Parsing the Possible GOP 2016 Candidates: Part III, the Leaders.

I am one of the first people to complain when talking heads argue about presidential primary polls when primary elections are more than a year away. If 2012 taught us anything it’s that a leading candidate early in the race can be one of the first candidates out by actual election time. Regardless, I’ve been looking at several polls for potential GOP 2016 candidates (mind you, none of them have declared yet) and it’s the same names repeatedly being mentioned. For this I would like to briefly look at the most possible contenders and offer a quick opinion on them. The two most recent national polls I have were conducted by FOX and CNN/Opinion Research. In the former Bush, Perry, Paul, and Christie rounded out the top with Christie, Paul, Huckabee, and Ryan in the latter. Other names in both included Cruz, Walker, Santorum, Ryan, Rubio, and Jindal. In the third and final installment of this series I will look at those candidates who are currently leading in national polls, Texas Governor Richard “Rick” Perry, former Arkansas Governor Michael “Mike” Huckabee, former Florida Governor John ‘Jeb” Bush, New Jersey Governor Christopher “Chris” Christie, and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Each of these potential candidates are averaging around 11 percent in national polls.


Governor Rick Perry of Texas appears to be interested in another go at the White House. One time seen as a favorite in 2012 Perry quickly imploded for a variety of reasons including a lack of preparation at debates and a few gaffes. The most memorable of the latter being his inability to identify the federal agencies he wished to axe. Just a month ago Perry lagged in polls but has recently shot up to the level of a top tier candidate. That is just one of the reasons I feel compelled to include him in the top tier. I don't doubt for a second that Perry will become and stay a major force among the possible 2016 candidates. Already Perry has been laying the groundwork for a potential campaign and has been gaining support from groups around the country. Everything so far indicates he is not the Perry of 2012 but a far better possible candidate and I believe he has a strong chance to finish in the top three.

Perry in 2012 wasn't ready for primetime and was dogged by a lack of preparation and it is true, he was the last GOP candidate to enter into the 2012 primaries. Insiders say he has taken that lesson to heart and it shows as he has been incredibly lucid and informed in recent months speaking out on a variety of issues. Many will remember and view Perry solely through the lens of gaffes and fumbles and I can't stress how wrong that is. If we were to do that we would have denied Obama and Bush the presidency while Hillary Clinton and VP Joe Biden would be relegated to political obscurity and sources of comical political fodder. Benefitting Perry is his strong presence which exudes confidence and strength; on that alone he has most other potential contenders beat.

In 2012 Perry quickly exited the race right after New Hampshire after performing poorly both there and in Iowa. In some ways that can be viewed as beneficial as it prevented him from furthering a disastrous campaign and making more mistakes, mistakes that would be impediments now. If Perry becomes a candidate I don't expect a repeat of 2012, I expect him to fight till the finish. There is a strong base that will support him and if anything he has been increasing his conservative credentials since 2012. His vocal outcry concerning illegal immigration which Texas is feeling the brunt of has been admirable and commendable especially when one takes into account that the president has been almost oblivious to the issue. There are some conservative issues that will hurt Perry with mainstream GOP voters though at the same time there are other possible candidates who will be hurt more. He is a governor of the largest GOP state in the country and has years of experience and a positive record; if Perry can continue to improve and refine his image, stay on course and avoid fratricide with the other candidates he will be a serious contender in 2016.

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey who has repeatedly said that a presidential run is not being considered at the moment has been taking steps that show quite the opposite. He has been and will be traveling to multiple early battle ground states though he claims this is due to his role as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association though critics contend it's to boost favorability and recognition. He has been working possible donors and holding multiple meetings with influential insiders. Christie had been the leading GOP candidate in late 2013 till allegations surrounding the Bridgegate scandal caused a sudden drop though he has stayed consistently within the top tier. Christie has said that he will wait till the end of the year to make his decision but I can say that he will most certainly run provided he doesn't suffer anymore setbacks from now till then.

Christie has been a popular governor of a blue state and has shown he can work across the aisle. While this isn't endearing to conservatives it is favorable to independents. Then again independents aren't the deciding factor in a GOP primary. While conservatives hammered Christie for working with the president after Hurricane Sandy, others saw him as putting priorities ahead of ideology. Christie though has been slumping in New Jersey state polls and his once impressive support and favorability among Democrats and independents is slipping. Bridgegate has taken its toll and has led voters to view Christie as untrustworthy. Regardless if Christie was involved the damage is already done as the national media was saturated by coverage of the story for weeks. Christie is also seen as a bully with a short temper, not of much help when one seeks to boost favorability.

