October 14, 2011
— Ace An "all of the above" energy plan, he says, can add 1.2 million jobs to the economy.
Honestly, I think this is about right. I'm a tangible guy. When Herman Cain talks up the supposed employment boom that would flow simply from shifting some taxation from income to consumption, I scratch my head. It's not tangible to me. Why would taking $2.3 trillion dollars from citizens, simply from a different mix of taxable events, spur the economy?
Maybe it would. To me it's arranging deck chairs on a ship, not turning the ship around.
Energy production is, however, tangible. It's a valuable commodity. People will pay for it. And with more in-country energy production, that's more jobs and more tax revenue and lower energy prices besides, as OPEC's ability to set prices is diminished.
Speaking here at U.S. Steel's Irvin plant, Perry said that his proposal -- which would open protected land for oil and natural gas production as well as lift federal regulations on the energy sector -- will create 1.2 million jobs.
"Today, I offer a plan that will create more than a million good American jobs across every sector of the economy and enhance our national security. And the best news is it can be set in motion in my first 100 days," he told a crowd of hard-hat-wearing steelworkers.The lands opened for new energy exploration under Perry's plan would include the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, although the governor noted that states should have input in which parts of their land are preserved from new drilling. His proposal would also undo the Environmental Protection Agency's "draconian" authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and it would eliminate federal subsidies for industry sectors such as ethanol and oil and gas production.
Those changes, he said, would "revitalize American manufacturing" and have ripple effects throughout the rest of the US economy as well.
The slogan of the rollout: "Make what Americans buy. Buy what Americans make. And sell it to the world."
I'm not sure how that revitalizes American manufacturing. Forget it, he's rolling.
Do I detect a Palin Strategy at work here-- an attempt to co-opt her themes to grab some of her supporters?
I think I do, because his wife, Anita, was out on the trail striking another Palin theme. One I like a whole lot less, but it is a frequent Palin theme -- victimization by Party Insiders.
“It’s been a rough month. We have been brutalized and beaten up and chewed up in the press to where I need this today,” she said. “We are being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party. So much of that is, I think they look at him, because of his faith. He is the only true conservative – well, there are some conservatives. And they’re there for good reasons. And they may feel like God called them too. But I truly feel like we are here for that purpose.”
Smart? Maybe. But Palin's fans spent two months beating up on Perry as unnacceptable (because, of course, as the True Conservative who raced to the top of the polls, he most directly threatened a hypothetical Palin candidacy) that I think they've convinced themselves by now that he's just terrible (and seem to be flocking to Cain, who benefits by not having been at the top of Palin Threateners before she bowed out).
BTW: I continue to hold out hope that Perry will get his shit together, and fast.
When the Bachmann and Palin supporters were tossing every charge they could think of at Perry, I said, "You know, I'm trying to find someone who'd be a viable alternative to Romney. Keep attacking the conservative, guys, and you're going to find out, to your chagrin, that Romney is now the nominee. And then I'll laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh..."
I can halfway live with a Romney candidacy. He does something I respect: homework. Preparation. Planning.
I am so tired of this idea that your "principles" and intuitions and feelings alone are enough to get one through a minefield of thorny questions and abstract issues.
This only works in Star Wars and/or Bill Murray movies.
In the real world, luck is the product of good design. And people who do their homework have this weird proclivity to keep getting "lucky" over and over and over and over again, and then we curse them for their good "luck."
It's not luck. They're working hard to make it look so easy.
Who knows, maybe Perry has learned his lesson and is doing some homework now.
But anyway, my point is that many "True Conservatives" constantly attack anyone who is pretty conservative but not super conservative while giving a pass to Romney, who, at least in perception, isn't conservative at all.
You know who this benefits? Mitt Romney, that's who.
So, while the purity police beat the living hell out of Perry for each heresy, Romney rises in the polls.
Oh, and of course Romney is doing this think I respect because it's so crafty: During the debate, Romney was given a chance to question another candidate. He directed his question at Michele Bachmann -- and served her up a fat hanging curveball which she knocked out of the park. (It wasn't a gotcha question-- he invited her to give her stump speech on job creation.)
Why?
Because Romney wants to keep all three or four more-base-friendly, more-Tea-Party candidates viable. So they all split the vote.
Romney, while gathering support, is doing so slowly, and is unable to get much more than 26% of the vote. Recently a poll had him at 30%, a new high.
Can you win with 30%? Sure. If you can keep the 70% split between multiple candidates.
Romney's cunning. He's smart. He does his homework. I respect these things, so while I'm not super-keen on Romney's principles (I think he is in fact a fairly malleable man who will go to where the votes are, which is likely the center), there are a few things about him I like.
I can live with him, I guess.
But a lot of the True-r Conservatives can't, which is why I think it's kind of darkly, bitterly funny these same people spend so much energy tearing down conservative challengers to Romney.
Posted by: Ace at
09:17 AM
| Comments (369)
Post contains 1084 words, total size 7 kb.
I know you don't like Palin, but you might be interested in knowing that Palin and Perry are very friendly and on good terms.
You have a bug up your arse about Palin. I don't know what it is, but I have this sneaking feeling it's chauvinism and that you may not even be aware of it.
Posted by: Hard Truth at October 14, 2011 09:20 AM (D8vni)
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 09:20 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Hedgehog at October 14, 2011 09:21 AM (603zv)
>>>I'm not sure how that revitalizes American manufacturing. Forget it, he's rolling.
We depend on cheap energy. This will make it cheaper.
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 09:21 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Caiwyn at October 14, 2011 09:22 AM (ttktr)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 14, 2011 09:22 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 09:23 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at October 14, 2011 09:23 AM (AZGON)
Screw it, I'm in a foul mood today.
Posted by: mpfs, TPT at October 14, 2011 09:24 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: dblwmy at October 14, 2011 09:24 AM (BvTwT)
Posted by: Joffen at October 14, 2011 09:24 AM (BZUQd)
Posted by: Y-not at October 14, 2011 09:24 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 14, 2011 09:24 AM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: Vic at October 14, 2011 09:25 AM (M9Ie6)
Actually, Perry has been saying "All of the above" for at least as long as Palin has. Probably longer, really.
As for Anita whining that people have been mean to Perry: a) she's his wife, not a candidate herself, she's allowed some leeway. b) She needs to buck up- she's the one who finally convinced him to run.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 14, 2011 09:25 AM (8y9MW)
With unemployment and energy costs both at terrifying highs, Obama's policy is to make is worse.
Given the choice between silly environmental laws and a job, the American people will choose the latter. The traditionally broad support for environmental legislation was always based on it being essentially free.
Now is the time to give people an explicit choice.
Posted by: 18-1 at October 14, 2011 09:25 AM (7BU4a)
You'll do the same for Romney. Now, shut the hell up and like the candidate you are told to fucking like. Mitt Romney.
Shut up, Meghan. No one asked you what your huge cow ass thinks.
Posted by: John McCain at October 14, 2011 09:25 AM (usXZy)
Posted by: mpfs, TPT at October 14, 2011 09:26 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Y-not at October 14, 2011 09:26 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: joncelli at October 14, 2011 09:26 AM (RD7QR)
Cain is breath of fresh air with his unapologetic attitude about entitlements and loser, and I cheer when he wants to increase taxes on the 48 of Americans who kinda get an easy ride today, but his proposal is dead on arrival and we all know that. It's a bit annoying that his answer to every single problem is a solution that is extremely unrealistic. It also increases the deficit unless he sees some very significant spending cuts, but I don't hold that against Cain. I think that's part of his plan eventually.
Perry's solutions are always a little less exciting than Bachmann's and Cain's. Perry's promising the solutions that can actually occur, realistically, even in our political environment, and STILL lead us to prosperity. That reminds me of Ronald Reagan's leadership, which I think did lead America out of recession.
Perry knows that the main way to have jobs is to have a stable and reasonable regulatory and taxing environment that is focused on getting government out of the way. But this solution is hard for the leader to take credit for because it's not government making the prosperity, not the politician personally doing it, but just the government staying out of the way and letting private businesses create prosperity.
The only advantage this has is that it actually works.
I also like Perry's Balanced Budget Amendment idea. The guy has taken firm stands against over spending, even on 'for the children' issues like the choice to cut education spending to balance Texas's budget.
I like that.
I know Perry isn't perfect, and I also know he looks second class on those debate stages, but he's got a great record and has led a large state for a long time, and I think that is a more important qualification than looking good on TV, and even wish we changed our debate format so that we stopped electing Obamas and JFKs.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 09:27 AM (fF625)
I've been ripping on Obama's plan for a myriad of reasons. Other than the ridiculous spending proposals not everyone wants to be a teacher or construction worker. Same problem here.
So I want to see much much more from the 'Jobs Gov'. Esp by way of helping out small businesses that provide the bulk of jobs in our country.
Posted by: lu - Perrywinkle at October 14, 2011 09:27 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at October 14, 2011 09:27 AM (AZGON)
Do we have a meme growing?
If so, let's diffuse it now: Just because Palin said something, doesn't make that "something" Palin's. This is especially true when what she was saying was regarding policy, not sound-bites, and when it has been Party-Line since at least 2008.
To say "We need to grow domestic energy production: here are some concrete steps we can take," is not "borrowing from Palin."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 14, 2011 09:28 AM (8y9MW)
Perry has a more benign attitude about illegals than someone else. Don't give a shit. Cain doesn't have executive experience (spit) don't give a shit. If Obama wins another term we'll be third world. The best ticket would be Perry/Cain (except somebody had to get all pissy).
Posted by: tubal at October 14, 2011 09:29 AM (BoE3Z)
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 14, 2011 09:29 AM (BkmDd)
Also it helps manufacturing because someone has to produce the materials to build these pipelines, plants, storage facilities, refining facilities, etc.
They will employees tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of contruction workers. Tens of thousands of full time direct employees. Engineers, electricians, boilermakers, millwrights, etc etc. Blue colar and White Collar jobs alike.
Someone will have to produce the materials to build these things with. Guess who produces Steel, pipes, and other extraction material? We do. Americans do.
Not only would the cheap energy benefit us, but the construction of these facilities and pipelines would benefit the people who manufacter the material needed.
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 09:29 AM (wuv1c)
Unlike Mitt Romney who used a 400-lb fat man to whine about remarks made by someone invited by the Family Research Council to introduce Perry.
Posted by: Y-not at October 14, 2011 09:30 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Shelob's hairy scrotum at October 14, 2011 09:30 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: phoenixgirl other work computer at October 14, 2011 09:30 AM (s+J9D)
Posted by: tasker at October 14, 2011 09:31 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 09:31 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Honey Badger at October 14, 2011 09:31 AM (GvYeG)
I've been drinking Slim Fast. A few more kegs of that stuff, and I should be skinny as a rail!
