September 06, 2011
— DrewM Yesterday's Palmetto Freedom Forum was an interesting opportunity for 5 candidates (Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul and Romney. Perry bailed to tend to his duties as Governor in light of the wildfires in Texas and Huntsmann, meh, who knows or cares) to discuss a number of issues in a long form give and take with Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Steve King (IA) and Professor Robert George of Princeton. Each candidate was alone on stage and answered more or less the same questions.
I want to focus on one question Professor George asked in one form or another of each candidate. Here's how he phrased it to Bachmann but it was essentially the same for all.
Would you as president propose to Congress appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th Amendment to protect human life in all stages and conditions?...
Because, as I say, some people believe that a constitutional amendment would be needed to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and short of that, the best we can do is put some limitations around the edges and prohibit federal funding, as we have done in the Hyde amendment.
But my question goes to a matter of constitutional principle concerning the respective rules of the government. President Lincoln famously said in his first inaugural address that if we permit the policy of the government on matters that are essential to the whole people to be determined simply by the Supreme Court, we will have abdicated our responsibility, handed over self-government to that eminent tribunal, as Lincoln said.
So, given the clear mandate of the 14th Amendment, empowering Congress to enforce the guarantee of equal protection, shouldn't Congress act on that now?
What George was doing here was really more than your average abortion question. He was inviting the candidates to address the balance between the courts and the political branches when it comes to interpreting and enforcing the Constitution.
Bachmann, after a good bit of prodding, answered that she'd be willing to force a showdown with the courts over the issue but she really didn't engage with the issue.
The candidate who really took the bit here was, not surprisingly, Newt Gingrich. I know, I know, but just stick with it. I's worth it.
Below the fold is part of Gingrich's answer Note that the transcript says the questions are from Steve King but I watched it and it was Robert George.
[George]Now, many argue today we need a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe versus Wade. However, section five of the 14th Amendment, as you know, expressive authorized the Congress by appropriate legislation to enforce the guarantees of due process and equal protection contained in the amendment's first section.So as someone who believes, as I know you do, in the inherent and equal dignity of all members of the human family, including the child and a woman, would you propose to Congress appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th Amendment to protect human life in all stations and conditions without waiting for a constitutional amendment?
NEWT GINGRICH, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes. And there's a reason -- it goes much deeper. There are five or six other issues, such as one nation under god, such as the right to have a cross on public land. There are a number of issues where the courts have now dramatically usurped their power.
Let me add to your Lincoln quote. Jefferson, being written about the question of whether or not there could be a Supreme Court, wrote back, that would be an oligarchy. Think about it. This is the center of American exceptionalism. We're a people of law. To be a people of law, you have to have a structure. The structure of the constitution says there's a formal way to attend the constitution. It's a very complicated process.
The idea that the founding fathers also meant to say oh, by the way, by a five to four vote, appointed lawyers can be the equivalent of a constitution convention is an absurdity.
All of this starts in 1958 with a Warren Court assertion of supremacy, which is profoundly wrong. The Supreme Court is supreme in the judicial branch, and the judicial branch is one of the three branches. It's the third branch mentioned in the constitution, and in the "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton says explicitly it will be the weakest of the three branches.
...
GINGRICH: But let me say this. That's part of the national debate. That's not a rhetorical comment. I believe the legislative and executive branches have an obligation to defend the constitution against judges who are tyrannical and who seek to impose un-American values on the people of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
STEVE KING: I suspect what's going on through the minds of many of our viewers across the nation is this -- Speaker Gingrich has a right to be concerned about judicial overreach. That's clearly a problem. We don't want the rule of law to deteriorate into the rule of unelected lawyers. On the other hand, we need to defend judicial independence. So would your last statement be a valid warrant for concern that you're someone who doesn't respect judicial independence, the independence of the judiciary?
GINGRICH: I respect the independence of the judiciary in judging individual cases unless the person doing the judging proves to be so extraordinarily out of the context of the American life and American law that they shouldn't be there.
And I think there are occasions -- I mean, you can't say we have a corrective balance between the three branches, except by the way that these two should never use it. I mean, either there is genuine tension between the three branches and the legislative and executive have a right on occasion to correct the judiciary, or the judiciary is a dominant branch and can dictate to the rest of us. As Speaker Pelosi once said, the Supreme Court speaks it's the voice of god. Well, I don't agree with her.
