Perry ignores Iowa Crazy-Off contest, will march to an even more different drummer!
This just in: GOP candidates participate in a Crazy-Off contest in IA, followed by a straw poll. Bachmann wins! When it comes to bringing the crazy, no one is goofier than Bachmann. But wait! What’s that sound in the wings? A thousand nutjob voices pray in unison for someone with an even more implausible agenda, and who should step forward but Gov Perry from Texas! And what does he bring to the contest?
When most of us think of Texas, we think of a state with bad education, a lot of pollution, and George Bush. Is it fair to think of Perry in the same terms? After all, he has been governor since 2000. Before that, he was Lt Gov for six years for- guess who? Come on, guess! Yep. George Bush.
But wait, there's more. How does Texas rank in comparison with the rest of the country?
SAT scores: 45
HS grad rate: 43
Birth rate: 2
% uninsured children and total % uninsured: 1
Median Net Worth of Households: 47
CO2 emissions: 1
% working for minimum wage: 1
Heckuva job, Perry. Why, it's a conservative paradise! Texas has done very well with job creation. Oh. Except one thing. A lot of those created jobs were government jobs, many the result of the stimulus package. Wink, wink. We'll just pretend that didn't happen, shall we?
Sadly, Rick Perry has a host of, um, shall we say, ethical challenges, and the chances of his surviving scrutiny during the next few months are not good. Well, nothing like a Texan flavor of the month to spice up the last of the Dog Days.
Let's go crazy! Let's get nuts! Paging Sarah Palin.
Posted by phx8 at August 13, 2011 11:30 PM
According to Paul Krugman and others, TX faces enormous budget deficits, comparable to CA & NY, but not as bad as NJ. Well, well, well. A state run by conservatives for years, facing huge deficits. Who would have imagined? And TX has been hostile to organized labor for years, and does not permit collective bargaining by public employees, yet STILL faces huge deficits.
When I think of Texas, I think of jobs. An amazing 37% of all the new jobs created in the U.S. since the recovery and some measures put that as high as 45%. President Obama should thank Texas, otherwise the recovery would be even weaker. And if all the states were creating jobs at the Texas rate, we would be in an economic boom.
You credit the stimulus with many of those jobs. So why did it work so well in Texas and not other places. Does Obama love Texas so much that he gave them 45% of the money?
Are we talking percentages of funds, or percentages of jobs?
And if it worked here, can it work elsewhere?
This is the craziest pack of elephants we’ve seen in at least the last 6000 years. I would say that the crazier the candidate the better chance Obama has against that person but we know better. The American system can take another nutty Texas governor and survive but I don’t know if our image in the world can. I’m still rooting for Michelle Bachmann.
how about a link for those factoids.
Well, I just saw news that TPaw is out already. The net-crazy of the pack just increased.
I think a challenge for the Obama campaign will be to run as himself instead of running against the GOP. He didn’t run against McCain or Palin in 2008 but he may try it this time if the GOP candidate is crazy enough. I think that is always a mistake but I think his campaign is smarter than that.
So why did it work so well in Texas and not other places.
Oil my friend Oil. When gas in almost $4 a gallon oil producing states do well.
Yep, Texas is the quintessential republican “boom” state. Huge deficits, killin’ off lots of uppity minorities, plenty of $7.00 per hour jobs to be had. I would think twice about holding up Texas as an example of prosperity.
But, I must admit, I get a thrill of horrible fascination watching Bachmann. It’s my fondest wish that she be the republican nominee. And the “light bulb” triumph? She’s a true teabagger hero!!! Think of the fun the campaign would be!!! Almost as good as Palin/McCain!!!!
Did Texas get 45% of the funds? I doubt that. Does Texas have 45% of the American population? No, it does not.
If the recovery works in Texas, why doesn’t it work other places?
Oil and gas would account for wealth to some extend, but the price of oil was higher a few years ago, so the resource alone doesn’t account for the growth.
Beyond that, why don’t other resource rich regions do as well. New York has recently discovered vast riches of natural gas, why isn’t it helping them.
And does Texas produce 45% of the oil and gas in the U.S.?
Minimum wage in Texas is $7.25, just like other places. Besides, do you think it is better to have a job or not. Not working pays nothing.
And do you really have to engage in your silly and outdated bigotry “killin’ off lots of uppity minorities”
C&J The hunt for oil is hitting a frenzied pace in this Country. Many companies are headquartered in Texas. You hire a few people to produce the equipment, to get the rigs in place and then the store down the street hires a clerk or associate as we know it now. Then the next store does the same and pretty soon you have created a few jobs.