Once viewed as the eventual nominee in 2016 Christie has fallen. If and when he declares his candidacy he will be forced to work overtime to regain a positive image in the minds of voters. Personality wise Christie can be compared to Gingrich, not calm and collected but rather a man with a temper. Gingrich though did little to hide that in 2012, whether or not it hurt him is for anyone to decide. A Christie candidacy would be popular in the northeast and his views would be accepted by the majority of the GOP base. I don't doubt he can raise the money and receive the endorsements necessary to make him a top three candidate though I'm not sure he has the ability to go all the way. I like Christie but I can see why there are those who harbor negative views of him. In a race where there are others who have similar policy viewpoints and experience, favorability and opinions on personality will matter. If Christie can turn around the negative publicity surrounding him he will go far, otherwise he will fall.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush who was considered as a potential candidate in the past seems almost certain to run in 2016. More than at any previous time he has spoken openly that he is strongly considering a run. While the idea of another Bush in the White House is unpalatable to many, I argue, look at him as if he wasn't a member of the Bush family and one might be pleasantly surprised. Over the past several months where other leading potential candidates such as Christie and Paul have shot up quickly only to come back down, Bush has managed to stay consistently around 11+ percent in national polls while he is a favorite among donors and is well liked in many GOP circles. Fiscally conservative while endorsing social views that are more forward thinking and in touch with the times, Bush can be a significant competitor in 2016.

There are those who say a Jeb Bush candidacy is out of the question given the recent memory of his brother. In light of the approval ratings of President Obama, the memory of George Bush is not as bad as it was in the past. So called "Bush fatigue" can be avoided as it must be said that Jeb is not George or their father Bush Sr., he is his own man. Furthermore the left can't say much as the Democrats with the Kennedys and Clintons aren't free of political dynasties. Already influential Republicans in the Beltway are urging Jeb to run including Speaker of the House Rep. Boehner. His realistic views on immigration reform place him between those views supported by the left and those supported by strong conservatives; this bodes well for support, particularly among Hispanic voters. And while Jeb is viewed as a member of the establishment, the support gained from mainstream voters and independents far surpasses the loss of strong conservative support.

If Bush were to announce his candidacy I would expect him to raise a small fortune almost instantly as donors swarm to him. For him to be successful he must establish a unique identity for himself and deflect comparisons of him to his brother or father. That is his biggest hurdle; making it known that he is Jeb Bush, not George Bush. Issue wise he would draw upon the majority of the GOP base and can work to make inroads with conservatives. He also benefits from the fact that out of the possible candidates I've looked at, he isn't how you could say, recent. Save for Huckabee, every other candidate currently holds office and is under constant media scrutiny and the magnifying lens of the public. Bush has been out of office since 2007 and as a result he has been less under the public eye so there are less sound bites or votes for him to have to publicly defend or answer to. Can Jeb be a strong contender; absolutely. He can appeal to the base, has experience and a favorable record as governor of Florida, and can raise enough money to make him viable. Can Jeb win though?

The last of the governors in the leading tier is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Huckabee ran an impressive campaign during the 2008 GOP presidential primaries despite having limited funding. He ultimately came in third behind Romney though the difference in percentage of votes garnered by both men was small. The 2008 Huckabee campaign stressed and put forth an image of hope and optimism for the U.S. Even though he was considered too conservative for many, he was still extremely favorable among the GOP electorate. Now Huckabee is publicly saying he is considering another run and it would seem that there are many who favor that. Unfortunately for Huckabee there are many disadvantages.

Huckabee has kept himself in the public's view since 2008. He has released several books, made numerous media appearances and has his own radio show and a weekend show on FOX News, Huckabee. He is a darling of the Christian right and tea party conservatives and those groups represent his power base. That though represents a problem for Huckabee on the national stage. Heavy conservative and Christian right leanings don't generate tremendous levels of support in the large states that deliver the most delegates nor do they attract the strong financial support of northeast donors who hold more moderate social views. Huckabee will be hard pressed to expand his base. Personally I find Huckabee to be a great man but would I vote for him, probably not. Being an upstanding person alone won't sway people who disagree with his social views.

I must say though that I generally believe and trust him. In 2008 he was the candidate that I thought to myself, he is being honest and has a genuine concern for the future of the country that is free from other agendas. His 2008 campaign was uplifting and I saw it as an almost David and Goliath struggle. I also though accept reality and I don't see Huckabee winning the nomination. His views won't be readily accepted by Republicans who are not conservatives or of the Christian right. There is a limit to how far a candidate such as Huckabee can go and that was also shown with Santorum in 2012. If Huckabee can raise a significant amount which I believe he can he might have a shot at a second place finish. A Huckabee campaign wouldn't be a nasty attack driven campaign but rather a campaign for the future of America. What Huckabee offers most in 2016 is to help elevate the debate above criticisms and talking points towards inspiring hope.

Lastly we come to Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. The son of famed former Representative Ron Paul, Rand is seen as carrying on the libertarian cause put forth by his father. An immensely popular figure, Paul has consistently polled as a top three of candidate for some time. Like fellow Senator Cruz, Paul is a relative newcomer having only entered elected office in 2011. On the other hand to many, it feels that Paul has been around for decades as he is the scion of his father. I must say though that Rand is not his father and that his political views at times are more born out of convenience and populism than an absolute belief in libertarianism. Can Paul be a strong candidate; well he will be far stronger than his father was. Can Paul ultimately win; nope.

