Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

"Cowboy corporatist rides to the rescue"

The Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney on Rick Perry:

“I’m a pro-business governor — I don’t make any apologies about it,” Rick Perry told the crowds in Iowa this week. He’s right, but we can get more specific. Perry is pro-Merck, pro-Boeing, pro-Mesa Wind, pro-Texas Instruments, pro-Convergen, and pro-dozens of businesses that donate to his campaigns and hire his aides as lobbyists.

Perry promises to “get Americans back to work,” but his policies — from backroom drug company giveaways to green energy subsidies — eerily mirror the unseemly big business-big government collusion that has characterized President Obama’s presidency. Judging by his record in Texas, Perrynomics might just be low-tax Obamanomics.

Big government Republicans who differ from big government Dems inasmuch as they prefer lower taxes? Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?

But I digress. Carney, again:

Corporate welfare king Boeing provided a formative experience for Perry. Weeks after Perry took over the governorship in 2001, the jet maker announced it was moving its corporate headquarters out of Seattle and was considering Chicago, Denver and Dallas. Undoubtedly, Texas provided the best business environment: lower taxes, less regulation, better weather, less traffic. But Chicago won because Mayor Richard Daley and Gov. George Ryan offered Boeing $63 million in “incentives,” including a $1 million buyout to a tenant who was occupying Boeing’s preferred office space.

One problem: Texas’ slower legislative process prevented the state from making a counteroffer. Perry was determined to fix this inefficiency so he would never be out-corporate-welfared again.

In his next State of the State address, Perry pushed the Legislature to create the Texas Enterprise Fund, giving the governor, lieutenant governor and House speaker the power to hand out multimillion-dollar grants to businesses seeking to relocate to or expand within the state. Two years later, Perry and the Legislature created another subsidy bank, called the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, using taxpayer money to invest in high-tech companies. Perry made government a venture capital fund.

Muckrakers at the Los Angeles Times and the Austin American Statesman have shown a strong correlation between Perry’s biggest campaign contributors and the money handled by these funds and Perry’s other public-private partnership. Almost half of Perry’s “mega-donors,” according to the Times, have received profitable favors from the Texas government. Poultry magnate Joe Sanderson, for instance, gave Perry’s campaign $165,000 and received $500,000 from the Texas Enterprise Fund to open a facility in Waco, the Times reports.

[…]

[…] just as President Obama uses renewable energy as an excuse for steering taxpayer money to big business, Perry also loves green corporate welfare. Perry was a featured speaker at the national wind lobby’s 2008 conference, where he touted his 2005 law requiring Texans to purchase wind and solar energy — all in the name of “job creation” and business growth. If you force people to buy a product, of course the businesses selling that product will grow.

Perry also shares Obama’s tendency to enrich drug companies, employing friendly revolving-door lobbyists. Perry’s little bit of pharma welfare was his 2007 executive order requiring all sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated for human papillomavirus, which can cause cervical cancer. Drugmaker Merck happened to have exclusive rights to the HPV vaccine, and Merck’s top lobbyist in Austin happened to be Perry’s former chief of staff, Mike Toomey. Also, Merck’s political action committee had cut a $6,000 check to Perry. The state Legislature reversed this executive overreach.

[…]

Perry’s actions as governor suggest that for him, “pro-business” means “corporatism.” His words are telling, too. While critiquing Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in his book “Fed Up,” Perry states that economic recovery came from “World War II, when FDR was finally persuaded to unleash private enterprise.” Is he talking about the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, complete with its rationing? Or maybe FDR “unleashed private enterprise” through the War Production Board or the War Manpower Commission?

Or maybe Rick Perry simply conflates private enterprise with private profit.

After four years of bailouts, drug-lobby-crafted health care “reform,” corporate handouts in the name of “stimulus” and “green jobs,” and cash-for-clunkers boondoggles, does Perry really think what we need is more corporatism?

These are Carney’s questions, not mine.

Still, they’re disquietingly rhetorical.

Of course, Perry has one giant plus going for him: he’s not Obama. But is he the best candidate for classical liberals / constitutional conservatives?

More on the pros and cons of Perry, here.

214 Replies to “"Cowboy corporatist rides to the rescue"”

  1. happyfeet says:

    I’m very concerned that Perry would be just like Obama except for advocating lower taxes.

  2. geoffb says:

    More also here.

    All told, the Dallas Morning News has found that some $16 million from the tech fund has gone to firms in which major Perry contributors were either investors or officers, and $27 million from the fund has gone to companies founded or advised by six advisory board members. The tangle of interests surrounding the fund has raised eyebrows throughout the state, especially among conservatives who think the fund is a misplaced use of taxpayer dollars to start with.

  3. BT says:

    I’m certain Perry will be asked and have answers for these influence peddling innuendos. So I’ll reserve judgment until that happens. If given a choice i would chose Palin over Perry, for whatever that is worth.

  4. serr8d says:

    Perrynomics might just be low-tax Obamanomics.

    I call bullshit. There’s nothing ‘corporatist’ about BHO except for the fleecing and redistribution rhetoric and the hate-the-rich gamesmanship.

    I’m very concerned that Perry would be just like Obama except for advocating lower taxes.

    You goober, just a day or so ago you were touting Perry as the best thing since sliced bread.

    I’m beginning to think you are spastic.

  5. scooter says:

    There’s more to a presidency than economic policy, but if you want to talk economics then lower taxes are a great place to start.

    Whether or not Gov. Perry gave breaks to certain companies – something I am not advocating, I should point out – doesn’t seem to have much bearing on whether or not he’s likely increase the national debt as much as the current President, or balance the budget, etc.

    And Perry’s foreign policy, I imagine, would look a damn sight different than President O’s does.

    Of course, the same could be said for a hypothetical President Bachmann, or President Palin, or President Romney… OK maybe not so much Romney.

  6. Challeron says:

    Naw, serr8d, he’s still just trying to get laid by NG; his pathetic political positions seem based on what he thinks she’d like….

  7. happyfeet says:

    He’s just like Obama plus he tried to exploit pussy cancer for profit.

  8. Challeron says:

    Either that, or he really needs to move back to Texas to get some healthier air in his lungs….

  9. Challeron says:

    Actually, winning Boeing’s headquarters hasn’t really done anything to help the Illinois economy (they brought no manufacturing jobs here), so maybe Texas was better off not winning that particular bid….

  10. LBascom says:

    “Whether or not Gov. Perry gave breaks to certain companies – something I am not advocating, I should point out – doesn’t seem to have much bearing on whether or not he’s likely increase the national debt as much as the current President, or balance the budget, etc.”

    The same road at a walk instead of a run is still the same road.

  11. bh says:

    Do we have any candidates available who don’t have some sort of negative subsidy exposure?

    I’d be willing to bet we don’t. (Something that bugged me about Daniels, by the way, was ethanol. Guess what, Bachmann has some of that same downside. Similarly, Pawlenty could say what he wanted out of office and touring Iowa but back when he could actually effect policy, he wasn’t so bold.)

    Here in this state, Walker is setting up the same thing. Basically, you offer a good deal for anyone willing to come to your state. But, that “open to all comers” offer is only taken up by a few so afterwards it seems as though it’s only being done for the takers. And those takers tend to write you a campaign check. Bam, now it’s suddenly looks like a quid quo pro.

    So it can look terrible but it was an open offer all along.

  12. bh says:

    now it suddenly looks

    Btw, I’m not a big fan of any of this shit but unless we look at all the candidates through this lens, I’m not going to take it as a problem relative to other candidates. It’ll just be an absolute problem they all share to some degree or another.