Beyond that, why don’t other resource rich regions do as well.
Have you been to the Dakotas or Wyoming lately C&J? If you go to the Dakotas plan on bringing your own bed. Camper cities are springing up.
Of course with Texas we have to add the BS factor. How much of Perry’s claims are true? Him being a politician and all.
It is not just oil. Texas suffered less from the bursting of the housing bubble than other states due to its restrictions on housing equity lending and down payment requirements. Nothing to do with Rich Perry or Republican economic policies. The restrictions are in the Texas Constitution and regulations established after the 80s mortgage debacle which hit Texas very hard.
In any case, the enormous deficit of Texas state government belies Perry’s fiscal management claims.
How about asking New York what they’ve done right? They’re at 8.0 percent. So’s Delaware. So’s Hawaii. Iowa and Kansas are doing better. Lousiana, Maryland, and Massachussetts are doing better.
Massachussetts! Minnesota’s doing better, too. Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming are all doing better.
By your rationale, you might be better served to have Jon Huntsman as your nominee.
And really, Let’s get back to Rick Perry. One thing Rick Perry has going for him is the concentration of the energy sector in his state, especially in a time of high fuel prices. Another thing going for him is that his state was much stricter in terms of speculation on properties, reducing the shocks of the decline of the housing sector. Neither of those two effects, though, can be credited to him.
But the guy’s budgeting basically sucks air like a vacuum cleaner, and he’s slashing education and other seed-corn sort of services in his state in order to make his budget numbers fit. That, rather than touch a rainy day fund or raise taxes to cover the shortfall.
I think you’re looking for the next Bush. Let me warn you off that, real quick. This guy isn’t very smart. Even if you win with him, you’ll regret it, just like Republicans have come to regret George Bush, despite how hard they fought to keep him in office.
Stephen and Rich, are you suggesting that regulations put into the Texas constitution after the S&L debacle helped to save Texas from the meltdown? An amendment to the Texas constitution that cannot be thwarted by the de-regulators like Perry helped to lessen the burden of the meltdown.
Texas is a large state in terms of population and its economy, so some rankings and results are to be expected. In addition, the economy is fueled by oil, so not surprisingly, that helped boost the numbers.
Minimum wage is $7.25? Wow. That’s terrible. In Oregon, by state law it’s $8.50.
A lot of the job growth comes from the military. TX also aggressively takes jobs away from other states by offering lower taxes and an anti-union environment. The result is predicatable.
In summary, under Rick Perry, Texas now provides low wage jobs with no benefits, a broad base of working poor, bad education, terrible health care and an unhealthy population, pollution, and big big deficits.
To deal with the huge deficits, TX plans on cutting spending on education and what’s left of the social safety net.
It’s GOP paradise.
His Hairness had the people of Texas pray for rain when TX was in a bad drought. Dallas got an inch of rain the other day, right after The Coifurre left on his “with the oil companies and the Koch Bros in my pocket I can beat anybody” tour. Last Saturday he prayed for the economy and we know what happened next, the Dow plummeted. I pray he doesn’t win any elections anymore but if he does, I hope he stops praying.
“Texas now provides low wage jobs with no benefits, a broad base of working poor, bad education, terrible health care and an unhealthy population, pollution, and big big deficits.”
Exactly the kinds of conditions that conservative propagandists love to exploit. Create large numbers of working poor then scapegoat them as the lazy poor, the middle class burden, while rolling over for the upper crust.
Except for that little problem with supporting illegal immigrants, Perry is the perfect conservative candidate; while at the same time, his support for illegal immigrants makes him the perfect conservative candidate.
SD wrote; “This guy Perry) isn’t very smart.
LOL…I won the bet I made with friends. I bet that as soon as Perry declared he was in the race, the first post by SD would include his statement above.
Now of course, we would all agree that SD is a connoisseur of “smart” people. He uses a very scientific approach. He looks at the politicians label. If it is (D) or (L) that is proof enough for SD that he is looking at, or listening to, a smart person.
Take Barry obama for example. This man is so smart that they can’t even determine his IQ. His Idiot Quotient is off the charts.
CrAzYtOwN!!! Bachmann, followed by Ron Paul. Looks like the GOP is now officially Libertarian-Tea Party extreme all the way.