Libertarian views are popular among young Americans as seen with Ron Paul who generated a tremendous amount of support from this demographic. Older Americans aren't as favorable to these views though but Paul might have a way around that. For starters his views are nowhere as solid as those of his father and when he voices his mind he doesn't come off as an Ayn Rand acolyte. Still though his views are just enough at the edge of the mainstream that he will tick establishment Republicans off. Those who didn't like his father will carry on that view with Rand regardless of policy differences. Rand is similar in ways to fellow newcomer Cruz. Both are firebrands who have rapidly ascended to the national spotlight which is not necessarily a good thing. Paul like Cruz will be remembered for the 2013 government shutdown and will be painted as an obstructionist. Paul is also quick to act without forethought, not the hallmarks of a great leader.

While not publicly stating that he intends to run, Paul has been hiring staffers in early battle ground states and has been raising funds through a PAC created in 2012. Paul through PACs has so far raised the second most of any possible candidates being right behind Ryan and ahead of Rubio. Additionally he has been making frequent trips to states such as Iowa and is surpassing other potential candidates in early organizing. If Paul can expand his views he will gain an incredible amount of support. What he must do though is work to prove he is ready for the presidency and that is something I feel will take time. Just because Obama was a new senator and won the presidency doesn't mean that the GOP must follow the same course in seeking its nominee. Paul can voice his opinion and debate his views quite well but can he lead. Paul coming in second or third of course but personally I would be shocked if he won the nomination. If Paul falters it will be due to his own inability to expand and broaden his appeal.

It's interesting to note that the top polling candidates are for the most part current or former governors. I strongly believe the 2016 nominee should be a governor as that conveys actual executive experience and leadership. Should we automatically ignore Congressional candidates, no. But it is much easier for a Senator to talk a good talk and ultimately wind up completely ineffectual when put into a position requiring leadership. Perry has the most experience of the top candidates and I do believe he will do quite well if he does run. If he can avoid the missteps made in 2012 he will excel. Bush can go far if he can make a name for himself and detach himself from the establishment. Though with Bush I don't get a feeling of enthusiasm that he really wants the presidency and that is critical. Christie needs to refine his image and avoid negative media attention. If Christie can't accomplish that he is finished as a candidate. Huckabee needs to expand his base which he might be unable to do. That is his biggest impediment to receiving the nomination. Paul needs to present himself as presidential material and move beyond the idealistic, ideology driven senator he is. The GOP doesn't need firebrands who've quickly rose to national prominence as they will quickly falter after the primaries. Ultimately the candidate who can appeal best to the majority base and who has prior leadership experience will receive the 2016 nomination.

Posted by SPBrooker at August 12, 2014 6:38 PM
Comments
Comment #381826

Christie will not run. When the Romney campaign vetted him for VP in 2012, Christie failed. Christie didn’t just have a skeleton in the closet- he had a whole graveyard. Christie’s problems goes way beyond Bridgegate, which was relatively minor in the scheme of things.

If Christie let his ego get in the way of his common sense, the other candidates would make short work of him. Perry in particular is known for playing dirty.

Not sure? Just ask Hermann Cain.

Perry looks great on paper. If that were all it took, looking good in theory, then he would win the whole thing. Unfortunately, Perry the person is a disaster. The guy is not that bright. He still says really, really stupid things. For example, in the recent immigration ‘crisis,’ he put himself in front of the cameras and decried the influx of unaccompanied children. He wanted- nay, demanded!- to call in the National Guard! That was stupid in typical Perry style, because those children were not evading border guards. They were seeking the guards out and turning themselves in. Unless Perry thought the National Guard should start shooting the children, calling in the guard would have been absolutely foolish. And that is Governor Perry in a nutshell. He just can’t help himself. Just when you think he’s got it knocked, the guy opens his mouth.

Jeb Bush? One word. Bush.

It would be interesting if Huckabee ran. Don’t know about that. He skipped 2012, when the economic landscape made the political one look more promising for the GOP. 2016 might be really rough for Republicans if the GDP keeps growing at a 4% clip, and employment stays above 200,000 jobs a month, the way it has just done for six consecutive months for the first time since 1996. Hard to see why Huckabee would want to run this time around, but not 2012.

Rand Paul is the most interesting GOP candidate. He has enough sense to avoid the cameras and shut his mouth when things go wrong. He did not put himself front and center during the government shutdown. That was smart. When Congressman Steve King started debating a DREAMER about immigration at a diner where Paul was eating lunch, Paul had the presence of mind to flee the scene; Paul knew King would spout incredibly offensive things on camera, and sure enough, King did. Paul has a good nose for the camera, and knows when to effectively play a faux libertarian for the crowd.

But Paul is very inexperienced. 2016 would be a good year for him to campaign, build up his network, and gather favors. There’s a lot to be said for that approach to a future candidacy. It will also give him the chance to put distance between himself and his issues with plagiarism.