Posted by: Meghan McCain at October 14, 2011 09:31 AM (Z7toi)
Posted by: tasker at October 14, 2011 09:31 AM (rJVPU)
Energy is a winning GOP issue
Posted by: The Q at October 14, 2011 09:31 AM (CJIam)
Posted by: alexthedude at October 14, 2011 09:31 AM (VuH+M)
Posted by: joncelli at October 14, 2011 09:32 AM (RD7QR)
just can't get over that Palin/Bachmann hate can you?
oh and Santorum...
gee, that's all the principled conservs in and out of the race.
what does this say?
i don't know i'm just asking questions.
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 09:32 AM (jdOk/)
Similarly, given all the machinations with Chris Christie and the drumbeat of reports that party insiders and big-name donors find even Mitt too conservative to be invited to the regatta at the Van Voorhees compound, I don't think that Perry's wife saying party insiders don't like him is exactly channeling Palin.
Posted by: Ian S. at October 14, 2011 09:32 AM (tqwMN)
I work in an industry that produces measurement equipment used on oil rigs and refineries. So this would be great for my company. There are also manufactured items that go into the infrastructure of extracting energy from the earth. If this actually get done welders will be a very sought after employee. Oh and cheap energy and a decent tax rate will bring a lot of manufacturing that left home.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at October 14, 2011 09:32 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 09:32 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Honey Badger at October 14, 2011 09:32 AM (GvYeG)
Posted by: HeartlessBlackOrchid at October 14, 2011 09:33 AM (SB0V2)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 14, 2011 09:33 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: The guy who is missing the H at October 14, 2011 09:33 AM (90BnA)
Posted by: tasker at October 14, 2011 09:33 AM (rJVPU)
get some rest, this weekend
because next week most of you'll be busy typing the word "Cainiac" a thousand times in your comments
Posted by: soothie at October 14, 2011 09:34 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 14, 2011 09:34 AM (BkmDd)
Yunz don't know it's spelt Pittsburgh?
What yinz on anyways? Ain'tcha never been dahntahn Pittsburgh? It's da burgh fercryan aht lahd!
Jeez, ya jagoff!
Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz at October 14, 2011 09:34 AM (AMi60)
Listen, you, I've been on a diet. I'm drinking Slim Fast! A few more tanker trucks worth, and I'll be down to a trip 395!
You're just like those Islamophobes criticizing the 9/11 mosque!
*heart attack*
Posted by: Kris Krispy at October 14, 2011 09:34 AM (Z7toi)
I'm not sure how that revitalizes American manufacturing.
It greatly reduces energy costs, which is something that manufacturing needs in great quantities. Like the price of gasoline in the consumer market, if the price goes up, so then does the cost of everything that depends on it.
America is still the world's largest economy, yet we make next to none of the products that we buy. This global economy thingy was supposed to bring down prices, which it did, but it also displaced great swaths of the manufacturing sector in the process. Low prices are great, but if you have no job, how can you afford them?
We're not taking advantage of this market like we once did. If we had people in Washington who actually understood how the free market is supposed to work, we'd be making far more of our consumer goods ourselves, keeping more money and jobs here. Unfortunately, that would be a gargantuan undertaking today, as so much legislation would need to be repealed, like NAFTA and GATT, something the globalist leftards don't want. This would also require the dismantling of the EPA, a radical idea five years ago that's now not so radical.
In short, this whole idea of a global economy is doomed to fail, as it always was. The actual agenda of these globalists was to take the wealth that we've built for ourselves and redistribute it to the rest of the world, rather than see other countries imitate what we've done for ourselves through the embrace of freedom and capitalism.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Tea Party SOB at October 14, 2011 09:35 AM (d0Tfm)
If you run a political blog and want the hits/comments to keep rolling in, you mention Palin.
To try to keep the regular, non-Palinoid visitors from getting sick of it, you try to do it in a semi-relevant way.
What "Poppin' Fresh" and his crew haven't learned is that Palin, T-Paw and the like are not relevant. They have made themselves irrelevant. Same goes for the "Captain's" bloggy buddyroos on obscure sites everywhere.
All that said, I'm happy to see Perry pushing on. I hope in time people will stop nattering about the "debates" and look at what he has done and what he says. Our own naysayers are going to make it hard for anyone but Mutt to get the nomination with their Concern Trolling about Perry and Cain with the constant sniping at every word, look and gesture.
After a while, all the negativity sounds like Michelle Malkin whining about GARDASIL!!11!!!
I can easily vote for Perry or Cain, a little less enthusiastically for Lazy Newt. Mutt Romney? I can only hope I don't have to.
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 14, 2011 09:35 AM (YjjrR)
Posted by: Have Blue at October 14, 2011 09:35 AM (IKTC8)
OK I'll explain it.
The US is a top tier industrial economy. Labor comes at a huge premium, so all tasks that can possibly be automated are automated and done by machines. What does that mean? The most important resource of American manufacturing is energy to run those manufacturing machines and facilities. American industry runs on energy the cheaper the better; the cheaper, the easier it is to make a profit. The easier it is to make a profit the more businesses you get... you get the idea.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 14, 2011 09:35 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: joncelli at October 14, 2011 09:35 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Honey Badger at October 14, 2011 09:36 AM (GvYeG)
Posted by: Buzzsaw
............
While I am all for drilling like crazy here at home, I don't think you can count on prices dropping.
The price of oil is driven by the global market... the price is fungible, even if the oil itself is not quite fungible.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 14, 2011 09:36 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 14, 2011 09:36 AM (0M3AQ)
Team Romney has had surrogates engaging in that for quite awhile.
It's the-
Don't Attack Mitt-He's a Hot House Flower!
Defense.
Posted by: tasker at October 14, 2011 01:31 PM (rJVPU)
There's a floating cross in that ad!!!!!!
Posted by: Mitt Romney's Team in December 2007 at October 14, 2011 09:36 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: phoenixgirl other work computer at October 14, 2011 09:37 AM (s+J9D)
Posted by: ace at October 14, 2011 09:37 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ParisParamus at October 14, 2011 09:37 AM (bN5ZU)
Posted by: tasker at October 14, 2011 09:37 AM (rJVPU)
Well, you can, simply because the stuff here won't have to move so far. Part of the cost of a barrel of oil is transportation, after all. I don't think we'll see $60.00/barrel oil or anything, but we might settle in for a while around $75.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 14, 2011 09:38 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 14, 2011 01:34 PM (ZDUD4)
--Yeah, but Pittsburg State in Kansas has the Gorillas!
Posted by: logprof at October 14, 2011 09:38 AM (QaKuj)
Buy an "H"?
Don't be dissin' the World Champion Steelers!
Posted by: tasker at October 14, 2011 01:33 PM (rJVPU)
No! You only have to buy vowels.
Posted by: Contestant on Wheel of Fortune at October 14, 2011 09:38 AM (90BnA)
Ace we added an "h" to the end of Pittsburgh in 1907 when Allegheny City merged with Pittsburg
Ben at October 14, 2011 01:20 PM (wuv1c)
*****
Jeeze...OK, to you any everyone else who is jumping up and down, flapping their arms, getting all excited about the missing "h".... chill the fuck out.
Yes, in 1907, the city added the "h."
But in 2007, to celebrate the centenial aniversary of this, the city council voted in open session to remove the "h" from the city name in order to celebrate the historical name of the city, and to celebrate it's roots.
So yeah, prior to 2007 it was "Pittsburgh" with an "h".
Subsequent to 2007, it reverted to its historically accurate "Pittsburg."
Don't just believe me. Look this shit up. It's in the city minutes and everything.
Jeez...
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 09:39 AM (Y2WVW)
" I hope in time people will stop nattering about the "debates" and look at what he has done.."
i have and that's why i don't like him.
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 09:39 AM (jdOk/)
Ugh. I didn't see that. Probably because I gave up on them when he started swooning over increasing gasoline taxes.
And when Stuttaford started sneering at people of faith.
And when Teachout said he was embarrassed by the Clinton impeachment.
And when Derbyshire got down on his knees and removed Ron Paul's trousers.
I don't know why they ever bothered firing Buckley, Jr.
Posted by: Kensington at October 14, 2011 09:39 AM (Z7toi)
Posted by: ace at October 14, 2011 09:39 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Honey Badger at October 14, 2011 09:39 AM (GvYeG)
>>>Subsequent to 2007, it reverted to its historically accurate "Pittsburg."Don't just believe me. Look this shit up. It's in the city minutes and everything.Jeez...
Yeah, I just live here.
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 09:39 AM (wuv1c)
If millions more barrels of oil show up in the market that weren't there before prices will drop.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at October 14, 2011 09:41 AM (tf9Ne)
At this point in 2007 the leaders were Giuliani and Thompson. This can still happen.
Posted by: Ocho Texto at October 14, 2011 09:41 AM (8/DeP)
Posted by: tasker at October 14, 2011 09:41 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 09:41 AM (Xm1aB)
--Derb is decidedly sour on Paul now, especially for being an immigration squish.
Posted by: logprof at October 14, 2011 09:41 AM (QaKuj)
It's three notes, really: Drill, drill, drill, regs, regs, regs, jobs, jobs, jobs.
Sonny and Cher only had three notes (well, chords, but so what) and they became rich and famous.
More seriously- what more do you want? He's for domestic energy production, he's for reduction of regulation (much of which he can do without congress, thanks to BHO), he's for a Balanced Budget. All of these things lead to Jobs.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 14, 2011 09:41 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: ParisParamus at October 14, 2011 01:37 PM (bN5ZU)"
Why would you say that's the only thing Perry has on his agenda, when he also has repealing the national Romneycare and a balanced budget amendment?
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 09:42 AM (fF625)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 14, 2011 01:36 PM (f9c2L)
this is the classic argument for doing nothing because it will take years to bring production on line.
Oil prices are indeed driven by the global market and money moves in mysterious ways, but there is no way that having more production in the US can be a bad thing for the US (unless you believe that we should live in caves and pray to Gaia for relief from AGW).
Posted by: Hrothgar at October 14, 2011 09:42 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: ace at October 14, 2011 09:42 AM (nj1bB)
Can't listen. I still really like Carson. I just feel so sorry for that guy. All the melodrama really prevented him from reaching his potential.
Posted by: lu - Perrywinkle at October 14, 2011 09:42 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: ParisParamus at October 14, 2011 01:37 PM (bN5ZU)
Of course, three notes were much better - "Hope and Change". Three times Better? Perry has a voluminous record to look at - whether you approve or not is another matter. But to say "one note" is disingenuous. If he would get the nomination, and win the Presidency, he'd do fine, as would Cain or even Gingrich for that matter.
Posted by: tubal at October 14, 2011 09:42 AM (BoE3Z)
I've loathe Jim Rome ever since the "Chrissy" Everett interview.
Posted by: Y-not at October 14, 2011 09:42 AM (5H6zj)
>>>> oh and Santorum...
Not really, no.
Posted by: ace at October 14, 2011 01:39 PM (nj1bB)
thank you for being honest, paypal donation coming...
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 09:43 AM (jdOk/)
Teachout probably was, too, but I meant Nordlinger.