  13. LBascom says:

    I just found out that Perry supported Al Gore in 1988.

    “This was Al Gore before he invented the Internet and got to be Mr. Global Warming” Perry on why he supported Al Gore in 1988

    Weak defense Mr. Perry, weak defense…

  14. cranky-d says:

    Let’s tear them all down! Wheee!

    We are all happyfeet now.

  15. sdferr says:

    So the question may become, or should become, “what else has it [the candidate unsexed] got?”

    I.e., can he play tennis? Is her dog painted green? Does he remember Madison? Will she run for fitness? Is his gunnin’ done for funnin’? Can she string together two coherent sentences on the meaning of classical liberalism? Will his bowling score decline? Does she know how to use a circular saw? Is his whole life’s desire the attainment of office? Is it money? Power? Fame? What?

  16. cranky-d says:

    Embrace your inner electric hamster… .

  17. scooter says:

    Bascom, let’s presume that the implication of my statement is incorrect and that it’s entirely my fault. Meaning, I don’t have any reason to believe he would increase the debt, at all. My less-than-carefully considered comment should not reflect poorly on Perry; what Perry actually says and does should reflect on him, one way or the other.

    Happy – he’s already addressed the cancer vaccination issue here. He’s a politician of course so who knows whether this is a calculated statement or the guy’s true feelings; we might never know so you’ll need to make your own judgment.

  18. cranky-d says:

    I’m going with bh on this one as he seems like a level-headed guy. This could be a problem for Perry, but it will be sorted out soon enough I think.

    If it is bad, we’ll know. And if it’s proven to be bad, I won’t want to vote for the guy.

  19. John Bradley says:

    1988 – A kinder, gentler Al Gore, back when he was using his Senatorial-ness to enable his wife to dick around with the music industry.

    Okay, so that was 1985, but still. Least we got a wonderfully titled album out of the deal (Frank Zappa Meets the Mothers of Prevention).

  20. happyfeet says:

    my sense is that happyfeet is being deeply sarcastic

    stupid sarcastic jerkface

  21. Patrick S says:

    As shallow as this sounds, I’m a little wary of Texas business-types right now. They seem to turn faster than your average fruit. My money is on the snowbillie-hootchie.

  22. BT says:

    Seems to me in 88 Gore was the most conservative of the candidates, and Perry was a dem at that time.

  23. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    For a classical liberal, none of the above, except for Ron Paul is a good candidate. And I know how everyone, including yours truly, feels about his foreign policy. However,I severely doubt that Paul would do half the stuff he says he will do, for the same reasons that the alleged dove Obama hasn’t. There’s stuff, in foreign policy circles, that we just don’t know about and the president does. Perry is left over Bush. Again, Palin is more conservative/classically liberal where it counts, but I know some electric hamsters are allergic to vaginas in power.

    One thing to note about his dalliance with manbearpig is that this was before manbearpig left the mother ship and was actually southern blue dogish. Perry was a southern Democrat trying to get his feet in the filthy political water so he worked for Gore. This is not something I would be concerned about if I dug his other credentials.

    Here’s a writeup on Perry that’s pretty thorough.

    http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/rick-perrys-negatives/

  24. dicentra says:

    There’s nothing ‘corporatist’ about BHO except for the fleecing and redistribution rhetoric and the hate-the-rich gamesmanship.

    How are you using “corporatism” here?

    Because Obama is plenty guilty of playing footsie with big entities that are politically useful to him. Big Labor is just as much a part of the corporatist cabal as Big Biz and Big Gubmint.

    Do we have any candidates available who don’t have some sort of negative subsidy exposure?

    Doubt it. Until recently, most conservatives would not have flinched over “corporate welfare” or other types of subsidies that bring big biz to a state or community. I know that I wouldn’t have prior to reading Liberal Fascism.

  25. cranky-d says:

    I am uninspired by the Republican field right now, because of the crushing weight of fail we have hanging over us. I should be more optimistic, I suppose, but that’s not who I am.

  26. sdferr says:

    It could also be that the field is simply uninspiring cranky-d, so we merely see what it’s missing and respond to it accordingly. On the other hand, as to optimism, as living critters, I think we always gots to bring our own, rather than hang it in dependence on some other.

  27. Old Texas Turkey says:

    I would take a corporatist who seeks to attract profit making ventures to his location. Because they do hire people, they do have somewhat of an economic multiplier effect on the local economy. Cronyism is really when someone influences the rules to their own gain at the expense of others (like carbon taxes or high frequency trading) – attracting businesses with incentives does not cross that line.

    From the Medici’s to Bangalore – it is historical intersection of profit generator and rule maker. Carney wants to finds him some pure as snow leader … good luck.

    The current piece of work who has been all about juicing up the regulartory machinery solely for the purpose of exacerbating cronyism? Screw that.

  28. LBascom says:

    I’ll just point out it’s primary season, and hard, unmerciful vetting is what needs be done.

    We can dig out the rainbows and unicorns during the general.

  29. cranky-d says:

    My happiness and my optimism, or lack thereof, are on me and no one else.

  30. Roddy Boyd says:

    Good luck finding any governor, anywhere, at any time in history who didn’t bend a rule, look the other way, modify a law, funnel cash or what have you to his/her local industry.

    That’s their only real job. Sometimes it’s egregious, and it’s always good reporting to point it out, but it will never, ever change.

  31. sdferr says:

    Yeah, that didn’t read the way I intended it to, which is to say it was written poorly — not aimed at you cranky-d, in particular, but merely as a general observation of the way we make optimism as opposed to find it.

  32. cranky-d says:

    I agree, sdferr.

  33. JHoward says:

    I severely doubt that Paul would do half the stuff he says he will do, for the same reasons that the alleged dove Obama hasn’t. There’s stuff, in foreign policy circles, that we just don’t know about and the president does.

    I had the identical thought the other day, O.I. Ideally Paul would strip what fat exists in US foreign policy, which is loads. But I really doubt he’d get to move one pawn in any game to expose Israel. The reality of that blunder he’d learn his first week in office.

    A place that for the rest of his agenda, he’ll sadly never occupy.

  34. sdferr says:

    A fellow like Paul, who can think his own way into such absurdities in foreign affairs, ought on those grounds alone to never get anywhere near the office of the Presidency.

  35. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    Agree 100%, JHoward. One thing that does concern me is his seeming naivete in regards to Islamists*. I agree that trade is the vehicle to peace. It’s been shown to be for hundreds of years, but sometimes, Paul, and his mouth piece, Mr. Lew, seem to think that hey, if we trade with the Islamists*, they’ll love us. As I said early, that’s a rather naive take on truly evil human beings*. But, he covers that by being fairly strong in national defense. You know actually protecting the borders.

    *No, lurking moron. Not, that is not all Muslims, but rather the riled up retards that take Mo’s deeds to heart.

  36. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    See, this is where we disagree though, sdferr. We are too extended. We are not called on to police the world, which is what we have been doing for some time. He’s simply restating Washington’s admonition about entangling alliances. From Washington’s farewell address:

    The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

    Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

    Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

    Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

    It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

    Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

    Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest, but even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

    I know it’s a much smaller world, now, then it was in Washington’s time and practicality is obviously important. However, we have become much too involved in foreign matters. Again, as I said before, I don’t believe as President, Paul, would be quite the dove as people suppose he would be. Including himself.