One huge factor that could shape the process will be the short duration of the campaign, and the limited number of debates. It will happen fast. On the one hand, this could help Jeb Bush, who will probably amass a lot of funds from establishment Republicans. Same goes for Perry. On the other hand, it might help a dark horse; a win in IA, NH, and/or SC could generate enough free media coverage and momentum to punch through & wrap it up before the others can take him down.

Posted by: phx8 at August 12, 2014 10:39 PM
Comment #381880
Everything so far indicates he is not the Perry of 2012 but a far better possible candidate and I believe he has a strong chance to finish in the top three.

Seems Perry might be to busy to inflict upon this country his special brand of stupid. My God, another repub Governor of Texas as a president! Didn’t you guys learn anything during the GWB years.


http://news.yahoo.com/texas-perry-indicted-coercion-veto-threat-224901143.html

Look for once instead of listening to what he says look at what he does Repubs.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903532804576564741924419026

Posted by: j2t2 at August 15, 2014 10:40 PM
Comment #381882

Like I said just a few days ago, Perry plays dirty, and it looks like it just caught up with him. Perry demanded a Special Prosecutor resign after she was given a DUI. She refused. Perry threatened to veto her funding. She still refused. Perry pulled $7.5 million in funding from her office to force her out. That is a clear cut abuse of power. That is coercion. He threatened her if she did not resign, then carried through with the threat. Based on the bare outlines, I’d say Perry is going down.

That was not just any DA’s office. That one was the public integrity unit, which investigates political corruption.

Perry has been indicted for two felonies. He will be booked, fingerprinted, and a mug shot will be taken. That should make a nice political commercial: Perry’s mug shot.

Posted by: phx8 at August 16, 2014 12:43 PM
Comment #381893

phx8

Another Ronny Earl type smear job. It will go no where. He’s made Obama look liken the fool he is on the border issue, and this is just payback. LOL !

Posted by: dbs at August 16, 2014 9:07 PM
Comment #381894

dbs,
“Smear job”? Perry pulled the funding for the office that investigates public corruption. He threatened, then he went through with the threat. How dumb is that? No one smeared him. He screwed up. Bad. A person can’t be indicted just for being stupid, but Perry might set a new precedent. What kind of idiot would do what Perry did? Seriously, how dumb is Perry? The glasses aren’t working, I guess. They were supposed to make him look smarter, but now look, he went and did something dumb anyway! Fer cryin’ out loud, he tried to destroy the person heading the office for investigating public corruption! I don’t care if she’s a freakin’ werewolf, going on a vendetta against the person heading that office is criminally stupid, no matter how horrible she may be, and Perry deserves whatever follows.

Posted by: phx8 at August 17, 2014 1:19 AM
Comment #381896

phx8

What he did was veto a bill funding the unit because she refused to resign after being arrested for DWI. Sorry a but district attorney arrested for drunk driving no longer deserves to serve in that office.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7y7oJ266qI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxsCH_p1oc

Posted by: dbs at August 17, 2014 8:43 AM
Comment #381897

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Uo9d28FQ0

Posted by: dbs at August 17, 2014 9:06 AM
Comment #381898

The plot thickens with Perry. Apparently the DA insisted on investigating a medical research institution that Perry used to grant favors, jobs, and grants. Perry wanted that investigation shut down. So maybe Perry might have known what he was doing after all. He was more afraid of the investigation than the consequences of firing the investigator.

dbs,
In some states and government positions, DAs can be fired or they resign over DUIs. Personnel policies will determine it, and there is a process to follow if a government servant is unfit. It is not up to Perry to defund her office.

Posted by: phx8 at August 17, 2014 11:02 AM
Comment #381899

phx8 complains of what Perry did but praises Obama for all his misdeeds. Obama can skirt the law and that is OK in phx8’s eyes but WOO to a republican.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 17, 2014 12:30 PM
Comment #381900

phx8 even Axelrod thinks the lawsuit is a farce.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 17, 2014 12:45 PM
Comment #381901

phx8

Apparently David Axelrod and Alan Dershowitz disagree with you.

“Perry, who is looking at running for president in 2016, was indicted by a Texas grand jury on the allegation that he improperly tried to coerce a district attorney’s resignation after she was arrested for drunk driving. Perry ultimately followed through in his threat to cut her agency’s funding, which both Axelrod and Dershowitz have said was perfectly acceptable to do under Texas law.”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rick-perry-wants-everyone-know-143044255.html

Posted by: dbs at August 17, 2014 12:48 PM
Comment #381902

Do some people think what Perry did was all right? That’s nice. However, a special prosecutor appointed by a judge and a grand jury saw it differently.

No one argues that Perry did not possess a line item veto which could be used to cut funding to the office. That is irrelevant. The legal problem is that he issued a threat to force a DA to resign, then followed through in an effort to force her out. That is illegal.

By the way, the name of the institute was the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT). The DA indicted the former Director over an $11 million grant that apparently went to a lot of people who should not have been given the money.

Perry was desperate to replace the DA with a Republican. He could have offered to replace her with another Democrat, but Perry would not consider it. He had a specific Republican in mind, a party loyalist named Terry Keel.

