General Colin Powell on Meet the Press about Hagel, Racism, GOP

Yesterday as I watched this interview with General Colin Powell I was taken back to the first time I heard him speak many years ago.  He hasn't changed -- he still puts Country over Party and speaks his mind.  The Republican Party should be reaching out to more individuals like Colin Powell not calling him names or dissing him for speaking the truth.  Anyone saying that members of the Republican Party do not use racist language against minorities is not facing reality.  Some of the crap that came out of former NH Governor Sununu one Romney's co-chairs or former AK Gov Palin was so far over the top of racist remarks that it left me speechless.  

Would say the Republican Party has no place for those comments but calling people names has become a way of life with some of the hard right acting like only they can determine who is a Republican today.  The attacks on Powell after his comments were to be expected but the vitrol has been way over the top.  Today you cannot say anything against the GOP but they can say whatever they want against you.  They are going to lose big in 2014 if the hard right keeps this up as a lot of us who have supported Colin Powell for years support him now and agree with him on the State of GOP.  I even posted on Twitter that the day Colin Powell leaves the GOP is the day I follow him out the door.  

This interview from Meet the Press shows General Powell to be honest, articulate, ethical, and a man who puts Country over Party which is a way of life for him.  David Gregory on the hand hand is not even close to being like Tim Russert as a moderator and at times you had the feeling that Powell was talking way over his head and he wasn't comprehending.  I would give Powell an A+ for his interview and for telling it like it is -- great to have someone not afraid to give facts even when they know it will irritate some.  Truth has a way of winning in the end.

Well worth the time to watch/listen to this interview with Colin Powell:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Overview of General Powell's comments:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is a Republican, is lashing out at a “dark vein of intolerance” in his own party, which he says is being created by people like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu who use racial code words and “slave terms” to attack President Barack Obama. 

During a Sunday interview, NBC’s David Gregory asked Powell why he continued to consider himself a Republican after supporting Obama and taking moderate policy positions. “I think the Republican Party right now is having an identity problem, and I am still a Republican,” 

Powell explained. “In recent years, there has been a significant shift to the right and we have seen what that shift has produced: two losing presidential campaigns.” “When we see that in one more generation that the minorities of America — African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans — will be the majority of the country, you can’t go around saying, ‘We don’t want to have a solid immigration policy, we’re going to dismiss the 47 percent, we are going to make it hard for the minorities to vote,’ as they did in the last election.” 

“There is also a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party,” he continued. “They still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that? When I see [Palin] saying that the president is ‘shucking and jiving,’ that’s a racial-era slave term. When I see [Sununu] after the president’s first debate, where he didn’t do very well, says that the president was ‘lazy’ — he didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well — he said he was lazy. Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans, but to those of use who are African Americans, the second word is ‘shiftless’ and there’s a third word that goes along with it.” 

Powell went on to slam Republicans for “the whole birther movement.” “Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the party?” he wondered. “I think the party has to take a look at itself. It has to take a look at it’s responsibilities for health care, it has to take a look at immigration, it has to take a look at those less fortunate than us.”

General Powell used this interview to say what many of us who did vote for Obama and are Republican have been saying about some of the racist comments during the campaign against Obama by the Romney camp and his supporters.  They are still doing it today without regard to facts as they listen to Rush, Hannity, Beck, and Fox News who are turning into pockets of hate in the media which frankly is getting scary.  Sometimes they are dealing with irrational people who are not all there and could be set off like a match.  Is this all for making money or do they really believe what they say which is even more frightening?

President Obama was elected by over 5M more votes but you would never know it from listening to those House Republicans who still think they are in charge of everything in the Government including today talking about shutting down Government is an option.  Tell that to my mortgage company if the Civil Service Retirement check doesn't arrive.  Today's House Republicans are controlled by the hard right and it shows in votes like on Hurricane Sandy where they voted against funds but those same GOP Reps voted for funding of natural disasters in their home states.  They don't care at all about people only their bottom line and make sure they don't face a challenge in the primary.  They have no backbones and continue to put Party over Country as they bow to the likes of the Koch Brothers, Club for Growth, and other hard right.  Bunch of wimps with no backbone which I have stated before but if the shoe fits wear it.

Now there is a new group, "No Labels" which has been co-founded by Republican Mark McKinnon with help from former UT Governor Jon Huntsman and former WVA Governor and current Senate Democrat Joe Manchin who has been a proponent of putting Country over Party.  On the Morning Joe show from this morning which is posted below, Manchin showed his shock and frustration of how little the parties work together in the Senate.  Scarborough and Huntsman talked about being conservatives at one time but not today because of the shift to the hard right.  Their comments about Colin Powell are correct.  Well worth the time to see what this group "No Labels" is advocating:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From the Washington Post comes these details on the relaunched group "No Labels" with Manchin/Huntsman as co-chairs:

NEW YORK — Fiscal cliffs and debt ceiling fights are out. Problem-solving is in.
Members of Congress, governors and mayors from across the political spectrum joined more than 1,000 political activists Monday under the No Labels banner, calling for a series of reforms in Congress to address fed up voters and dysfunctional politics. Only weeks after a polarizing election and big fight in Congress over taxes and spending, they said Washington needs a new attitude. 

“There’s a huge mistrust back there. There’s a feeling that we all don’t want to do something that is constructive, the only way we’re forced to act is with these manmade crises,” said Rep. Janice Hahn, D-Calif. “That’s no way to govern the country.” 

The gathering reflected a push from lawmakers in both parties to claim the political middle as voters increasingly view government as bitter and paralyzed. It came ahead of grappling in Congress over raising the nation’s debt ceiling, which is expected to be reached in February, along with fights over delayed cuts to defense and domestic programs and the need for a new spending plan to prevent a government shutdown. 

Digging in over debt, Republicans in Congress have demanded spending cuts in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling but President Barack Obama has said he won’t negotiate, raising the possibility of another showdown. 

About a dozen members of Congress, wearing orange No Labels lapel pins, joined with West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a Republican who unsuccessfully sought his party’s presidential nomination last year, to decry a poisonous atmosphere in Washington. Organizers said they hoped to attract about 70 members of Congress from across the political spectrum to agree to meet regularly and try to work with each other. 