Posted by: Kensington at October 14, 2011 09:43 AM (Z7toi)
So yeah, prior to 2007 it was "Pittsburgh" with an "h".
Subsequent to 2007, it reverted to its historically accurate "Pittsburg."
Don't just believe me. Look this shit up. It's in the city minutes and everything.
Jeez...
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 01:39 PM (Y2WVW)
--steelers.com still spells it with an 'h', so there.
Posted by: logprof at October 14, 2011 09:44 AM (QaKuj)
Prices for Oil went down in 2008 from Bush merely lifting some offshore drilling restrictions.
Remember that? .....The price at the pumps went back down to $1.68....and stayed there till Obama did everything he could to screw it up.
We're paying twice that now. That is money going right out of our pockets and going mostly overseas to people who hate us.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 14, 2011 09:44 AM (BkmDd)
>>>Byron York has a piece out today on the apparent failure of Perry to actually prepare for a presidential run before jumping in.
Yeah, I saw that. And it's probably a fair assessment. He did get in late.
He's still working on his campaign to target a national audience.
He hasn't had the 5 years to do so that Mitt has had.
We'll see if he can get his act together over the coming months. This energy plan is a good first step.
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 09:44 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Joffen at October 14, 2011 09:44 AM (BZUQd)
Posted by: Honey Badger at October 14, 2011 09:44 AM (GvYeG)
"Unlike Mitt Romney who used a 400-lb fat man to whine about remarks made by someone invited by the Family Research Council to introduce Perry. "
He "used" the man to "whine"? What a dishonest characterization that is. Get a grip.
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 14, 2011 09:44 AM (Qjh0I)
Don't bother. PP didn't even look at the plan. And he apparently loves him some ethanol subsidies and emulating Japan and Europe's energy consumption.
Posted by: Y-not at October 14, 2011 09:44 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Janeane Garafalo at October 14, 2011 09:45 AM (Z7toi)
Posted by: Eliza Doolittle at October 14, 2011 09:45 AM (v+QvA)
If it was chauvinism he wouldn't hate Bill Murray too.
Even Chad of Pakistan can see that.
Posted by: sifty at October 14, 2011 09:45 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: tasker at October 14, 2011 09:45 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 14, 2011 09:45 AM (ZDUD4)
It's not even her call. It's Bill Donahue's, and she relays it as if he's the fucking Pope.
In case you don't know, that's Bill "Catholic League" Donahue, inspiration for roughly 99.9999999% of America's (minuscule) anti-Catholic sentiment—because he's such a fucking asshole, and he's appointed himself the Voice of Catholicism. Which speaks via fax-blasts to the media. Like Jesus did.
Dude is Fred Phelps without the funny signs. And with no followers. Except, apparently, Lopez.
Truly bizarre and insane moment in NR history, right there.
Posted by: oblig. at October 14, 2011 09:45 AM (cePv8)
Seriously, you can look the shit up!!!
Posted by: logprof at October 14, 2011 09:45 AM (QaKuj)
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 09:45 AM (jdOk/)
Smart? Maybe. But Palin's fans spent two months beating up on Perry as unnacceptable (because, of course, as the True Conservative who raced to the top of the polls, he most directly threatened a hypothetical Palin candidacy) that I think they've convinced themselves by now that he's just terrible (and seem to be flocking to Cain, who benefits by not having been at the top of Palin Threateners before she bowed out).
BTW: I continue to hold out hope that Perry will get his shit together, and fast.
When the Bachmann and Palin supporters were tossing every charge they could think of at Perry, I said, "You know, I'm trying to find someone who'd be a viable alternative to Romney. Keep attacking the conservative, guys, and you're going to find out, to your chagrin, that Romney is now the nominee. And then I'll laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh..."
You saying you're the victim now , Irony , the temper tantrum of a blogger..
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at October 14, 2011 09:46 AM (bAL0J)
Posted by: izoneguy at October 14, 2011 09:46 AM (i6Neb)
"Unlike Mitt Romney who used a 400-lb fat man to whine about remarks
made by someone invited by the Family Research Council to introduce
Perry. "
He "used" the man to "whine"? What a dishonest characterization that is. Get a grip.
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 14, 2011 01:44 PM (Qjh0I)
---
Same level of honesty as saying Rick was a pussy for telling his wife to whine about how her husband was treated.
No, I take that back. Romney and his surrogates demanded an apology from Perry rather than from the folks who invited the Reverend. That's even more pathetic.
Posted by: Y-not at October 14, 2011 09:46 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: The Q at October 14, 2011 09:46 AM (CJIam)
i have and that's why i don't like him.
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 01:39 PM (jdOk/)"
Fair enough. I can't ask for more than that.
Personally, I think I like the twelve years of balanced budgets, often fought over in tough battles requiring Perry to lead a charge to cut agency spending such as freezing Texas education spending, getting sued for years, and then cutting it substantially, while seeing education quality actually go up. The guy has already laid out the cuts to Texas agencies for 2013. He keeps asking each agency to do their mission with a little bit less. He also handles crises very effectively, without drama.
He's not perfect, but he's a 90% conservative, and the best one running, and he's got the most experience.
Cain is great, but he has no experience at this and his one solution is probably impossible to implement, and it's a protectionist VAT in part. Cain would be a great improvement, but Perry is my choice.
You have to remember that Cain doesn't even have a record in government for you to reject. Perry has twenty years of conservative leadership with 3-4 bad calls, and if that's enough to rule him out, I think that's unwise.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 09:46 AM (fF625)
Posted by: Infidel in Utah at October 14, 2011 09:46 AM (90BnA)
>>>If millions more barrels of oil show up in the market that weren't there before prices will drop.
Not only that, but we're not just looking through the prism of oil anymore.
Natural Gas, Coal and Nuclear can power our entire energy grid.
Most facilities are converting to natural gas vehicles right now.
Oil stilll will play a big roll, but if we expand our use of other resources, it will cause a decrease in our demand of oil. That in conjuction with more oil coming online will cause it to decrease in price.
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 09:46 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at October 14, 2011 09:46 AM (psns8)
Maybe because an arrest means spending some time in Camp Arpaio where you don't get a scoop of chockwit ice cweam just because you stomped your feet and demanded it?
Posted by: kbdabear at October 14, 2011 09:47 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 01:39 PM (wuv1c)
I hear you man.
For a "smart military blog", some of these commenters sure are dumb.
"Oh! Oh! Oh! Ace, you made a mistake!"
No, the fuckin' headline is accurate. If it wasn't, it would have been changed.
I mean, it's the guys own blog. It's how he earns his rent money. You don't think this guy has a gimlet eye for facts and misspellings in his own blog?
That's his money maker right there.
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 09:47 AM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 09:47 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: ace at October 14, 2011 09:47 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Y-not at October 14, 2011 01:42 PM (5H6zj)
--Eh, I listen for the clone feedback, not so much the host.
Posted by: logprof at October 14, 2011 09:47 AM (QaKuj)
Posted by: Typical Moron at October 14, 2011 09:47 AM (+Lioq)
Posted by: tasker at October 14, 2011 09:48 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Hedgehog at October 14, 2011 09:48 AM (603zv)
I honestly can't. If Romney is the nominee, it means that the MFM truly does rule us all, every one. And it also means the Republican Party is dead.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at October 14, 2011 09:48 AM (i0App)
Posted by: ace at October 14, 2011 09:48 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 14, 2011 09:48 AM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 14, 2011 09:48 AM (0M3AQ)
I'm a Palin fan and have been since even before 2008, and I like Perry.
I think Palin and Perry fans are 75% the same folks. The ones who aren't are simply more noticeable.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 09:48 AM (fF625)
Posted by: Shiggz at October 14, 2011 09:49 AM (I9fXA)
The only reason I still get NR is because of Lileks and Steyn. Jonah Goldberg is much more on-point on Twitter than he is in print for some reason, and I don't want to talk about the rest of them.
Posted by: Ian S. at October 14, 2011 09:49 AM (tqwMN)
Posted by: Typical Moron at October 14, 2011 09:49 AM (+Lioq)
Not speaking for Ace, but for me is because he's not Barack Obama, who is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.
I would prefer Perry (and I'm fighting for him here every day because a) I don't see him not taking Texas if Texas is important in the Primary (it never is) and b) because Texas is never important in the Primary.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 14, 2011 09:49 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 14, 2011 09:50 AM (Qjh0I)
It was reported this week that the cost of home heating oil is projected to be significantly higher this winter compared to last winter, which was pretty damn high.
Did Perry mention this? Did any of the candidates mention it?
This disconnect to the people's real, every-day concerns is what's gonna kill us in '12.
It's pretty simple and the Democrats are really good at it. They bring up a specific concern, blame the Republicans for it, and then tie in their policy idea to solve the issue.
If our side wasn't stupid, we could do it, too. For instance, energy costs are killing people. It is directly Obama's fault. And here's my idea to fix it...
Posted by: soothsayer at October 14, 2011 09:50 AM (sqkOB)
Don't forget VDH, the Man.
Posted by: sifty at October 14, 2011 09:50 AM (4CSeG)
>>>Ben did you get stuck in Ogabes traffic jam Tuesday? I did...twice.
nope, I don't work downtown, thank god.
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 09:50 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Honey Badger at October 14, 2011 09:50 AM (GvYeG)
Posted by: tasker at October 14, 2011 09:51 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: stace at October 14, 2011 09:51 AM (lYlx9)
I don't know. If it connects with Perry at all- or one of his staffers actually make the connection- I suspect he will. We don't use heating oil in Texas, though, so it's easy to overlook.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 14, 2011 09:52 AM (8y9MW)
. . . a Rick Roll?
*ducks*
Posted by: The Q at October 14, 2011 09:52 AM (CJIam)
But instead we get bogged down in long heady discussions about reforming the tax code.
That's not how you connect with the average voter. Touch on it, yes. But keep it simple and keep it personal.
Posted by: soothsayer at October 14, 2011 09:52 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 09:52 AM (Xm1aB)
I can halfway live with a Romney candidacy. He does something I respect: homework. Preparation. Planning.
I am so tired of this idea that your "principles" and intuitions and feelings alone are enough to get one through a minefield of thorny questions and abstract issues.
This only works in Star Wars and/or Bill Murray movies.
So you think I just intuited my way into Dana Barrett's pants? I had to work hard to score that piece of ass.
Posted by: Dr. Peter Venkman at October 14, 2011 09:52 AM (7EV/g)
Steyn is awesome! The problem is most of what I read of him is has so much context that I have to explain the background for minutes just so they will understand his funny line. Not a bad thing.. just a funny thing quirk I keep running into.
Posted by: Shiggz at October 14, 2011 09:52 AM (I9fXA)
hahaha, ace adopts Victimization by Purists.
Toughen up, buttercup. You guys are killing me.
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at October 14, 2011 09:52 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Typical Moron at October 14, 2011 09:52 AM (+Lioq)
Posted by: stace at October 14, 2011 01:51 PM (lYlx9)
--Yeah, where do you think the plastic cupholder comes from?