Anytime a president or governor wants to stop a DA from investigating corruption, it should be a huge red flag.

Posted by: phx8 at August 17, 2014 1:45 PM
Comment #381903

Maybe we should wait for a couple, or three, years and then have someone find the charges were without merit, like they did with Tom Delay. The same DA’s office prosecuted Delay.

Isn’t it funny that when a Democratic embarrasses herself all the other sheep jump on her bandwagon without any regard to what laws she broke, then they start throwing mud on the person who brings it all to the front? The sheep don’t care if the Democratic broke the law, it’s the person who expects to uphold the law that is at fault.

Gawd, the hypocrisy drips like honey off the politics of the Democratic Party. Nothing is sacred but the party. Protect the party at all costs. That should be the Democratic’s motto.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 17, 2014 2:07 PM
Comment #381904

Tom DeLay was found guilty in a court trial and sentenced. His convictions were overturned by Republican appointed judges who found there was “insufficient evidence” to uphold the convictions- despite the fact that a jury heard all of the evidence over a long period of time, something that cannot be said for those appeal judges. The decision by the appeals court is still in the legal system. DeLay is not out of the clear yet. There is a raft of evidence against him.

There are ways within the system to punish a person such as the Austin DA, or even have her fired. It is not up to the Governor to demand her resignation, then defund her office, especially when that DA is investigating public corruption, including questionable acts by that governor.

A special prosecutor with a reputation for non-partisanship was appointed, and he found enough to put it before a grand jury. The grand jury agreed and indictments were issued.

WW, do you really want to defend cronyism in government? Do you really want to stand up for treating taxpayer money as a giant slush fund for rewarding a politician’s buddies?

Posted by: phx8 at August 17, 2014 3:23 PM
Comment #381905

phx8

“Perry was desperate to replace the DA with a Republican. He could have offered to replace her with another Democrat, but Perry would not consider it. He had a specific Republican in mind, a party loyalist named Terry Keel.”

Yes because democrats replace democrats with republicans all the time. LOL!

“Anytime a president or governor wants to stop a DA from investigating corruption, it should be a huge red flag.”

Kinda like Eric Holder has done with every scandal from “fast and furious” to the IRS targeting of conservative groups seeking tax exempt status. Ya I see what you mean.


“Tom DeLay was found guilty in a court trial and sentenced. His convictions were overturned by Republican appointed judges who found there was “insufficient evidence” to uphold the convictions”

Yes those pesky republican appointed judges. HA HA HA ! I’m sure they never read the trial transcripts or went over any of the evidence. How dare they overturn a jury verdict because that never happens.

“It is not up to the Governor to demand her resignation, then defund her office, especially when that DA is investigating public corruption, including questionable acts by that governor.’

apparently in Texas it is, and according to Axelrod and Dershowitz it is as well.Funny how this has all been brought to the forfront after Perry sent troops to the border essentially telling Obama f$#@ You. Nothing political to see here, move along. LOL!

Posted by: dbs at August 17, 2014 5:07 PM
Comment #381906

“… Yes because democrats replace democrats with republicans all the time.”

Often true, that parties fill vacancies with their own. But not in this case, with a DA in charge of investigating political corruption and pressing an investigation that could prove to be big trouble. Nixon tried firing special prosecutors. It did not go well for him either.

I wrote: “Anytime a president or governor wants to stop a DA from investigating corruption, it should be a huge red flag.”

You wrote: “Kinda like Eric Holder has done with every scandal from “fast and furious” to the IRS targeting of conservative groups seeking tax exempt status. Ya I see what you mean.”

That is a confusing and even weird way of avoiding the issue at hand. What does Holder have to do with this? Holder has never interfered with prosecutors. No one has ever charged him with such a thing. There have never been an indictments for any of the so-called scandals. Not one.

I don’t see what Obama has to do with Perry’s situation, or why Obama would feel the need to take revenge for Perry over immigration. That makes no sense.

The House GOP immigration bill was about the worse thing that could have happened to Perry’s presidential hopes. It was an absolute disaster for him and Rubio. The White House could not have designed anything more damaging to Perry’s aspirations than that GOP bill on immigration passed by the House.

Posted by: phx8 at August 17, 2014 6:41 PM
Comment #381907

do you really want to defend cronyism in government? Do you really want to stand up for treating taxpayer money as a giant slush fund for rewarding a politician’s buddies?
Posted by: phx8 at August 17, 2014 3:23 PM

Best laugh I’ve had in a week. Please tell me that it isn’t what the libs in congress and the president do all the time.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2014 6:44 PM
Comment #381908

Obama To Withhold State Highway Funds Until Congress Raises Taxes

This move from Obama is particularly evil considering the harsh winter much of the country just endured. The roads in the Northeast and Midwest are chewed up and in desperate need of repair. Obama could get the money from any number of unnecessary programs but instead he’s holding our highways hostage until Congress bows to his will and raises taxes.


Did I say hypocrisy? Yep! Let’s hear phx8 condemn Obama for threatening to withhold funds!