  37. Danger says:

    “…But is he the best candidate for classical liberals / constitutional conservatives?”

    From Jeff’s second link:

    “Faced with a budget deficit in 2010-11, Perry became the first Texas governor since WWII to cut general fund spending
    • Also balanced budget in 2003 by cutting spending in a challenging economic environment”

    Well that’s a start.

    Then there is this:

    “And if I hurt the president’s feelings, well, with all due respect, I love my country and I love future generations more than I care about his feelings,” the 61-year-old governor added.

    “It’s the height of hypocrisy for this president to call anyone a marginal performer. If anyone is a marginal performer, it’s him. He has downgraded the good name and credit of this country,” Perry said. “Talk about someone who has marginalized America.”

    So I can think of one more guy that he is not. Somebody who was afraid to send anything stronger than flowers Down Range.

  38. happyfeet says:

    on an unrelated note A-ha is reuniting for to do a concert on Aug 21 for the dead murdered socialist scandi children

    that would be cool to go see but the logistics make attendance impractical

  39. sdferr says:

    However, we have become much too involved in foreign matters.

    You should like Obama by heaps then OI, since he’s perfected the art of standing by and watching events transpire — well, that is when he’s not actively encouraging our enemies.

  40. cranky-d says:

    I disagree that we shouldn’t be the world’s policeman. Who else would you have do it? The world needs policing sometimes.

    The world also needs a good guy like the U.S. they can slam verbally in public, but in secret thank the gods that it exists.

  41. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    See there in lies the difference between me and Obama (as well as virtually everything else), sdferr. I wouldn’t actually encourage our enemies. Intervening has not always gone so swell for us. Also, Obama has increased our presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as joined a third theater in Libya. He’s not doing nearly as much “standing by” as you’d think.

    The power is still there, cranky, even if we aren’t the world’s police man. Do you actually think we’d turn into a neutered super power if we chose to be more non-interventionist? I don’t.

  42. sdferr says:

    He’s standing by where it counts OI. Remember as he came into office he was all up in Iran’s face about nuclear weapons development? The Iranians were going to have to meet Obama’s ultimatum in a year he said. Funny, he has said next to nothing about that since. And given the opportunity on a platter to encourage the Iranian people in their revolt in the summer of ’09, Obama sided with the mullahs! Brilliant. Oh sure, he increases our presence in Afghanistan while simultaneously undermining his own vaunted “strategy” by declaring a fixed withdrawal date. Again, brilliant! Does he adjust to retrogression in Iraq? Oh hells no: he’s out to see Bush’s accomplishments undone, because Bush was an idiot! Mission accomplished!

  43. happyfeet says:

    it’s no better to be safe than sorry

  44. LBascom says:

    “See, this is where we disagree though, sdferr. We are too extended. We are not called on to police the world, which is what we have been doing for some time. “

    We are not called on to police the world, but the world has certain realities that require attention. Our economy requires trade, which depends on secure trade routes, and secure trading partners.

    We’ve already been trading with Muslims for generations(oil) and it turns out it doesn’t make everyone satisfied. All men are not of good will, and you can’t just disengage and walk away from a self declared enemy intent on destroying what it can’t absorb. Well, you can, but it’s foolish.

    We have treaties and contracts and friendships with allies across the globe. As the only superpower, we have a responsibility as well as self interest in defending them. I guess if you evisorate the military to balance the budget and so aren’t a superpower anymore, you won’t have that responsibility, but letting China invade Japan is still a bad idea(I use an extreme example to make the point).

    I would like to see Ron Paul be Treasury Secretary or something, but he’s totally unqualified to be Commander in Chief.

  45. sdferr says:

    I’ve got to give Obama his due though: he is an active bower.

  46. serr8d says:

    I just found out that Perry supported Al Gore in 1988.

    Al Gore ’88 was not the Al Gore of today. He became Al GoretheMoron only after he hooked up with Bill Clinton for that 8-year stint as the virtuous half of the ticket. Before his fall, Gore was somewhat more sensible; the ‘blue dog’ moniker fit him well.

    Democrats have been steadily losing all sensibilities since LBJ in ’68; today, they are collectively shades of their proud (and some even honorable) predecessors.

  47. Stephanie says:

    I’ve got to give Obama his due though: he is an active bower.

    Sdferr, I read that wrong at first. I thought you were talking about him like a dog again. In either case carry on.

  48. BJTex says:

    “So I can think of one more guy that he is not. Somebody who was afraid to send anything stronger than flowers Down Range.”

    Is there somebody else in the presidential danger squad who is forthright and brave and true and special?

    ???

    ???

    Still waiting…

    No! NOT ROMNEY!! AIEEE!!!

  49. LBascom says:

    Still, interesting the republican frontrunner supported democrats during the Reagan years.

    One of them “hummmm” moments…

  50. BJTex says:

    Yes, David, I’ll Admit. You are not in the Romney Castle kissing his earlobes and rubbing his eye brows. I simply can’t stand the up and down and round and round supporter of political ideals and hairspray.

  51. LBascom says:

    49 for 46.

  52. BJTex says:

    The head of the “Reagan Years” was a pretty strong Democrat, Bascom, before knowledge and understanding dragged him out. Reagan, that is.

  53. serr8d says:

    Young hotties wanted.

    Why wasn’t this tact used to vet BHO ?

  54. Mikey NTH says:

    Out of the field of announced candidates who would be best?

    I don’t know yet; it is too early.

    #53: why wasn’t it used to vet BHO? Ummm….maybe there weren’t any in his background?

  55. Danger says:

    “Is there somebody else in the presidential danger squad who is forthright and brave and true and special?”

    BJ,

    I’m still hoping for teh Fred to make a comeback;)

  56. BJTex says:

    Assuming he stays alive, Danger. Old for the fight but smart as heck.

  57. Stephanie says:

    #54 Reggie Love called in and all he got was a stinking t-shirt and a box of smokes.

  58. Danger says:

    “Old for the fight but smart as heck”

    What if he got the Marco Rubio insurance?

  59. Danger says:

    The yard calls so…
    Later haters;)

  60. McGehee says:

    I don’t know if he’s the best choice, but he’s not on my Never Gonna Vote For list. So far.

    And that’s not Nothing.

  61. BJTex says:

    The “never gonna vote for” list is brave and free … and often declined (not by you, buddy, but by others) if there are free and cool things to get … elsewhere … or there …

    Chocolate Chip Cookies. VOTE!

  62. LBascom says:

    “The head of the “Reagan Years” was a pretty strong Democrat, Bascom, before knowledge and understanding dragged him out. Reagan, that is.”

    Technically, Reagan didn’t leave the Democrats, they left him(as he put it).

    JFK would be an awesome republican candidate these days.

  63. BJTex says:

    OK, L. Reagan had knowledge and understanding so Democrats left him. Hooray!

  64. Squid says:

    JFK would be an awesome republican candidate these days.

    Um, you might wanna re-check #53…

  65. bh says:

    Didn’t mention this earlier but this line set off every alarm bell possible: “Judging by his record in Texas, Perrynomics might just be low-tax Obamanomics.”

    Really? I noted the weasel phrasing “might just” immediately. Then I thought about the underlying premise for a second and said, “No, not at all.”

    This might just>/i> be a hack hit piece. Some people wonder it, after all. Questions are being raised. (By me. In this comment.)

    Would I be willing to bet that a high percentage of these questions were conveniently compiled beforehand for Carney? Yes, I “might just” do that.