There's more give and take at the link and even though Newt is a non-starter for everyone, it's well worth the time.
This is pretty radical thought and I don't think anyone in the field could make it as well as Gingrich (or really try, I doubt it work out well for most of them. This is simply Newt's wheelhouse).
The last bit that I made bold is especially important. Modern jurisprudence is based on the idea that everything the political branches does is simply a first draft for the real deciders in robes.
Not surprisingly the defender of the status quo was Mitt Romney. Jen Rubin at the Washington Post is pretty excited that Mitt was so gosh darn reasonable.
With the exception of Paul and Romney, all the candidates went along with this academic exercise. But of course, for 200-plus years weÂ’ve lived with the rule of law, allowed the court to interpret the Constitution and avoided constant constitutional crises. Richard Nixon didnÂ’t ignore the Supreme Court ruling on the tapes. Dwight D. Eisenhower didnÂ’t ignore Brown v. Board of Education. And certainly George and others would have a fit if President Obama ignored a ruling holding ObamaCare unconstitutional.The notion that we encourage elected officials to ignore the Supreme Court is folly. And frankly, it made all the pols who went along with it seem more than a little loony. When we say that each branch has the obligation to uphold the Constitution that means each should exercise self-restraint and evaluate the constitutionality of its actions before exercising its powers; it is not a license for lawlessness.
Romney patiently told George he wouldnÂ’t go down the road of constitutional defiance. He would appoint judges who followed the language and intent of the Constitution. He specifically rejected the invitation to call for a constitutional standoff. It was a grown-up moment.
Apparently accepting 70 years of liberal judicial and governing philosophy is "grown-up" while having a thorough and correct understanding of the way the federal government is supposed to operate is what? Childish?
Now, I don't think this should be the centerpiece of anyone's campaign but I'd like to know our candidate actually knows this stuff and supports it. Though if you look at how the other candidates answered the question you see they kind of know the words to say but aren't really familiar or comfortable with the ideas behind it. The only thing worse than not making the case for getting the political branches back in the constitutional game is making it badly. That could do more damage than it would help. I would have loved to have heard Perry on this topic.
I really urge you to read Gingrich's whole presentation. He was fantastic. Of course, it was a format that suited him well, far better than any of the other candidates. No one in American politics but Newt could tie together the benefits of off shore drilling to states with the expansion of the Panama Canal and a local infrastructure project. It was masterful.
It's a tragedy that Newt simply is temperamentally unsuited to be President (I include his couch shot with Pelosi in that). He's one of the best conservative thinkers and communicators we have. Alas, it's not enough.
Posted by: DrewM at
07:51 AM
| Comments (148)
Post contains 1557 words, total size 10 kb.
we the Founders are for gay marriage, anti-death penalty, against spying on security risks, are against resource exploitation, have issues with firearms ownership......
"who knew?"
Posted by: the Founding Fathers at September 06, 2011 07:58 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: steevy at September 06, 2011 07:59 AM (fyOgS)
Posted by: toby928™ at September 06, 2011 08:02 AM (GTbGH)
Yes, Newt is a non-starter for any position of power within the Republican Party (purposefully sharing a couch with NancyP about Global Warming will do that), but he needs to be in some major advisory role. He is well suited for that.
As for Jenifer Rubin, the issue is not (don't even think that it is) that Romney was "reasonable," it's the standard agitprop of "History started yesterday." They don't want the general public aware that, 200 years ago, the Supreme Court didn't even think they had any say over the vast majority of things that are seen by the Supreme Court today.
Death Penalty? No. "Discrimination?" No. Abortion? No.
If the body-politic ever really realized, not just intellectually, but in a principled way, the way our Constitutional Republic has been hijacked by an appointed oligarchy, changes would be made- and those changes would lead back to a decidedly more Conservative form of Government.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at September 06, 2011 08:03 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Dolorus Eety at September 06, 2011 08:03 AM (tydO9)
Posted by: toby928™ at September 06, 2011 08:03 AM (GTbGH)
Hi, Byron York is that you?
Bailed? Try again, Drew.
Posted by: lu at September 06, 2011 08:05 AM (pLTLS)
Can't wait for tomorrow.
I want to hear Gov Perry deliver more than his boilerplate pap. I expect Romney to do very well.