How dumb is that? No one smeared him. He screwed up. Bad. A person can’t be indicted just for being stupid, but Perry Obama might set a new precedent. What kind of idiot would do what Perry Obama did? Seriously, how dumb is Perry Obama?

Pull up your pants, phx8, your hypocrisy is showing.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 17, 2014 7:19 PM
Comment #381909

RF,
You write: “Please tell me that it isn’t what the libs in congress and the president do all the time.”

Does that make it ok? Do you want to see the politicians you support held to a higher standard, or not? What, if anything, do you even stand for?

The defense here seems to be, ‘yeah, but… OBAMA!!!’ And that is precisely what will make it so hard for the GOP to survive much beyond 2016. Conservatives stand for nothing positive; just reflexive hatred of the Obama administration.

It is also the reason I think Rand Paul might be the only viable candidate for the GOP in 2016. He alone seems to be capable of recognizing the need to overcome the partisanship, bigotry, and hatred that currently enslaves conservatives. He knew enough to flee the scene when Congressman Steve King started talking to a DREAMER about immigration. He knew enough to condemn the military style response of the police in Ferguson. He knew enough to be open-minded about gay marriage. It makes him the only candidate with even a ghost of a chance of reaching beyond the GOP base.

Posted by: phx8 at August 17, 2014 7:22 PM
Comment #381911
States that have not passed a .08 BAC law by October 1, 2004, will lose 4 percent of their federal highway construction funds.

October 6, 2000, Federal Transportation Appropriations Bill.

Blackmail is an integral part of how the federal government forces states to “get with the program”. Why is it ok for the federal government to blackmail states to do it’s bidding and not for a governor to do the same thing when enforcing standards?

Perhaps because the governor is a republican and the federal government has been controlled by progressives for the last one-hundred years.


Posted by: Weary Willie at August 17, 2014 7:28 PM
Comment #381912

WW,
You unintentionally provided a perfect example of what I said in my previous comment.

And by the way, your link to an article in early July looks a little silly in light of what subsequently happened. Obama signed a stopgap bill for highway funding on August 8th.

Posted by: phx8 at August 17, 2014 7:44 PM
Comment #381913

So the threat gets washed away? It’s ok now? Obama gets his way with threats and it’s ok but when a Republican makes threats it’s a criminal offense?

Sounds more like hypocrisy to me.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 17, 2014 9:19 PM
Comment #381914

Negotiations are not threats. The White House, Senate, and House came together and agreed on a temporary measure. No harm was done, no one was forced into an unconditional surrender, no one was fired, no indictments were issued.

Conservatives keep chasing their tails with made-up scandals. There are real, important issues out there. Rand Paul seems to be the only candidate who can look beyond Obama Rage and say anything meaningful. Rand Paul wrote this over the weekend in an op ed for the WSJ entitled “We Must Demilitarize the Police”:

“When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands… Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.”


Posted by: phx8 at August 17, 2014 11:08 PM
Comment #381915

Would you expect a prosecutor to keep their job in this case if it was a Republican? Can a Republican responsible for prosecuting people who commit DUI, battery on an officer, disorderly conduct, be allowed to keep his job? Wouldn’t you expect some repercussions for this type of behavior no matter who it is? Or is it just Democratic prosecutors that are immune from punishment?

Weren’t you just sticking up for people who got fired for saying stuff like “OMG” and “horrible”, or people who lost their business for refusing to bake a cake? Now, it’s:

I don’t care if she’s a freakin’ werewolf, going on a vendetta against the person heading that office is criminally stupid, no matter how horrible she may be, and Perry deserves whatever follows.

You’d be singing a different tune if it was a Democratic Governor or a Republican prosecutor.

This is another example of Democratic’s hypocrisy. Anything to make a stink.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 17, 2014 11:55 PM
Comment #381916

I know you weren’t sticking up for people who got fired. Slip of the finger. You were justifying the actions of the people who did the firing and who shut down the business. I remember you saying “Good, they need to be out of business”. Yea, for not baking a cake. It wasn’t a DUI, or assault on a police officer, or disorderly conduct, just not baking a cake.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 18, 2014 12:04 AM
Comment #381917

WW,
Your argument:

Anything critical of conservatives is unfair, because liberals might have done something similar at some other time; therefore, it is ok for conservatives to do anything, anything at all, no matter how terrible, because liberals might have done it. Any and all criticism from the opposition must be dismissed as hypocrisy, because it is impossible for conservatives to do anything wrong, by virtue of the fact that a liberal might have done it in the past- and no degree of false equivalence can ever matter.

I have no problem with the DA in Austin resigning. If that is standard procedure for the personnel department in Texas government or state bar, then put the wheels in motion, and force her out of the job. That is totally fine. And I am fine with her being replaced by a Republican. There is nothing wrong with that.

I do have a problem with the DA being threatened by the governor she is investigating for corruption, and having that governor withdraw funds to prevent her from continuing her investigation. That is a huge problem. That got Perry indicted by a grand jury.