“The dysfunction of Congress makes our own nation dysfunctional,” said Huntsman, who was joined on stage by Manchin under an orange banner emblazoned with the words, “Problem Solvers.” Huntsman and Manchin, who worked together as governors, each heaped praise on each other in an appearance that almost looked like the makings of a presidential ticket.
Organizers said presidential politics is not in the offing here, pointing instead to a number of reforms to make government function more properly. 

Excerpt:  Read More at the Washington Post

Can you see Republicans in the House buying into these changes recommended by "No Labels" group?  I know I cannot see most of the obstructionist/stubborn GOP House Members agreeing to these five simple remedies.  Heaven forbid they have to work a five-day week!  Personally like the part of not getting paid without a budget which also affects the Democrats in the Senate.

• Require Congress to work five days a week instead of the typical late Monday-Thursday schedule
• Demand an annual address to Congress on the fiscal condition of the nation 
• Withhold congressional pay if lawmakers fail to pass a budget
• Force an up-or-down vote on presidential appointments within 90 days of a nomination
• Change to the rules for filibuster in the Senate that allow the minority party to stall the process on bills and nominations that have fewer than 60 votes.

The House GOP last year was the worst for taking lengthy vacations I have ever seen while failing to do their job.  If the Congress does not enact these reasonable changes, then it is time to vote them out in 2014 and elect some people to Congress who understand they represent all the people of their district or state not just partisans.  Have to admit that Republicans in the House/Senate have taken it to a new low.  Thought Democrats were bad over the years with one-party rule in Congress but they were novices to what we are seeing today out of a lot of Republicans in Congress who truly are bought and paid for by major donors like the Kochs and use insider information leading to their millionaire status and votes in favor of what the lobbyist who tip them off want.  

Many GOP today have no qualms of putting Party over Country so not to get primaried.  Time to send them to the unemployment line starting with the group talking about shutting down Government which means not paying the bills they rung up and putting it on the backs of the people who work or are retired from the Government along with seniors.  Send them to the unemployment line in 2014 and then stop the benefits because they are fired by the American people not laid off.

Are the Benghazi Attacks By GOP Senators McCain, Graham, and Ayotte About Getting Scott Brown Back to the Senate?

Let me start off by saying that Former UT Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman has more common sense to go with his foreign policy experience in today's world, then the Republican trio of Senators McCain (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC), and Ayotte (R-NH) put together who are ignoring the change of leadership in China as they continue to attack the UN Ambassador Susan Rice.  Why? This makes little sense until you realize that if Senator John Kerry was nominated and confirmed to be Secretary of State, then there would be an open Senate seat in Massachusetts.

Are their plans to have Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) who was defeated on Nov 6th, run for the Kerry Senate seat in a special election?  The Governor of MA can only appoint a temporary person to fill the seat until a special election is held  no fewer than 145 days, nor more than 160 days from the date of office vacancy.  With that scenario, the fog from the attacks on Rice by these three Senators is clearing.  Putting Party over Country is becoming a habit for the GOP in Congress.

Ambassador Jon Huntsman understands the leadership change in China has much more of an impact on the United States then the attacks in Benghazi.  Shame those three are ignoring the implications of new leadership in China:

For Huntsman, the debate over who massaged what talking points and when is a distraction. While not downplaying the deaths in Benghazi, he noted that there have been other foreign policy developments in the past month that have also demanded attention. 

"I heard endless chatter about Benghazi during the last several weeks and not a bit about the leadership changes in China," said Huntsman. "Now I needn't tell you which over the longer term is going to impact us as people. You've got once-per-decade leadership changes in China, whose economic and security policies will have a profound impact on the next generation of Americans."

Do I think this trio and other Republicans in the Senate would ignore what has happened in China with the change of leadership to keep attacking Susan Rice for their agenda to get Brown back in the Senate?  Absolutely!  Their attacks are so far over the top the three have become an embarrassment to the oaths they took as US Senators:

Oath of OfficeI do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. 

The three have put Party over Country which we are seeing from a lot of Republicans in Congress today which is beyond disgusting.  When it comes to foreign affairs, their continual attacks are harmful to how the United States is perceived in other countries.  Looks like the attacks on Rice are being done by these three  in order to get their way for Kerry to be named Secretary of State.  The three Senators come across as mean spirited and hateful against Rice.  The three know full well she did not write the talking points she used from the intelligence community when she went on television to explain what was known at the time about Benghazi.  When UN Ambassador Rice and the Acting CIA Chief briefed the three yesterday, that wasn't good enough for them as they are continuing to attack.

If I was Obama, I would never put anyone in my Administration in the position of talking to those three Senators ever again.  As soon as the briefing by Rice was over, the three ran to the microphone complaining about what she said.  Does Ayotte know how dumb she sounds to be parroting McCain and Graham when she is a freshman Senator?  Guess they had to have someone as Sen Lieberman (I-CT) broke with McCain and Graham to support Rice on her comments.

It has become more obvious that the three have an agenda because Senator Lieberman (I-CT) is perfectly fine with the explanations.  The logical conclusion is the three bullies are doing this for a reason, and I would still be willing to bet it is pure politics to get Senator Kerry to become Secretary of State and Scott Brown back to the Senate. More and more people are saying the same thing after yesterday.  IMO many people didn't want to think this was the case, so they didn't say much.  Yesterday's remarks by the three GOP Senators immediately after their briefing by Rice finally brought out the concept that it was all about Kerry to State and Brown back to the Senate.  Cannot believe after being gone for almost a week from this blog that Benghazi is even an issue.

Don't know what planet McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are living on, but the people of MA are not stupid.  They see what is happening by the three.  I would peg Brown being elected in a special election to the Senate as slim to none.

From reading this article about Former Governor Huntsman on Benghazi and China, I am left with the reality that I am on his side of the Republican Party with others who are fed up with what we are seeing out of Republicans today especially on foreign policy.  If McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are trying to remain relevant, it is not working as they come across as arrogant and bullies against Susan Rice.  They are doing the Republican Party no favors and making a lot of us question why we are Republicans if this is an example of how they are going to act in the next Congress.

Huntsman has nailed in this article what many of us are thinking.  He has my vote if he decides to run for President again.  Former Governor and an Ambassador to China who is not afraid to work across the aisle sounds like a great candidate.  A lot of us have woken up after the election in 2012 that the GOP has gone too hard right and needs someone like Huntsman to keep the GOP from going down the path of the Whigs.