Posted by: Soothsayer at September 06, 2011 08:05 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: Jean at September 06, 2011 08:07 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: toby928™ at September 06, 2011 08:08 AM (GTbGH)
Every day that passes I am more impressed with Perry.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at September 06, 2011 08:08 AM (uVlA4)
Posted by: LaQuisha Johnston at September 06, 2011 08:08 AM (48wze)
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at September 06, 2011 08:10 AM (uVlA4)
Posted by: nickless at September 06, 2011 08:10 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Y-not at September 06, 2011 08:10 AM (5H6zj)
When we say that each branch has the obligation to uphold the Constitution that means each should exercise self-restraint and evaluate the constitutionality of its actions before exercising its powers; it is not a license for lawlessness.
I usually like Rubin, but she missed the boat here. For example, this sentence is obtuse in the extreme. If each branch did what they should, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Posted by: pep at September 06, 2011 08:11 AM (GMG6W)
Posted by: polynikes Texan for Romney at September 06, 2011 08:11 AM (3WzDD)
Posted by: Paris Paramus at September 06, 2011 08:11 AM (2ns/k)
I denounce myself.
Posted by: Y-not at September 06, 2011 08:12 AM (5H6zj)
Well, I didn't see pictures of black smoke towering over Austin before yesterday, did you?
Posted by: Y-not at September 06, 2011 08:13 AM (5H6zj)
You have to be shitting me.
Congrats on winning the dumbest-comment-of-the-day award.
Posted by: lu at September 06, 2011 08:13 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: joncelli at September 06, 2011 08:13 AM (RD7QR)
Newt is a great thinker, and there was a time I thought he would make a great President - at least a great candidate. I always thought 2008 was going to be his year. He could have spent the Bush years rehabilitating his image, and in some ways he did. But he never came full circle. Probably, because ... well he is Newt. Then he embraced climate change, sat on a couch with Pelosi and all hope was lost. Whatever support he had with the base was gone.
Now Newt the idea man is back - maybe not the idea man as much but the educator - reminding us of some history. He was excellent in the last debate, according to Drew and others, shined in SC, and I expect to continue to do well in the upcoming debates. The conservative movement needs Newt. The question is how best can it use him? Perhaps it doesn't matter, because Newt will do whatever Newt wants. I hope he continues to do well in these debates and brings these ideas forward. But eventually, he will need to step aside for the big 2. He is on no one's VP list. Could he be a cabinent member? The only position where I think he would do well is Sec of Education, as I hope our last Sec of Education. The maybe he can be our last head of the Dept of Energy.
It may be that Newt's best role is simply to continue generating ideas. His time may be fading and he is paving the way for guys like Paul Ryan, the movement's next generation.
For Newt's sake, I hope he continues to shine, and does what he can for the movement.
Posted by: SH at September 06, 2011 08:14 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: The terrorist Hobbit formerly known as Donna at September 06, 2011 08:14 AM (zgEs1)
Posted by: lu at September 06, 2011 12:13 PM (pLTLS)
That's the 2nd or 3rd time he's posted it so far today.
Posted by: Tami at September 06, 2011 08:14 AM (X6akg)
Point taken but last I checked, Reagan isn't running. In fact, he's not even alive.
Regan also signed an amnesty law. Is your argument that all candidates should embrace that position either?
I love me some Reagan but let's not be so slavish about it.
Posted by: DrewM. at September 06, 2011 08:14 AM (dw7rB)
Really? On what do you base that assertion?
Like him or not, boys and girls, Mitt is currently our back up. I wouldn't dismiss him that quickly.
Posted by: Y-not at September 06, 2011 08:15 AM (5H6zj)
When we elect Perry he can appoint Newt to the Supreme Court. That was a great question, though, beats the hell out of "Are you a flake?"
Posted by: West at September 06, 2011 08:15 AM (1Rgee)
the Mitt fans are just worried that there is a serious challenger more palatable than Bachmann to Banker man....
Mitt worked through a crisis last weekend as well....the milquetoast was not properly done so he formed a committeee to analyze what to do next year after consulting with bawney Fwank and ted Kennedy's ghost
oddly it involved a half assed $ociali$t solution that even bambi could mock....
Mitt'll motivate the same voters who were wary of Juan Reacharound across the aisle Queeg did last time
Posted by: sve at September 06, 2011 08:16 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at September 06, 2011 12:08 PM (uVlA4)
For how many weeks have these fires been going on? You guys decry Obama for being at a table during Irene, and really doing nothing (he was doing nothing), but Perry needs to physically be in Texas to give authorization for firefighters to turn on/drop water? Really?
