Obama Press Secretary Carney compares GOP candidates to Wildlife Channel as Obama schedules a political jobs speech the same night as the GOP debate

UPDATE at 8:49 cdt:  Obama blinked -- CNN Breaking News:

The White House agreed to House Speaker John Boehner's request that President Barack Obama give his scheduled special address to a joint session of Congress on September 8 instead of September 7. 

A political showdown erupted earlier in the day over Obama's request to deliver the address on the economy on September 7. That was also the night of a GOP presidential debate. The speech will now take place on the opening night of the National Football League season. 

In a letter to Obama, Boehner noted that the White House requested the use of the House chamber for an 8 p.m. address -- less than two hours after the House is scheduled to complete legislative business. Security sweeps of the chamber usually take more than three hours, he said.

Now when is the Press Secretary Carney going to apologize for all of his remarks?




******
When you think Obama and his Press Secretary cannot sink any lower, they prove me wrong.  Obama schedules a speech to the Joint Session of Congress on the night of the Republican debate at the Reagan Library hosted by MSNBC and Politico which is nothing but pure arrogance on the part of Obama.  

What do you think the Democrats would have done if President Bush had pulled this stunt when they had a debate including Obama and Hillary.  The media would have been in full attack mode against President Bush but now most of the media is silent.

What is the pressing need to address the Joint Session of Congress?  Have we been attacked or are we going go on a military offensive?  Nothing of the sort -- he wants to score political points for his jobs bill.  This is not something you address the Joint Session of Congress but with this narcissist he wants them to sit through his speech so Democrats can stand and applaud and Republicans sit on their hands so he can show it in his campaign videos how he is addressing the jobs problem.  Where has he been for years on jobs?  Out campaigning with rhetoric?

Then you have the arrogant fool who serves as the Obama Press Secretary, Jay Carney, who said:

Carney also jokingly compared the Republican candidates seeking to unseat the president in next year’s election to the "wildlife channel," prompting laughter from the press corps. He further stressed that the Republican debate was not a consideration in planning the president’s speech. 

"I would personally, and I’m sure the President feels the same way, welcome -- if the sponsors so chose, and the candidates so chose to adjust the timing of their debate so that it didn’t conflict, that would be completely fine with us in the spirit of democracy and that," Carney told reporters.

Carney is as arrogant as his boss.  In my life I have never hear a press secretary act like a complete moron comparing a GOP debate to the Wildlife Channel.  What if Ari Fletcher had done that?  The media would have gone through the roof demanding he resign immediately or Bush fire him.  This is a perfect example of what a lot of us have been saying about the bias from the Obama media.  Their laughing at Carney shows their lack of class right along with his.

Then for Carney to dis Nancy Reagan and the Reagan Library shows even less class out of Carney if that is possible.  He should be fired for his remarks but instead he laughs at himself like he is something of a genius.  Low life scumbag is more appropriate for Carney who doesn't understand the meaning of the words integrity and class.  How did he even become press secretary?  It sure is not for his wit or intelligence.  He is the worst I have ever seen as Carney is not only inept but is mean with his remarks which is something I don't remember in the past.  Inept yes, but not someone who is downright mean.  You don't talk that way as the press secretary.

Happy to see that Speaker of the House Boehner has asked Obama to move his speech.  If I had my way and was Speaker, I would tell the narcissist to send the facts to the House but you are not using the Chamber for your campaign photo op speech.  I would rather watch the movie clips on our Cox cable of what is playing on Pay for View then ever watch Obama speak on any subject.  Not the least bit interested in the spin and rhetoric that comes out of his mouth.  He has been MIA for a long time as President when it comes to jobs preferring to be on the campaign trail for a mile ride in his million dollar bus from the airport to the event and back and then fly on to the next stop on his bus tour.  How much did that boondoggle cost the US Taxpayer?

Boehner asks Obama to move speech to Thursday
By Michael O'Brien
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) asked President Obama to address a joint-session of Congress on Thursday, Sept. 8, when it wouldn't conflict with the Republican presidential debate. 

Boehner, in a letter responding to Obama's request to address a joint-session of Congress on Wednesday, Sept. 7, said that the House wouldn't have enough time logistically to prepare for a speech that evening. 

"As your spokesperson today said, there are considerations about the Congressional calendar that must be made prior to scheduling such an extraordinary event," the Speaker wrote. 

Read the full story here.

This whole deal with Obama, Carney, and the Obama Media is one of the tackiest things they have done yet in this campaign.  Carney saying they didn't plan it?  Give me a break -- anyone who would buy that story has mush for brains. Any thinking person knows that this date was picked on purpose to try and over shadow the debate that has been scheduled for three weeks at the Reagan Library by an Obama Campaign Address to a Joint Session of Congress.  If I was a member of Congress, I would boycott this speech after the remarks of his Press Secretary about Republicans which I would bet comes from Obama and his people since Carney sits in on all the meetings.      

Wednesday, August 31, 2011 By Fred Lucas 

(CNSNews.com) – After the White House scheduled a presidential speech to a joint session of Congress to coincide with a GOP presidential debate, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said he personally, and he believed President Obama, would be glad to see the candidates reschedule.  

....

"But, again, I think that we live in such a world of choices in terms of getting information and watching media, that there will be ample opportunity for Americans to hear and see the President, ample opportunity for Americans to hear and see candidates for office," Carney continued. "And so we’ll just carry forward with our plan." 

The Republican presidential candidates’ debate is sponsored by NBC News and Politico scheduled for 8 p.m. eastern daylight time on Sept. 7, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. The debate has been scheduled for several weeks. 

The White House announced Wednesday that Obama would deliver a jobs speech to a joint session of Congress on the same time and date. 

A reporter asked if the president was depriving the American people of hearing a public debate, which Carney said was not the case. 

"As his press secretary and somebody involved in his communications -- putting aside what else, whatever the competing opportunities on television are, whether it’s the wildlife channel or the cooking channel or political -- but I would be -- I wish that I could say --" before he finished the answer, a reporter asked, "Are you comparing Republicans to --"
Carney said, "Maybe the wildlife" 

"What I mean is that would it were so that I could be sure simply by having the president of the United States speak at a certain hour that every American who is watching TV would be watching him," Carney said. "I wish that were the case. Certainly, a substantial number of Americans will." 

Generally, when the president addresses the nation, it is carried by all major networks and cable news stations. 

The scheduled GOP debate was not a factor in scheduling the president’s address to Congress. 