Posted by: logprof at October 14, 2011 09:52 AM (QaKuj)
http://tinyurl.com/3lkwwkn
Posted by: Tami-Cardinals! at October 14, 2011 09:53 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: tasker at October 14, 2011 09:53 AM (rJVPU)
This. I live in Texas and God knows I've wanted to throttle Perry from time to time. But you don't have the ten-year record he's put up merely because you were "dealt four aces" like dickhead Romney said.
The best example of Perry's leadership was during this year's budget resolution. We were way upside down and the hard pain was a-comin' no matter what because we have a balanced budget provision in our state Constitution.
Unions, state employees, media types and lefties of all stripes howled like wildcats during the resolution (with many advancing convoluted proposals to sidestep the Constitution), but Perry's response was the same each time: we don't have any money, start cutting. Our budget is again balanced, and this is the sixth time Perry has done it.
Anyone trust Romney to do the same?
Posted by: Ocho Texto at October 14, 2011 09:53 AM (8/DeP)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at October 14, 2011 09:54 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: joncelli at October 14, 2011 09:54 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: ace at October 14, 2011 09:55 AM (nj1bB)
logprof at October 14, 2011 01:44 PM (QaKuj)
tasker at October 14, 2011 01:45 PM (rJVPU)
*****
Oh for Christ's sake...
Look, everytime a city changes a major city street name from something like "Army Street" to "Cesar Chavez Blvd" like San Francisco did, it ALWAYS takes years to get everyone on board with it. Yeah, the city changes the name... So what? Do you think every business immediately changes all of their stationary, their business cards, their address printed on the side or front of the building? Hell no. That shit takes time.
Plus half the people hate the new name, so they keep using the old name out of defiance.
Same thing is going on here.
Shit, I don't know why I waste my time with you retards.
It's right there in the fuckin' city minutes. A fuckin' city public document.
Look that shit up.
Fuckin' mouth breathers here in the comments...
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 09:55 AM (Y2WVW)
I don't think they had a heart.
Posted by: Kensington at October 14, 2011 09:55 AM (Z7toi)
>>Shitsburg is disgusting.
heh. Funny reference. She can't come back to this city now, not that she would want too.
She can stay in New Yor for all I care or even Los Angela
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 09:55 AM (wuv1c)
What's the downside? Why has this not been proposed? Sure it takes a constitutional amendment but with the huge advantages to the States why would they object?
Posted by: scofflaw at October 14, 2011 09:55 AM (IhBRY)
But a lot of the True-r Conservatives can't, which is why I think it's kind of darkly, bitterly funny these same people spend so much energy tearing down conservative challengers to Romney.
Ace, I think you're being a little willfully blind here. Or haven't you noticed that we "True-r Conservatives" have spent just as much time tearing down Romney as we have our least-preferred conservative candidates? Personally I try not to do either, because honest to God anyone is better than Obama; even Ron Paul. But it's not as if conservatives have sat back and shrugged their shoulders and said, "That Perry is EVIL. But Romney? Meh."
I'll vote for whoever I have to come the general election, and if that's Romney, fine. Whatever. That's why I keep hammering away that we HAVE to get solid conservatives - real, genuine conservatives -- in the legislature. That's the best way to curb the President's power, whoever ends up in the Oval Office. It's much easier to find a diehard conservative candidate who appeals to the majority at the district level than it is to find a diehard conservative at the national level who appeals to the voters nationally. Once the country has had a few years of conservative principles guiding us back toward fiscal sanity -- WITHOUT the world coming to an end -- voters will be more willing (theoretically) to accept a true conservative in the White House. Then you can cue the music for Marco Rubio, Allen West, (insert conservative stalwart of your choice) in the 2016 or 2020 primaries.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 14, 2011 09:56 AM (4df7R)
Adopts? I thought he did that pretty regularly in 2010.
The fact is though- at least as far as the Cult of St. Sarah, he's right. Remember some of the things that they said when they would drop in here before Sarah said "no?"
They did everything they could to kill his candidacy in its cradle.
Now, I don't think that is a blanket "victimization by Purists" (since I tend to be a Purist, myself) but it is certainly an assault by a particular brand (and a particularly vociferous brand) of Purists.
Did anyone read the crap they were saying about Perry before Palin said No go?
Yes. It was they who made me "tired beyond tired of the trolls."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 14, 2011 09:56 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: ParisParamus at October 14, 2011 09:56 AM (bN5ZU)
Posted by: ParisParamus at October 14, 2011 01:56 PM (bN5ZU)
Yeah, job creation and energy independence is a dumb strategy. /s
Posted by: Tami-Cardinals! at October 14, 2011 09:58 AM (X6akg)
"When the Bachmann and Palin supporters were tossing every charge they could think of "
so it doesn't matter that the charges are true?
we're just going to ignore Perry's unethical and Statist tendencies and pretend he's all conservative and such.
kinda like we did with Bush, right?
Medicare part d and TARP anyone?
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 09:58 AM (jdOk/)
I>>>t's right there in the fuckin' city minutes. A fuckin' city public document.Look that shit up.uckin' mouth breathers here in the comments...
Look you retard. I thought you were joking at first, but please tell me you're not this stupid.
We're all being playful with the spelling and just joking with Ace's minor type-o.
You can't possibly be serious.
The city is spell Pittsburgh. It hasn't changed since 1907.
Lay off the Gardisil. (unless you're doing some sort of Andy Kaufmann joke, you know the ones only he gets and aren't funny)
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 09:58 AM (wuv1c)
Look, everytime a city changes a major city street name from something like "Army Street" to "Cesar Chavez Blvd" like San Francisco did, it ALWAYS takes years to get everyone on board with it. Yeah, the city changes the name... So what? Do you think every business immediately changes all of their stationary, their business cards, their address printed on the side or front of the building? Hell no. That shit takes time.
Plus half the people hate the new name, so they keep using the old name out of defiance.
Same thing is going on here.
Shit, I don't know why I waste my time with you retards.
It's right there in the fuckin' city minutes. A fuckin' city public document.
Look that shit up.
Fuckin' mouth breathers here in the comments...
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 01:55 PM (Y2WVW)
--True, but how fucking hard is it to change/redirect a damn web site? Much easier than stationery (heh) and business cards.
Posted by: logprof at October 14, 2011 09:58 AM (QaKuj)
Yes, he is, but he's been running for pres since 2007 or earlier. He's a had a ton of practice, while Perry was actually effectively governing during a difficult time: cutting budgets, combining and sunsetting agencies, and luring businesses to get us through a horrible worldwide economic crash.
I will vote for romney if he's the nominee, but after his senior-scaring knee-capped the Repubs/tea party, I will have to bring a barf bag with me into the booth. He certainly won't get any money from me. He can call Georgette for that.
Posted by: stace at October 14, 2011 09:58 AM (lYlx9)
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 14, 2011 09:59 AM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 09:59 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at October 14, 2011 09:59 AM (psns8)
Posted by: Hedgehog at October 14, 2011 09:59 AM (603zv)
Posted by: The Dude at October 14, 2011 09:59 AM (M8yfa)
Which charges were true? With original sources, please.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 14, 2011 09:59 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at October 14, 2011 01:59 PM
T-Paw will get back in and save the day, just watch!
Posted by: Poppin' Fresh at October 14, 2011 10:00 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at October 14, 2011 01:59 PM
T-Paw will get back in and save the day, just watch! Posted by: Poppin' Fresh at October 14, 2011 02:00 PM
Chris Christie will get back in and save the day, just watch!
Where did I put my batteries?
Posted by: Ann Coulter at October 14, 2011 10:01 AM (Y+DPZ)
No. Like I said, I'm already doing everything feasible in Texas. Texas isn't going Romney short of falling into Bizarro-World.
And, if you read my other comments, you know I'm pretty down on Romney.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 14, 2011 10:01 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Jean at October 14, 2011 10:01 AM (WkuV6)
204 All the guy talked about at debate was energy. It makes him sound like he's trying out for Sec. of Energy or something. It's a dumb strategy.
No. It's not.
We are currently on an Oil Economy....worldwide. The price of oil/gas affects every fucking thing that we buy and consume. The cost of it is factored into the cost of....everything. ....What is "dumb" is for people to try to ignore this.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 14, 2011 10:02 AM (BkmDd)
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 10:02 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at October 14, 2011 01:59 PM
T-Paw will get back in and save the day, just watch! Posted by: Poppin' Fresh at October 14, 2011 02:00 PM
Chris Christie will get back in and save the day, just watch!
Where did I put my batteries?
Posted by: Ann Coulter at October 14, 2011 02:01 PM
Teh Fred will get back in and save the day, just watch!
Posted by: zombie ace at October 14, 2011 10:02 AM (Y+DPZ)
So all this talk about the candidate' s positions are almost pointless. This puts Romney as the only candidate so far. (I "hate" Romney otherwise)
Just pick the guy that can beat Obama, and start electing TP Senators.
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at October 14, 2011 10:02 AM (OhYCU)
>>>Ben I flew in at the same time as the dipshit and had an afternoon meeting dahntahn. Screw him.
Where was your meeting?
We have an OWS march tomorrow that's practically shutting the city down.
They've decided they not only want to encamp infront of the Mellon building but they want to take 4 hours to march down every major city street before they do it.
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 10:02 AM (wuv1c)
Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 14, 2011 10:02 AM (8y9MW)
I continue to hold out hope that Perry will get his shit together, and fast.
I was the same way with Obama in '09.
Posted by: FireHorse at October 14, 2011 10:03 AM (gyHyY)
Do you know what the Secret Service's code for Todd was? Driller. I shit you not. Isn't that priceless? And kind of hot.
Posted by: stace at October 14, 2011 10:03 AM (lYlx9)
--True, but how fucking hard is it to change/redirect a damn web site? Much easier than stationery (heh) and business cards.
logprof at October 14, 2011 01:58 PM (QaKuj)
*****
You could do a google search about this. "Pittsburg Name Change". It'll come right up.
Or do a search of the city paper. They reported on it.
As far as the web site, are you going to the .gov site? Or the .net site?
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 10:03 AM (Y2WVW)
Is he in to win, or not?
Yes, but not too much. I asked months ago if Gov Perry was getting in the race on a lark. I still wonder. This campaign he is running is not that of a serious candidate.
lark: a merry, carefree adventure; frolic; escapade.
Posted by: soothie at October 14, 2011 10:03 AM (sqkOB)
These facts are what I come here for.
Posted by: sifty at October 14, 2011 10:03 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: R. Guliani at October 14, 2011 10:03 AM (+Lioq)
Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 14, 2011 10:04 AM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at October 14, 2011 01:59 PM
T-Paw will get back in and save the day, just watch! Posted by: Poppin' Fresh at October 14, 2011 02:00 PM
Chris Christie will get back in and save the day, just watch!
Where did I put my batteries?