  66. bh says:

    Ooops. Look like I screwed up a tag. Sorry.

  67. happyfeet says:

    we might as well just re-elect obama

  68. bh says:

    This is what pisses me off about the mainstream media all the time.

    We’re just raising questions here? Why? You’re a fucking journalist, Carney. Investigate. Find some answers. Give us context. Find out how Perry differs from others if he does.

    Do your job.

  69. bh says:

    Well, Obama is only a “shared sacrifice” Perry.

    Frankly, that sounds better to me than a poor-stomping corporatist.

  70. LBascom says:

    An endorsement that counts:

    Rock guitarist and outspoken conservative Ted Nugent is really excited that Texas Gov. Rick Perry has jumped into the presidential race.[…]

    Nugent, an ardent gun-rights advocate, performed at Perry’s inaugural ball in 2007. According to an AP report, “Using machine guns as props, Nugent, 58, appeared onstage as the final act of the inaugural ball wearing a cutoff T-shirt emblazoned with the Confederate flag and shouting offensive remarks about non-English speakers, according to people who were in attendance.”

    “Offensive” to whom is left open…

  71. happyfeet says:

    one of the people who worked for Mr. Governor Perry was a former lobbyist Mr. bh

    let that sink in for a second

  72. LBascom says:

    Oh look, another one:

    “I voted for Pres Bush. I voted for Pres Clinton. I voted for Pres Obama. The next president will be Gov Rick Perry,” Simmons broadcasted.

    A few minutes later, he backed up the prediction with another tweet touting what few conservatives would consider to be Perry’s most sterling credential.

    “Gov Perry worked for Al Gore and then switched to Republican. He will be our next President. I’ve never been wrong,” Simmons wrote.

    But, before you disqualify his opinion because he voted for Clinton and Obama, consider that Simmons has been vocal about his regret for the way he cast his vote in 2008.

  73. bh says:

    Heh, rock the vote, Lee.

    What I want to hear is how Perry is the anti-establishment choice. That’s why they want Ryan to run, right? Heard Rush mention it. And, the RoveBushCocktailPartiers are against him. Slam dunk then.

    This criteria mattered earlier. Does it still matter?

  74. geoffb says:

    The new economics.

  75. bh says:

    Can’t really joke around all that much with you this way, ‘feets, because you’ve used similar charges against other candidates you dislike without much thought.

  76. happyfeet says:

    I’m not much of a team player

  77. newrouter says:

    we need some team h tee shirts with the happy pikachu

  78. bh says:

    Play for team happyfeet. Team happyfeet is helped by appearing fair.

    (I can be sanctimonious sometimes, I know. The Jesuits put crazy thoughts into my head. I was young and impressionable.)

  79. happyfeet says:

    The point is Mr. Perry will do just fine I think.

    He satisfies the needs of the moment while minimizing the danger of anyone veering into gushing fawning rah rah hail the messiah territory.

    Those are very special qualities.

  80. newrouter says:

    team h luvs some christainist rabble from texas

  81. happyfeet says:

    I never said I loved him … but he’s by far the best Team R is likely to do and we need to hurry up and elect him cause Obama keeps fucking things up worser and worser

  82. sdferr says:

    Cowboy Corporatist rides to the rescue:

    Bashar Assad: “The Time Has Come For Obama To Step Aside








    It’s where we are, isn’t it?

  83. sdferr says:

    Dems cheer Obama’s more lenient rules on illegal immigrants

    The changes could be particularly beneficial to people who would be eligible for the DREAM Act, an immigration proposal pushed by Democrats that has yet to pass Congress.

    The DREAM Act would offer a pathway to permanent residency — and eventually citizenship — for certain illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. The bill passed the House in December, but was killed by a GOP filibuster in the Senate.

    Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the DHS announcement, saying Obama “made the right decision in changing the way they handle deportations of DREAM Act students.”

  84. bh says:

    The tenses in that snippet are interesting.

    Sorta like they’re pretending that an unlikely future tense is the present tense. They should call it the We-Think-Latinos-Are-Fucking-Naive Act.

    On the plus side, I’m pretty sure even Nishi understands the terrain by now.

  85. newrouter says:

    mr. perry has a dream too

  86. bh says:

    How’s your cocktail, nr?

    Say hi to Rove for me.

  87. LBascom says:

    Now this is funny!

  88. newrouter says:

    well to karltherovester: nuts.

  89. geoffb says:

    #87 see #74.

  90. LBascom says:

    oops, missed that geoffb.

  91. newrouter says:

    for team h

    The first week since Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced his run for the presidency has gone something like this: Perry says something provocative, media pounces, Obama reacts, and Perry either re-states what he said or ups the ante by saying something new and just as provocative. The media wonders aloud whether Perry is able to stay on script and establishment Republicans like Karl Rove toss out warnings that Perry may have gone too far. All of that misses the possibility, which I treat as fact, that Rick Perry knows exactly what he’s doing and this first week has gone exactly as he expected.

    What many, and I include Rove and Huckabee and his other critics in this, don’t seem to understand is, this is how Rick Perry campaigns. And wins. He understands the media and his opponent better than they understand themselves. The media that fretted when Perry shot a coyote last year missed the fact that most Texans reacted to that same story with something along the lines of “The governor packs heat and protected his dog while jogging? Cool.” Perry is using the media’s own elitism and lack of connection with mainstream America against it, and against Obama, turning both against each other.

    Link

  92. happyfeet says:

    that seems a little overwrought I think it suffices to say that Mr. Governor Perry is good at keeping his eye on the ball

  93. bh says:

    I think that’s right. They (the bad guys) do the same thing with Palin.

    Everyone knows a legend or two. In bro talk a legend does wild ass things and gets away with it because they’re fundamentally awesome.

    Shoot a coyote on a jog? Legend. Shoot a wolf from a helicopter? Legend.

    (Hell, they have their own version of this. Obama giving the bird during a debate. Clinton nailing strange.)

  94. newrouter says:

    “Mr. Governor Perry is good at keeping his eye on the ball”

    ms. sarah is good at that too

  95. bh says:

    That completely explains Teddy Roosevelt now that I think about it.

  96. happyfeet says:

    and Madonna

  97. bh says:

    Hmmm… yeah. Think you’re right.

  98. Abe Froman says:

    I don’t know what the Team Happyfeet logo is, but for some reason I’m picturing a cock as the dominant visual.

  99. happyfeet says:

    Abe is picturing a cock

  100. geoffb says:

    Often when I try pithy I simply bite on the pit Lee.

    I did like the ThinkProgress piece and that picture of the Perry Two-worder.

  101. Abe Froman says:

    I’m picturing you picturing a cock. Almost the same thing, but subtly different.

  102. sdferr says:

    I’m saddened to breaking by reading the story of the young Russian woman on the phone with her mother, exclaiming that the bear was eating her: mommy, she says, it’s eating me. Fucking bears.

  103. happyfeet says:

    I already repressed that to where it’s like I never read it

    omfg

  104. bh says:

    I’m picturing Abe picturing ‘feets picturing a mighty fighting rooster with razor claws. And probably twenty or thirty gamblers and drunkards. Many of which look like Cheech. Because it’s sorta hard to literally picture big pictures unless you’re a frickin’ genius.

  105. sdferr says:

    Yerp, I’ve done the same thing with the people calling home from the WTC. Fucking Muzzies.

  106. bh says:

    Fucking bears.

    Bears don’t give a shit. Get into an Asian dividend payer.