"No, of course not," Carney said. "There were a lot of considerations that once you decide you want to do a speech to Congress, and you have to deal with congressional schedules and there are many other factors here. And obviously one debate of many that’s on one channel of many was not enough reason not to have the speech at the time that we decided to have it." 

One reporter asked, "As you know, it’s at the Reagan facility. Any concern of potentially upsetting Nancy Reagan by stepping on this?" 

Carney responded, "I think that the -- the sponsors of the debate control the timing of it; they can make a decision based on how they want to handle this. There are many channels, there are many opportunities for the public to hear the president speak, to watch this debate -- one of many -- and we'll let that sort itself out." 

Generally, if presidents want to address a joint session of Congress, the leaders of the House and Senate must invite him. 

Source:  CNS

Why is Romney Running Again?

Polls are showing Gov Perry with a double digit lead over Romney, the grassroots is impressed with him wherever he goes, and he can take on Obama because he has a solid record to stand on as Governor.  What's not to like that has the Bush 41 Establishment types all in a panic mode dropping article after article or sniping at him in interviews trying to take out Perry who just keeps going.  The last paragraph of this article from the American Spectator sums it up perfectly:

And success on the issues that concern the actual voters, rather than the opinions of establishment retreads, is the only foundation upon which any Republican can build a 2012 victory over Barack Obama. Regardless of which candidate wins the GOP presidential nomination, the President and his minions will use the same strategy. Because they cannot run on their record, they will promulgate a few disingenuous talking points about the real issues and then  launch a vicious campaign of personal vilification. Only a candidate with the support of rank-and-file Republicans, including Tea Partiers, and a clear record of success on jobs and health care will be able to survive and overcome this strategy. Rick Perry has what it takes and Mitt Romney doesn't.   

Think I am going to borrow David Catron's "opinions of establishment retreads" -- love the retreads comment because that is exactly what has been happening since the Nixon years -- same people brought back into Government from both sides.  Bet you won't find all the Bush #41 people in a Perry Administration.  Maybe that is what Rove and other 'retreads' are so concerned about -- no job in a Republican Administration.  Now that would be progress!

The funniest was Romney calling Perry a career politician when Romney ran in 1994, lost to Ted Kennedy or shall we say blew the race, then the Mormom Church made sure he was head of the Winter Olympics, went back to Massachusetts after that to run for Governor and then quit after one term to prepare himself to run for President not once but twice.  What is the difference everyone is pointing out -- Perry won his races and has a track record he can stand on as Ag Commissioner, Lt Governor, and Governor.  Perry couldn't afford to take off years to prepare to run for President like Romney. 

Romney self-financing his own races doesn't translate to votes like a candidate who gets small donors in large numbers donating their $20 to a campaign.  Then you have the Mormon stiff arming in the states to get their members to donate to Mormon candidates, but who will vote for another candidate in the secrecy of the ballot box.  That is part of the reason that Romney has lost all but the Massachusetts Governor's race when he relied on his time as head of the Olympics to propel him into office. Has his wife cut off his use of the family fortune this time that has been rumored?  Is that why Romney is trying to get all the money out of Wall Street?  What is he promising for their donations -- the status quo?  

Since leaving office in 2006, what has Romney been doing except telling people he is unemployed.  Where is the track record of achievement for the last five years?  He didn't even follow through on his promise to help McCain win in places like Michigan -- he never campaigned for him there or much of anyplace.  Rudy was all over helping McCain.  

Some establishment retreads have already complained that Oil and Gas is going to give big to Governor Perry and they will be in his hip pocket.  They don't know the Governor.  He understands their plight and what they have been going through with the excessive EPA regulations and Obama moratoriums on Gulf Oil Drilling which has costs thousands and thousands of jobs along the Gulf Coast.   At the same time he signed a law on using fracking to drill so all chemicals used are disclosed.  Sure doesn't sound like someone in their hip pocket or he wouldn't have wanted the fracking disclosure bill. 

Perry understands that this Country has an abundance of  oil and gas that is waiting to be drilled to help make the Country more self sufficient.  Unlike some candidates, he also understands that you have to take the environment into consideration where you want to drill.  It is foolish for any candidate to want to drill everywhere in the United States and shows a lack of knowledge about drilling for oil and gas.  The Everglades is not a good place to drill even with their abundance of oil because of the ecological factors involved while West Texas in the Permian Basin is perfect in spite of a beetle or a lizard.  The ecological damage from an oil spill in West Texas versus the Everglades is world's apart.  

You have oil and gas for Perry and Wall Street for Romney.  Oil and gas wants to create jobs for more Americans and have the country become more self sufficient and less dependent on foreign oil from OPEC.  Wall Street likes the status quo from the Fed along with the weak dollar and looks to be addicted to the Federal bailouts/stimulus packages while paying their CEO's big bonuses.  Perry wins that battle as well with most Republicans.

Why is the GOP establishment so against Rick Perry?  Are they afraid he will join the Congress is doing away with a lot of regulations and programs like No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that the Bush Family and others have made millions of dollars first with Neil Bush and then other family members with NCLB?  Do they prefer the status quo on the economy as the rich get richer and the middle class savings keep dwindling?  Is this all about money or about power or both?  This is so far over the top with the attacks, they have only served to galvanize his support among the rank and file grassroots Republicans and a lot of the local Tea Party.  

It is so obvious what is happening that site after site has caught on to the Bush 41/Rove/Romney attempts to take out Governor Perry and are not afraid to bring it out in the open.  Are the duo willing to try and split the GOP to give us Romney?  UGH!  What remains the biggest question is WHY?

Now the American Spectator comes along with the facts in this David Catron article that shows the Bush 41 establishment mantra of Romney can win against Obama not Perry is flat out wrong:

Political HayWhy Perry Can Beat Obama and Romney Can'tBy David Catron on 8.30.11 @ 6:09AM 

Most of the GOP establishment is uncomfortable with Rick Perry. Few have openly attacked the Texas governor, as Karl Rove did when Perry criticized Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. However, the grumblings of former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan​, a number of former Bush aides, and sundry other Republican luminaries have made it clear that they would prefer to see Mitt Romney as the GOP standard-bearer in 2012. Even inveterate RINO-basher Ann Coulter​ has said "Romney could actually beat Obama" and that Perry "won't live up to expectations." Coulter and the GOP establishment are wrong. Not only is Perry the favorite of rank-and-file Republicans, he is far better positioned than Romney to debate the President on the two issues that will inevitably dominate next year's campaign -- jobs and health care. 

