lot of slurs in itself for someone wanting a more courteous campaign. Skoda continues: “Romney appears to be the only adult in the room with the capability to mount a real challenge to Obama and win in 2012. A resounding win in South Carolina would stop the talk of a drawn-out primary cycle, eliminate the “dead men walking,” and allow for the consolidation of the party around one of the most competent and positive candidates in the race: Mitt Romney.”

Skoda believes that voters in this cycle are more informed and less likely to listen to the GOP elite or to be swayed by the media. He trumpets Romney’s getting 39% of the vote in New Hampshire and concludes that we can all go home now.

Hardly. He leaves out that Santorum basically tied Romney in Iowa. It was actually a pretty poor showing by Romney. I hear things about votes being found at the end of the evening when it looked like Romney might be second. That makes me raise my eyebrows. For all this anyhow, no one got delegates from Iowa as the caucus does not count.

So Romney wins New Hampshire with 39%. That seems rather poor to me, too. After all, he bought a home there, has been campaigning there since 2009 and has sunk a lot of money into that state. In addition, anyone could vote in the New Hampshire primary – Democrats and independents as well as Republicans. Some of them did, too, perhaps trying to help a Romney victory that they feel – as I do – will only lead to defeat against Obama.

Now Romney has 12 delegates out of the thousand plus needed to win. this means we should all go home and let him take it? I don’t think so.

If Mr. Skoda thinks the Mormon thing won’t come up, well, you are very naive. It will. Obama won’t do it, but his surrogates will and it will be ugly. No Republican is going to do it now, but Democrats will next fall with gusto.

How about that picture of Romney from his days at Bain where he’s clutching a dollar? For a lot of people down on their luck, that will be a huge turnoff. They’ll feel he’s not like me and doesn’t understand the little guy. On Redstate they discussed how two things turn off American voters: someone trying to buy an election with their money and someone evangelizing. I would add that Americans want to feel they could have a beer with the candidate. Mitt would not fall into that category.

As for media influence, I think Romney has bought a lot of it. And were they right in picking McCain in 2008? No. They harp on the small matters, word slips or fumbles while staying silent on Romneycare, global warming (backed by Mitt), job records, flip flops on other issues. Does anyone really believe that Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are anti capitalism? Gingrich has done well in the capitalist system and Texas business would not be flourishing if Perry was against it. We’re obsessing over an uneven stitch or two in an otherwise lovely garment.

Besides, even if Romney is an ideal candidate, why should most of the country be denied a voice in the primaries? If you’re that confident in your candidate, Mr. Skoda, welcome the competition. Nothing said now against him will hold a candle to what they are saying now. Obama will bring a flamethrower. Debate and contest should only make him stronger.

The other day an article surfaced claiming that cable news network viewing has been flat during the primaries. It surprised them. Not me. The constant pressing of Romney and his inevitability has stolen lots of enthusiasm from Republicans. Why watch if it is all a waste of time? And why vote, if it’s all a waste of time? That’s not a way to win elections.

Media-cracy Means Mediocrity

Posted on by
Reply

How is it we Republicans find ourselves about to nominate a person who is the Father of Obamacare, a disciple of global warming, a Wall Street capitalist who put thousands out of a job and a flip flopper on abortion? Are we daft or lemmings?

It’s hard to believe it may happen. But, according to analyst Michael Barone after last night’s debate, Mitt Romney may have just won the nomination.

“At about 10:28pm tonight, as Mitt Romney pivoted from a question on tax loopholes and started in with, ‘the real issue is vision,’ I had recorded this thought in my notes, ‘He just clinched the nomination,’” Barone recounts on the Washington Examiner website “Beltway Confidential.”

Just take that in for a moment. One quote about vision after one inconsequential Iowa caucus victory and the Republican half of the country might as well stay home because it’s all over.

No wonder people question the candidates that seek the nomination. They haven’t come up organically but with a lot of manure being spread around by media cultivators.

Perhaps that was the allure of Herman Cain. He got popular because he wasn’t part of a party machine and didn’t get the backing of the Washington “conservative” divas like Barone, Bill Cristal, Karl Rove or Anne Coulter. The latter clearly prefer Romney and directed a lot of their ink that way. They have been pummeling various candidates, trying to persuade us that only Romney is electable. Sure enough, Cain left, to the consternation of his followers, before a vote was even cast.

This technique is still working because as other candidates have come up, pundits have knocked them down. Gingrich may have been the latest victim of that as he saw his top polling status tumble, and Santorum will soon experience it, too.