  107. newrouter says:

    that’s one reason why i like the packards. that and chitown is filled with worthless commies. ax mayor rahm.>?

  108. newrouter says:

    “Many of which look like Cheech.”

    they’re hoping for rick perry dreams and the nafta superhighway

  109. bh says:

    Rove told you to say that, didn’t he, nr?

  110. Abe Froman says:

    Brown bears suck. They’re just furry land sharks, only, much harder to kill with small bullets.

  111. newrouter says:

    i blame mr. liddy

  112. bh says:

    Another thing I didn’t mention earlier is that I very much doubt that Perry actually cut spending. Has this ever actually happened in the modern era?

    If any state budget was less than the year before someone should point it out to me.

    ‘Cause, I don’t know that it has happened. Doubtful.

    (Again, not just for him. For any of them.)

  113. JD says:

    Amen, bh. First pol to actually do that will be assassinated by some PEU member.

  114. sdferr says:

    Wanna watch a flatfish flop around on deck? Flounder.

    Count me an unbeliever (of this: “Americans still overwhelmingly like the guy.”).

  115. happyfeet says:

    Perry will just have to do

  116. bh says:

    Crazy, isn’t it, JD? To make a pitch: if this is to always be so, let’s make a play for growth and deregulation. Something has to keep us competitive.

    We’re just fucked otherwise. Even by our own fiscal plans.

  117. bh says:

    Count me an unbeliever

    Seconded, sdferr. We’ve been on the same page here for awhile.

  118. newrouter says:

    i like w impersonators from texas what their pikachu tee shirts. sagebrushbillies he ha.

  119. sterlinggray says:

    Perry if elected would likely be Bush III – he’d spend like a drunken sailor but no one would care because we’d probably be at war with Iran or Syria. Fiscal conservatives would be told to get in line because if you’re not with Perry, you’re with the Ayatollah. Sure, he might endorse some token cuts when it comes to social spending but every dollar he’d cut would be matched by ten new dollars in defense spending. Not exaclty a path to debt reduction methinks. We were burned once by Bush. In his own words, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice – you – you can’t get fooled again! Are we about to get fooled again?

  120. happyfeet says:

    I don’t understand Mr. newrouter Team R has been busy busy assembling an impressive assortment of midgets and then hello here’s Mr. Perry with a substantive record and a very apt sense of what this election is about

    done and done

    could we have done better?

    Hell yeah.

    Are we likely to at this point?

    Nope.

  121. bh says:

    Consider the wise words of Elfie.

    What does the moby troll recommend to us?

    Remember, this has been a valuable data point in the past. Does it remain so?

  122. newrouter says:

    The basic concept being propounded by leading neoconservative writers and publications is that anyone who disagrees with neoconservative policies is an isolationist. A notable recent example of this tendency was a blog post published on Wednesday by Commentary Magazine’s Executive Editor Jonathan Tobin regarding the emerging contours of Texas Governor Rick Perry’s foreign policy views.

    After listing various former Bush administration officials who are advising Perry on foreign affairs, Tobin concluded, “Perry might have more in common with the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party than the isolationists.”

    While this is may be true, it is certainly true that the neoconservatives and the isolationists are not the only foreign policy wings in the Republican Party. Indeed, most Republicans are neither isolationists nor neoconservatives.

    Isolationism broadly speaking is the notion that the US is better off withdrawing to fortress America and leaving the rest of the world’s nations to fight it out among themselves. The isolationist impulse in the US is what caused the US to enter both world wars years after they began. It is what has propelled much of the anti-war sentiment on the far Left and the far Right alike since Sept.11. The far Left argues the US should withdraw from world leadership because the US is evil. And the far Right argues that the US should withdraw from world leadership because the world is evil.

    Neoconservatism broadly speaking involves the adoption of a muscular US foreign policy in order to advance the cause of democracy and freedom worldwide. Wilsonian in its view of the universal nature of the human impulse to freedom, neoconservatives in recent years have wholeheartedly embraced the notion that if given a chance to make their sentiments known, most people will choose liberal democracy over any other form of government.

    Former President George W. Bush is widely viewed as the first neoconservative president, due to his wholehearted embrace of this core concept of neoconservativism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Aside from their belief that if given the choice people will choose to be free, neoconservatives argue the more democratic governments there are, the safer the world will be and the safer the US will be. Therefore, broadly speaking, neoconservatives argue that the US should always side with populist forces against dictatorships.

    While these ideas may be correct in theory, in practice the consequence of Bush’s adoption of the neoconservative worldview was the empowerment of populist and popular jihadists and Iranian allies throughout the Middle East at the expense of US allies. Hamas won the Palestinian Authority elections in 2006. Its electoral victory paved the way for its military takeover of Gaza in 2007.

    Hezbollah’s participation in Lebanon’s 2005 elections enabled the Iranian proxy army to hijack the Lebanese government in 2006, and violently takeover the Lebanese government in 2009.

    The Muslim Brotherhood’s successful parliamentary run in Egypt in 2005 strengthened the radical, anti-American, jihadist group and weakened Mubarak.

    And the election of Iranian-influenced Iraqi political leaders in Iraq in 2005 exacerbated the trend of Iranian predominance in post-Saddam Iraq. It also served to instigate a gradual estrangement of Saudi Arabia from the US.

    The neoconservative preference for populist forces over authoritarian ones propelled leading neoconservative thinkers and former Bush administration officials to enthusiastically support the anti-Mubarak protesters in Tahrir Square in Cairo in January. And their criticism of Obama for not immediately joining the protesters and calling for Mubarak’s removal from power was instrumental in convincing Obama to abandon Mubarak.

    Between those who predicted a flowering liberal democracy in a post-Mubarak Egypt and those who predicted the empowerment of radical, Muslim Brotherhood aligned forces in a post-Mubarak Egypt, it is clear today that the latter were correct. Moreover, we see that the US’s abandonment of its closest ally in the Arab world has all but destroyed the US’s reputation as a credible, trustworthy ally throughout the region. In the wake of Mubarak’s ouster, the Saudis have effectively ended their strategic alliance with the US and are seeking to replace the US with China, Russia and India.

    In a similar fashion, the neoconservatives were quick to support Obama’s decision to use military force to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi from power in March. The fact that unlike Syria’s Bashar Assad and Iran’s ayatollahs, Gaddafi gave up his nuclear proliferation program in 2004 was of no importance. The fact that from the outset there was evidence that al-Qaeda terrorists are members of the US-supported Libyan opposition, similarly made little impact on the neoconservatives who supported Obama’s decision to set conditions that would enable “democracy” to take root in Libya. The fact that the US has no clear national interest at stake in Libya was brushed aside. The fact that Obama lacked Congressional sanction for committing US troops to battle was also largely ignored.

    Neoconservative writers have castigated opponents of US military involvement in Libya as isolationists. In so doing, they placed Republican politicians like presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin in the same pile as presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.

    The very notion that robust internationalists like Bachmann and Palin could be thrown in with ardent isolationists like Paul and Buchanan is appalling. But it is of a piece with the prevailing, false notion being argued by dominant voices in neoconservative circles that, “You’re either with us or you’re with the Buchanaites.”

    In truth, the dominant foreign policy in the Republican Party, and to a degree, in American society as a whole is neither neoconservativism nor isolationism. For lack of a better name, it is what historian Walter Russell Mead has referred to as Jacksonianism, after Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the US. As Mead noted in a 1999 article in the National Interest entitled, “The Jacksonian Tradition,” the most popular and enduring US model for foreign policy is far more flexible than either the isolationist or the neoconservative model.