Jon Huntsman: Benghazi, Susan Rice Criticism Overblown
Posted: 11/27/2012 1:26 pm EST Updated: 11/27/2012 2:45 pm EST

WASHINGTON -- Former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman on Monday urged lawmakers, including those in his own party, to temper their criticism of the administration's handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. 

Huntsman, who served as U.S. ambassador to China under President Barack Obama, said that it would have been nearly impossible for authorities to instantly obtain accurate intelligence about who was responsible for the September attack, which resulted in the death of four officials. Because of that, he said, recent criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for not immediately declaring the attack an act of terror was either politically motivated or misplaced. 

"The issue of Benghazi, I think you can attribute to the fog of war, more than anything else," Huntsman said in an interview with The Huffington Post. "When you're in a wartime setting and you have an attack like that -- let's face it. No one is prepared for an attack like that. There is, as Robert McNamara used to say, there is a fog of war. And it takes awhile to sort through the details. And it doesn't do a whole lot of good for the political class to point fingers before you even know what was behind it. And you're not going to know that [immediately]." 

In offering up his assessment, Huntsman became the rare Republican to downplay the boiling controversy surrounding the matter. Rice went to Capitol Hill Tuesday to discuss her post-attack talking points with aggrieved Republican lawmakers. Early reaction suggested that she ran into a proverbial buzzsaw. 

(snip) 

Since then, it has become clearer that a terrorist faction in the country, believed to be affiliated with al Qaeda, was responsible for the attack. Graham, Ayotte, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others have suggested that Rice deliberately changed her talking points for the political benefit of the president. But a steady stream of evidence has pointed to a more benign explanation: that the intelligence community was not immediately comfortable calling the attack an act of terrorism and couched its language accordingly. 

"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi," Rice said in a statement. "While we certainly wish that we had had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack, as is often the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved." 

Rice added that there was no intention to "mislead the American people at any stage in this process."

(snip) 

Speaking from his home in Washington D.C., Huntsman called this a moment of unique, historic possibilities in U.S.-China relations. The new leader of the Communist Party, Xi Jinping, has more political flexibility than his predecessor, Hu Jintao, and he comes into office at a moment of acute pressure for both economic and domestic political reform, Huntsman noted. 

Calling for regular head-of-state negotiations between the U.S. and China and a toning down of some of the political rhetoric -- "You can't just designate them a currency manipulator without reverberations recurring on the other end," he said -- the former ambassador outlined the obstacles ahead. 

The goal for the Obama administration, he argued, is "helping China understand that in being on the world stage, there are greater expectations of the role that they will play. It is helping them understand that a weapon obtained by the Iranian government would result in tremendous instability in the region that would upend their raw material supply line. Sometimes it is walking them through things they never had to consider before because they're new to the world stage."

Excerpt:  Read the comments of McCain, Graham, and Ayotte at Huffington Post

Mitt embraces the shameful 'war on religion' line of attack putting Pope John Paul II in his ad

A political ad by pseudo Republican Romney using Pope John Paul II to attack Obama on the Affordable HealthCare Act (AHA) about contraceptives is so far over the top that I believe it will upset a lot of people.  To use a deceased Pope in a blatantly partisan attack ad on the President paid for and approved by Mitt Romney leads me to question if Romney has one ounce of integrity left.  He even lies about how the AHA works as it does grant exemptions on birth control to religious institutions who don't want to use their money to pay for birth control they oppose.

This new ad with the Pope which is disgusting, deplorable, and leaves one speechless is just the latest in the Romney attack ads that are outright lies.

Romney wants Obama to pull all 'inaccurate' ads  especially the one about the steelworker whose wife died.  You know the one paid for by a Super PAC that by the rules Obama cannot coordinate with?  How dumb does Romney think the Obama camp and its seasoned campaign staff are to even listen to Mitt's attacks on Obama for an ad they had no part in putting on the air.

What Romney should be doing if he is so concerned about 'inaccurate' ads is pulling his own own welfare ad against Obama that was paid for by the Romney campaign and approved by Mitt Romney:

The Romney campaign on Tuesday released a TV ad claiming President Barack Obama "gutted" the 1996 welfare reform law, which changed welfare from a federal entitlement to a program run by states within federal rules.

"Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job," the ad said. "They just send you your welfare check." 

In July, the administration announced states could seek waivers from certain welfare rules if they had ideas for projects that would do a better job of increasing employment among welfare recipients. But states have to apply for the waivers first, and the administration has stressed it would not drop requirements for states that don't promise better work outcomes.

That is so blatantly false it leaves you speechless.  To state outright that Obama has gutted the Welfare Law because of the waivers that some Republican Governors also want is not an inference, it is an outright, bold-faced lie. Obama is trying to put people back to work and let them make a better life for themselves just like President Bush and President Clinton who supported this part of the welfare reform to have people get an education in order to get job or help them find work .  Romney even used Bill Clinton in his attacks on Obama on welfare which was dumb:

“Gov. Romney released an ad today alleging that the Obama administration had weakened the work requirements of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. That is not true,” Clinton said in a statement from his office at the Clinton Foundation released late Tuesday night.

Cannot wait for the Clinton speech at the Democrat Convention -- look for it to be extremely interesting as he does payback to Republicans who impeached him for lying under oath when we have a candidate who is the biggest liar to run for President in my lifetime. The dishonestly of this ad left me speechless until the new one also paid for by the Romney campaign came out last night.

Along comes Newt Gingrich who all day Wednesday gave a strong defense of the the Romney attack ad on welfare against Obama, but then last night had to admit the ad on welfare was false.  Newt didn't stop at admitting the ad was false as he had this to say:

"We have no proof today, but I would say to you under Obama’s ideology it is absolutely true that he would be comfortable sending a lot of people checks for doing nothing," Gingrich told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "I believe that totally."

So now Newt Gingrich can read Obama's mind.  BTW, that admission of Newt only came after the vast majority of the media and even some Republicans who still have common sense declared the welfare ad as false, pants on fire, and the max Pinocchio's.  Newt made sure even though he admitted he was wrong to get in a dig at Obama.  Totally classless.