It would have been cooler for Perry to run off the stage and into the Bat Mobile, so to speak, after he received a phone call.
Posted by: Paris Paramus at September 06, 2011 08:16 AM (2ns/k)
Regan also signed an amnesty law. Is your argument that all candidates should embrace that position either as well?
Posted by: DrewM. at September 06, 2011 08:17 AM (dw7rB)
Perry may be the longest-serving governor in Texas history, but voters there are largely unaccustomed to seeing him go head-to-head on stage with his rivals. He’s done it just four times in the decade that he’s served as governor—and skipped debates entirely against his last general election opponent in 2010.
Who could have guessed this attack?
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 06, 2011 08:18 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: lu at September 06, 2011 08:19 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: polynikes Texan for Romney at September 06, 2011 08:19 AM (3WzDD)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 06, 2011 08:19 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: jeannebodine at September 06, 2011 08:19 AM (nvlAW)
It's a tragedy that Newt simply is temperamentally unsuited to be President (I include his couch shot with Pelosi in that). He's one of the best conservative thinkers and communicators we have. Alas, it's not enough.
As a guy who often said 'I'd be happy to lose with Newt over winning with another consertative-in-training,' I'll have to live with your assessment. He was a great presidential candidate until he actually became one.
And the the wife stuff, I suppose.
Posted by: CJ at September 06, 2011 08:20 AM (9KqcB)
Mocha Je$u$ got most of his electoral opposition off the ticket through blackmail, litigation, or intimidtion.....
not debating seemed "okay" in his case why not Perry's?
Posted by: sven10077 at September 06, 2011 08:20 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: joncelli at September 06, 2011 08:20 AM (RD7QR)
Nevertheless, its not "generic" republican I want, but I want to steal various aspects of each of them into some kind of X-man with all the combined powers. If wishes were fishes....and all that. Newt's knowledge and speaking above the 8th grade level would be what I would steal for my fantasy super republican.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 06, 2011 08:21 AM (krs8G)
Um, yes the fires did get a lot worse yesterday, especially on one of the major highways from Austin to Houston during busy holiday traffic.
While true that the Texas govenor's position is a "weak" one comparatively, one area where Perry has shined is in his handling of natural disasters. From Katrina, when Texas opened its arms to the citizens of Louisiana, to Rita which was a few weeks later and led to the biggest mass evacuation in our nation's history, to Ike in 2008 (which was truly a devastating storm - 3rd costliest in US history), Perry has shown great leadership. Including working with local leaders - particularly his Democrat opponent, Bill White, who was mayor of Houston during Katrina, Rita and Ike (who likewise handled things very well).
Posted by: SH at September 06, 2011 08:21 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work s.o.b. barbarian tea party terrorist at September 06, 2011 08:21 AM (IpiZb)
- Rosenberg
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 06, 2011 08:22 AM (OhYCU)
Yes, yes they did. I live in west Houston and I saw smoke from my back patio. Scared the hell out of me, but we don't have any fires near us right now. I applaud Perry's decision to come back to Texas.
Posted by: Hobbitopoly at September 06, 2011 08:22 AM (h1p5V)
So "you guys" does not include you, is that right?
Posted by: Y-not at September 06, 2011 08:22 AM (5H6zj)
Two things about yesterday's forum:
1) The Donks will never have this sort of event. Delving into neo-Marxism is done only behind closed doors. Checking each other's devotion to discredited theory doesn't help them with the general public.
2) Like him or hate him, Romney would beat Toonces like a rented mule. I want to win, but I want to have won something, not just a win. But Romney is impressive in these things, and would humiliate Toonces.
Posted by: spongeworthy at September 06, 2011 08:22 AM (rplL3)
What would be more funny?
If the Democrats suggest again that Republicans and Democrats sit together this Thursday, or if the Republicans again accept the invitation?
Posted by: Soothsayer at September 06, 2011 08:22 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 06, 2011 08:22 AM (OhYCU)
I'm betting you've been saying that every month for the past year. Please, don't let this place become another high school-ish HotAir.com.
Posted by: Paris Paramus at September 06, 2011 08:24 AM (2ns/k)
Posted by: Mitt Romney at September 06, 2011 08:24 AM (TUax9)
Posted by: polynikes Texan for Romney at September 06, 2011 08:24 AM (3WzDD)
Yes, he is. Based on how he polls against Obama, he's our backup.