I now look forward to watching as Perry and Bachmann try to out crazy-christian-evangelical each other to the death!
I know how Billy Madison feels in this scene:
Like Billy rooting for a question from the category “Burning…”, I’m really really hoping the GOP will choose Bachmann or Perry. But to be real, Republicans ALWAYS nominate the corporatist candidate. Romney will win, and Republicans will take their cue, and slavishly obey authority as usual, and follow the Mittster. Still, I like following the horse race aspect in this early part of the process, and watching various politicians succeed or fail at creating and running organizations.
“Rick Perry and the Human Response.” Heh.
j2t2, Wonder no longer. I knew it because I know SD’s thinking, and I explained that above. LOL
What were barry’s grades in college????
What were barry’s grades in college???? They don’t matter even if they were known. He is a failure as president.
“What were barry’s grades in college????”
I know that he was the top student at Harvard Law School. He was not only chosen for Harvard Law Review, he was elected the Editor. If you are unaware, only the top students qualify for Law Review.
You can pretend that he must have been an “affirmative action” student if you wish at Columbia even though he attended a private competitive high school. You are free to believe that he must have been an “affirmative action” admission to Harvard Law School if you wish. The only thing that you would prove, if correct, is that an affirmative action student is capable of competing with the very best law students in the nation.
Royal, Republicans haven’t completely destroyed Obama’s presidency yet and he still has some big cards he can play. Cards that would be very popular with the people.
phx8, I agree that Romney is the most likely candidate. The evangelicals will either have to suck it up or stay home. The right wing wasn’t thrilled with McCain. the more candidates there are competing for the evangelical and far right voters, the better it is for Romney.
Romney is definitely the corpocracy candidate. The tea party Republicans are good at protecting the corporations, but their zealous quest to dramatically slash social spending poses a threat to the corpocracy.
I believe the corpocracy prefers the Democrats slow and methodical approach to cutting social spending than the draconian proclamations of the tea party.
One thing the next election will be is a test of the staying power of the tea party. Some of their candidates that are not in safe districts are going to get a run for their money, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a few wealthy Rinos challenge some of the tea party candidates in safe Republican districts.
Over all, the American people are fair minded people. They don’t like bullies and the tea party has definitely tried to win that distinction.
The tea party people can easily forget their candidates hard balling on negotiations and their dismissiveness of default and downgrade as no big deal then blaming Obama for the downgrade, but the Democrats are going to constantly remind the independents of it.
Keep in mind that without the social safety net, there would be millions of Americans standing in soup lines with their children and the Republican party would be mud. That social safety net is all that saved the Republican party after what the Bush Administration and the Republicans did. It is a shame they didn’t self-destruct when they had the opportunity to do so, it would have doubled the American peoples chances of reforming their government.
“Keep in mind that without the social safety net, there would be millions of Americans standing in soup lines with their children and the Republican party would be mud.”
Ironic, but true.
Nobody wants to eliminate the social safety net. We disagree about the form. Recall in the 1990s when we (Clinton gets credit as well as Republicans) reformed welfare. Liberal Dems went nuts. They said people would starve in the streets. Didn’t happen.
You guys are good at knocking down those straw men you set up.
The social policies of the 1960s and 1970s often had the effect of making the lives of the poor worse. They engendered crime, hopelessness and family breakup. You have to watch out for the unintended consequences of policies.
Simple minded folk think that they can just give the poor more stuff and more programs and everything will be great. You have to think of what and how you are doing things too. Sometimes more is not better.
According to Perry, Social Security is a “failure” that the American people “have been forced to accept for over 70 years now.”
“I think the first step in finding the solutions is admitting we have a problem—and admitting that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.”
Sure, C&J. Nobody wants to elimate it. Sure. Just because, you know, it’s a Ponzi scheme, I mean, nothing wrong with Ponzi schemes, right? Sure! Just need to change the form. That’s all.
But if a conservative has 3 degrees and has earned them all, he is a dumbass. Only liberals think that way.
You do not know his college/university records. So how can you make those assertions? Even in higher education politics plays a part in who is in and who is out.
When the powers that be want something they usually get it. I am talking about the people with no names that do most of the moving and shaking in government.
That is a common fact.
C&J, every solution presented by conservatives has been to return to the way it was before. The way it was before is why we have the social safety net.
I don’t like the welfare program. I am open to a new solution. What NEW solution to welfare are conservatives offering for review?
“You do not know his college/university records. So how can you make those assertions?”