    According to Mead, the Jacksonian foreign policy model involves a few basic ideas. The US is different from the rest of the world and therefore the US should not try to remake the world in its own image by claiming that everyone is basically the same. The US must ensure its honor abroad by abiding by its commitments and standing with its allies. The US must take action to defend its interests. The US must fight to win or not fight at all. The US should only respect those foes that fight by the same rules as the US does.

    Link

  123. bh says:

    There’s an elephant hiding in #120 but I agree. (This is where you should not say something negative about Palin, ‘feets.)

    Palin won’t necessarily run. This isn’t a sure thing. Beating other candidates down isn’t necessarily in her interests if those interests never materialize. Nor in ours.

    Enough with this. She jumps in? She gains some support. If she doesn’t, give the remaining candidates a hard time and then endorse the last remaining hard right option.

  124. happyfeet says:

    I just think the 2 years vs. 10 with all else being equal would probably be dispositive.

    And yes I think other things too.

  125. sterlinggray says:

    If Palin was even still thinking about running, the prospect of getting one of Rick Perry’s cowboy boots lodged in her behind probably frightened her off. She has no chance now and knows it.

  126. newrouter says:

    “I just think the 2 years vs. 10 with all else being equal would probably be dispositive.”

    what did mr. perry do in his 10 years<?

  127. newrouter says:

    “She has no chance now and knows it.”

    thank you sterling gay: super ijiot

  128. happyfeet says:

    A moderate candidate like former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, whom Obama appointed as ambassador to China, would be harder to fight for the Obama campaign

    Huntsman disgusts me probably more than any other Team R candidate I can think of in history except for Meghan’s coward daddy and he’s not running again probably.

  129. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    Plus, Palin has a vagina. Ick. Vaginas should be seen and not heard.

  130. Pablo says:

    I’ve been of the mind for some time that she was waiting to see whether Perry would run. I still thinks that could be the case, though it doesn’t behoove her to rush right out and say so.

    If my guess is right, she endorses him.

  131. Pablo says:

    I thinks, I does! I drinks too!

  132. newrouter says:

    mr. huntsman is playing “i hate glenn beck daddy card”. spoiled brat. though fresh brats are good. h/t bh

  133. happyfeet says:

    I hope she runs Mr. Pablo but it looks very very unlikely

  134. Jeff G. says:

    If Palin was even still thinking about running, the prospect of getting one of Rick Perry’s cowboy boots lodged in her behind probably frightened her off. She has no chance now and knows it.

    She’s been vetted. And probably doesn’t endorse free rides for illegals.

  135. newrouter says:

    no ms. sarah luvs some competition. mr. rick is more fun to run against than mittens. or michele with 1 l.

  136. Pablo says:

    Perry if elected would likely be Bush III – he’d spend like a drunken sailor but no one would care because we’d probably be at war with Iran or Syria.

    By that metric, he’d have to be Bush IV, because Obama is Bush III, despite the fact that he’s a Kennedy. You know we’re at war for oil with Libya, and we were lied into it, right?

  137. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    Me too, Pablo. I mean drinks that is…But I’m not sure she endorses Perry. However, this empty beer bottle(s) at my side would be a better president than bumbles.

  138. Pablo says:

    She’s been vetted. And probably doesn’t endorse free rides for illegals.

    She likes Perry, though. And she gone on repeatedly about her decision being based on whether the right person was running, an “I’ll run if I must.” sort of deal, which leads one to wonder who that person that would satisfy her idea of the right person is. I came up with Perry, a while back.

    She still likes Maverick too. She ain’t perfect, nope.

  139. happyfeet says:

    I wonder who Palin endorses… that could really be a gamechanger cause everyone would be like hey let’s vote for this person here cause Sarah says they’re the best

  140. Pablo says:

    The blog ate my “has”. I swear it. And I was gonna farm with it. Pigford me, Goldstein!

    Racist.

  141. Roddy Boyd says:

    I think we need to kind of toss around the idea of a modern pol actually putting into writing, and then arguing for, a budget that was prepared with substantive, real budget cuts. Im thinking 30%, but that’s just a number; could be 25% or 38%, dunno.

    Because the entire system, all the rewards and reinforcements, are 100% skewed towards redirecting the cash between the politically favorable holes (Pentagon, Dept. of Ed….) and a Pol who tries to shrink that is looking at major fallout on a sustained basis. You cut the Pentagon and the brass (and the corporations that feed off that honeypot) bring up some ugly and painful truths; Can you imagine if a POTUS would say, “We muffed up in Afghanistan–thousands dead and wounded, dozens of billions spent and we’re still at square one. We’re going to just pull out since we’re getting nothing done.”

    The Dept. of Ed or infrastructure grant cuts have their own sob sister constitunecies. There is no nice way of saying that it is fruitless trying to educate the vast swaths of the US that doesn’t want to embrace learning; think about even rationalizing colleges down to a narrow humanities core and hard sciences, cutting out (or deeply) most everything else. Don’t even think of the MSM–Hell, even GWB got some respect after 9/11 (for a day or two, at least.) You’re looking at 4 years of prolonged war and hate.

    The bottom line is that the POTUS that proposes this–without my snark–will have unyielding enemies on the Left and very few friends on the Right. Cutting budgets is great until Sen. Lieberman sends some back door messages that he thinks the Pentagon could use another 30-50 Sikorsky choppers (United Technologies) and a few more subs (Electric Boat-General Dynamics) before he can start considering the bill.

    Then multiply him times 50.

    So It’s smarter to bet that we’ll be on the cusp of single A rating before real budget cuts–across the budgetary spectrum–have a chance of viability. That’s best case.

    Outlaw.

  142. Pablo says:

    OI, I’ve got some schmutz on the bottom of my shoe that would make the markets happier.

  143. Abe Froman says:

    I’ve been of the mind for some time that she was waiting to see whether Perry would run.

    She’d still get some percentage in the write in vote, unless the spell is somehow broken. Clearly happyfeet’s relentless deployment of an eye of next, anal wart and annoyance cocktail ain’t doing the trick.

  144. Jeff G. says:

    remember: we don’t have to pick yet. Right now I’m with Bachmann. Perry looks a bit more hat than cattle, from what I’ve seen. That sells well, but I prefer beef with my beef.

  145. Abe Froman says:

    That should have been eye of newt, not eye of next. My subconscious despises Newt, just like my conscious does.

  146. Roddy Boyd says:

    I should note, in a completely unrelated vein, I am simply blown away by the University of Miami allegations.
    Not that it happened–I have a kid at Auburn and one at Tennessee, so I am well versed in how colleges shift shapes morally to recruit kids–I am just astounded that a Ponzi schemer nebbish was balling with ho’s, yachts and coaches and no one, NO ONE, said, “Ummmm….”

  147. Roddy Boyd says:

    Abe, I am glad we have moved past Happyfeet’s cock.

  148. JD says:

    Fuck off, elfie. When we want your opinion, we will kick you in the teeth.

  149. newrouter says:

    i think ms. sarah knows that 2016 ain’t doing it as far as this fail sh*t country goes.

  150. happyfeet says:

    my goodness you ones are a cheeky lot

  151. Abe Froman says:

    Well, Roddy, from what time I’ve spent in Miami, most of the wealth down there seems to be of exactly that variety. If it wouldn’t seem suspicious somewhere, Miami would be the place.

  152. sdferr says:

    Spending is taxing. Simple as that. Make that case and the cuts will follow.