Thought it couldn't get worse until I received a text last night that I needed to look at the new ad out by the Romney campaign that Romney approved with the note in the text "you are not going to believe" -- they were right as this totally left me speechless along with a very good friend when I told her last night.  She was so speechless that she couldn't believe it was true until she found the ad on Huffington Post.  This morning as I was looking for more information I found this article from the New York Daily News:

Romney (and the Pope?) vs. Obama's contraception mandate
Mitt embraces the shameful 'war on religion' line of attack 

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, August 9, 2012, 9:52 AM 

I guess it paid to go to Poland. This is a new Romney ad, aimed transparently at Catholics, that fully embraces the shameful line that the Obama administration "declared war on religion" by daring to require large religious employers (not churches, which were always exempt, but hospitals and the like) to provide women birth control under Obamacare. 

Back when this fight was raging, the President altered an original rule to preserve religious institutions' right to refuse to provide the coverage directly, while also protecting the ability of women to get it as part of their health insurance. Under the compromise, health plans will have to provide the benefit as part of the standard suite of preventive services they will be required to offer; the large religious employers themselves won't pay. 

The underlying issue is a legitimate policy dispute, though I side with Obama. The language in the ad is so sickeningly wrong, it's hard to believe Romney believes it. But there he is, approving the message at the end. And there he is exploiting, er, using images of a beloved former Pope to make a most manipulative appeal to Catholic voters. 

Reminder: When, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney was confronted with a similar law -- which had been signed by his predecessor -- he "didn't raise objections on religious or moral grounds, say people who worked in his administration or in health care interest groups there. Rather, he viewed the contraception requirement more in economic terms." (That's according to the Wall Street Journal.) 

Why didn't he focus on religious freedom then? Because this is an overheated charge. But never mind that and convince yourself that our President is at war with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, etc., because he wants employees to get full health benefits. It's a vile and absurd charge. (If health plans offered by the Christian Science Monitor said no blood transfusions, and government said they had to offer them to employees as part of a package of care, would that be an assault on religion? I sure don't think so.) 

This is the game Romney will keep playing: make unsupportable and hypocritical claims, claims even he does not seem to believe, through his perfect teeth. And hope just enough people buy them.

Read more: New York Daily News

There is more about Romney as Governor of Massachusetts which shows he lied during the debates about Romneycare including contraceptives and the morning after pill.  Imagine that Romney lied, but then he never takes responsibility for anything as it is always someone else's fault as he seems to consider himself 'perfect.'  Here are the facts on Romneycare as it pertains to contraceptives and the morning after pill:

Tidbit on Romneycare:

As governor, Romney greatly expanded access publicly-financed contraception through his 2006 health care reform law. The state’s Commonwealth Care, established under Romneycare, offers subsidized, low or no-cost insurance to low-income residents and provides primary and preventive care that includes “family planning services” and prescription contraceptives. In 2005, Romney also “signed a bill that could expand the number of people who get family-planning services, including the morning-after pill” and asked the Department of Health and Human Services to require Catholic hospitals to issue the morning after pill to rape victims. 

In fact, the Obamacare rule Romney is now characterizing as an affront to religious liberties is very similar to a 2002 state law he tacitly supported. Like more than two dozen states across the country, Massachusetts required insurers that provide outpatient benefits to cover hormone replacement therapy and all FDA-approved contraceptive methods — well before Obamacare became law. The Massachusetts rule exempts “an employer that is a church or qualified church-controlled organization” from the mandate, but prohibits institutions such as hospitals, universities, and nursing homes from denying their employees birth control coverage.

The bold in this article is mine to highlight some of the article which shows the hypocrisy of Romney as he panders to the religious right saying what they want to hear when he has no core values except to win this election and become President,  Even when it means he has to lie, cheat, and steal (think Ohio and what they are doing to Democrat counties or other states with voter suppression for Romney) he does it with a chuckle.

I haven't come down off the ceiling about this latest ad that includes Romney lies and uses the Pope.  Is Romney too stupid to understand that Pope John Paul II wanted universal healthcare for the world.  Romney probably thinks it is a good idea since he thought universal healthcare in England, Israel, and Poland was so wonderful with all their mandates which seems to be what he wants as his press spokesman Andrea Saul let the cat out of the bag this week which set off a firestorm in the conservative community.

What do Republican Conservatives who have been pushing Romney for President while turning into pretzels have to say today about this flawed candidate who cannot tell the truth?  How can Republicans continue to have this man as the candidate for President?  Are they that hard up for money?

If you want to vote for a Republican then vote for Gary Johnson who is now the Libertarian Candidate after the way he was treated by the RNC being pushed out of debates and left off the polling.  After all, the RNC couldn't have him, Perry, and Huntsman all on the stage who understand immigration to take away from Mr. Perfect Romney. Former Governor Johnson actually did something about runaway spending by the State Government and put New Mexico on a better path of economic solvency.  Would be the RNC wouldn't want that pointed out either.  Was it because the RNC was so broke, they needed Romney and his pal's money to run this election and have a Convention?  This inquiring mind wants to know if Romney was shoved at us with different rules for different states all for money because the RNC Chair spent so much money in Recall elections in WI and special elections elsewhere?

If you are a Common Sense Republican and can get passed all the garbage we have been fed about Obama being evil that is turning out not to be true including his returning the Churchill bust to England, then go all the way and vote for Obama for re-election.

Voting for either Johnson or Obama will show the RNC and other Republican leaders including leaders in the House and Senate that their lies about Obama and their obstructionist tactics in the House to make sure the economy didn't recover this summer didn't work along with their voter suppression in States Obama won last time that are toss-up states.  It will send a clear message that rank and file Republicans have had it and are tired of the lies and bigotry we are seeing out of the far right and their candidate Romney.  The far right hates Obama so much they swallowed the Romney koolaid filled with lies.  Shame on them for putting their hatred of Obama and minorities ahead of the Country by supporting the Mormon Romney who comes from a church who baptized holocaust victims and Anne Frank eight times.  Makes no sense to me and probably never will.

Absolutely disgusting what is happening in this election and it gets worse by the day.  Time for some grown-ups in the Republican Party, if there are any left with a spine, to tell Romney and his lies to take a hike as he is an embarrassment to the old Republican Party.

This post was brought to you by the First Amendment and my right to free speech!

Former Utah Governor Huntsman leaves the GOP Primary and Urges Unity

South Carolina's largest newspaper, The Slate,  endorsed Huntsman 19 hours ago, and today he gets out of the race to endorses Romney?  Why?  Is the purported surge for Romney not as much as the pollsters are saying or is it the fact that they are polling Democrats for the Republican primary in order to get their numbers?  Why would Huntsman who went after Romney hard now endorse him?  We have a lot of questions and no answers that make sense.