Posted by: Ann Coulter at October 14, 2011 02:01 PM
Teh Fred will get back in and save the day, just watch!
Posted by: zombie ace at October 14, 2011 02:02 PM
Sarah will get back in and save the day, just watch!
Stop staring at my boobs!
Posted by: Pamela Geller at October 14, 2011 10:04 AM (Y+DPZ)
>>>As Grover Norquist said yesterday, Boehner and McConnell will be making all our policy decisions and our laws for us for the next 5 years.
This makes you comfortable?
Tell me what's the difference between Boehner, MCConnell and Romney versus Bush, Hastert and Frist?
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 10:04 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at October 14, 2011 10:04 AM (psns8)
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 10:04 AM (Xm1aB)
Cheap energy encourages manufacturing jobs to stay here. No more oil money going overseas to fund Al-Qaeda and all its little Islamist rebellions means that we won't have to put our military into every third world rathole to keep things under control.
Businesses and citizens can spend less on gasoline and heating bills, leaving more money to produce and then to buy goods and services.
Rick Perry is good at getting government out of the way and allowing the natural creativity of Americans to thrive. Of course, if we don't want that, we can spend our time sniping at him and keep on heading for an economy like that enjoyed by Greece.
Posted by: Avogadra at October 14, 2011 10:04 AM (dtIOD)
Well there you are.
I'm actually less pissed at Romney than I am at the "establishment" Repubs teaming with the MFM to pick the candidate. There is a reason why this is happening and that, imo, is that conventional Washington politics make a lot of people very happy. My personal preference is to see the apple cart upset - the fat lady punched in the gut before she can sing - a brand new drawing board - a biblical swarm of flies in the ointment.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 14, 2011 10:05 AM (jx2j9)
He's still working on his campaign to target a national audience.
He hasn't had the 5 years to do so that Mitt has had.
Of course he has. Bill Clinton (MF'er that he is) was governor of Arkansas for twelve years, but managed to prepare himself for a (regrettably) effective, polished, and successful campaign.
Perry has had spare time in the past ten years to adequately prepare for this. I'm guessing the main reason he hasn't is that he never really wanted this.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 14, 2011 10:05 AM (b68Df)
These facts are what I come here for.
Posted by: sifty at October 14, 2011 02:03 PM
Magnum always wore a Detroit Tigers cap
Posted by: kbdabear at October 14, 2011 10:05 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Buzzsaw
............
It doesn't work that way..
I am not against drilling here. As I said, it is a really good idea for energy security, keeping those dollars in country rather than paying for imports, etc.
But millions more barrels won't show up. The Saudis will cut back production. The Saudis said just the other day that they are producing just enough to meet demand.
Where would millions of barrels extra per day go? You got a storage tank the size of New Jersey sitting down in Texas or something? Our refineries are at max.
There simply would not be any "extra" oil on the market. The Saudis would cut production to keep prices stable.
While prices may go down a bit, they wouldn't be cheap. So many other factors go into making oil prices what they are.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 14, 2011 10:05 AM (f9c2L)
As far as the web site, are you going to the .gov site? Or the .net site?
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 02:03 PM (Y2WVW)
--I already cited it above:
It's spelled out right there. What, do they need a fucking union permit to change the name on a damn website?
Posted by: logprof at October 14, 2011 10:06 AM (QaKuj)
These facts are what I come here for.
Posted by: sifty at October 14, 2011 02:03 PM (4CSeG)
He wore a cap?
Posted by: Tami-Cardinals! at October 14, 2011 10:06 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at October 14, 2011 10:06 AM (pY3GI)
Describes the 52%.
Posted by: The Q at October 14, 2011 10:06 AM (CJIam)
yup. My bad. Wrong warzone.
Did you see the sunrise this morning? classic
Posted by: sifty at October 14, 2011 10:06 AM (4CSeG)
Captain Crook wore a pirate hat.
Posted by: FireHorse at October 14, 2011 10:06 AM (gyHyY)
These facts are what I come here for.
Posted by: sifty at October 14, 2011 02:03 PM
I think so, and I'm pretty sure that Dustin Hoffman was in Star Wars
Posted by: Todd Gack at October 14, 2011 10:07 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Harry at October 14, 2011 10:07 AM (gzRhz)
I wish.
A 2 term Governor that turned a state from bankruptcy to a billion in surplus.
Took on Planned Parenthood, gave Indiana school choice, got rid of public unions before it was cool..
yeah.. awful. Wouldnt want that voice in the mix at all.
Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at October 14, 2011 02:02 PM (qjUnn)
His wife said no.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 14, 2011 10:07 AM (FkKjr)
It was that thing that helped keep women off his mustache so he could get some work done.
Posted by: sifty at October 14, 2011 10:07 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 10:07 AM (Xm1aB)
Tell me what's the difference between Boehner, MCConnell and Romney versus Bush, Hastert and Frist?
About 300 lbs.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at October 14, 2011 10:07 AM (7EV/g)
No.
What the GOP needs is a candidate who "wings it" - likes to sit back and wait for things to come to them. Someone who is inarticulate, disorganized, and undisciplined only because they can overcome those things through prayer.
Posted by: Winning at October 14, 2011 10:08 AM (JuHsj)
Well there you are.
I'm actually less pissed at Romney than I am at the "establishment" Repubs teaming with the MFM to pick the candidate. There is a reason why this is happening and that, imo, is that conventional Washington politics make a lot of people very happy. My personal preference is to see the apple cart upset - the fat lady punched in the gut before she can sing - a brand new drawing board - a biblical swarm of flies in the ointment.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 14, 2011 02:05 PM (jx2j9)
newsletter?
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 10:08 AM (jdOk/)
Posted by: Anonymous Alaskan at October 14, 2011 10:09 AM (+Lioq)
Posted by: sifty at October 14, 2011 02:07 PM (4CSeG)
He had a mustache!?
Posted by: Tami-Cardinals! at October 14, 2011 10:09 AM (X6akg)
Oil is good. More oil is better.
Nuclear energy is best.
Living to see the day when some sheik has to squeegee my windshield to buy hummus, priceless.
Posted by: sifty at October 14, 2011 10:09 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 14, 2011 01:59 PM (Qjh0I)
It's ok. We're only going to be there for a couple of weeks...just like Libya.
Posted by: Infidel in Utah at October 14, 2011 10:10 AM (90BnA)
Tell me what's the difference between Boehner, MCConnell and Romney versus Bush, Hastert and Frist?
About 300 lbs.
And a warcock that ravaged actual cougars in Tijuana.
Posted by: The Q at October 14, 2011 10:10 AM (CJIam)
Posted by: tsj017 at October 14, 2011 10:10 AM (4YUWF)
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 10:10 AM (Xm1aB)
Look you retard. I thought you were joking at first, but please tell me you're not this stupid.
We're all being playful with the spelling and just joking with Ace's minor type-o.
You can't possibly be serious.
The city is spell Pittsburgh. It hasn't changed since 1907.
Lay off the Gardisil. (unless you're doing some sort of Andy Kaufmann joke, you know the ones only he gets and aren't funny)
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 01:58 PM (wuv1c)
*****
Ace laughs at you via his head-line modification.
Look, this shit isn't national news, but it did happen. Google "Pittsburg Name Change"
There are even books about it. Minor books, yeah. Look up "Stories, Lore and Other Historical Oddities in Steel City".
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 10:10 AM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 14, 2011 02:05 PM (b68Df)"
Agreed. And I see no problem with that. He didn't intend to run for President until only a few months ago when it was clear there were no conservatives with executive experience.
The guy is never going to be polished though. I think had Perry prepared for as long as Romney, he still wouldn't be as polished. But polish is not what I want. While Romney was preparing for this for five years, he did nothing.
Where was Romney when the debate over Obamacare was ongoing with an 'it's wrong for the country' view? He was no where. He was probably simply having mock debates every night.
Where was Perry? He was at Tea Parties shouting down Obamacare as a severe intrusion into our freedom. AND he was governing Texas with tremendous success. But he wasn't working on a presidential campaign, I admit, and he'll never be as skilled at the pizzazz stuff as Romney or frankly most of the other politicians. I am surprised, but Perry kinda sucks at that stuff and there's no denying it.
But he was out there criticizing the left on hard issues before it was easy to do. He didn't wait until after it was easy and then issue his agreement. In fact, I met Rick Perry when I went to the first Tea Party rally in Austin.
He sure isn't perfect, but he's 90% with me, and I really think he's the best compromise to make and hope folks reconsider him. I don't blame them if they choose Cain instead, but I hope they keep their mind open.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 10:10 AM (fF625)
Posted by: Harry at October 14, 2011 02:07 PM (gzRhz)
I want someone who can prove to me he can run a country, not just a state. I like Perry, but only as much as I like any of the candidates, which is somewhere between, "Hmm" (Herman Cain) and "NO!!" (Huntsman). There is no frontrunner in my book. I have no idea at the moment who I'm going to vote for when I step into the primary ballot booth on December frigging 6th.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 14, 2011 10:10 AM (4df7R)
Why do you think I've been winning these debates, for my own health?
Posted by: Newt Gingrich at October 14, 2011 10:11 AM (CJIam)
And really, any random person off the street would be better than Obama. Getting him OUT is the most important task in 2012. Who we put IN is not all that important, really. Just preventing the damage Obama would do in a second term is reason enough to vote for any Republican.
Posted by: Trimegistus at October 14, 2011 10:11 AM (n9fPC)
cain excites people, maybe He also needs to work on foreign policy, seems like a quick learner. we'll see.
romney, not thrilled but handsome and articulate, seems to play the politics game better than the others. not thrilled but i'll vote for whomever that has an R after its name.
Posted by: willow at October 14, 2011 10:11 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 14, 2011 10:11 AM (XE2Oo)
Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at October 14, 2011 10:11 AM (6IV8T)
He's had a full campaign schedule. I realize this is the spin, but it's patently untrue.
Posted by: Y-not at October 14, 2011 10:12 AM (5H6zj)
No.
What the GOP needs is a candidate who "wings it" - likes to sit back and wait for things to come to them. Someone who is inarticulate, disorganized, and undisciplined only because they can overcome those things through prayer.
Posted by: Winning at October 14, 2011 02:08 PM (JuHsj)
yep, those christian-ista's are dangerous.... they wrote that horrible rag called the Constitution.... will we never be rid of them?
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 10:12 AM (jdOk/)
Try this thought experiment -- Energy so abundant that it is for all intents and purposes free. What would happen? Manual labor would mostly disappear, because there isn't much of a limit on what can be automated or machine learned. You just need lots of teachable machines. To get those, you need lots and lots of energy to mine, refine and shape raw materials. Then you need energy to run them.
Energy is the key to it all.
Posted by: GnuBreed at October 14, 2011 10:13 AM (ENKCw)
Rubio's people denied the rumor about him helping move the FL primary to benefit Mitt.