On jobs, Perry has a story to tell that Romney can't hope to match. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, "Some 37% of all net new American jobs since the recovery began were created in Texas." While most states have experienced anemic job growth since June of 2009, and eighteen governors have watched their states endure actual declines in growth, Governor Perry has presided over a state economy that has added 265,300 new jobs. That makes Texas the most prolific job generator in the nation. By contrast, Mitt Romney's record on job creation is lackluster at best. Job growth during his single term as Governor of Massachusetts was less than one percent, which "badly lagged other high-skill, high-wage, knowledge economy states like New York (2.7%), California (4.7%) and North Carolina (7.6%)." 

Consider this in the context of the upcoming presidential campaign: Rick Perry can contrast Obama's truly pathetic record on jobs with his own remarkable success. He can stand before the country in a debate and call out the President on his failed big-government agenda and say, as Charles Krauthammer recently phrased it, "Smaller government, I made it work, I created jobs." Romney, on the other hand, simply can't press the President on unemployment without being reminded that the Bay State "ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth" during his term as Massachusetts Governor. In other words, while Perry can go on the offensive, Romney would be reduced to defending his own record rather than highlighting Obama's abysmal performance on the economy. 

Romney's inability to press the President on job creation would be compounded by his impotence on Obamacare. At least half of the voters are still seething about that pernicious piece of legislation and the political skulduggery that was used to ram it down their throats. These voters will expect the Republican presidential nominee to go after the President on Obamacare, and Romney is utterly toothless on that issue. Why? The two-thousand page monstrosity that the White House and its legions of allies in the "news" media hilariously call the "Affordable Care Act" was modeled after the Massachusetts "universal coverage" legislation that Romney himself signed into law in 2006. And that ill-conceived law, commonly known as Romneycare, has been a fiscal and medical disaster for the Bay State. 

Thus, Romney can't criticize Obamacare's many offensive features without looking like a cheap political flip-flopper. He cannot, for example, credibly denounce the egregious individual mandate because it is modeled after a similar provision of Romneycare. Nor will his oft-repeated point that the Massachusetts mandate was enacted at the state level, and is therefore constitutional, cut much ice with the voters. They will be less interested in arcane nuances of the Commerce Clause than in the fact that they will be forced to buy government-approved insurance whether they want it or not. Likewise, Romney can't hit the President for producing a "reform" law that Obama's own administration admits will increase rather than decrease medical costs. His own health care "reform" law produced identical results. 

Rick Perry suffers from none of Romney's disabilities on health care. First, he isn't burdened by a failed health care albatross that will prevent him from aggressively going after the President on Obamacare. Unlike Romney, he can vehemently denounce the insurance mandate as an unconstitutional attack on individual liberty without having any similar abomination in his own record thrown back in his face. Moreover, because his record in Texas has emphasized the free market rather than state interference, he can credibly denounce the President's top-down approach to health care reform. While Romney must live down an Obama-like inclination toward government-imposed solutions, Perry's record demonstrates a clear bias in the other direction and allows him to more freely criticize Obama's big-government philosophy. 

This, of course, begs the following question: How do the results of Perry's approach compare to those of Romney's? Well, as Avik Roy recently put it, "If you're most concerned about runaway government spending, Perry is the clear winner. If the rising cost of health insurance is your primary worry, Perry wins there too." Among the reasons Perry wins in these areas is tort reform. In 2003, Perry convinced Texas voters to approve a cap on non-economic medical malpractice damages for physicians and hospitals. This initiative not only helped control the rise of health care costs due to defensive medicine, it helped deliver Texas from a growing problem that still bedevils Massachusetts -- physician shortages. In fact, tort reform has worked so well in this regard that the New York Times reluctantly reported its success. 

....

Read More at the  American Spectator 

Will Obama Sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as an "Executive Agreement" bypassing the Senate?

Let me get this straight -- Obama and his people are saying this is not a treaty so he can sign an 'executive agreement,' but the Europeans consider it a binding treaty which would require ratification by the Senate.  That doesn't seem hard to figure out -- Obama is not legally allowed to sign an 'executive agreement' when it is a treaty.  What part of that doesn't he understand?  Could it be the fact that he promised he would sign it and doesn't have the nerve to tell the Europeans that the Senate has to ratify the treaty.  Without Senate ratification, his signature is worthless.

What else is Obama doing behind our backs that it takes a tech site to report because the media chooses to ignore?  Obama seems to think the Constitution is just a piece of paper he can ignore at will!

If ACTA Is Approved In The US, It May Open The Door For The President To Regularly Ignore Congress On International Agreements 

from the bad-news dept of Tech Dirt

On of the sneakier parts of the ACTA is that the White House has insisted from the beginning that the document is not a binding treaty. Instead, it insists that ACTA is merely an "executive agreement." Of course, the only real difference is that an executive agreement doesn't require the Senate to ratify it. Basically, the US is calling it an executive agreement so that the administration can sign on without any oversight or scrutiny on the treaty. The Europeans, in the meantime, never got the "ix-nay on the inding-bay eaty-tray" notice from the US folks, and have been happily declaring ACTA a binding treaty as it clearly is.  

However, many legal experts have noted that this raises serious constitutional questions, as the Constitution simply does not allow this kind of agreement to be signed without Senate approval. Amusingly, Senator Biden -- back during the previous administration -- was one of the leading voices in trying to prevent President Bush from signing an "executive agreement" with Russia, without getting Senate approval. One wonders if he's magically changed his mind.

However, more and more people are getting concerned about this breach of the Constitution. James Love points us to a new paper at the American Society for International Law by Oona A. Hathaway and Amy Kapczynski, which worries about the precedent this will set if Obama signs it as an executive agreement and bypasses the Senate entirely.

No comparable agreement has been concluded in this way. Thus if concluded as a sole executive agreement, it would represent a significant expansion of the scope of such agreements. As a result, it could pave the way for more extensive use of sole executive agreements in the future. That, in turn, could have implications for the nature of democratic control over international legal agreements concluded by the United States, as well as the legitimacy of these agreements both at home and abroad.

Furthermore, the report notes that it does not seem Constitutional for the President to sign such a document as an executive agreement. The only things that can be signed as an executive agreement are things that are solely under the President's mandate. But intellectual property laws are clearly afforded to Congress and not the President under the Constitution -- meaning that he has no authority to sign this document without it first being approved by the Senate. The report notes that President Bush also tried to expand executive agreements, and ACTA would be a massive expansion in what could be covered under such agreements, taking away tremendous authority and oversight from Congress.