Was it Mormon Church involvement since they are both Mormon or was it the establishment types telling Huntsman if you pull out now, you can run in 2016?  Whatever the reason the endorsement of Romney is a strange move after getting that major endorsement yesterday from The Slate.  The call for unity is a joke because it means conservatives would have to turn their back on their core beliefs to support Romney whose beliefs change as fast as those of a chameleon.   

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Monday, January 16, 2012 -- 11:37 AM EST
-----
Huntsman Leaves Presidential Race With Plea for Party Unity 

Former Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. of Utah formally ended his once promising Republican presidential run with a call for party unity, asking the five candidates he leaves on the field to end their negative ads, and chastising President Obama for engaging in “class warfare.” 

Read More:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/huntsman-leaving-race-after-chat-with-romney/?emc=na

Guess we should be used to this by now in this strange primary season as we have the Republican Party embracing the LGBT group of voters trying to get them to come into the GOP.  LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered) persons have been joining the Republican Party.  Strange is all I can say.  Is this part of the Rockefeller Republican plan to oust conservatives from the Republican Party who support family values, are for 'don't ask, don't tell, and against gay marriage.  Are Conservative Republicans being shown the door by the elitist, establishment Rockefeller, liberal Republicans?  GOP is also supporting the Paulbots who have been trying to take over the states parties or have they taken them over.

More and more Conservative Republicans are asking why they are a member of a Party who has less core values by the day as witnessed by the RNC Chair, the leading candidate, and their people.  This is what you get when you elect someone  from a blue state as your Chair.  When you look at our primary, you realize that four out of the first five states went for Obama and would bet at least three of them, IA, NH, and NV, do so again.  I would put Florida in the toss-up category.  Having Romney as the nominee who is much more liberal than the majority of Republicans was not the answer to getting the grassroots support out but then maybe the RNC has now thrown the grassroots under the bus as well.

The northeast establishment Republicans with ties to Bush 41 and his group are going to discover that they can get Romney the win by having indys and Democrats register as Republicans to vote for Romney but they cannot get us to work or vote for him in the general.  The "moderate" pundits of the GOP today sold out their conservative values in order to support Romney because they say he can beat Obama but what is the contrast of the two candidates.  To most of us Romney is Obama lite in his views and in his record as Governor of MA.  How many conservatives do you know who were part of a group of liberals opposing Sam Alito for SCOTUS?  Romney was which gives insight into his appointment of more moderate judges:

As recently as 2007, Mitt Romney was a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, at the time America’s leading liberal Republican group. The RMSP is pro-abortion, pro-stem cell research, pro-gay rights, and in general, embraces a liberal position on all social issues.  They often work in conjunction with the pro-abortion group, Republicans for Choice, and the Republican homosexual group, the Log Cabin Club.  They also opposed the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and set up a 527 campaign committee that received funding from far left funder George Soros.  It’s no wonder Romney distanced himself from Reagan while campaigning for Governor when he said, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush.  I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Yet today he is trying to convince us he has changed -- thirty issues have been listed as flip flops by Romney since 2002 when he won the Massachusetts Governor's seat yet we are to believe these are now his core conservative values when he had to hire people to give his agenda a makeover in order to get Republicans to think he is a conservative now.  Give me a break -- most of us see a con artist in Romney trying to be conservative but deep down is as liberal as the day he made those comments above about becoming independent when Reagan was the nominee and now wants us to believe ten years later he is a Reagan Republican.  If conservatives were as dumb as the establishment believes we are, we wouldn't have the brains to get out of bed in the morning.

Unlike the Bain owned Clear Channel so-called conservative pundits, we are not selling out to a liberal candidate from the Republican Party no matter how they try to dress him up that he is conservative.  Records and facts speak otherwise.

We know that Obama is bad but why would Conservative Republicans support Obama Lite with Mitt Romney?  Makes no sense as we would see the same monetary policy as he is in the same back pocket of Wall Street and K Street of Obama.  We would also have a President who is not lazy like Obama -- I prefer lazy.  The big question comes is if he would use his the White House to spread the message of his Church.  Call me anything you want but this appeared on a website last night and gives food for thought:

I think the fact that Mitt is going to safely win SC is proof that our prophet is correct when he says the truth of Jesus will be heard around the world. We have tried so hard for so many years to bring the truth to the bible belt and now, in less than a year we will have the White House. God bless you SC and read the Book of Mormon and you will know the truth!

Source:  Three polls put Romney at top of SC GOP primary field | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment

It is getting crunch time and Conservative Republicans have to decide the road we take in the months ahead as the establishment seems to have this primary all sewed up.  We will see on Saturday if someone can stop Romney but in a state that encourages independents to vote in the Republican Primary we have little hope.

The establishment since the days of Reagan have been trying to get conservatives to sit down and shut up or leave the party.  They may get their wish this time as many people I know will not vote for Romney and are looking at alternatives.   The RNC should be careful what they wish for as they are responsible for all these debates moderated by liberals because they knew Romney would do well in debates not in meeting people.

Now Huntsman has joined the list of Mitt endorsers.  Still have to wonder what made him switch after a major endorsement by the SC newspaper.  Was it due to the fact the Romney camp thought Huntsman might catch fire in Florida if he did well in SC and had to be gotten out of the race before the vote in SC?  Makes sense to me but what was offered is the lingering question?

Stay tuned as the Republican primary showcases a liberal Republican while some liberal Republicans call for everyone else to get out of the race to support Romney.  After two states, candidates just need to close up shop and endorse Romney according to the establishment who run Romney's campaign along with his fellow Mormons.  Two blue states I might add are all that have voted -- one a caucus and one a primary.  Why are the Republicans even wasting money on a primary?  They could have saved money by having the RNC change the rules so they could vote for the nominee and introduce him at the Convention.  Why bother with the voters in the states -- we don't count since the race has been declared over by the media, the Republican establishment, and so-called conservative pundits.

At the end of the day what matters is we keep our core values, our integrity, and look for candidates in the Congressional races who share our values.  If a new party arises, then so be it as the establishment Republicans can then become more liberal over time while a new Conservative Party starts winning elections. We need leaders who are not going to sell out to the Abramoff's of the world, the Koch Brothers, Crossroads, Wall Street, or K Street for donations.