No matter the fact that Rick Perry has run a big state well for eleven years and has positions that line up with the conservative base, he has been knocked down because he failed the debate test. No matter that the presidency is not a debating endeavor, Perry’s good record has been destroyed by these analysts. He managed to be reelected three times in Texas – I guess there are no half way decent contenders there, is that it? – something Romney could not do after one term.

Friday on his radio show Rush Limbaugh gave the best advice any person can ever give another. That is, be guided by your own perceptions and values and refuse to let others influence you. It used to be an American virtue, a form of individualism that defined us. We weren’t mobs to be manipulated. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

While conservatives rail against the influence of the mainstream media, we have set up our own version of it. What made these people experts? They were disastrously wrong with McCain. Karl Rove was disastrously wrong in handling the Bush administration as he has admitted. Instead of battling back at a media poised to twist anything they could, Rove waved the white flag and let them attack. After eight years of being bloodied, Republicans got rewarded with Obama.

Now it seems that our voters are listening to these “experts” again. It is frustrating to watch as they encourage other candidates to get out of the way and let Romney snag the nomination uncontested.

If we want to have mediocre candidates and mediocre government let the media decide what we want.

Virginia, Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

Again, what’s going on in Virginia? (See earlier post.)

Twenty four hours after State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli decried Virginia’s primary ballot of just Ron Paul and Mitt Romney – and he vowed to open it to all the candidates – he reversed his stance.

Now he says the law must stand and that it will remain just Romney vs. Paul.

What could have possibly happened to make this guy turn? Could it have been money or a smack from the Republican establishment?

Maybe. He suddenly has taken up with Lt. Gov. Bolling, who just happens to be running the campaign for Mitt Romney. Did Romney promise the ambitious AG a post in a Romney administration? Guess we’ll find out if a. Romney wins (doubtful) and b. Romney gets his guy confirmed.

If you’ll recall, Cuccinelli was the first lawyer on the scene of the crash that was Obamacare. He filed suit against it as fast as he could, taking the helm for the other states. That endears him to conservatives and it was a good move. It does, however, indicate he has his eye on a higher job than state AG.

But – and there’s always a but, isn’t there? – this disenfranchisement of Virginia voters (because that is what it truly is) could turn the state from turning out its Republican base. Why bother with a primary with only those two on the ballot? Might as well stay home. And that has implications for the Senate election (George Allen vs. Tim Kaine) and fund raising.

Here’s what the Daily Caller noted:

Since 1980, there have been 66 closely contested battles for U.S. Senate seats, and the Senate candidate who shared the same party affiliation as the presidential nominee who captured the state won 58 percent of the time, according to the University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato and Isaac Wood. Therefore, this entire ordeal could not only cost the Republican Party a Senate pick-up opportunity in Virginia, but possibly control of the upper chamber of Congress as well.

A federal judge will look at the suit brought by Rick Perry and the other presidential contenders on January 13. One judge has already expressed surprise at Cuccinelli’s flip flop. However, the bar for getting the legislature to overturn it is quite high – a vote of 80%.

It’s a shame for virginia and it’s a shame for Republicans.

Some Blogger Endorsements

Posted on by
2

If you listen to the pundits the Republican primary presidential race is in disarray. Cain has tumbled, Newt is cratering, Romney is stagnant, Paul is a nightmare, the rest are second rate. What to do?

First, turn off the news where new polls are trumpeted every hour. Certainly the polls that had Cain sweeping the nation are meaningless now. These will be, too. No vote has been cast as yet and the situation is fluid.

Most importantly, evaluate the candidates for who they are and what they stand for and decide who you like. In the past few days some bloggers have gone ahead and done this, publishing their endorsements. It is interesting reading.

Mike Flynn of Big Government, Dan McLaughlin and others from Redstate and the Ace of Spades crew have come out and chosen Rick Perry.

Although he may not seem like the current favorite, they have thoughtful ideas on why he is the best choice.

Ever since I heard Rick Perry say at a conference that he wanted “to make Washington as inconsequential in our lives as possible,” I knew that was what I wanted to hear. Our framers did not anticipate that its citizens would have to be on alert every hour of the day to monitor what rain of error our officials would shower us with next. They wanted to foster a climate of freedom in which people would be able to go about pursuing happiness – within the confines of right and wrong – without looking over their shoulders to see what was approaching on the horizon.

Perry has demonstrated that he understands this American need, even if our elites have forgotten. As these writers point out, that makes him the conservative’s choice. Plus, he has a record of achievement in Texas that counters Obama’s in a stark way.

You can find these articles at www.biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2011/12/19/393640/
Dan McLaughlin’s at www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2011/12/19/dont-settle-rick-perry-for-president/
Ace of Spades at http://ace.mu.nu/archives/324875.php

See for yourself.