I can make those assertions because I am aware that participation in Law Review is an honor reserved for only the top academic students. Only the top students in a law class qualify for Law Review.
Let me add one other bit of information about Obama’s academic career which is public record. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School which is limited to the top 10% of his class. So, he held the most prestigious student academic position at Harvard (Editor Law Review) and graduated in the top 10% of his class from perhaps the most competitive and prestigious academic institution in the United States.
And where does this info come from? Why does the source only mention his “brilliance” and not the transcripts? Why is it hard to find someone who was a fellow student to say something about him, at any of the three universities he is reported to have attended? If he is as smart as we are supposed to believe, then why is he not releasing the records that are by necessity and by custom released by tradition and law? If he is as smart as we are told, then why does he not belong to Mensa?
I have answers to the above questions. The southpaws will not recognize or accept them. Their problem, not mine.
End of this issue.
Why is it hard to find someone who was a fellow student to say something about him
Because you haven’t looked?
When Obama became the President of the Harvard Law Review, there was quite a bit of coverage in the media at the time because he was the first American of African descent to achieve that position.
C&J are absolutely right, Perry has created an economic boom in Texas.
Get used to it America, 8.2 percent unemployment is destined to become the new standard for full employment.
Texas, leading the way to a new economy, a minimum wage economy.
“And where does this info come from? Why does the source only mention his “brilliance” and not the transcripts?”
The source of the information is Harvard University Law School which awarded him a degree magna cum laude. Its on his diploma. That means that his academic performance was in the top 10% of his class in the most prestigious law school in the nation. Why is that so hard to accept? Its not like he was raised in some ghetto environment. He attended a private high school. He attended a prestigious small liberal arts college and then Columbia University before attending Harvard Law School.
This is a quote from the Crimson Review article in 1990 provided by Warped about the qualifications of the editorial staff of the Harvard Law Review: “Currently, there are 80 editors of the review, all of whom were selected on the basis of grades and the results of a writing contest.”
You know what this is about?
Bush was a mediocre intellect. So, Obama must be made out to be a mediocre intellect, otherwise people might wonder whether they should be following the judgment of the right on who they elect.
Which, in my view, wouldn’t be a disaster. Fact is, the GOP’s accepted far too many folks of limited intellectual firepower, simply because Democrats challenged them over that, and they didn’t want to back down and admit the obvious.
It’s time for people to consider that elitism is not the only conceivable reason for not elected folks of diminished capacity.
There is no proof of how intellectual he is. The fact is that he can’t prove it. If he were the intellectual he has convinced some people that he is, then records of his past would be public. They aren’t. They remain hidden. The reason being it would reveal the truth that his comrades would not want revealed.
“There is no proof of how intellectual he is. The fact is that he can’t prove it.”
It isn’t he that has to prove it. Harvard University found him intellectual enough to award him its highest degree magna cum laude. If you don’t believe Harvard, then….
Why can’t we find anyone who knew Obama before he materialized in a Chicago ghetto preaching social justice to the minorities?
If you want proof of Obama’s intellect, let’s try the fact that on two votes where Republicans had the potential to railroad the Democrats entirely, they’re left having to ask the Democrats for help to pass anything.
If you want proof of Obama’s intellect, reflect that however bad Obama’s ratings have been, the Republican’s have been worse.
Fact is, Obama’s enemies come short even when the win, because they don’t think ahead like he does. He takes some temporary flak from some people, but he’s got a way out, where you don’t: being himself. Republicans have set themselves up where they cannot be themselves without sacrificing the center. Even so, they are pushed to be as far right as they claim to be by a group they can’t maintain a majority without.
Republicans are defining themselves out of the mainstream. They might succeed in making Obama a political failure, but will they have so exhausted the goodwill of the American people, so wasted the opportunity to make things better, so invested themselves in moving to the far right, that all it takes is a relatively non-controversial Democrat to push them over the edge into failure?
Republican’s problem is their philosophy equates sheer raw persistence with victory. The trouble is, to maintain stable power they have to couple the diminishment of their competitor’s fortunes with the enhancement of their own. They’re prepared to win a political battle within the party at the expense of winning it between the parties.
Secrets of supra shoes
You may have already knownugg boots outlet some main characteristics of supra shoes. As you already know,this kind of Roxy short Boots
board shoes are famous for its avant-garde design revealingcheap black boots unique characteristics of everyone.however,supra shoes also emphasize good function beside the compelling appearance.These shoes