If you want my vote and my support, then stay a conservative with conservative values like Congress Mike Pence who is running for Governor of Indiana and who will be sorely missed in the House.  Maybe we should start a Mike Pence 2016 as he will have been Governor for four years.  He will always be one of my favorite conservatives in the House and will make an outstanding Indiana Governor.

Joe Scarborough: Who is the real RINO?

Started chuckling when I read this article by Scarborough because for the most part he said what I have been thinking and saying about the word 'RINO' which is way overused.  When a conservative who might not even be a Republican doesn't agree with a Republican office holder, out comes the term RINO (Republican in Name Only).  Think Dr. Coburn, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma, who doesn't always go along to get along (understatement) which was the reason we elected him -- go to DC and shake things up like our other Senator Jim Inhofe.  So many times I have seen third party people use that term which irritates a lot of us to no end the way it is thrown around.

We thought this was an interesting challenge, but was not surprised by the outcome for Romney and Gingrich who appear to be conservative when it suits them.  Judging from the fact that Scarborough served in the House when Gingrich was the Speaker speaks volumes about his view of Gingrich not being very conservative which matches mine.  No way Romney is conservative as he flip flops his way across the landscape of the Republican Primary trying to convince voters what he said before doesn't matter as he is now conservative.  If you believe that, I have swampland for sale in Arizona right in the middle of the desert.  The outcome for Huntsman does not match many of his statements today which are listed below the article making him moderate not a conservative.

Who is the real RINO?

By JOE SCARBOROUGH | 11/28/11 2:52 PM EST 

The insult du jour for Republican candidates this election cycle is being labeled a RINO, a Republican in Name Only. Unfortunately, the insult has been so overused lately it’s been rendered meaningless. The insult is even emptier because it is so detached from actual statements, campaign promises and voting records. 

A candidate like Newt Gingrich can get away with supporting the biggest socialist scheme in American government over the past 30 years because he says nasty things about the press and calls Barack Obama a Marxist. Jon Huntsman, on the other hand, can have a stellar conservative record as Utah’s governor, be anti-abortion and adored by the NRA. But if he refuses to spit out angry screeds against Obama, he’s dismissed as a RINO, the facts be damned. 

So as a public service to POLITICO readers, I, your humble conservative servant, have put together a “Who is the Real RINO?” test. based on voting records, candidate quotes and facts! (Shocking, I know.) 

Good luck! 

2. Who bragged about being a moderate with this comment, “There is a new synthesis evolving with the classic moderate wing of the party, where as a former Rockefeller state chairman, I’ve spent most of my life”?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

3. Who starred in a 2007 global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi that was sponsored by Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

4. Who once famously said, “I don’t line up with the NRA”?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

5. Who was paid $312,000 by ethanol interests and then said ethanol is good for national security and for the economy?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

6. Which candidate bragged about not being a Republican during the Reagan presidency and promised that if elected he would not “return to Reagan-Bush policies”?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

7. Which candidate told Planned Parenthood that he supported state funding of abortion?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

8. Which candidate has consistently supported the type of individual mandates for health insurance that conservatives are trying to overturn through court challenges to Obamacare? (Trick question: Two of three are correct answers.)
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

9. Which candidate went on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and called Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan “radical” and “right-wing social engineering”?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

10. Which candidate is the only GOP presidential contender to come out in full support of the Ryan plan?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

11. Which candidate bragged to CNN that he’s “the most seriously professorial politician since Woodrow Wilson”?

A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

12. Which candidate told Planned Parenthood that he supported the “substance” of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

13. Which candidate said of the Medicare prescription drug plan that was the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society, “Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. Obstructionist conservatives can always find reasons to vote no”?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

14. Which candidate attacked Steve Largent, Tom Coburn and other conservatives as “the Perfectionist Caucus,” while giving his last speech as speaker in support of Dick Gephardt and Dave Obey’s colossal Omnibus Bill of 1998?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

15. Which candidate was ranked by Cato Institute in 2008 one of the most fiscally conservative governors in America?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

16. Which candidate was cited by the Pew Center for running the “best-managed” state, hailed by Forbes magazine as the “most fiscally fit” and ranked first in the country for job creation?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

17. Whose economic plan does The Wall Street Journal consider the most impressive and conservative of the Republican presidential field?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

19. Which candidate was praised in a Club for Growth report for reforming health care with “no individual mandate, no employer mandate and no provision for a massive expansion of subsidized care unlike Obamacare or Romney’s plan”?
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

20. Who are the real RINOs here? (Feel free to circle two.)
A. Mitt Romney
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Jon Huntsman 

Answers: 1) A; 2) B; 3) B; 4) A; 5) B; 6) A; 7) A; 8) A and B; 9) B; 10) C; 11) B; 12) A; 13) B; 14) B; 15) C; 16) C; 17) C; 18) C; 19) C; 20) you decide. 

A guest columnist for POLITICO, Joe Scarborough hosts “Morning Joe” on MSNBC and represented Florida’s 1st Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2001.

Source:  Politico

Agree with Scarborough on two of the outcomes (Romney and Gingrich) but I also do not think that in recent years that Jon Huntsman is much of a conservative.  He also flip flopped on his support of healthcare mandates:

In 2004, Huntsman promised to reform Utah's health care system. He vowed to fix a system that had left thousands of Utah residents without health insurance, even telling the incoming executive director of Utah's Department of Health that his goal was to insure everyone. During his first term, Huntsman became smitten with Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's Health Connector plan, which included a mandate.

Huntsman and his administration went on to support a 2007 United Way of Salt Lake City plan which called for a mandate. That same year, his cabinet and others pushed draft legislation that mirrored the Massachusetts model and the United Way plan and included a mandate. When the Utah legislature balked at such a mandate, it was taken off the table. Instead, in 2008, Huntsman passed a reform bill that established a health care exchange for small businesses known as the Utah Health Exchange that left uninsured individuals unaddressed. Huntsman has denied that he ever supported a mandate.


Source: Huffington Post, "Individual Mandate" , Jun 17, 2011 

Then there are these snippets about the 'moderate' Jon Huntsman:

Jon Huntsman stands apart from the other Republican presidential candidates. He’s comparatively moderate on gay rights (he supports civil unions), evolution (he believes in it) and immigration (a border fence would be an American “embarrassment.”) 