Posted by: Y-not at October 14, 2011 10:13 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at October 14, 2011 10:13 AM (6IV8T)
Posted by: t-bird at October 14, 2011 10:13 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: The Q at October 14, 2011 10:13 AM (CJIam)
Posted by: Generic Republican at October 14, 2011 10:13 AM (Y+DPZ)
Perry has probably already screwed the pooch. If he can make a comeback, good for him. So far, he doesn't look like he has the chops.
RINO Romney is despised by the base. All that shit they talked about Palin losing the General is probably true about Mitt. Good luck with that.
That leaves Cain. The Democrats lowered to bar so much with the Community Oranizer, any objection to Cain's lack of experience doesn't resonate. Sure, they will try it but I'm betting the low info voter won't care. That leaves them with "He Isn't Authentically Black". I'd love to campaign against that.
Posted by: SurferDoc at October 14, 2011 10:14 AM (STdkO)
I like this energy plan. I don't like Perry, but I like the plan.
This is what's good about real competition in the primary. Perry has had to really come up with something good, and the other candidates are going to have to try to match it. Whoever ends up getting the nod will have a trail-tested set of popular energy plans.
Posted by: Concerned Evangelical of Icecream at October 14, 2011 10:14 AM (epBek)
Posted by: logprof at October 14, 2011 02:06 PM (QaKuj)
*****
Oh... you're going to try to argue that the UNIONS are going to be all fast and efficient in doing this sort of work?
You think SEIU is full of competant web masters?
I think not.
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 10:14 AM (Y2WVW)
Captain Crook wore a pirate hat. You are referencing either Capt Hook or Capt Cook. One was a pirate character in Peter Pan the other a British explorer who was skewered in Polynesia or Hawaai by the natives. I am unaware of Capt Crook. Did he ride a horse with a jack o lantern as a head?
Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 14, 2011 10:14 AM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: willow at October 14, 2011 10:15 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Jean at October 14, 2011 10:15 AM (WkuV6)
>>Ace laughs at you via his head-line modification.Look, this shit isn't national news, but it did happen. Google "Pittsburg Name Change"There are even books about it. Minor books, yeah. Look up "Stories, Lore and Other Historical Oddities in Steel City".
I live here you idiot. My god, I'm done arguing with someone who can't even acknowledge the spelling of a city name.
Ace is being playful. You're being an idiot. There's a difference
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 10:15 AM (wuv1c)
Boehner and Bush are more conservative than Hastert and Romney. McConnell and Frist are about the same, though Frist is more liberal on certain issues (e.g., his endorsement of ObamaCare).
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 14, 2011 10:15 AM (d6QMz)
-No one will recognize I am dressed as the true president
-rabid dogs will vomit at the site of my gremliney appearance
-Union members will fall under a zombie like spell and follow me around all night thuggish beating everyone who fails to give generous amounts of candy
-Those dressed as Carney will try to bone me
-Everyone will just confuse me for
Frau Farbissina!1!(from Austion Powers)
Posted by: Shiggz at October 14, 2011 10:16 AM (I9fXA)
Has anyone heard how Romney's $5 raffle for a day with Mitt went?
Posted by: Y-not at October 14, 2011 10:16 AM (5H6zj)
Rubio's people denied the rumor about him helping move the FL primary to benefit Mitt.
Posted by: Y-not at October 14, 2011 02:13 PM (5H6zj)
and further more.... Rubio just back from junket to Liybia with... guess who?
John McCain
Linsday Graham
and Mark Kirk
... you know, the Teddy Roosevelt Triplets.
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 10:16 AM (jdOk/)
Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at October 14, 2011
02:11 PM (6IV8T)
Someone needs to call on Miracle Max.
“I’ve seen woise.”
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 14, 2011 10:16 AM (jx2j9)
What the GOP needs is a candidate who "wings it" - likes to sit back and wait for things to come to them. Someone who is inarticulate, disorganized, and undisciplined only because they can overcome those things through prayer.
Umm, that was a totally gratiutous bit of religious baiting. lay off.
Posted by: Concerned Evangelical of Icecream at October 14, 2011 10:17 AM (epBek)
Ben at October 14, 2011 02:15 PM (wuv1c)
*****
Did you even bother to Google the things I gave you?
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 10:18 AM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: t-bird at October 14, 2011 10:19 AM (FcR7P)
>>Did you even bother to Google the things I gave you?
All I read when you write is something along the lines of, "Fire can't melt the letter H"
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 10:20 AM (wuv1c)
Did you even bother to Google the things I gave you?
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 02:18 PM (Y2WVW)
--No, because I don't care. If Pittsburg(h) did change its name officially, then it's too incompetent or lazy to change the websites so fuck 'em.
Posted by: logprof at October 14, 2011 10:21 AM (QaKuj)
yep, those christian-ista's are dangerous.... they wrote that horrible rag called the Constitution.... will we never be rid of them?
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 02:12 PM (jdOk/)
Because the British and Scots probably weren't "real" christians either.
But good example though... of committed, prepared men willing to fight under any circumstances. Not fly-by candidates who get in when the race looks winnable and do little preparation.
Posted by: Winning at October 14, 2011 10:21 AM (JuHsj)
We've already discovered Christie's true colors. Who's next?
If the sources are so sure of their allegations, why have they remained anonymous? Where is their proof? The story also does not make much sense. Everyone knows Rubio is guaranteed consideration, so why would a man who appears so measured risk his Senate career in such a rash way? Strategically, it makes no sense.
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 14, 2011 10:21 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: that shithead who referred to himself as someguy at October 14, 2011 10:21 AM (90BnA)
>>Boehner and Bush are more conservative than Hastert and Romney. McConnell and Frist are about the same, though Frist is more liberal on certain issues (e.g., his endorsement of ObamaCare).
Yeah, that's kind of my point.
If the House Leader as Allen West and the Senate Leader was Pat Toomey, I wouldn't be so concerned about a Romney presidency.
However that's not the case. Remember that Boehner gave up on the debt deal for billions in cuts that turned out to be money that wasn't ever going to be spent.
McConnell was for Lisa Muffdiveski.
I
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 10:22 AM (wuv1c)
Agreed. And I see no problem with that. He didn't intend to run for President until only a few months ago when it was clear there were no conservatives with executive experience.
He did so at the urging of his wife, who told him that she could see a burning bush, even though he couldn't.
That's not a cheap joke. That's not a smear. That is literally what she said.
And what is troubling is, I believe her. I think he knew he wasn't ready for this. And I'll allude to Bill Clinton one more time. Being governor for umpteen years does not reign as the supreme qualification for President. I want executive and private industry experience. I want someone...yes...who is polished when speaking about policy. We aren't in the 19th Century. A President has to have good communication skills, are he along with the causes he supports are going suffer the consequences if he doesn't (read: GWB).
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 14, 2011 10:22 AM (b68Df)
Oh, and K-Lo at NRO can f*ck off with her call on Perry to apologize for the pastor's remarks.
I swear, I think I'm done with NRO.
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 01:32 PM (Xm1aB)
I have been for years. They want to be the intellectual wing of the Country Club Republicans. That is, they want to and must explain to us stupid flyover rubes why we must be reasonable Republicans, why we simply must work with the Democrats and why we absolutely have to run a moderate to liberal Republican to win in every single race from dogcatcher to President.
Oh, and fuck that K-Lo bitch with a leperic hobo's dick. Wasn't she at that VVS? Was it not her along with Easy Ed holding forth on a panel? Fuck her, she is as much to blame as Perry. (I knew there was a reason I had a vague notion of hating her.)
Posted by: Jimmuy at October 14, 2011 10:22 AM (CQSQC)
275
The problem with making a distinction between running a state and running a country is we do not have anybody who has run a country. We do have several that have run states. Some better than others. Do we seriously want to pretend that Romney has the experience that Perry has? Do we seriously want to pretend that Romney has had the success that Perry has?
Posted by: Harry at October 14, 2011 10:23 AM (gzRhz)
>> Thomas Jefferson is not walking through that door
Fuck if I ain't, you're not the boss of me.
*skeletal hand pulls on doorknob*
...
Need a little help!
Posted by: Thomas Jefferson at October 14, 2011 10:24 AM (WvXvd)
yep, those christian-ista's are dangerous.... they wrote that horrible rag called the Constitution.... will we never be rid of them?
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 02:12 PM (jdOk/)
Because the British and Scots probably weren't "real" christians either.
But good example though... of committed, prepared men willing to fight under any circumstances. Not fly-by candidates who get in when the race looks winnable and do little preparation.
Posted by: Winning at October 14, 2011 02:21 PM (JuHsj)
i assume your talking about Perry?
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 10:24 AM (jdOk/)
John McCain
Linsday Graham
and Mark Kirk
... you know, the Teddy Roosevelt Triplets.
If you're part of a delegation, you don't get to pick fellow members unless you're leading said delegation. That's just the way it works.
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 14, 2011 10:25 AM (d6QMz)
Maybe because an arrest means spending some time in Camp Arpaio where you don't get a scoop of chockwit ice cweam just because you stomped your feet and demanded it?
Posted by: kbdabear at October 14, 2011 01:47 PM (Y+DPZ)
Nah. We're already under occupation - the 99% can't speak enough spanish to compete.
Posted by: soulpile is... at October 14, 2011 10:30 AM (Mk/IQ)
Yeah Perry
Rick "I'll get in now that Obama looks weak, and the GOP field is thin, and I should be able to win this thing in a cakewalk" Perry.
Glad Ace is seeing the light on Romney's work ethic. But its also his committment.
So many of these "tough" and"principled" conservatives were too chicken to get in when Obama still had high numbers. And it looked like guys like Daniels, Barbour, Ryan Christie... may get in.
And they call Romney an opportunist. At least Romney had the balls to get in when the road looked a lot tougher. Not all these lazy, last minute candidates who want in because the road looks easy now.
Posted by: Winning at October 14, 2011 10:30 AM (JuHsj)
Posted by: Minuteman at October 14, 2011 10:31 AM (CGxxU)
Did you even bother to Google the things I gave you?
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 02:18 PM (Y2WVW)
--No, because I don't care. If Pittsburg(h) did change its name officially, then it's too incompetent or lazy to change the websites so fuck 'em.
Posted by: logprof at October 14, 2011 02:21 PM (QaKuj)
All I read when you write is something along the lines of, "Fire can't melt the letter H"
Posted by: Ben at October 14, 2011 02:20 PM (wuv1c)
*****
OK, Ben, that right there is funny. No more stupid fucking arround on my part. "Fire can't melt the letter H". Seriously, that is funny.
I'll come clean now. Of course you guys are right. It is Pittsburgh.
I was just trying to do some silly ass "Stuff Jefferson Said, Volume IIV" shtick.
It's an old running gag here. Maybe you knew about it, and my act just sucked. Or maybe you didn't, in which case my bullshit wouldn't make any sense.
No hard feelings I hope. And I now retroactively appologize for any name calling I did upstream.
