Now, Perry wants to skip the rest of the debates. I hate picking on him so, but he just makes it too easy for me. I mean, what planet is he living on where he thinks making such a claim will work in his favor?
When he's taking a whole lot of heat about his past debate performances, getting too friendly with Donald Trump and his stupid Birther ploy, and his tax plan that does nothing to simplify the tax code (which is a lot shorter than his claim of 72,000 pages, as any tax preparer can tell you), he cannot afford to duck away from the debates. The only thing that generated any attention for him at the last debate was when everyone thought he might take a swing at Mitt Romney (finally, a BRAWL!). Other than that, his performances have been pretty lackluster.
According to his campaign spokesman, Ray Sullivan, Perry's going to spend more time "with actual voters in primary states". It's not entirely clear what Perry thinks that will do to help his chances of gaining the GOP nomination. Even if he were able to get it, if he thinks he's going to reach a general presidential election without debating President Obama, he's got another thing coming.
That tactic, of refusing to debate may have seen him to the Texas governorship, but the general voter isn't as gullible as the Texans who voted for a candidate who can't handle a debate seem to have been. The majority of voters, regardless of party, have no stomach for a presidential candidate who won't go one-on-one with the presidential incumbent.
--Statler, moderator
10.27.2011
10.26.2011
TRY ANOTHER ONE MR. PERRY, WE'RE STILL NOT BUYING IT
Rick Perry, still trying to revive his campaign, has now switched from Birther to show me your transcript. His attempt to revive the long-dead debate over whether the President was really born in the state of Hawaii (he was, in case anyone still wonders, proven by all documents graciously released by Mr. Obama) did nothing but highlight the fact that Mr. Perry's campaign is melting down faster than a bowl of Jello in the Texas sun.
And, of course, he chose the worst possible time to throw the Birther insanity into the mix - at the exact same time as he revealed his ridiculous optional 20% flat tax plan. Between the howls coming from those who are sick of the birth certificate debate and those who are calling fowl on the claim that his flat tax simplifies the tax code, which it doesn't for anyone but the topmost earners (why pay up to 35% when you can just pay 20), Perry had no choice other than to back away from one or the other. He, wisely, chose the birth certificate issue.
Rather than just leave it at that, however, he had to throw another flamer into the ring - show me your transcripts and tax returns.
Really, Mr. Perry? You want to go there?
If college transcripts had any influence on who became president, then Al Gore would have become president instead of George W. Bush. And, if the least amount of income shown on a tax return determined who became president, well, no professional politician would ever win.
--Statler, moderator
And, of course, he chose the worst possible time to throw the Birther insanity into the mix - at the exact same time as he revealed his ridiculous optional 20% flat tax plan. Between the howls coming from those who are sick of the birth certificate debate and those who are calling fowl on the claim that his flat tax simplifies the tax code, which it doesn't for anyone but the topmost earners (why pay up to 35% when you can just pay 20), Perry had no choice other than to back away from one or the other. He, wisely, chose the birth certificate issue.
Rather than just leave it at that, however, he had to throw another flamer into the ring - show me your transcripts and tax returns.
Really, Mr. Perry? You want to go there?
If college transcripts had any influence on who became president, then Al Gore would have become president instead of George W. Bush. And, if the least amount of income shown on a tax return determined who became president, well, no professional politician would ever win.
--Statler, moderator
10.13.2011
WHY DON'T REPUBLICANS WANT TO EMPLOY THE UNEMPLOYED?
Stop trying to help the rich, Republicans. They don't need it from you or anyone else.
In fact, several members of this minority of citizens have stood up and stated clearly that they don't need the help or tax cuts. They're doing just fine. As if any one of us that isn't in that group had any doubts about that.
Can someone tell me how it is possible that Obama's jobs bill failed the vote in the Senate? Solid Republican rejection can usually be counted on, but can someone tell me what in the hell the two Democrats who joined in with the Republicans thought they were doing? Did they get lost on their way into the chamber, end up on the wrong side of the aisle, and when everyone on that side voted No, they thought they were supposed to do the same?
Can someone also tell me why it hasn't gained more page space in papers like the New York Times and Washington Post? After the vote killed the bill, coverage of the vote took up one or two articles, and the rest was about the iPhone and the upcoming GOP debate.
Why am I supposed to care more about the newest iPhone than the fate of the unemployed teachers, police officers, firefighters, and construction workers? Guess what - they aren't getting an iPhone anymore than I am. THEY'RE BROKE.
The Republicans claim that they killed the bill because of the "stimulus-like spending" included in the bill. How else are we supposed to pay for roads, and the salaries of educators and civil servants? Maybe we should ask construction material manufacturers to donate the materials on good faith and the teachers to donate their time. When we can't even get the two halves of Congress to agree with the rest of the citizens of the United States that it's time to stop monkeying around and get jobs to the unemployed, there's not much good faith left over.
And, what the Republicans really meant was they didn't want to sign on for what would have paid for the spending in spades - taxes on earners who take home more than $1,000,000 per year - aka. their donors.
Grow some balls, boys. Time to help the country, not your bleak re-election chances.
-- Statler, moderator
In fact, several members of this minority of citizens have stood up and stated clearly that they don't need the help or tax cuts. They're doing just fine. As if any one of us that isn't in that group had any doubts about that.