Posted by: phx8 at August 18, 2014 12:28 AM
Comment #381918

Your hypocrisy is showing again. Listen to what you say. I could do the strike replace label trick with your first paragraph and it would be just as true as your original statement.

Democrats just get away with it.

What happened when the baker didn’t bake the cake? He got his funding cut off, didn’t he? And you thought it was fine and dandy. Now you’re defending someone who has done far worse and you expect everything to remain the same. She actually breaks some laws and she keeps her funding, but an innocent baker loses his.

I think this is hypocrisy at it’s most blantant!

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 18, 2014 1:22 AM
Comment #382101

PHX8, It seems to me Rand Paul is the only politician at the federal level who acknowledges the militarization of the police in our country, should he actually continue on with this issue he may have my vote. The other issue that needs attention is the income inequality that has continued to grow, Obama started to talk about it then quit as campaign season came upon us.

My vote will go to those that make this part of the campaign they run.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 18, 2014 7:45 AM
Comment #382103

j2t2,
Agreed, the way Rand Paul approached this issue was very impressive. It is about time a conservative Republican stood up for something worthwhile, something other than white hot Obama rage. When is the last time the conservatives actually stood for individual rights and liberty? Given time, he could be very formidable. His biggest problem is the Republican Party.

Right now, we have an opposition party that can’t do much more than advocate ‘religious freedom’ and ‘states rights’ as an excuse to practice bigotry and discrimination. Rush Limbaugh is busy abetting the character assassination of the kid who was murdered in Ferguson by a cop. On FOX, one guy named Starnes thought Obama should not just give condolences to the family of the murdered kid, but also the cop who shot him. That is modern conservatism in a nutshell. Another FOX contributor defended the militarization of the police. Ugly, ugly stuff.

Being the opposition party does not just mean opposing everything Obama does. It means consistently standing for an alternative, presenting it, and working with the majority to through compromise.

Paul seems to get the part about liberty and freedom, and the importance of preventing discrimination. Let’s see how his party reacts to him.

Posted by: phx8 at August 18, 2014 3:12 PM
Comment #382107

“the kid who was murdered in Ferguson by a cop.”

Murdered? I think this prejudgment is what we should avoid, phx8, in this racially charged nation. Let’s get the facts before judging.

Posted by: Rich at August 18, 2014 7:54 PM
Comment #382108

….. That is modern conservatism in a nutshell. Another FOX contributor defended the militarization of the police. Ugly, ugly stuff.


Preaching to the choir phx8, I have been telling these guys for years what conservatism as practiced really is. The movement leaders have these well intended conservative movement followers so twisted up with BS they think the police shooting and killing unarmed children is acceptable. Well when it is a black kid anyway, because it is the blacks on welfare, the Mexicans taking jobs and the gays wanting equal rights that is the problem with this country.

Hey BTW did you notice all the different comments repubs/conservatives on WB have made regarding their choices for president in this thread? Me either, seems to me their running scared.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 18, 2014 8:11 PM
Comment #382109

You called Travon Martin a child also, j2t2. Isn’t that interesting. Did you get your talking points memos mixed up?

Do you have a picture that’s 7 years out of date for this guy all ready to go, or did the video of the strong armed robbery blow that little trick out of the water?

Here’s a good question:

Ingraham: Why Aren’t There Protests Against Rahm Emanuel?

Let me answer that for you. Because Chicago is run by Democratics, and heaven forbid anyone criticize a Democratic.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 18, 2014 8:55 PM
Comment #382110

WW,
Ever hear of Armando Villalobos, a Texas DA? Ever wonder why Perry did not demand his resignation?

I love the way reality has such a liberal bias.

WW, I could not care less about Rahm Emanuel, and if he goes down for whatever reason, I am absolutely fine with that. I did not like him when he served under Obama, and I do not care about Chicago politics. I did not look at the link because, once again, I do not care about Rahm Emanuel.

The video of the teenager in Ferguson stealing cigarillos has nothing to do with his murder. The policeman who executed him did not know about that at the time.

Posted by: phx8 at August 18, 2014 9:13 PM
Comment #382111

WW,
Ever hear of Armando Villalobos, a Texas DA? Ever wonder why Perry did not demand his resignation?

I love the way reality has such a liberal bias.

WW, I could not care less about Rahm Emanuel, and if he goes down for whatever reason, I am absolutely fine with that. I did not like him when he served under Obama, and I do not care about Chicago politics. I did not look at the link because, once again, I do not care about Rahm Emanuel.

The video of the teenager in Ferguson supposedly taking cigarillos has nothing to do with his murder.

By the way, the store video shows him paying for the cigarillos. There is a good reason the owner never called the police. You probably didn’t know that. I will excuse your shameful allegation, but in the future, please resist the urge to engage in character assassination of a person who has been murdered.

Posted by: phx8 at August 18, 2014 9:18 PM
Comment #382112

phx8,

Oh come on! He did not pay for the cigarillos and the store owner did report the robbery to the police. See linked article and the retraction. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322749/-Michael-Brown-Paid-For-The-Cigars

As for it being irrelevant, please. A person who just robbed a convenience store would not be rattled by a police vehicle stopping him? Even one of the Brown family attorneys said on television this evening that there was more than a little scuffle at the police car. What happened after is unclear. Let’s develop the facts before jumping to conclusions.