Posted by: Y-not at September 06, 2011 08:24 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: DrewM. at September 06, 2011 12:14 PM (dw7rB)
I think folks just need to remember that Reagan was as conservative as possible for his time. He paved the way for the next step, just as Goldwater did for him.
As an intellectual exercise: Would a 21st century Reagan be the same as the 20th century one? Of course not. He'd apply the same principles to new circumstances, resulting in policies that would often differ from those of his time.
Posted by: CJ at September 06, 2011 08:25 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 06, 2011 08:25 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Paris Paramus at September 06, 2011 12:24 PM (2ns/k)
you're a bigger Romneybot then Hugh Hewitt
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at September 06, 2011 08:25 AM (SE7Kq)
Posted by: WalrusRex at September 06, 2011 08:26 AM (Hx5uv)
I think Perry realized he wasn't, at least yet, up to the challenge of a forum like yesterday's. Did the fires suddenly get worse yesterday?
Are you kidding? If this was going on in my state and the governor didn't come back he would lose my vote.
Posted by: mpfs, TPT at September 06, 2011 08:26 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Jean at September 06, 2011 08:26 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at September 06, 2011 08:27 AM (SE7Kq)
Posted by: Oily Taints at September 06, 2011 08:27 AM (TUax9)
Posted by: jeannebodine at September 06, 2011 08:27 AM (nvlAW)
Posted by: mpfs, TPT at September 06, 2011 08:28 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work s.o.b. barbarian tea party terrorist at September 06, 2011 08:28 AM (IpiZb)
It seems to me that a supreme court does have constitutional powers. Unless you want to toss that out, too.
Posted by: Y-not at September 06, 2011 08:28 AM (5H6zj)
True. This isn't about who your hero is; it's about who can win, and not just the GOP Primary.
It's you don't love Romney, you will have a conservative Congress as a backstop. Did anyone lament that Bush 43 was to squishy before he was elected? Well, he was a squish, and he never even endorsed Al Gore (who has been a clear loon at least since the early 1990's)
In any case, the lack of much complainin about Romney yesterday suggests that lots of people were actually impressed with his performance; with Romney, silence=praise.
Posted by: Paris Paramus at September 06, 2011 08:29 AM (2ns/k)
Posted by: Ron at September 06, 2011 08:29 AM (g+yPx)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work s.o.b. barbarian tea party terrorist at September 06, 2011 12:28 PM (IpiZb)
exactly, they would've bitched no matter what he did
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at September 06, 2011 08:29 AM (SE7Kq)
I wouldn't let the other folks off the hook. They dominate over at HA, not the Romney supporters. If I had time, I'd go through the old Christie threads to see how many of them bashed him for not flying back to NJ during the blizzard last winter.
Posted by: Y-not at September 06, 2011 08:30 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: brak at September 06, 2011 08:31 AM (kBj8L)
He doesn't seem to have any idea what's going on today.
Ex. he could surge ahead by taking on Obama et al for his "war" talk.
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 06, 2011 08:32 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: polynikes Texan for Romney at September 06, 2011 08:34 AM (3WzDD)
I spoke too soon. Big Sis outsmarted him and he took the bait.
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 06, 2011 08:35 AM (OhYCU)
Really. The debate was, what, at 2pm Texas time. If he left Austin at, say 10:30am, and returned (landed) at, maybe, say 7pm, he would lose your vote?
This is just BS. You just believe it because Perry is your guy. Meanwhile, Romney got another unchallenged opportunity to look good. You may regret that once Perry is publicly vetted enough and brought down to earth.
Posted by: Paris Paramus at September 06, 2011 08:35 AM (2ns/k)
add in the fact Perry knows that texas cannot rely on barry's FEMA and well....
Posted by: sven10077 at September 06, 2011 08:35 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: Oily Taints at September 06, 2011 08:37 AM (TUax9)
Christ, some people are beyond stupid. As in waste of oxygen stupid.
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at September 06, 2011 08:37 AM (HBBaQ)
I am pretty sure that the mad stampede of "brace texans" I saw going up and down US 171 like spooked cattle was not Perry's personal fault to the degree that Willy Wonka's Bus Pool was Sugar Ray Nagin's
Posted by: sven10077 at September 06, 2011 08:37 AM (AEIYh)
Communicator, probably, but his endorsement of Skeezaflavin makes me question the "thinker" assessment.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at September 06, 2011 08:37 AM (1rHeD)
Posted by: Ron at September 06, 2011 08:38 AM (g+yPx)
Posted by: macintx at September 06, 2011 08:38 AM (ucs8Y)
This is either ignorance, or being deliberately obtuse.