Jon Huntsman had a strong showing in tonight’s debate if you consider it from the perspective of appeal to moderate voters. If anyone from the pack of Republicans has a chance of appealing to both moderate Republicans and Democrats, it is probably Huntsman. Of course this means he has no chance to win the Republican nomination. 

Why is Jon Huntsman running to the political middle? 

GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman is making statements that appeal to moderate Republicans. Is this a good idea during the primary season? 

Jon Huntsman is going GOP rogue - by being moderate. 

The former Utah governor and US ambassador to China has used his Twitter feed, his appearance on ABC’s Sunday political talk show “This Week,” and a profile in Vogue magazine to take shots at the rest of the GOP presidential primary field. 

That’s nothing new for the GOP primary field. What’s unique is that he’s hitting his opponents from the political middle. 

It’s telling that the Democratic National Committee blasted out a sort of “greatest hits” e-mail of Huntsman’s ABC interview to supporters, including these nuggets:

• “The minute the Republican Party becomes the party, the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people, who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012 when we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, we take a position that basically runs counter to what” many climate scientists have argued. 

 Read More at:  CS Monitor

There you have a few examples of the 'moderate' Jon Huntsman who seems to be honest about where he stands today in his wanting to attract moderate Republicans (establishment) and Democrats disenchanted with Obama.  The question is this honesty or a ploy as is he running to the middle to set himself apart from the other candidates?  The jury is still out on that question. 

We are BACK with the Latest!

Took the week off with Family visiting for Thanksgiving. Now ready to start bringing you snippets of the latest on what is happening in the political world:

 Received great news today that Joe Allbaugh, the political guru from Oklahoma, is going to be the new Campaign Manager for Governor Perry. Cannot think of a better person than Allbaugh who also helped put the Bush 43 campaign together. He is the best. IMHO he beats Rove by a mile -- now Rove has a real opponent in Allbaugh if he continues to want to tank Perry for Romney.

Herman Cain has another woman accusing him -- this time about a 13-year affair.  Word is out that he is considering leaving the race if his wife wants him to do that.  Wouldn't want to be in his home with this latest coming out.  His wife should take him to the cleaners after he had her give a press interview.  For the first time  Republicans are beginning to call for him to leave the race except for Morris of Fox News who thinks he should stay.  Better for Romney if he does as he is taking Romney and his lack of being conservative off the front page.

Former Senator Rick Santorum blasts Gingrich abortion stance as 'inconsistent' which is no shock.  Gingrich already traveled the country with Pelosi on Global Warming and worked with Hillary on Universal Healthcare plus has made millions off of being a lobbyist so not being that conservative on social issues would go along with his arrogance in thinking he can fool conservatives.  He sure didn't fool Santorum or a lot of us who know Gingrich core values on many issues are lacking.

Poll:  Gingrich would pick up Cain Supporters makes sense.  Both men, Cain and Gingrich, have had affairs and their core values are suspect.  That must be the part of the Republican Party who sees nothing wrong with the fact that Gingrich was having an affair at the same time he was going after Clinton on Monicagate and had to resign as Speaker.  As some conservatives like to say, "Clinton lied under oath and Newt didn't," but you can put me in the category of not going to vote for someone who had an affair on wife #1 when she had cancer and wife #2 when he was Speaker of the House which makes him not fit to be President IMHO.  We had a womanizer in Clinton and don't need another one.

Huntsman hits Romney as status quo candidate, in pocket of Wall Street -- finally something I agree with Huntsman -- he nails Romney in this article.  Most of the campaign donations for Romney that don't come from Mormon businessmen and individuals is coming from Wall Street.  Reminder if you hold a state office, the most you can take from the financial sector is $300 but if you are a federal office holder or a private citizen, you can take the full amount -- Romney is taking full advantage.  This person does not want someone as President who is in the back pocket of Wall Street as we already have one in the White House.

Sen. Pat Toomey says Dems torpedoed debt panel to protect Obama excerpt: Supercommittee member Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) accused Democrats on Monday of torpedoing the deficit supercommittee because a success would have “stepped on” President Obama’s campaign narrative.  Speaking Monday on CNBC’s "Squawk Box," Toomey said there’s “something to” suggestions that Democrats had an incentive to see the supercommittee fail.  “That goes to the asymmetry of the incentives and I think there was something to that,” Toomey said. “The president’s fundamental campaign message was to run against Congress — never mind the fact that half of Congress is controlled by the Democrats, but that’s his purpose, and certainly an agreement in this committee would have stepped on that narrative for the president.”   That is one bet that I would taken -- Democrats would negotiate in bad faith to protect Obama.  That is why the Super Committee was doomed to failure from the beginning.  Now what happens to the Defense Department?  Stay tuned to see if they can work out a deal on that -- wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an agreement. We cannot forget that Climate Gate blew up big time in the last week: Climategate–The Political Scam, Investment Fraud, and Science Scandal of The Century Exposed–The Progressive Radical Socialist’s Big Lie And Con That Man Is The Cause Of Global Warming Was In Fact Nothing More Than Politicians, Investment Bankers, and Government Scientists Creating Climate Crisis! This had to put a smile on Senator Inhofe's (R-OK) face as once again he is being proved right that Global Warming is junk science.  Hats off to the Senator for his willingness to take a stand against the Global Warming crowd and not waiver.  In the end, Inhofe is standing tall, and the Global Warming crowd led by Al Gore have been shown to be nothing more than a scam.  Gotta love it that Senator Inhofe was right all along but we are not expecting members of the media to acknowledge how right he has been.

Wanted to post a snippet of a few happenings over the last week -- hope you and yours had a Happy Thanksgiving and survived Black Friday if you chose to go shopping or cold, rainy college football games on Saturday.  The temps were not that cold (low 50's) at Owen Field here in Norman for the Sooners game but that wind was brutal which was swirling around the field sometimes at 30+ mph along with an occasional snow flurry and really cold drizzle.  Took some time to warm up after the game!  Watching several pro games saw the same kind of weather on Sunday -- miserable!

Morning Examiner: Perry is the frontrunner by far

On June 4th, 2011, Romney reasserts his belief that humans have contributed to global warming   Today this gem comes out that he has flipped and now makes the environmentalists mad at him.  Anyone with a brain knows he flipped because of the traction that Rick Perry is getting in the polling. Romney is another one of the stick a finger in the wind to see which way it is blowing:

Mitt Romney Flops On Global Warming 

The Green Man 8/25/2011 

Two months ago, Mitt Romney said of global warming, “I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that… and so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases.”But then, right wing activists got upset with Romney for expressing the scientific consensus on global warming. They wanted Romney to get ideological on the issue, regardless of matter what scientific research indicated. 