  153. newrouter says:

    mr. newt is impressive with his verbosity. i hope that he finds hawaii to his liking.

  154. newrouter says:

    mr. frank was rather cheeky lately on msnbc.

  155. Pablo says:

    I like Bachmann. But she has to stop doing dumb shit, like now. And I’m not sure she’s ready for the shitstorm that awaits her if she grabs the nomination. I’m not sure how a Bachmann/Obama debate is going to go. She has the right ideas, and she has the talking points down but I see The One talking his way around her without much difficulty.

    She makes me fret. I’ll vote for her, you betcha! But I don’t know about everybody else.

  156. sterlinggray says:

    Bachmann needs to stop doing dumb shit about ten years ago. Also she needs a manlier man on her arm than Chubby Twinklefairy. I never thought that I would care who the first First Dude is in our history, but I really don’t want that title to go to Butterchubs Bachmann.

  157. bh says:

    Right now I’m with Bachmann. Perry looks a bit more hat than cattle, from what I’ve seen.

    Bachmann has problems of her own. She does.

    To the degree that she’s better? To the same degree that she’s hasn’t been a governor for 10 years.

    Hold power and you get dirty.

  158. Abe Froman says:

    Oh come now Sterling. There isn’t anyone here who couldn’t beat the everloving shit out of you. Including the chicks. And happyfeet. Spare us your essay on manliness.

  159. newrouter says:

    “but I really don’t want that title to go to Butterchubs Bachmann.”

    you be faggot

  160. bh says:

    Thought experiment: Bachmann is governor of Minnesota, does she reject ethanol?

  161. newrouter says:

    How could this be? Where’s the credit? Why is the virtual system behaving this way? I’m no banker, but my first guess will be that it is misallocated by the incentive structure we’ve put into place to save what have deemed “too big to fail.” It’s off doing stuff it shouldn’t be doing. Maybe it is walking itself into a shredder.

    This is a metaphor for the whole phenomenon of system failure. The incentive structure is designed to reinforce defeat. We are paying dividends to losers. Paying people to destroy of value. And we are doing it in the belief that somehow the virtual system can square the circle. Oh no it won’t. When it finally departs completely from reality the virtual system will collapse from a flight of confidence.

    The truth shall make you free. It may also bankrupt Washington and the EU.

    Link

  162. newrouter says:

    so the leftards are anti the gay now. they be faggots and queers.

  163. Abe Froman says:

    Thought experiment: Bachmann is governor of Minnesota, does she reject ethanol?

    That pretty much sums up my problem with a lot of people around here. What matters is that, slowly but surely, the center of gravity among the Republican electorate is shifting towards an unwillingness among people to accept Democrat-lite governance. It’s really stupid – or in the very least intellectually juvenile – to expect purity rather than focusing one’s energy on the most compatible person who is electable at this point, and then being willing to keep your boots on his or her neck. It’ll take a few election cycles before the scum is cleared out, but less time than that for them all to feel the heat.

  164. McGehee says:

    NR, proglodytes are only anti the Republican gay. And also anti any Republican they can accuse of being gay.

    The hilarious thing is they think anybody cares what they think.

  165. happyfeet says:

    none of the global warming pansies are doing well at all except for the JC Penney catalog model guy

  166. newrouter says:

    “unwillingness among people to accept Democrat-lite governance. ”

    i hear folks are big on compromise these days. especially the weakly standard crew.

  167. McGehee says:

    Ew. I wiped my ass with his face. Now I have to go wash my ass.

  168. McGehee says:

    168 was for 166.

  169. Pablo says:

    The truth shall make you free. It may also bankrupt Washington and the EU.

    The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable.

  170. LBascom says:

    Personally, I feel like it’s already too late, and whoever is elected in 2012, government will continue to grow until the host is dead.

    It’s already too big, with too much momentum. We’re hoping somehow, someway, a new president can stop the train wreck, but the train is going 90mph and the track ends in a 1000 yards. Thomas Jefferson hisself couldn’t do much more than tell us to brace for impact.

    It’s too bad about the kids…

  171. newrouter says:

    ms. lieberman wrote the song

    her version

    Killing Me Softly with His Song – Lori_Lieberman

  172. bh says:

    We may as well link the version of the song I remember then.

  173. Abe Froman says:

    You’re killing me softly, newrouter. I’m kind of pissed off as it is that I missed one of my favorite new bands tonight – stupid lost his ID (again) last week and getting a replacement is such a pain in the ass – without the double dose of melancholy poop.

  174. geoffb says:

    Theft as policy.

    ExxonMobil has filed suit against the US Department of Interior over its denial of extensions of three leases in the ultra-deepwater Walker Ridge section of the Gulf of Mexico, documents show.
    […
    In the lawsuit, filed August 12, the company said the area in the Gulf’s Lower Tertiary, could contain “billions of barrels of oil in place.”
    […]
    The Julia find consists of three leases granted by MMS in 1998 and two leases granted in 2003. The 1998 leases were granted under the Royalty Relief Act, which waived the government’s right to collect royalties on oil produced from the leases until a predetermined production level was reached.
    […]
    ExxonMobil said it drilled two wells at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Since the fields were far from any existing pipelines or production facilities, ExxonMobil was negotiating with Chevron to tie the Julia wells into a facility Chevron was planning for its Jack and St. Malo finds, also in the Walker Ridge.
    […]
    In its suit, ExxonMobil argues that Interior stands to reap billions of dollars by canceling the leases and reselling them to another company.

  175. sdferr says:

    So we’re to take the idea that the government itself and its functionaries ought to go to jail, but won’t, ever, as a commonplace, a daily encounter. Killing time draws nigh.

  176. geoffb says:

    Hello citizen.”

    “What is the purpose of your trip?”

    “I sense hostility, please step over to this room where we can continue this pleasant discussion once you have removed all your clothes.”

  177. Jeff G. says:

    Bachmann has problems of her own. She does.

    And? I’m not supporting someone because of his or her electability. We can discuss that once the GOP primaries are over and we have a candidate.

  178. Jeff G. says:

    but I see The One talking his way around her without much difficulty.

    I don’t.

    The guy is a carny con artist. People are starting to recognize that what he says is intentionally vague and devoid of specifics.

  179. B. Moe says:

    And? I’m not supporting someone because of his or her electability. We can discuss that once the GOP primaries are over and we have a candidate.

    Everybody keeps saying that while they totally ignore Herman Cain.

  180. B. Moe says:

    None of this is going to matter, any way:

    …reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

    Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth’s atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

    This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

    We are going to get nuked from space eventually, and we probably deserve it.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations

  181. serr8d says:

    B. Moe, that’s almost the plot line of that crappy 2008 remake of “The Day the Earth Stood Still“.

    A timeline…

    1951: “The Day the Earth Stood Still“, a most excellent movie, is released.
    1969: The United States puts a man on the moon and returns him safely to Earth.
    2000: Al Gore, failed politician, seeks a new ‘job title’; begins to tout ‘Global Warming’.
    2008: Barack Obama, a known Socialist, is elected President of the USA.
    2008: Shitty remake of “The Day the Earth Stood Still“, with Keanu Reeves playing a space alien who threatens to destroy humanity because of Global Warming.
    2009: Barack Obama, in order to fund more dirty socialisms, zeros the Space Shuttle.
    2010: Barack Hussein Obama kills NASA’s planned moon-return mission; tells NASA it’s mission is to help Muslims ‘feel better’ about themselves.
    2011: Space Shuttle Atlantis makes the final Space Shuttle mission. Barack Obama zeros out the Space Shuttle and any future manned space missions during his watch; killing the US’s ambitions and 10,000 NASA jobs.
    2011: NASA goes bugfuck crazy; NASA scientists accept this ‘SCIENCE!’ that strongly resembles 2008’s The Day the Earth Stood Still. …

    Yeah, I saw that early this morning too.