When fires rage in West Texas, the number of people affected is fairly low (it would be better to measure square-miles per person, rather than person per square-mile). It's something those areas deal with regularly, and for which there are well rehearsed (if only because they're not actually rehearsals) emergency plans.
When wild fires pop up in Central Texas, it's a whole different situation. Those areas don't normally get such fires, and the population density is much higher.
So, in answer to your sanctimonious "did the fires suddenly get worse:" Yes. They did.
Also, any governor who chose to go to a fairly friendly, semi-wonkish "Presidential Forum" instead of attending an emergency in his own state would likely lose his state in the Election to follow. When that state is Texas, that's a bad thing for conservatives.
It was the right choice to bow-out of the "Presidential Forum," Romney-bots' snark notwithstanding.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at September 06, 2011 08:38 AM (8y9MW)
Now I'm confused.
I thought you said Perry wasn't ready for this venue. Now you're saying his absence meant Romney went unchallenged? Which is it? Did Perry bag out on the debate because he knew he wasn't ready to share the stage with Mitt or did Mitt get an opportunity to go unchallenged because Perry wasn't there?
You really are irritating and I'm one of the few folks here who will actually state their willingness to consider Romney. Good work, PP.
Posted by: Y-not at September 06, 2011 08:39 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Hotair Commenter at September 06, 2011 08:40 AM (Xz0Eo)
Posted by: Jean at September 06, 2011 08:40 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: polynikes Texan for Romney at September 06, 2011 12:34 PM (3WzDD)
I oppose Perry's Dream Act for Texas
I oppose some of Perry's social views and wish he didn't make them part of my campaign
but there's so much more I like that makes him my pick for nom, am I bot now because your mancrush on Romney isn't translating to support here?
anyone who has a problem with a Gov tending to a crisis in his own state is beyond trying to make criticisms of a nom they don't like, it's being a political tool for one guy
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at September 06, 2011 08:41 AM (3XDPM)
Posted by: Y-not at September 06, 2011 12:30 PM (5H6zj)
Just for you, sugar tits.
Posted by: Oily Taints at September 06, 2011 08:43 AM (TUax9)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at September 06, 2011 08:43 AM (3XDPM)
Posted by: chillin the most for Perry at September 06, 2011 08:44 AM (6IV8T)
damn it! you people can't see that he's afraid of Romney because he went to do his job instead of debate with my handsome man?! damn you tools!
ROMNEY 2012!!! you people are just horrible, just horrible!!!!
Posted by: Paris With A HUGE Macrush For Romney at September 06, 2011 08:45 AM (3XDPM)
Even worse. We are being mean to poor, unemployed Mitt.
Posted by: Y-not at September 06, 2011 08:46 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: chillin the most for Perry
I'm not too smart about how cloud seeding works, but I think you need to have clouds to seed (not being a smart-ass, I think this is how it works...).
We don't have any clouds. Really.
Posted by: Hobbitopoly at September 06, 2011 08:47 AM (h1p5V)
Last i heard he was on vacation has his state wa sburied by a blizzard. Gov chrisite appears not to be up to the job of head street cleaner.
but I think gov chrisite is happy in NJ, I hope he stays there.(if the roads are passable by the end of the winter)
unseen on January 13, 2011I've been here less than a week, so I don't blame you for not giving me the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Oily Taints at September 06, 2011 08:47 AM (TUax9)
Posted by: chillin the most for Perry
No clouds and our humidity is somewhere around 15%, which believe is also a factor.
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at September 06, 2011 08:48 AM (HBBaQ)
Posted by: polynikes Texan for Romney at September 06, 2011 08:48 AM (3WzDD)
Posted by: Laura at September 06, 2011 08:51 AM (v6lBF)
Look, we've been over this...
Posted by: CERN. Thank us for the Intarwebs, too. at September 06, 2011 08:51 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Jean at September 06, 2011 08:52 AM (WkuV6)
This is just BS. You just believe it because Perry is your guy. Meanwhile, Romney got another unchallenged opportunity to look good. You may regret that once Perry is publicly vetted enough and brought down to earth.