Can someone tell me how it is possible that Obama's jobs bill failed the vote in the Senate? Solid Republican rejection can usually be counted on, but can someone tell me what in the hell the two Democrats who joined in with the Republicans thought they were doing? Did they get lost on their way into the chamber, end up on the wrong side of the aisle, and when everyone on that side voted No, they thought they were supposed to do the same?
Can someone also tell me why it hasn't gained more page space in papers like the New York Times and Washington Post? After the vote killed the bill, coverage of the vote took up one or two articles, and the rest was about the iPhone and the upcoming GOP debate.
Why am I supposed to care more about the newest iPhone than the fate of the unemployed teachers, police officers, firefighters, and construction workers? Guess what - they aren't getting an iPhone anymore than I am. THEY'RE BROKE.
The Republicans claim that they killed the bill because of the "stimulus-like spending" included in the bill. How else are we supposed to pay for roads, and the salaries of educators and civil servants? Maybe we should ask construction material manufacturers to donate the materials on good faith and the teachers to donate their time. When we can't even get the two halves of Congress to agree with the rest of the citizens of the United States that it's time to stop monkeying around and get jobs to the unemployed, there's not much good faith left over.
And, what the Republicans really meant was they didn't want to sign on for what would have paid for the spending in spades - taxes on earners who take home more than $1,000,000 per year - aka. their donors.
Grow some balls, boys. Time to help the country, not your bleak re-election chances.
-- Statler, moderator
10.11.2011
ROMNEY NEEDS TO TRY A NEW VEIN
When I returned from vacation, I found The Ranter's Row had languished a bit while I was away. Apparently, Statler is feeling some ennui about the lack of movement in the world of politics right now. I'm not as much, so here are my thoughts:
Yes, it's true. Not much has happened in politics over the past week or so, despite the former fever pitch around the GOP nomination in the race up to the next presidential election. There's been some name-calling and hair-pulling, but not much else that's new or exciting, as far as I can see.
An area that has remained status quo that I would like to comment on, however, has been Mitt Romney's quest to tell every conservative group exactly what they want to hear on the off chance it may garner him more support or campaign funds.
This New York Times piece from the Sunday edition talked about how Romney is now claiming that if given the job of President of the United States, he will eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and appoint judges that will reverse Roe v. Wade. Fortunately for women everywhere in the U.S., even if he somehow did manage to become president, it's not that simple to change the things he claims to want to change.
Just as it isn't just a matter of signing an executive order to end the Affordable Healthcare Act, which Michele Bachmann so helpfully (for once) pointed out during one of the past debates, there's a lot more to enacting conservative federal policies than what Romney suggests. But, the only thing Mitt Romney really cares about is how these stances sound when he's addressing the Values Voter Summit, as he was this past Saturday.
As far as he's concerned, the best way to prove that a politician of the Mormon faith can be likable to conservative Christian voters is to throw out the same bricks that supposedly-conservative politicians always throw on the fire: revoking women's rights to low-cost health services and revoking women's rights to autonomy.
Romney's campaign crisis is really that he's not conservative, but rather than grow a spine and stand by what he truly believes in, he would rather punt at every fourth down.
Whatever else you may say about Perry, you cannot say that he backs down from what he really believes in. The same cannot be said about Mitt Romney.
Penn
(go to the Toasted Filberts blog to read my other blog posts)
Yes, it's true. Not much has happened in politics over the past week or so, despite the former fever pitch around the GOP nomination in the race up to the next presidential election. There's been some name-calling and hair-pulling, but not much else that's new or exciting, as far as I can see.
An area that has remained status quo that I would like to comment on, however, has been Mitt Romney's quest to tell every conservative group exactly what they want to hear on the off chance it may garner him more support or campaign funds.
This New York Times piece from the Sunday edition talked about how Romney is now claiming that if given the job of President of the United States, he will eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and appoint judges that will reverse Roe v. Wade. Fortunately for women everywhere in the U.S., even if he somehow did manage to become president, it's not that simple to change the things he claims to want to change.
Just as it isn't just a matter of signing an executive order to end the Affordable Healthcare Act, which Michele Bachmann so helpfully (for once) pointed out during one of the past debates, there's a lot more to enacting conservative federal policies than what Romney suggests. But, the only thing Mitt Romney really cares about is how these stances sound when he's addressing the Values Voter Summit, as he was this past Saturday.
As far as he's concerned, the best way to prove that a politician of the Mormon faith can be likable to conservative Christian voters is to throw out the same bricks that supposedly-conservative politicians always throw on the fire: revoking women's rights to low-cost health services and revoking women's rights to autonomy.
Romney's campaign crisis is really that he's not conservative, but rather than grow a spine and stand by what he truly believes in, he would rather punt at every fourth down.
- Romney formerly supported gay marriage; now that that position hurts him with conservatives, he says he's opposed to equal recognition.
- Romney created the Massachusetts state-wide health plan (with an individual mandate) that ensured just about every citizen in the state has the health coverage they need; now that the Tea Party thinks it's horrible to make sure people have healthcare, he says it won't work for the nation.
- Romney was pro-choice; in front of conservative voters, he says it's better to return to a time when women died from abortions they performed on their own or were performed by unlicensed "doctors".
Whatever else you may say about Perry, you cannot say that he backs down from what he really believes in. The same cannot be said about Mitt Romney.
Penn
(go to the Toasted Filberts blog to read my other blog posts)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