Setting a precedent for more expansive use of sole executive agreements has consequences not only for intellectual property law, but for any area in which an international agreement may be concluded—which is to say, nearly any area of law. International law now reaches into almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives. The possibility that such legal commitments could be made by the President without the input, much less approval, of Congress or the public raises serious questions about the potential of these agreements to undermine democratic lawmaking writ large 

This is pretty troubling for a variety of different reasons, and it seems like Congress itself should be pretty concerned about this attempt to take away its oversight on international agreements.

IBD Editorial: Romney's Doomed '3rd Rail' Attack on Perry

Is it possible since Romney has Bush 41 and Rove on his side, that he and his supporters think all of the Bush people are going to support Romney?  How else can you explain the Romney people giving Marc Thiessen, a former Bush 43 speech writer, their plan of action?  If so, that was stupid.

Conservative are more galvanized then I have seen them since 1980 in wanting to turn the Country around and want someone who understands what they are going through on a daily basis with this horrible economy.  In 1980 it was high interest rates with inflation.  Now it is lack of jobs, raises, and inflation with groceries and gasoline even if the powers at be in Government won't admit it as they took them out of the inflation criteria.  Go buy groceries and see prices going up almost every week and then tell us there is no inflation.

This is what happens when someone very wealthy runs for office -- they are out of touch with most Americans who work for a living to buy a home, a car, pay utility bills, buy groceries and gas for the car while hoping to have enough left over for cell phones and cable TV.  Vacations were pretty much out of the picture for a lot of people this year with the high cost of gas since taking a family on a trip by air is expensive not to mention the cost hotels and meals.

Romney is getting ready to tear down a 3,000 sq foot home on the beach in La Jolla, CA to build a $12M mansion.  I don't care if he builds a $20M mansion, but trying to tell most of us he understands as he is unemployed himself is a total insult.  With those comments, it became personal for me after what I have seen happen in the last few years.  Want no part of a candidate who builds a $12M mansion and compares himself to someone who is really unemployed.

Is Romney so clueless that he doesn't understand young people are upset that Social Security they have paid into over the years is most likely either not going to be there, or they will receive a small pension if something is not done.  Most young people understand Social Security needs action not just bandaids and words to ensure solvency.  Romney is against raising the cutoff for how long people have to pay into social security which is now $106,000.  Why?  He calls it a tax increase -- most of us call it fair.  If someone makes $105,000 and has to pay social security on his whole income, why doesn't someone making $250,000 a year have to pay social security on his whole income?  

Any way you slice it, Social Security is a ponzi scheme for young workers whether Romney wants to admit the truth or not.  Commentary Magazine has this to say:

Whatever the case, on substance, Perry is quite right. For younger people, Social Security is almost the definition of a Ponzi scheme. It takes money from the current generation in order to pay out money to support (among others) current retirees. Younger workers are led to believe they are putting money away for their retirement when in fact, they’re giving money away to others. There is no “trust fund” and no “lock box” – and because of demographics the younger generation cannot count on anything like the support past generations have received.

Romney attacks on Perry on the 3rd rail are going to backfire like the attacks on the letter that he sent to Hillary Clinton when he was the Texas Ag Commissioner:

In a letter to Clinton, who is now U.S. Secretary of State, Perry wrote: “I think your efforts in trying to reform the nation’s health care system are most commendable.” 

“I would like to request that the task force give particular consideration to the needs of the nation’s farmers, ranchers, and agriculture workers, and other members of rural communities,” Perry continued, noting his administration’s focus on economic development for rural Texans. 

“Rural populations have a high proportion of uninsured people, rising health care costs, and often experience lack of services.”… 

Asked by TheDC about the 1993 letter, Perry’s presidential campaign defended it, saying the full scope of Clinton’s healthcare plan was not yet known when Perry signed it. 

“You need to read the letter,” top Perry political strategist Dave Carney told The Daily Caller. 

“He praised her efforts in trying to tackle the issue and urged her not to overlook rural Americans. The letter was at the onset of her efforts before she proposed anything. No one could have imagined the horrible monstrosity she cooked up, in fact not to be outdone until ObamaCare years later.”

Rove has lost it after all those years inside the beltway if he thinks that Romney is going to pick up steam and votes by wanting Social Security to remain the status quo or getting someone to release this letter to Hillary that shows Perry was looking out for the farmers and ranchers.

In fact, with all of Romney's flip flops in recent months he is reminding us of another Massachusetts candidate, John Kerry, who was legendary when it came to flip flopping on the issues.  Romney is rapidly closing in on him.  Not only is Romney sounding like the flip flopper John Kerry but when Romney launched his campaign on April 11, 2011, he stole the slogan of his campaign from Kerry:

Mitt Romney's launched his exploratory committee today with a dynamic new slogan: "Believe in America." 

If that slogan sounds a little familiar, that's because it was the title of John Kerry's cross-country tour in August of 2004, as CNN reported a two-week, 3,500-mile, coast-to-coast trip, dubbed the 'Believe in America' tour, that will take them to 21 states and 40 cities."

Romney and his people cannot even come up with an original slogan using the one for Kerry instead.  Tell me again why he is running for President.

Romney is also sounding more like Bill Clinton by the day with putting his finger in the wind to see which way it is blowing on Global Warming and now Social Security and then doing a flip flop.  Add his 'me too' mentality like now saying he may go into Iowa after dissing their straw poll in order to take on Perry in Iowa is laughable.  He wanted no part of Iowa but now may challenge Perry in Iowa?  Good Luck with that in a farm state like Iowa.  What is he going to do offer Iowans more of an ethanol subsidy and make the rest of the country mad?

The Romney campaign has the look of 2008 when he was put on his heels by McCain and never recovered.  He started grasping at straws then and is now doing the same thing.  He never should have run in 2012 when he couldn't beat McCain in 2008.  Now more people I know are even more galvanized against Romney for saying he was going to support McCain and help him win when he dropped out but he did virtually nothing in the campaign.  It is payback time!

Editorial: Romney's Doomed '3rd Rail' Attack On Perry 

Posted 06:16 PM ET 

Election '12: Mitt Romney reportedly intends to use the "third rail of politics" — touch Social Security and you die — to kill Rick Perry. But the winning strategy next year may be something novel for politicians: the truth. 