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 10:31 AM (Y2WVW)
312 272 So, what are to make of Rubio's apparent support of Romney.
We've already discovered Christie's true colors. Who's next?
If the sources are so sure of their allegations, why have they remained anonymous? Where is their proof? The story also does not make much sense. Everyone knows Rubio is guaranteed consideration, so why would a man who appears so measured risk his Senate career in such a rash way? Strategically, it makes no sense.
----------
Romney has tons of money, and his tenacles are everywhere. Owning Clear Channel Radio makes him very powerful just from that alone.
I have really liked Rubio, and I hope that he hasn't been bought. ....We should wait and see how this shakes out.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 14, 2011 10:31 AM (BkmDd)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 14, 2011 10:32 AM (ZDUD4)
Yinz know that that Obama guy was dahn Schenley Park with Kordell Stewart the other day, doncha?
Yeah, you know what I'm talking abaht, sure yinz do!
Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz at October 14, 2011 10:34 AM (AMi60)
That's not a cheap joke. That's not a smear. That is literally what she said.
And what is troubling is, I believe her. I think he knew he wasn't ready for this. And I'll allude to Bill Clinton one more time. Being governor for umpteen years does not reign as the supreme qualification for President. I want executive and private industry experience. I want someone...yes...who is polished when speaking about policy. We aren't in the 19th Century. A President has to have good communication skills, are he along with the causes he supports are going suffer the consequences if he doesn't (read: GWB).
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 14, 2011 02:22 PM (b68Df)"
And Romney's wife is even more disturbing. She boasts about what a good liar her husband is, and she gives money to help abort children.
The reason I don't hold this against Mitt is because family should be off limits. Of course they all love their spouse and they all have a hard time with the attacks. Mrs Perry for example seems naive about it, and I actually like that.
Your wish for a polished leader is reasonable for the reasons you gave.
Romney is not gaffe free, of course, with his 'asia is a country' and 'tar baby' and 'i want to hang obama (metaphor)' gaffes. I also don't hold those against Romney because he's just a human being, and of course he's going to slip up from time to time.
Thing is, Romney is a Republican, at least nominally, so his gaffes will be found and plastered everywhere. Reagan was polished, and yet the left portrayed him as an idiot.
Perry is inferior to Romney on this count, so you still score a point for this. I give Perry points over Romney for his superior record, and I want Republicans to know that if they want their careers to advance, they need to balanced budgets. I also think Perry's handled a lot of crises very well, and is prepared to run a large government well.
But he will probably be about at the GWB level of articulation, and I understand why you have a problem with that. You just have to figure what you're willing to compromise on.
Is Romney's polish going to be used to reform entitlements and cut spending and balance the budget. No. It will be used for centrist positions a la Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham. We'll have a second Nixon administration that is brilliant in one way, but terrible in many others.
Romney is going around talking about reversing cuts to Medicare. Half a trillion $ cuts. So his polish isn't valuable to me since we simply disagree on whether to increase entitlements or decrease them.
That's why I ask folks to reconsider Perry, who isn't perfect, but he does mean what he says once he managed to stammer it out, and it's 90% conservative.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 10:34 AM (fF625)
gee, that's all the principled conservs in and out of the race.
what does this say?
i don't know i'm just asking questions.
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 01:32 PM (jdOk/)
I wouldn't exactly call Bachmann "principled"...
Posted by: KG at October 14, 2011 10:37 AM (LD21B)
If the House Leader as Allen West and the Senate Leader was Pat Toomey, I wouldn't be so concerned about a Romney presidency.
However that's not the case. Remember that Boehner gave up on the debt deal for billions in cuts that turned out to be money that wasn't ever going to be spent.
McConnell was for Lisa Muffdiveski.
Not sure about the Boehner part but I definitely agree about McConnell. Regarding both positions, there is no guarantee that either man will retain their spot, especially if the make-up of both conferences change (though it would admittedly be harder with McConnell). But you would think that, if they happen to hold their spots and gain more conservative members in both conferences, said members would push them more. They would no longer have to settle with members of the opposition and I don't think a more conservative conference would accept it. Also consider that some of the current leaders are people who were forced to the backbenchers under Hastert and Frist because of they were "too conservative". I think the general make-up of Congress is undergoing a change.
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 14, 2011 10:38 AM (d6QMz)
If you're part of a delegation, you don't get to pick fellow members unless you're leading said delegation. That's just the way it works.
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 14, 2011 02:25 PM (d6QMz)
makes one wonder who is in charge of picking delegations and why the certain people are picked.
just yesterday there was an article in a major publication laying out how the GOP Establislment is co-opting and degrading the TEA Party movement.
it's worth a read.
Posted by: shoey (team Constitution) at October 14, 2011 10:38 AM (jdOk/)
Posted by: Winning at October 14, 2011 02:30 PM (JuHsj)"
Lazy? Perry has been Governor for 11 years, and worked his way up from nothing. Literally nothing.
It's not like he was unemployed for the past several years, and ran for president. He was busy. He couldn't run a week before he did because the Texas Leg was in session. He announced his candidacy early, historically. Yeah, Romney was running first, but that's all he was doing for years. He wasn't even leading as a pundit when we had the Obamacare debate (though Perry was out there getting hammered for saying Obamacare is unconstitutional at Tea Party rallies in Austin!)
No one thinks the road to the presidency is easy. Don't be silly.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 10:38 AM (fF625)
Yes....but... So if you look at a US manufacturing floor what do you see. Machines doing assembly and fabrication tasks. Not so many people. As a matter of fact, probably as few people as they can get away with. When you look at say a Chinese manufacturing plant...oodles of people.
So you have two sources of "work" people and machines.
In the US, people are expensive, so as much work as possible is done by machines.
In China, people are cheaper than energy, so people are used except where machines are required.
Yes labor costs are a big deal in the US, and a big cost to industry, and lowering them would help manufacturing. That btw equals lowering standard of living. Now in some cases where unions are choking industry it might be warranted but I think in most cases in the free market it is OK.
Lowering energy costs, however, makes the US' cheap source of work cheaper. And that effects all levels, making it more efficient to mine materials, manufacture top tier industrial products, operate the top tier industrial products to make consumer products. All levels become more efficient because all levels rely on energy.
In an economy where most of the *real* work is done by hydrocarbons and electrons, cheaper hydrocarbons and electrons means more *real* work can be done. Real work getting done means more stuff produced. We all get to have more without getting a pay cut. It's full of win.
Ok ok ok. Think of it this way. People are nearly free to hire, energy is abhorrently expensive. Your entire population is fully employed mostly swinging scythes. Your economy produces enough food to survive and that is it. The average person works 14 hours a day six or seven days a week.
Switch! Energy is nearly free, people are expensive. Your population for the most part is employed, however, not only do you have plenty of food to eat, you also have automobiles, big screen tv's, iphones, computers, stacks of entertainment choices, and you only work 8 hours a day 5 days a week.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 14, 2011 10:39 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 14, 2011 10:40 AM (i9cTu)
___X___ showed up in a flash and hungry like a Marxist hippie when the pizza arrives but ___X___ disappeared as fast and silently as a Marxist hippie when the pizza guy starts asking for money.
Feel free to mad libs in your disliked political opponents.
Posted by: Shiggz at October 14, 2011 10:40 AM (I9fXA)
We're seeing a rerun of 1996 in many ways. I remember so much frustration that after the 1994 revolution and the GOP takeover of the House, we did not seem to have a Presidential candidate that captured that sense of revolution. And we ended up with Bob Dole. But it was too soon. There was not enough time for a "Class of '94" standardbearer in 1996. And so it is too soon to expect a "Tea Party Candidate" to win the GOP nomination. The closest we probably could have come to that was Chris Christie (and no, Sarah Palin would not count because she wasn't elected to anything after Obama was elected).
Remember, even Ronald Reagan had to run once and lose before he was able to run and win. And even Mitt Romney is a damn sight better than Bob Dole! At least he is someone from outside the Beltway who hasn't spent his whole life as part of the DC ruling class.
Posted by: rockmom at October 14, 2011 10:46 AM (aBlZ1)
Posted by: Shiggz at October 14, 2011 10:46 AM (I9fXA)
All anyone cares about is jobs jobs jobs jobs and he has the best record.
Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at October 14, 2011 02:13 PM (qjUnn)"
I think this really is true if you think about the general election.
Romney has business success and that is something I am very impressed with personally, but it's success laying off Americans and outsourcing. Bain has investments in 40 Chinese manufacturers. Staples in particular, but many others, are huge boons for China, and represent a loss of American employment.
Is that Romney's fault? No. Romney had a duty to make profit, and nothing else, and Americans buy Chinese made crap, so that's the direction Romney invested in. In fact, Bain was a pioneer in outsourcing to China. They are the first American investment firm with an office in Beijing, as Bain China's website boasts.
Americans like you and me chose this when we buy cheap Chinese goods instead of expensive American ones, so again, not Romney's fault.
But in the general election, Perry is consistently always helping Americans get jobs. Even before governor, he had a tremendous record selling Texas exports to Israel and Asia and Europe and many other places, flying all over the world to promote the virtues of Texan products. In fact, Texas exports more goods than any other US State.
Perry is a simple narrative to present against Obama. Jobs jobs jobs because of less government. Romney has a similar agenda, aside from his view on entitlements, but a) people have a hard time believing him and b) I think he will be palinized for his complex success story involving outsourcing.
I don't want to get into the religious thing. I have no idea and never really understood the Mormon bashing, and I already think Perry is being based a lot too, so I think Romney and Perry are equally vulnerable for their faiths.
But in the general election, they both will be relentlessly demonized with a billion dollar mudslinging effort, and I think Perry's simpler response, based entirely on what he already did, beats Romney's complex response based on 160 pages of plans (And a lot of that is plans to make a plan later, if you read it).
Just saying. I would probably want Mitt as an adviser on trade with China, and I'm not trying to be snarky about this, but as the top dog, folks want a leader.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 10:47 AM (fF625)
He knows enough to not support ethanol subsidies and to recognize the house of cards the science of AGW is.
Posted by: Y-not at October 14, 2011 10:47 AM (5H6zj)
I have really liked Rubio, and I hope that he hasn't been bought. ....We should wait and see how this shakes out.
Your first point is why I could see Cesar Conda (the aide who has been accused of doing this) being involved in this, since he has a history with Romney. But there are a number of holes in the story, especially considering some of the other players supposedly involved (Crist?) and the entire scheme. Romney was the first presidential candidate to mention Rubio as a potential VP pick and he's never backed-away from that. If you look at this from a cynical strategic standpoint, Rubio has spent a lot of time cultivating a conservative image and he has done everything right. Why risk that and a Senate career on a risky gimmick when you're guaranteed consideration? How does it help him?
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 14, 2011 10:48 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at October 14, 2011 10:48 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 14, 2011 10:50 AM (i9cTu)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at October 14, 2011 10:56 AM (IGkEP)
just yesterday there was an article in a major publication laying out how the GOP Establislment is co-opting and degrading the TEA Party movement.
it's worth a read.