Posted by: Paris Paramus
No, it's because this fire is an extremely dangerous situation and the governor of the state needs to be Texas. People are losing their homes, their livestock and God forbid, maybe lives. If he stayed for the debate it would have showed poor judgment. That would be my opinion for and governor of any state who would rather stay and debate than put the responsibilities of their state first no matter what their party affiliation.
Oh, go pound sand.
Posted by: mpfs, TPT, Barbarian, Son of a Bitch, Part-Time Lyncher at September 06, 2011 08:53 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at September 06, 2011 08:54 AM (f8XyF)
/ ace logic
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 06, 2011 08:56 AM (OhYCU)
Its the constitutional equivalent of the Americans with Disabilities act - there are virtually no limits to what it could require us to permit and even endorse.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at September 06, 2011 09:02 AM (r4wIV)
Over 400 homes were burned in less than 24 hours. Thousands of people have been displaced.
A major, 4 lane divided highway is completely shut down.
At one point, the flames were moving at approximately 40 mph.
I can still smell smoke in the air and the Bastrop fire is still burning.
So, for you people that think Perry should have stayed and answered stupid questions...fuck you.
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at September 06, 2011 09:05 AM (HBBaQ)
It does smack of some type stage fright maybe?
I'm not sure.
It's not that I don't like the guy, I don't know him, and I was looking forward to some of his answers at this debate.
I guess it could be that the MFM pushed out the wildfires story just to see what he would do?
Again I am not attacking Perry, it just seems odd to me that he would not attend this debate.
Maybe he was painted into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" corner?
Posted by: +1 Ghost Touched Nail Clippers at September 06, 2011 09:06 AM (ETPEo)
Newt would also do well as Sec.of State, U.S Ambassador to the U.N., also,WH Chief of Staff, Director of the Office of Management & Budget.
Romney is dead to me, all others are under careful consideration.
Posted by: Live Free Or Die at September 06, 2011 09:07 AM (pKDPI)
Posted by: davidinvirginia at September 06, 2011 09:10 AM (ED4oz)
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by: Hobbitopoly at September 06, 2011 09:11 AM (h1p5V)
I don't really read NRO anymore, but I would have for sure thought K-Lo would have been all in for Santorum.
Posted by: Oily Taints at September 06, 2011 09:12 AM (TUax9)
I understand perfectly mpur. After being through multiple huge fires in SoCal nothing is more frightening than feeling the wind shift and the fire takes off like a rocket. The last one here looked like the end of the world.
Posted by: mpfs, TPT, Barbarian, Son of a Bitch, Part-Time Lyncher at September 06, 2011 09:12 AM (iYbLN)
A week?
Sunday, Monday...today is Tuesday.
Not a week.
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at September 06, 2011 09:20 AM (HBBaQ)
I don't care who was more reasonable or not. George's and Newt's and Bachmann's interpretation of the 14th Amendment is wrong.
It's not about 'forcing a confrontation with the courts.' Its about not stretching the 14th Amendment to do stuff it was never desitgned to do.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at September 06, 2011 09:21 AM (epBek)
I would still vote for him over the squish and the Aggie. Newt has done some lame stuff but I'm convinced it has been in search of that elusive 75% consensus (you know, the things that 75% of all Americans are in favor of--see American Solutions). Newt may be I'm through with Texans who act conservative then vote according to their buddies in Goldman Sachs or wherever.
Posted by: Remember, Churchill Was An Outcast for Half His Career at September 06, 2011 09:22 AM (jx6di)
#127 - Look up the term "Wildfire". You can feel perfectly safe one minute and gettin blisters on your ass the next.
Not to mention that thousands of first responders are being mobilized, food and shelter located and shipped, and emergency plans implemented and modified to suit the circumstances. Oh, yeah, and a shitload of money being spent.
None of this happens automatically, unless you believe in the fire-fighting and shelter fairy. That goes quadruple during an emergency.
If we could make everything necessary to running a state happen 'automatically', then we could just eliminate all those pesky government jobs and outsource everything, right up to the Governors themselves, and just send all contractors instruction sheets periodically.
The layman's fallacy strikes again. (Everybody else's job is easy).
Posted by: West at September 06, 2011 09:35 AM (1Rgee)
Perry's positions through the years on immigration have been appallingly bad. Add to that the fact that a lot of people are going to look at him like the second coming of George W. Bush in the general election, and Perry-fever seems all the more illusory.