  182. Matt says:

    I don’t know if anyone gets Todd Schnit’s show out of Tampa but he had a caller yesterday, from Texas, who claimed there was going to be stories coming out about “coke fueled orgies” involving Perry and staff. The guy admitted he was a Ron Paul supporter, so take it with a grain of salt.

  183. serr8d says:

    coke fueled orgies

    Didn’t George Bush once kill a guy with a motor vehicle whilst driving drunk, or was that his wife or daughter? All these leftist attacks start to run together after a while.

  184. geoffb says:

    Paulist’s tactics now, Just make it up.

  185. Hey BMoe,

    This was foretold by Krugman. “If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat then Obama would jump into his F-16 and shoot down the alien mothership while it’s crippled by a virus from Al Gore’s iPod.”

    Only half of that sentence is fake.

  186. cranky-d says:

    It appeared to be fake but accurate to me, LMC.

  187. LTC John says:

    I am having enough trouble planning for trust fund anarchists and hippies in Chicago this coming year (as well as helping another group head out to Afghanistan)… can we leave the aliens out in space or in the fevered imaginations of Kruggie and the NASA consultants? Please?!!

    Oh, and if it comes from Luap Nor and the rest of the Ronulan fleet, color me quite unimpressed.

  188. sterlinggray says:

    Laura Bush was the one who killed someone in an auto accident. She was never charged. I’m more curious about the girl that Bushie supposedly knocked up when he was a young buck. Where is the missing Bush heir?

  189. Abe Froman says:

    Alien invasion scared me way more than the Russkies or even Godzilla as a youngster. But that was before I knew about the power of Slim Whitman records.

  190. JD says:

    DId sterling aka elfie aka effeminate poofter what draws pictures of fantasy character pron really question somebody else’s masculinity?

  191. McGehee says:

    Where is the missing Bush heir?

    Murfreesboro, maybe?

  192. JD says:

    A graveyard shift wastewater treatment tech whose life’s ambition is to whack off to homemade anlme pron and who yearns to give Yelverton a reach around questioning someone else’s masculinity and sexuality is so far beyond parody that it defies description.

  193. geoffb says:

    So what is the [R] strategy?

    Obama’s Alterboy lays out a [D] one.

    Obama must work on two tracks — one idealistic, the other practical. The moment calls for him to offer a big vision for how to fix the economy, even if it doesn’t have a prayer of passage. Then he should unveil smaller actions that could win congressional approval, plus a few imaginative executive orders that might let him move the needle on employment unilaterally.

    The big revelation this week about the president’s strategy is that he will be specific about where he thinks the new special congressional committee should find the additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction called for in the debt-ceiling deal. I’m told by the White House that contrary to House Speaker John Boehner’s claims, Obama did send Boehner a short paper that detailed trillions in savings during their unsuccessful “grand bargain” negotiations in July, but it was never released publicly.

    If such a “paper” exists then Boehner should release it, especially if it is the type of thing I would suspect it to be, bafflegab.

  194. Squid says:

    Was Laura Bush the one who drove her car off a bridge and walked away from the scene and let her date drown because she was afraid of what the evidence might do to her political career?

    Regarding the “NASA” article, I’d like to note that the authors are a Geography PhD candidate from Penn State, a Meteorology/Astrobiology postdoc (read: full-on glowball warmenist) from PSU, and a research associate at the U of Washington. I feel it important to make this distinction, because my degree is from the PSU Physics department, which has no relationship with these quacks. Thank you.

  195. Abe Froman says:

    Alter is a master of strategery. I’m thinking that anything grand Obama proposes henceforth – in a shitty economy that he has had stewardship of for three years now – should be greeted with a more elegant formulation of “now you know what the hell you’re doing? Don’t think so. It’s just another bad idea from your bag of stupid.”

  196. Cowboy says:

    There are all kinds of cowboys.

    I’m glad someone else is the corporatist kind.

  197. […] “Cowboy corporatist rides to the rescue” Of course, Perry has one giant plus going for him: he’s not Obama. But is he the best candidate for classical liberals / constitutional conservatives? […]

  198. geoffb says:

    2012, the coming Love-war. Tough vs Smothering.

  199. happyfeet says:

    this is for reals interesting and sad especially if you are a new york person

    The Tappan Zee crosses one of the widest points on the Hudson — the bridge is more than three miles long. And if you go just a few miles south, the river gets much narrower. As you might expect, it would have been cheaper and easier to build the bridge across the narrower spot on the river.

    So I wanted to answer a simple question: Why did they build the Tappan Zee where they did, rather than building it a few miles south?

  200. sdferr says:

    Government by Authority is evil, but common.

  201. Pablo says:

    This is the sort of dumb shit Bachmann needs to stop doing.


    Bachmann: Americans Worried About “Rise of Soviet Union”

    It’s become a pattern is what the problem is.

  202. Abe Froman says:

    Crossing that bridge is hellish. The winds are so strong that it used to make my buddy’s SUV feel like a small plane in turbulence. I always assumed they built it where they did because the Palisades cliffs are directly South of it.

  203. McGehee says:

    Pablo, if Maxine Jackson McKinney can be worried about a restoration of slavery in the U.S., why can’t white people be worried about the Soviet Union coming back?

  204. Squid says:

    I dunno, Pablo, that one seems like small potatoes to me. For a lot of people growing up in the Cold War, “Russkie” and “Soviet” were pretty much interchangeable. Old habits are hard to break.

    Besides, are we assuming that a resurgent Russian empire wouldn’t reclaim the buffer countries?

  205. LBascom says:

    I don’t know about the rise of the Soviet Union, but I read somewhere Gorbachev was demanding Putin step down, so maybe he’s worried about it.

    Plus, you know, we got a commie in the whiter house now, and that’s a little troubling…

  206. LBascom says:

    Ah, here we go:

    Russia needs a change of leadership and free elections to stop it sliding backwards 20 years after a coup that hastened the end of the Soviet Union, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev said on Wednesday.

  207. Pablo says:

    They’re not running for President, McGehee.

    Squid, being concerned with the Russians is fine. Being concerned with the Soviet Union is stupid. If this were a one-off, I’d let it slide. It isn’t. It’s a pattern.

    Ed Rollins needs his ass kicked. Are you fucking kidding me, Ed?

  208. sdferr says:

    The mere presence of Ed Rollins is enough to give me the willies.

  209. happyfeet says:

    Ed Rollins celebrates snow leopards

    yay leopards! go leopards!

    also his wife broked her foot or something

  210. pdbuttons says:

    i saw something nasty in the woodshed

  211. happyfeet says:

    careful careful Mr. buttons when you stare into the woodshed the woodshed stares back into you

  212. pdbuttons says:

    careful- naw-
    i’m gonna sell the farm- get all gussied up
    buy a euro-rail pass
    wink at the mona lisa
    start a street hockey leauge in kurdistan?
    now i’m getting ahead of myself but i believe lil soccer third world players
    deserve hockey sticks to slash-butt-end-and trip their lil buddies
    in futbol
    call me a dreamer

Comments are closed.