For unexplained reasons, Mitt Romney's people in New Hampshire told former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen about their grand strategy to defeat Texas Gov. Rick Perry — and the plan couldn't be more out of sync with the anger currently raging at the Republican grassroots. 

"Romney strategists are quick to note that in his book, 'Fed Up!,' Perry writes that 'By any measure, Social Security is a failure' and calls the program 'something we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now' that was created 'at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government,'" Thiessen wrote in the Washington Post on Monday. 

The Romneyites promise their man "will use Perry's book to scare seniors in early-primary states with large retiree populations, such as Florida and South Carolina." And, he says, they'll charge that Perry is against the very idea of Social Security and Medicare. 

There is, dare we say, a RINO-sized problem with Romney taking this approach. The former Massachusetts governor is already at a disadvantage as the least conservative, establishment-favored major candidate in what for rank-and-file Republican voters are very anti-establishment times. 

On top of explaining away his "Obomney Care" health reform, plus flip-flops on carbon emission restrictions, the minimum wage, capital gains taxes, abortion and other issues, does Romney really want to be guardian of the big-government status quo on entitlements too? 

Perry rightly has charged that "Deceptive accounting has hoodwinked the American public into thinking that Social Security is a retirement system and financially sound, when clearly it is not." 

Perry compares it to an "illegal Ponzi scheme."Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast 

He obviously knew such stark language would give ammo to opponents in a presidential run. 

"But by remaining quiet," Perry wrote in his book, "politicians are really saying they think the American people won't understand it if we share the grim details of our financial future ... Is that how we should respect our fellow citizens? By underestimating their intelligence, their desire to retire with greater stability, or their commitment to the next generation?" 

The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare now exceed $100 trillion. Perry might just think laying out the frightful facts about entitlements to the American people is the way to the White House. 

Moreover, targeting Perry on Social Security would be yet another Romney flip-flop: In early 2008 he told Glenn Beck he supported "giving people more of their income going in, or their Social Security withdrawal going into, private accounts." 

Can Rick Perry use his high voltage rhetoric to switch that electrified "third rail of politics" to another track? 

Instead of reform-minded politicians being the ones in danger, will those who support spending as usual have to beware the voters?  

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) Endorses Texas Gov. Rick Perry for President

 This was the worst kept secret around but yesterday Senator Inhofe made it official as he endorsed Governor Perry.  When he first announced he was going to endorse Perry on Monday, he also had this to say about Mitt Romney:

Inhofe as saying he likes Mitt Romney but that he’s “a little mushy on environmental issues.”

and Newt Gingrich:

Inhofe also made reference to GOP White House candidate Newt Gingrich’s 2008 climate change ad with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). 

The ad featured Gingrich, who was House Speaker in the mid-1990s, sitting on a couch with Pelosi in front of the Capitol discussing the need to combat climate change. 

“Newt Gingrich, I always have this vision of him sitting on the couch holding hands with Nancy Pelosi,” Inhofe said in Tulsa World account 

Share Senator Inhofe's reference to the Gingrich ad with Pelosi -- was shocked when he did the ad and no amount of backtracking by Gingrich is going to erase that picture of the two of them.  Now Gingrich thinks he can win the Republican primary for President?

With so much hype about Global Warming, I want a candidate who has not been caught up in all the Al Gore and other hype that has been floating around the media.  Will never forget the first time I heard Senator Inhofe used the term 'junk science' to describe global warming and he was eventually proven right.  Senator Inhofe endorsing Governor Perry makes a lot of sense as both are part of the group that has been fighting the EPA regulations for years.

Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry listens
as Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., introduces Perry at the Tulsa Press Club in
Tulsa, Okla., Aug. 29, 2011. (Sue Ogrocki/AP Photo)

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe Endorses Texas Gov. Rick Perry for President

Posted on August 29th, 2011 

TULSA, Okla. – Texas Gov. Rick Perry today received the endorsement of U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) in his campaign for president of the United States. 

“I’ve known Gov. Rick Perry for a long time, and I am endorsing him because I know he is the strongest leader to run against and defeat President Obama. After three years of Obama’s liberal agenda, Rick Perry is the right person to get America working again and turn our country in the right direction,” said Sen. Inhofe. “His record as Texas’ governor proves that he knows you grow the economy with less government, by controlling spending, cutting taxes, reforming tort laws and reducing regulatory red tape for employers. One of the important areas is reigning in over-regulation. Rick Perry is strong against the Cap and Trade tax that would further devastate our economy and do nothing but move jobs overseas to places like China. He is one of the few who understand this, and he won’t cave in to the extreme environmental activists or the Hollywood crowd and their liberal agenda. We can’t afford four more years of the Obama malaise. Look at what Rick Perry has done in his state. He is going to be a great president!” 

“As one of the leading conservative voices in the United States Senate, Sen. Inhofe will be an important asset to this campaign, and I am humbled to receive his support,” said. Gov. Perry. “I am proud to partner with him as I travel the nation to share my vision to get America working again.” 

Sen. Inhofe was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994 and is ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was recently voted the #1 Conservative in the U.S. Senate by National Journal and “Most Outstanding Conservative U.S. Senator” by Human Events Newspaper and the American Conservative Union. Sen. Inhofe formerly served as congressman from Oklahoma’s First Congressional District, mayor of Tulsa, minority leader of the Oklahoma Senate and member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. He spent 30 years as a small businessman in aviation, real estate, and insurance, and served in the U.S. Army.

Sun Causes Climate Change Shock -- Global Warming is Man Made Crowd in Denial

Maybe we should send a copy of this article to Republican candidate Jon Huntsman who believes in Global Warming because scientists are always right and if you don't believe the scientists Republicans become the anti-science party:

“We’re not going to win a national election if we become the anti-science party,” John Weaver, Huntsman’s chief strategist, said in an interview Wednesday. “The American people are looking for someone who lives in reality and is a truth teller because that’s the only way that the significant problems this country faces can be solved. It appears that the only science that Mitt Romney believes in is the science of polling, and that science clearly was not a mandatory course for Governor Perry.”

Would someone please tell us again why Huntsman is running as a Republican because he sounds like he is straight out of Al Gore's Global Warming is Man Made crowd.  Gore has made millions of dollars from global warming hype so you have to look at his comments through all the money he has received from going down the road of Global Warming.