Romney is a flawed candidate. There's not doubt about it. I'm not going to act like a lot of Palinistas and brush every flaw aside. But when looking for a reasonably conservative candidate who is electible, he seems like the best choice. Romney/Rubio sounds like a winner to me.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 06, 2011 09:38 AM (b68Df)
Posted by: stace at September 06, 2011 09:41 AM (ybnS8)
Posted by: polynikes Texan for Romney at September 06, 2011 09:53 AM (3WzDD)
Posted by: davidinvirginia at September 06, 2011 10:06 AM (ED4oz)
Here's the first part of the 14th amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
--Does anyone want to explain how fetuses have been born or naturalized?
Posted by: Jim at September 06, 2011 12:06 PM (YwDKF)
Their power is to rule on the law in any case brought before them. By implication only, any similar case will get the same treatment. But, if push came to shove, they could still be forced to deal with each case individually, after it comes up through the appellate courts. I think Lincoln did this.
Posted by: toby928™ at September 06, 2011 12:16 PM (GTbGH)
I am sick of hearing about what a terrible thing Perry did by coming home and getting to work instead of standing around answering questions. For those of you who don't know what kind of person Perry is, look at his actions instead of lamenting over the words he didn't speak.
And if you still don't want to vote for him, then don't, but shut up already.
Posted by: AC at September 06, 2011 02:43 PM (F7E3S)
So, you know what to do!
-cm
Posted by: Charles at September 06, 2011 03:18 PM (y85Ph)
Did we watch the same program? I would urge everyone to watch this and decide for yourselves what went on and how the candidates responded. This reminds me of someone defending Clinton's definition of "is". Pathetic. Especially while defending Perry's absenting himself to attend to a wildfire that's been going on for some time but didn't merit his attention till the debate.
Reminds me of Obama's golf vacations.
Posted by: Molon Labe at September 06, 2011 05:02 PM (e36+G)
For an interesting contrast, look at how the Hurricane Katrina disaster was compounded by an incompetent, out-to-lunch governor, Kathleen Blanco.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at September 06, 2011 05:26 PM (2AfqM)
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at September 06, 2011 05:27 PM (2AfqM)
Meanwhile, the state of my birth is burning, people who've farmed and ranched there for generations are watching everything they own go up in flames, calls are being made for firefighters from all over the U.S. to come help out the overextended first-responders down there, cattle have starved, wells have run dry, the whole damn state is a tinderbox -- and you're worried about some candidate forum that hardly anyone in America is watching. Seriously?
I'm not knocking DeMint's forum. Heaven knows we need more of that kind of forum, and abolish forever the stupid, silly, shallow, pointless MSM "debates." Ideally, all the candidates woulda been there (including the ones who were pointedly excluded, such as Thad McCotter).
But in the real world, if you're a governor, and your state has got 50 wildfires burning, with new ones starting every day, and 45mph winds have come up, making every one of these fires genuinely life-threatening, you damn well better be on the job! No way would Rick Perry even stand a chance of getting my vote if he'd decided to blow off the lives and property of his fellow Texans in order to hang out at a candidate forum, however well-formatted.
Those of you who can't see that, need to get a life!
Why don't you go on down to Texas and volunteer? See for yourself why Governor Perry is needed there!
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at September 06, 2011 05:41 PM (2AfqM)
I wonder what Perry can do that isn't being done to combat the fire in Texas? Is he shovelling more ---- to combat the flames. Is he handling the hoses? Exactly what is he doing?
He should have called out the National Guard and let them do the job. He is a joke. People are buying into the hype without knowing his record.
Posted by: Molon Labe at September 06, 2011 08:49 PM (e36+G)
Newt Gingrich is far and away the most intelligent candidate out there. He is a brilliant history professor and has spent years analyzing why people do what they do as applied to government and history. His ideas should be listened to.
However, never forget that he studied under the Tofflers (Future Shock, and, The Third Wave) and is a true globalist. There is no telling what he would really do if elected. I will never forget how he let the Republicans down in the 104th Congress when he backed down from Clinton after a successful stand off.
Posted by: Pegasus66 at September 06, 2011 09:33 PM (6drOH)
Posted by: christine at September 07, 2011 08:17 PM (k0JNn)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2643 seconds, 276 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
That RINO has it all backwards.
Posted by: Sarah Palin (TM) at September 06, 2011 07:55 AM (KxADM)