Posted by: Rich at August 18, 2014 9:50 PM
Comment #382114

You accuse me of charactor assassination when you, with knee jerk rapidity, call a police officer a murderer?! Why can you assassinate the charactor of a police officer without evidence and then accuse me of the same when I bring video evidence to the discussion? Is it hypocrisy? Let’s wait for the trial before you start slandering people, phx8. At least wait for an investigation so you don’t embarrass yourself again.

And, Yes, I know you don’t care about Rahm Emanuel. That’s the whole point. If Chicago was run by a Republican he would be front and center in your sights, but again, hypocrisy dominates.

The owner didn’t call the police, a customer did. Do customers call the police just for the hell of it?


Posted by: Weary Willie at August 18, 2014 10:48 PM
Comment #382131

Weary, you are on a roll it seems, this time proving my point for me. I notice you don’t disagree with what I say but instead choose your standard “well they did it to” line in some silly attempt to point the finger elsewhere.


Your acceptance of the militarization of the police and the abuse of power is proof positive that conservatism as practiced is fascism. Thanks for making my case for me.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 19, 2014 7:41 AM
Comment #382133

Who did it too? I don’t understand what you’re talking about.

I did not mention militarization of the police at all. The officer in question wasn’t in a APC. He wasn’t SWAT. He wasn’t carrying an assault weapon. He was not militarized at all. Just a cop doing his job keeping the streets clean.

Militarization of the police is a serious matter but also extraneous to this instance. I am firmly against the militarization of local police forces. I am against no knock searches, use of flash bang grenades, and the use of SWAT to serve warrants.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 19, 2014 10:18 AM
Comment #382167
Who did it too? I don’t understand what you’re talking about.

Weary, I was referring to your insistence upon bringing up Rahm Emanual, in this instance, as some sort of rebuttal to the continued demonstrations in Ferguson MO.

I did not mention militarization of the police at all. The officer in question wasn’t in a APC. He wasn’t SWAT. He wasn’t carrying an assault weapon. He was not militarized at all. Just a cop doing his job keeping the streets clean.

No you didn’t but it is still there. I wondered why you accepted it, the answer is you don’t recognize it because the cop in question didn’t have the armory you mentioned. But he has the mindset and the training, and enough firepower to kill a black kid. You, IMHO, encourage this type of action by the police force when you justify the actions because the victim was big, or he stole, or he had pot in his system or the cop was just “keeping the streets clean”.

Weary, when the police put 6 rounds into 1 18 year old kid they are militarized. The military goes to war, their intent is to kill the enemy. Police are now doing just this way to often, it is part of their training. Why? well in part because of the personal arms war we Americans have been engaged in ….

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/ferguson-guns-america-police-fear_b_5688750.html

But that doesn’t make it right, here are some reasons we need to curb the police force and some ideas for doing so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j-kucinich/police-militarization_b_5687598.html


Here is what the cops want you to do, even if it violates your rights. Seems to me these guys are militarized, they have thrown out the “to serve and protect” training or the “kill em all let god sort them out ” training, That is just not acceptable to me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/sunil-dutta-police-washington-post_n_5692266.html


Here is an interesting map showing what military weapons different counties in the country have been given.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2014/08/what-military-weapons-does-your-police-department-have-a-great-interactive-map/

And here is another interesting map which may in part answer your irrelevant question regarding Emanual.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/black-children-gun-deaths_n_5692423.html

Posted by: j2t2 at August 19, 2014 9:36 PM
Comment #382168

Where were you when Obama said he needed a strong army at home?
http://youtu.be/Tt2yGzHfy7s

Your calls for a more lenient police force comes a little late, don’t you think j2t2?

Your people wanted this. They voted for this, twice! Remember?

Now we’re having the same exact discussion we had months ago. Do you know the definition of insanity, j2t2?

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 20, 2014 5:45 AM
Comment #382169

Weary, do you honestly believe the militarization of the police force started when Obama was elected! Seems to me you have defined insanity with this straw man.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 20, 2014 7:25 AM
Comment #382565

Fashion and popular items,in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style,varieties, low price and good quality,and the low sale price.Thank everyone Welcome to ==== http://www.fashionfast.net ==
New Balance $65
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $45
Jordan (1-22)&2014 shoes $48
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
http://www.fashionfast.net

http://www.fashionfast.net

http://www.fashionfast.net

http://www.fashionfast.net
http://www.fashionfast.net

http://www.fashionfast.net

http://www.fashionfast.net

http://www.fashionfast.net

===( http://www.fashionfast.net )===

===( http://www.fashionfast.net )===

===( http://www.fashionfast.net )===

===( http://www.fashionfast.net )===

===( http://www.fashionfast.net )===

===( http://www.fashionfast.net )===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust

Posted by: ghdkhjdf at August 27, 2014 11:46 AM
Post a comment