Mitt Romney another candidate originally agreed with Huntsman and  Al Gore on Global Warming until he saw the outrage against Huntsman who went on the attack against Republicans and their belief that it was junk science.  Then Romney switched to it may not be all man made five days ago.  Typical Massachusetts flip flopper who puts a finger in the wind to see which way it is blowing and changes their stance on the issue not matter what it is.  Romney talking about "Mr." Perry working for Al Gore was laughable.

Go ahead Mr. Romney -- go down that road.  First of all Perry was a Democrat in 1988 and secondly, Al Gore was much more conservative.  Some thought Gore was too conservative for a ticket of the centrist Bill Clinton in 1992 with some calling Gore a conservative Democrat with hawkish tendencies.  At some point Al Gore saw the opportunity to make money and latched on to Global Warming.  Rick Perry as a Democrat was more conservative than Romney will ever be.

Is the Mormon Church going to make millions and millions of dollars off of Global Warming since both of their candidates originally supported Global Warming is man made theory.  Since the Mormon Church sold out on illegal immigration who is to say that Global Warming is not next since both of their candidates originally supported the Al Gore theory.

Sun Causes Climate Change Shock
By James Delingpole
Last updated: August 27th, 2011

Cartoon by Josh

If Michael Crichton had lived to write a follow-up to State of Fear, the plotline might well have gone like this: at a top secret, state of the art laboratory in Switzerland, scientists finally discover the true cause of “global warming”. It’s the sun, stupid. More specifically – as the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has long postulated – it’s the result of cosmic rays which act as a seed for cloud formation. The scientists working on the project are naturally euphoric: this is a major breakthrough which will not only overturn decades of misguided conjecture on so-called Man Made Global Warming but will spare the global economy trillions of dollars which might otherwise have been squandered on utterly pointless efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, these scientists have failed to realise just how many people – alarmist scientists, huckster politicians, rent-seeking landowners like (the late Michael Crichton’s brilliant and, of course, entirely fictional creation) the absurd, pompous Sir Reginald Leeds Bt, green activists, eco-fund managers, EU technocrats, MSM environmental correspondents – stand to gain from the Man Made “Climate Change” industry. Their discovery must be suppressed at all costs. So, one by one, the scientists on the cosmic ray project find themselves being bumped off, until only one man remains and must race against time to prove, etc, etc…

Except of course in the real world the second part wouldn’t happen. No one would need to go to the trouble of bumping off those pesky scientists with their awkward, annoying facts and their proper actual research. That’s because the MSM and the scientific “community” would find it perfectly easy to suppress the story anyway, without recourse to severed brake cables or ricin-impregnated hand-washes or staged “suicides”. 

This is exactly what has happened with the latest revelations from CERN over its landmark CLOUD experiment, whose significance Lawrence Solomon explains here: 

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. 

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere. 

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

So if it’s so great, why aren’t we hearing more about it? Well, possibly because the Director General of CERN Rolf-Dieter Heuer would prefer it that way. Here’s how he poured cold water on the results in an interview with Die Welt Online:

I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.

Nigel Calder, who has been following the CLOUD experiment for some time, was the first to smell a rat. He notes: 

CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.

and 

The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results   

Excerpt:  Read More comments from scientists and the Global Warming Crowd at James Delinpole's blog on the London Telegraph 

Wesley Pruden: Goodnight, Irene. What a Floozie

This was a great way to start the morning when I found this email in my inbox from Wesley Pruden on Hurricane Irene.  Been waiting to see an article that could be posted about all the hype on the East Coast by the media for a Category I hurricane that was going to be "devastating" -- the "worst ever" to hit New York City and flood the subways for days.  Finally went to the Weather Channel where there was hype but nothing compared to the cable networks who were in their glory entertaining people in the rest of the Country.

If there had not been so much rainfall before the storm hit, the flooding in places like Vermont would have been much less as their saturated ground was going to cause flooding with any large amount of rainfall.

Where was all this concern when the Mississippi River was over its banks earlier this year?  Didn't hear about the world as we know it was about to come to an end.  Seven inches of rain over a period of hours sounds like a lot but we had 10 inches in five hours when we lived in Texas which flooded the streets and the kids took a canoe around the high school.

There were cases where people died that were truly a tragedy but then there were the idiots that didn't listen and went out surfing or jumped in the storm surge.  Then you had other idiot thrill seekers driving around that had a tree drop on their car.  Don't even feel sorry for the people on the barrier islands who refused to leave and decided to ride it out.  Now they are without basic necessities and ferry boats have to be used to resupply them as the roads are washed out like at Cape Hatteras off North Carolina.   Then you have the stupidity of reporters standing out in the center of the storm trying to stand up as things go flying by like metal from a sign.  Someday a reporter is going to killed because of stupidity of not only the reporter but their bosses for ratings.  At least Geraldo wasn't hanging in a tree this time.

A friend of my daughter's who lives in NYC said people were buying up all the butter -- go figure.  Sounds like anything in the dairy case they went after which makes zero sense but Bloomberg whipped them into a panic and frenzy mode.

The worst part of all this hype is the next storm could really pose a problem but with all the hype this time a lot of people are going to ignore the warnings.  When is common sense going to return to the world of broadcast media especially the cable channels?  They are doing the American people a disservice by trying to out hype each other.  Report the news and let us decide instead of being told it is the storm of the century and going to devastate parts of New York City.  When it doesn't happen, residents become complacent for the next storm which could devastate an area.

This article sums it up perfectly and what many of us are hearing from others in places where storms do hit that cause massive damage with little warning like what happened to Joplin, MO, when those tornadoes dropped out the skies and devastated a city.  All parts of the Country can experience bad weather or an earthquake but it is time for the Weather Channel, Cable News, and the alphabet networks to review their coverage and act in a responsible matter to cut the hype the next time a storm hits.

Goodnight, Irene.  What a floozie

By Wesley Pruden 

Nobody cuts Barack Obama any slack, not even a hurricane. The president was ready to try anything to change the miserable trajectory of his luck. The polls were enough to ruin a week with the elites on Martha’s Vineyard. Then, on the southern horizon, a floozie named Irene, considerably bigger than a man’s hand and full of promise, swirled into view. Hope and change looked to be arriving just in time. 

The president hailed his plane and was off to Washington to take charge of the storm. He shucked his coat, threw away his tie, and sat down in his working-man’s shirtsleeves to preside over the White House command center. Irene would give him a chance to show that he’s not the incompetent nerd everyone is beginning to think he is. He would dispatch the cops, the fire trucks, the rescue squads himself. “All indications point to this being a historic hurricane,” he told the nation. He didn’t have to add, “News at 11, with great visuals.” 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg got Bronx cheers with his demand that 375,000 New Yorkers in low-lying areas leave.