So, today, Mitt Romney caved in. He flopped. He flipped. He said, “Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is. I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans. What I’m not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don’t know the answer to.”

So, Mitt Romney once said that global warming is caused by humans. Then the right wing radicals asked him to change his mind. Now he says he’s not sure about that. 

Once Mitt Romney said that he supported reducing greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Then the right wing radicals asked him to change his mind. Now Romney says that he doesn’t want to spend to reduce greenhouse gases. 

Given this change, it’s extremely clear where Mitt Romney stands on environmental issues: Wherever the anti-science fringe of the Republican Party tells him to stand.

Maybe this writer should go join the Huntsman for President campaign since Romney disappointed him with his flip flop.  What is it with MA politicians and their flip flopping on issues they were for before they are against?  Do they honestly think that we won't notice?

Nice to know that Senator Inhofe and Governor Perry are right wing radicals because that makes me as well as I fully support the two on their stance on Global Warming and believe Romney is flip flopping to try and get closer to conservative thinking but that's not going to work.  We heard loud and clear what he had to say two months ago.

As some of us have been saying all along, we didn't want anyone in the race for 2012 that ran against McCain in 2008 in the primary starting with Romney.  Except for Ron Paul the rest have been smart enough not to run.  What makes Romney think we have changed our minds about him in four years.  In fact, I like his agenda less today than I did in 2008.

Don't want an east coast elitists in the White House period no matter the party who is tied to Wall Street.  That goes even more for Huntsman who likes Obama better than Republicans.  From This Week

On This Week, during a discussion of presidential politics, the candidacy of Jon Huntsman was briefly mentioned and conservative commentator George Will did not seem too impressed. 

Despite Chrystia Freeland hyping Huntsman as the “darling of elites” and as someone who “talks in complete sentences,” Will cautioned anyone against getting too excited. 

Will described Huntsman as someone who was attempting to emulate Ronald Reagan, but apparently didn’t understand politics like him: 

“In almost every cycle there’s a Republican who appeals to people who don’t really very much like Republicans . . . Mr. Huntsman’s announcement that he would take the high road had a whiff of moral arrogance about it and we will see. He said ‘I’m not going to run down my opponent.’ He stood where Ronald Reagan stood. And when Ronald Reagan stood there in 1980 he said this about his opponent, Jimmy Carter, ‘A litany of despair of broken promises of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten.’ That’s politics."

Until Governor Perry announced he was running, there seemed to be little energy in the campaign and most people I know were hoping for a game changer with a ton of experience and a personality to get everyone excited.  Less than two weeks ago, Governor Perry announced he was running for office excitement took over the Republican primary as we had a candidate who was not afraid to stand up and say what he means.  He has never been one to stick a finger in the wind to see which way it is blowing.  (understatement)

Cracked up laughing when I saw the headline last night 'Obama team to Texas Democrats: It’s time to start attacking Rick Perry.'  Note to White House:  Texas Democrats have been attacking Governor Perry since his first race as a Republican for Ag Commissioner when he beat Hightower.  They have thrown anything they thought would stick whether true or not and now the Obama people want Texas Dems to do what they have been doing almost on a daily basis for years?  They don't understand Texans:

What started out as an ad campaign slogan for litter was picked up by many Texans telling others not to Mess with Texas.  The Obama White House hoping to score points with Texas Democrats going after Perry is laughable and will only rile up Republicans, Independents, and conservative Dems to support him more.  Does Obama still think he can win Texas?  I was shocked when Obama said he thought he could win Texas.  There are not enough Civil War Veteran votes to put him over the top before Perry got in the race.  With Governor Perry now having announced, no way does Obama even come close.

Morning Examiner: Perry is the frontrunner by far 

By Conn Carroll 

August 25, 2011

There is no question about it. Less than two full weeks after he announced he was in the race, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has solidly established himself as the frontrunner. 

In the month prior to his announcement, Perry trailed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the polls by an average of seven points, 21 percent to 14 percent. But since he got into the race August 13th, three polls have been conducted and all three have Perry up by double-digits over Romney. 

Gallup‘s poll, taken August 17th through the 21st, has Perry up 12 points over Romney, 29-17 percent. A Rasmussen poll conducted August 15th has Perry up 11 points, 29-18 percent. And a August 18th through the 21st Public Policy Polling poll has Perry up by 13 points, 33-20 percent. 

The Gallup poll, released yesterday, is full of more bad news for Romney. Perry beats him in every Republican subgroup except for “East” and “Liberal/Moderate.” Worse, as The New York Times Nate Silver notes, Perry’s numbers have a much better potential for growth. Only two-thirds of Republican voters currently recognize Perry’s name compared to 86 percent for Romney. That means 4 in 10 Republicans who have heard of Perry already have him as their first choice. That is double the fraction for Romney. 

There have not been as many post-announcement polls done at the state level, but Perry has rocketed to first place in PPP’s latest Iowa poll. Despite skipping the Ames Straw Poll, Perry tops Romney 22 to 19 percent with Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., in third at 18 percent. 

According to GOP rules, the first four primary contests are Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Romney better hope his lead in New Hampshire holds or this could end up being a really short race.

Note:  There is a state missing --  first four primary contests are Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.  If the 4th run is Michigan, what a joke.   Turns out it is Nevada not Michigan which brings up the question why unless it is because it is a Western state.

Multiple states, including Arizona, Florida and Michigan, are threatening to hold early primaries in violation of party rules that protect Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina as the first four nominating states. No state other than the first four is allowed to have a caucus or primary contest prior to March 6, 2012. 

Cain was beating Romney in Nevada last month which is interesting that Romney is not winning Nevada.  Now we will see where Perry stacks up in Nevada as we would expect him to do well.

How about a Perry/Cain ticket -- long time Governor with a successful businessman.  We might as well start throwing out VP candidates since everyone else seems to be part of that game.  Herman Cain is a natural born citizen which makes him eligible to be President according to the Constitution.  This site will not ignore the reality of natural born like some sites have been doing.  Rick Perry and the former head of Godfather Pizza -- interesting dynamic.