You can volunteer but leaders pick the people who go (IIRC). Often, they pick people based on committee assignments and expertise; the higher priority of the trip, the more that is taken into consideration. But that isn't always the case, as it depends on the type of trip and things.
John McCain- Senate Committee on Armed Services, Ranking Member
Lindsay Graham- Senate Committee on Armed Services
Mark Kirk-Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Marco Rubio- Committee on Foreign Relations
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 14, 2011 10:58 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: SFGoth at October 14, 2011 11:00 AM (dZ756)
Posted by: ombdz at October 14, 2011 11:01 AM (2DpoY)
Paul Zummo at October 14, 2011 02:56 PM (IGkEP)
****
Of course it does. All that stuff about Pittsburgh having officially dropped the "H" was just a bunch of goofin'.
Posted by: ed at October 14, 2011 11:02 AM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at October 14, 2011 11:03 AM (IGkEP)
Posted by: SFGoth at October 14, 2011 03:00 PM (dZ756)"
He's amazing. No one should underestimate him.
I just think one of his many skills is choosing positions that are contrary to what this nation needs. We need to take some difficult and painful steps towards austerity that are not going to sit well with everyone. The entire reason we're at this point is because politicians repeatedly pander and fail to cut spending, leaving a large debt for the next generation.
Sure, they could balance the budget and cut sacred cow agencies like Perry did in Texas, but then you don't win as many votes, duh, so the clever politicians don't do that.
We can turn that around by rewarding politicians who do cut spending and balance budgets. Having that record should be very valuable, and not at all equivalent to a politician with little record and mere promises.
Sadly, today, walking the walk is not as helpful as talking the talk on primetime TV. Style beats substance.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 11:05 AM (fF625)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 14, 2011 02:50 PM (i9cTu)"
We can think for ourselves. Citing 'but this popular dude disagrees' without explaining his argument for disagreeing is a lame rebuttal. I don't even know that Rubio supports Romney.
What I do know is that Romney has tremendous power with the establishment party, so it's unwise for anyone to stand against him. That's why all the debates are moderated by democrats. These guys actually like that, and there's no one willing to say 'no, we're shouldn't embrace MSNBC'. The power in this party is in DC, and the people who have persisted the longest have no problem with big government.
It's a systemic problem, and taking it on is very difficult.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 11:08 AM (fF625)
340
It is not for naught that the Founding Fathers put that little phrase about no religious test in the Constitution. Could it be because it is such a huge waste of time worrying about what any particular candidate believes?
If I expect that any candidate believe the same thing that I do, I am probably going to be sorely disappointed.
I believe that the media emphasizes this same point to suck all the oxygen out of the air.
I am not going to vote for Romney. Ever. But not because he is Mormon, but because he is more of the same that we have had for years, and I do not want any more of it.
Posted by: Harry at October 14, 2011 11:09 AM (gzRhz)
And Romney's wife is even more disturbing. She boasts about what a good liar her husband is, and she gives money to help abort children.
She gave $ 150.00 to Planned Parenthood in 1994. Big deal.
I'm talking about the present. I'm talking about what Anita Perry said yesterday about her husband's willingness to enter this race.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 14, 2011 11:11 AM (b68Df)
342 Why risk that and a Senate career on a risky gimmick when you're guaranteed consideration? How does it help him?
Yeah, I don't know. It does seem like a risky gimmick. .....Maybe he didn't think it would ever be found out? People have underestimated such things before.
And given Rubio's insistence that he wouldn't accept the VP slot from anyone....it makes the whole thing even more curious.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 14, 2011 11:11 AM (BkmDd)
Posted by: mpfs, TPT at October 14, 2011 01:26 PM (iYbLN)
I always took him for a Dapper Dan man, myself.
Posted by: grognard at October 14, 2011 11:23 AM (NS2Mo)
And given Rubio's insistence that he wouldn't accept the VP slot from anyone....it makes the whole thing even more curious.
I know politicians do stupid things all the time but this allegation seems really out of character. Securing an early primary would get the higher-ups to notice you but there are far easier and less risky ways of getting attention. Part of the motivation also seems rather odd. Conda wanted to negate Cain's momentum from the Florida straw poll and from Palin's positive comments about Cain by moving the primary date? How does that work?
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 14, 2011 11:24 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: David, infamous sockpuppet at October 14, 2011 11:28 AM (UtoLw)
She gave $ 150.00 to Planned Parenthood in 1994. Big deal.
I'm talking about the present. I'm talking about what Anita Perry said yesterday about her husband's willingness to enter this race.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 14, 2011 03:11 PM (b68Df)"
I'm agreeing using the wife's comments is not a big deal, either Romney's wife paying for a child to be aborted, which I think is a pretty big deal in itself, or Perry's wife getting her feelings hurt because she's naive.
Hot Air has a great interview from Perry today discussing his wife's comments and Perry has not even a slight urge to cry victim, explaining his wife's attitude very effectively. He also discusses his jobs proposal and that Mormon preacher that Mitt was somewhat complaining victimized him and must be repudiated.
Perry also discusses specifically what you're talking about, which is his motivation to be the president. Perry notes he wore the uniform and I think that's a good point. He understands duty.
Anyway, Perry came across so well in this interview despite the questions being fairly hostile. He does very well in interviews and very badly in debates, and I wish I understood that.
Regardless, the guy is thinking quick on his feet and I think this could represent Perry finally getting his act together.
Anyway, if you're going to bash Perry for his wife defending him, you're going to see folks not that Mitt's wife donated to Planned Parenthood and described her husband as an amazing liar, who can argue things he doesn't believe so effectively she doesn't actually know what he believes.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 11:32 AM (fF625)
Personally, I think we should just take everything each spouse says as largely irrelevant. Mitt and Rick's wives just don't matter to this discussion.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 11:34 AM (fF625)
Posted by: poljunkie at October 14, 2011 11:37 AM (XuiJf)
They have supported abortion rights for 37 years, at least according to Mitt Romney's claims in MA debates. They only started saying Roe V Wade is "good law" after that case occurred, obviously.
Then Mitt broke his promise to never waver in supporting this case in 2007, when he flip flopped on many issues. That is the core of my problem with him. I might even support Romney more if he was still the liberal on these issues he was for 37 years. I admire a man who stands up for something, even if I disagree.
It was so bad that he ordered law enforcement to finally do something about illegal immigration mere days before his term ended, after years of nothing on sanctuary cities in MA (Perry has attempted to ban them using emergency session powers, but has yet to succeed with this).
The wife stuff seems kinda silly.
Romney is the polished guy whose polish is actually insincere. Perry is the guy with tourettes in the debates who remembers how to speak properly in the interviews, and at least knows what he really believes on the issues.
I guess I could complain about how neither of these men is really perfect for the job, but it does me no good.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 11:39 AM (fF625)
I swear, I think I'm done with NRO.
Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2011 01:32 PM (Xm1aB)
I gave up on NRO years ago...got enough of K-Lo doing online orgasms for Romney the last election cycle to last me a lifetime and then some.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 14, 2011 11:57 AM (ED4oz)
Posted by: lu - Perrywinkle at October 14, 2011 01:27 PM (pLTLS)
Amen. This is the first sighting of the guy who I *thought* was running for president when Perry entered the race.
He can still pull this thing off - and whip Obama's butt next fall - but he needs more stuff like this, like right now.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 14, 2011 11:59 AM (ED4oz)
This doesn't piss me off as much as Cain claiming the N-word head thing was offensive before he had the facts, but Cain isn't expected to be a polished politician.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 12:00 PM (fF625)
But we aren't all zombies or anything.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 12:16 PM (fF625)
His energy proposals might as well be copied right off of her facebook page (and they are the right proposals).
I think Perry got off on the wrong foot with some Palin fans because his running may have prevented her from running, but I think they are similar.
Posted by: Dustin at October 14, 2011 12:37 PM (fF625)
I agree, while there's a lot I don't like about Romney on some policy issues, but at least he's a mature adult and maybe capable of surrounding himself witha strong team and even learning some. Hard to see that in the others, and Obama, of course, is beyond any hope.
Maybe the best of a bad lot, but still, the country will survive 4 years of Romney, not sure about Obama.
Posted by: Marty at October 14, 2011 01:43 PM (b0AML)
Mitt and Rick's wives just don't matter to this discussion.
Dustin:
Let me bring up another point. Anita Perry gave a speech where she said that when she heard about Cain's 9-9-9 plan she thought of calling 911.
The spouses of candidates have a legitimate role in speaking to their character. Why they believe they have the qualities to lead the nation.
But when you start in on the policies of other candidates, and when you declare your husband to be the only true conservative in the race, you go outside those boundries and legitimately open yourself up to criticism.
She should stick to telling people about the good qualities of her husband, and let her husband be the one who critiques the other candidates.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 14, 2011 02:22 PM (0DGtF)
Posted by: cackfinger at October 14, 2011 02:27 PM (a9mQu)
Posted by: jjshaka at October 14, 2011 02:33 PM (MnpYt)
Perry is talking energy policy here. It happens to help the economy, but I think the rest of the Republican field has said the same things about energy policy (I know Cain does) and that is expand domestic energy production. Perry is not too original.
Posted by: sarge2909 at October 14, 2011 04:40 PM (TUiAH)
Posted by: The Magic Maker ePub at October 14, 2011 04:59 PM (/0ay9)
Posted by: The Cold Commands iBooks at October 14, 2011 05:17 PM (3kk88)
Posted by: Cavalier Queen AudioBook at October 14, 2011 05:24 PM (SvEWy)
Posted by: The Train of Small Mercies ePub at October 14, 2011 05:37 PM (+5KYu)
I hope Perry gets his act together before it's too late (many pundits are claiming it is already). He is IMO the best qualified, most capable conservative candidate available. He is likable and can at times speak well. It does seem like the establishment is jumping aboard the Romney train, though.
Posted by: waelse1 at October 14, 2011 05:47 PM (Ocovz)
Posted by: steevy at October 14, 2011 06:55 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: RBMiller at October 14, 2011 09:58 PM (/vPaz)
Surface treatment
Polishing
zinc plating
nickel plating
chrome plating
powder coating
e-coating
dip coating
phosphate coating
anodize
PVC powder coating
dichromate plating
decrement plating
Posted by: bsdbsn at October 16, 2011 06:48 PM (YQzU7)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2764 seconds, 497 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Thomas Jefferson is not walking through that door; Ronald Reagan is not walking through that door; Barry Goldwater is not walking through that door.
And if you expect them to walk through the door they'll be hair, teeth, and bones.
What I am is young, exciting, and hard working. You people don't realize that, but the sooner you do the better off this town will be. I wish I was more like Reagan, but I'm not.
The negativity on this blog stinks. And it sucks. And it stinks.
And if you think I'm gonna succumb to negativity you're wrong.
Posted by: Mitt Pitino at October 14, 2011 09:18 AM (sqkOB)