He could count on the mainstream media to do the rest, pumping hysteria into the bloodstream of ol’ body politic. Correspondents would take up heroic poses. Dan Rather made his reputation describing a hurricane from the beach, bending horizontally with the wind, and traded a job in Houston for fame and fortune at CBS. Imitators have been trying to follow him in every storm since. One correspondent reported from the surf off the Maryland coast at Ocean City, even swallowing a lot of yellow foam that turned out to be raw sewage. Nobody will get downwind from him for weeks. Opportunity beckoned to all. The Rev. Pat Robertson cried that the storm, following the great Atlantic earthquake of just a few days before, was a sign that we’re “closer to the coming of the Lord.” He urged God to exile Irene to a distant sea. 

The New York Times consulted its usual astrologers and it found one to raise the possibility, sort of, that hurricanes are getting worse, and it could be, it might be, global warming’s fault. But if someone actually read the story under the headline Irene was not so much delivering change as peddling hope. “The short answer from scientists,” the account glumly concluded, “is that they are still trying to figure it out.” 

Alas, by dawn’s early light the president and his connivers in the media had figured it out. The president knew Katrina, Katrina was a distant acquaintance of his, and Irene was no Katrina. Irene was only the little girl who could have been so bad she was horrid, only she wasn’t. Bad luck continues. 

All the president could do on the morning after was to put aside his disappointment and call in someone to share the blame (or assume it all, if he could manage that). Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security and the wicked queen of airports everywhere, piped up with the observation that nobody was yet “out of the woods.” The president agreed there was still wrath to come, when all that rain started tumbling down the creeks and rivers, seeking release in the sea. But the explanations all amounted to thin soup. 

In New York, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg got only Bronx cheers with his demand that 375,000 New Yorkers in low-lying areas leave town, Gotham businessmen counted the cost of the four-day shutdown and came up with a tab in the billions. The mayor had even shut down the subways, so at least he could boast that he prevented muggings, rapes and assaults in the trains during the night. 

A marketing analyst at America’s Research Group, noting that merchants were counting on the weekend’s receipts to account for 10 percent of back-to-school shopping, called the losses “catastrophic.” Hotels and restaurants were counting on the last weekend of August for billions of dollars of revenue. No one had the numbers for how much of that should be counted against the weather, and how much against the various mongers of fear and hysteria. 

Mr. Obama and the mayor and other public officials had a duty to take Irene seriously, and all would have been derelict in duty if they hadn’t. The villains of the piece are first the prediction men, who get easily caught up in the thrill of scaring everybody, and then the television reporters who finally had a story they could understand, since it rains on everybody. But presidents and mayors should remember what happened to the little boy who cried wolf, and make sure that’s really a wolf poised at the edge of the woods. 

Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

The Truth about Obama's Bus Tour -- A Fake costing the US Taxpayers Millions

Where is the media including Fox News about all of this.  An AP reporter looks to have leaked this information but the illustrious Obama Media is silent.  The White House Reporters who travel with the President look to be part of this scam.  There is not other word for it but scam as the President rode in on the bus for for about one mile from the airport where the C-17 delivered the bus.  All on the taxpayers nickle as King Obama said it wasn't a campaign trip.  What a liar and the media goes right along with it.

This looks like another investigation by Cong Issa as they spent $2.2M on two buses for this sham and the America people got hosed because it wasn't a bus trip at all unless you count a mile at a time and then he gets back on AF One and flies to the next destination.  What was the final cost as the C-17 had to fly to buses to the destination, AF One was used to fly Obama, they paid $2.2M for two buses from Canada, and how many Secret Service vehicles were used for this trip?  It may be the most expensive 3-day trip ever by a President.

Our Obama media has shown they could care less about the truth as they kept reporting on this bus tour.  This Administration has to be the most corrupt ever and the media falls right in the same category -- corrupt who will do and say anything to keep Obama in office.  Shame on everyone who knew about this scam and didn't report.

The so called “Bus Tour” was not a bus tour at all 

August 22, 2011
This is really disgusting! The so called “Bus Tour” was not a bus tour at all! 

An AP reporter said that Obama might have ridden these expensive buses only one mile at each stop. Therefore, it wasn’t really a “BUS TOUR”! Obamaspent most of the “BUS TOUR” on an airplane traveling between stops. Itlooks like Obama has scammed the American people again........with the help of the liberal media. It’s no damn telling just how much this “show” cost the American taxpayer. 

OBAMA’S HYPOCRISY KNOWS NO BOUNDS !!! 

"Greyhound 1".... Secret Service Buys Two New $1.1 Million Buses For Three-Day Trip…
President Barack Obama (C) walks to his bus as he arrives in Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Minnesota, August 15, 2011, where he is to begin his three-day bus tour in the Midwest centering on ways to grow the economy. 

He FLYS into an airport somewhere in the midwest, hops into a brand new 1.1 Million $ bus, paid for by you and me, for a “bus tour” ‘around the midwest’, and after an hour or so, gets driven back to the airport for ANOTHER FLIGHT, lands at another airport where another 1.1 Million $ brand new black bus is waiting for him… and repeats all that until his midwest bus‘tour’ is done?? Oh yes......and THEN he leaves on a 12 day vacation to Martha's Vineyard.......to REST UP from this campaign bus tour! 

And don't forget........those brand new shiny black buses aren’t DRIVEN to the location where they meet Obama. Those buses are loaded up on one or more C-17s. Then, they are flown to the destination ahead of AirForce- AND!.......this is REPEATED FOR EVERY CAMPAIGN STOP. On this 'bus tour', the Prez will lecture the 'little people' on how they need to live within their means and cut-back! Remember when very recently Obama told that family man to GO BUY A HYBRID VAN when he said he couldn’t afford to fill up his truck???? Obama's 'carbon footprint' must be as large as most cities by now. 

All of this on the taxpayer's dime.....But remember, this is NOT a campaign trip - it is "Meet with the people" trip only! So that the DNC does NOT pay a cent for all of this.   

Source:  Live Leak

 

Governor Rick Perry Speaking to the VFW National Convention in San Antonio Early this Morning!

Mitt Romney vs. Rick Perry 2012: It's personal

In 2006, Romney was already trying to take out Perry with the help of Bush 41 and Rove.   It didn't take a genius to figure it out when Romney hired the same consultant as Rylander who was the Texas Comptroller  running as an independent against Governor Perry.  Carole Strayhorn Rylander was the Mother of the Bush 43 White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan who served from 2003 until May of 2006. Why McClellan was picked as the Press Secretary wasn't hard to figure out either with his Mother a close friend of the Bush Family.

Whenever the name Romney comes up, you can be sure that Bush 41 and Rove are not far behind.  Cannot fathom a Chairman of the Republican Governor's Association choosing a consultant who was working for an independent who was trying to take out a fellow incumbent Governor.  Romney was a bad choice for the Chairman of the RGA as we lost a lot of Governors races on his watch.

Romney poured money and consultants into Oklahoma for fellow Mormon Ernest Istook who didn't stand a chance against Governor Henry.  At a primary debate hosted here in Norman, Istook refused to answer a question that was asked saying to ask someone else first.  The best candidate to run against Henry was taken out in the primary by our State Chairman who later endorsed Romney when he ran for President in 2008.

During the 2006 Governor's race, Istook did on the job training for some young consultants from the San Diego area (La Jolla?) who were the worst I had ever seen (one of them was the Foley aide who made national news) as they knew nothing about Oklahoma.  They did know dirty tricks though.  The consultants went on to help the Romney campaign for President after Istook came close to losing by a 2-1 margin.

Romney stiffed the Oklahoma Republican Party's State Convention in 2008 after first saying he would speak and then pulling out at the last minute so no one else could come in and speak.  At his Town Halls in Oklahoma in 2006, he would only take questions from his Oklahoma staff or fellow Mormons dissing our State Chair and others who wanted to ask questions.

If he couldn't beat Sen McCain in 2008 in the primary, why is he running again because 2008 exposed a lot of his problems and now 2012 is exposing more because of the way he ran Bain Capital not to mention while Governor of Massachusetts, they were number 49 in job creation.

Mitt Romney showed as head of the RGA he was not a team player so why would people support him to President.  We need someone who is not afraid to take on the establishment instead of being from the establishment.  Romney is a non-starter in my book.  I have not been shy since 2008 saying anyone who ran in the 2008 Republican primary should not run this time and that means the whole group of them.  We need someone new to run not any retreads!

Bush 41 and Rove will say and do anything for Romney as we have been witnessing in order to take out Rick Perry who will shake things up in Government and not hire the same people who have been working in Republican Administrations starting with the Nixon years.  Hiring new people in Government is the only way we are going to get this economy turned around and put America back to work.  

Mitt Romney vs. Rick Perry 2012: It's personal
By MAGGIE HABERMAN | 8/28/11 7:08 AM EDT 

It’s the worst-kept secret of the GOP presidential primary: Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have never liked each other very much. 

And the past animosity could play out on the national scene in the coming weeks when Romney, the precarious front-runner, and Perry, who is rising in the polls, take the stage together for a series of fall debates.

The tension between the two goes back at least five years, tracing back to a 2006 blow-up when the two Republicans served together as governors. At the time, Romney, then the Republican Governors Association chairman, hired veteran media strategist Alex Castellanos to do work for the national group — a direct affront to Perry, since Castellanos was working for Carole Keeton Strayhorn, who was running as an independent against the Texas governor.

There was a big blowup” between Romney and Perry over it, said one Republican familiar with the situation. 

“It’s not like [Castellanos] was working for a Republican, he was working for an independent,” said the Texas Republican. “If that had been Rick Perry running the RGA, he’d have fired his ass and made sure he got no work anywhere. You’re trying to grow your ranks, not shrink your ranks.” 

A source close to Romney who was familiar with the event said, “I think from [Romney’s] perspective, he felt he was doing what was right for the RGA.” 

Some say the relationship never recovered. 

The following year, Perry endorsed Rudy Giuliani over Romney in the presidential race, in which Castellanos was a Romney adviser. Not only did the Texan pick the New York City mayor over his former gubernatorial colleague, he went the extra step of jabbing at Romney in a book he wrote in 2008 about the Boy Scouts, suggesting the former Massachusetts governor had excluded Scouts who had wanted to volunteer for the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City because he disagreed with a Supreme Court decision allowing the group to ban gay Scoutmasters. (Salt Lake officials reportedly denied that anyone who wanted to pitch in was turned away). 

Phil Musser, a Republican operative and former executive director of the Republican Governors Association under Romney, acknowledged the two have a history but insisted the reports of animus are being exaggerated and that their relationship has improved.

Excerpt:  Read more at Politico 

Texas governor in Oklahoma, to appear with Sen. Jim Inhofe (Indorsement)

Senator Inhofe said last week that he was going to endorse Governor Perry on Monday which will happen at a news conference this afternoon in Tulsa.  What a way to start fundraising in Oklahoma -- get an endorsement from Senator Inhofe.  There was no doubt that Jim Inhofe was going to endorse the Governor as they are on the same page with the 'junk science' of Global Warming.  

Oil and gas producers are going to step up to the plate in Oklahoma for Governor Perry as they know he is someone who will reign in the EPA and some of their regulations trying to shut down oil and gas production.  The United States needs some new refineries but the EPA rules have made that next to impossible.  What the EPA does not understand is that new refineries would be more environmentally friendly but with their rules, it is cost prohibitive to build a new refinery.  All they needed to do was work with the oil producers but no they have become the dictator on what can be done right in line with Obama's method of governing.

One bill that Governor Perry signed this June requires that any chemicals using in the fracking drilling process be disclosed to the public so that harmful chemicals will not get in the ground water supply.  The Governor is someone is believes in the United States needs to be more self sufficient with increasing domestic oil and gas production while also protecting the environment as the same time.  In this part of the Country that is known as a 'common sense.'   The tactic of the Obama Administration is put in as many regulations as possible to shut down domestic oil and gas production not work with them.

Texas governor in Oklahoma, to appear with Sen. Jim Inhofe

BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESSPublished: August 29, 2011 

TULSA — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe will join Texas Gov. Rick Perry for an announcement in Tulsa.

Perry recently announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. Inhofe said last week that he supports Perry's campaign for the GOP nomination.

The two Republicans have scheduled a news conference for 2 p.m. Monday in Tulsa. Perry also is planning to attend fundraisers in Oklahoma during the day.

Gov. Mary Fallin says she's spoken with Perry but isn't ready to endorse a candidate. Fallin told the Tulsa World that Perry telephoned her last week to tell her that he would be visiting Oklahoma.

Read more:  The Oklahoman