I was just about to post that very article, it is on my clipboard. THere is a lot of truth to this.
Yes, but I don't think there'll be enough like you to prop him up. He generated excitement last time around. That drew a lot of people in. He's lost that, and i don't think he'll be able to get that back.
Combine that with the effect of the down economy, and I think he'll be in trouble.
Now the Republicans can still screw it up. But they have a huge opportunity not to.
Originally Posted by hbcat
Who do you see as having enough Tea Party appeal to win the nomination, while being moderate enough to swing the indies? Certainly not Perry.
The problem with the GOP is that the ideology of its core base is just slightly to the right of Attila The Hun. Accommodating the base will get someone the nomination, but will disadvantage their chances for the General Election.
Last edited by eddhead; September 2nd, 2011 at 11:50 AM.
If you get out of the big metro areas, Perry seems much more mainstream. And, remember, the electoral college biases the decison against the big states. Bush won twice (well one was really a tie), once without the majority of the popular vote, without a number of the big liberal states.
And, also, elections are usually decided on the economy. That's not looking like it'll be doing so well for Obama.
Texas Blacks advise looking at the real Rick Perry
Written by Fcadmin | 05 September 2011
By Talibah Chikwendu, Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Afro American Newspapers
- Recently joining the race for the 2012 Republican nomination for president is Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Perry, in his third and final term at the helm of the state, has rapidly moved to the front of still fluctuating field of candidates.[/h]
Perry's standard line is that he can do for the nation what he has done for Texas, which he says is create jobs, maintain public education and balance the budget without raising taxes. But the numbers, and Black residents of the state, tell a different story.
"I just want America to wake up and look at the true picture," said Karen Hasan, a postal service supervisor and Texas resident for 32 years. "He's [Rick Perry] talking out both sides of his neck."
Residents speaking to the AFRO about Gov. Perry were largely in agreement, citing unemployment, substandard jobs and a failing public education system among the governor's biggest shortcomings. "I haven't seen him try to create any jobs for people or anything," said Texas native Regina Holley, 53. "I don't think he's done anything that's worked out well for Texas."
Charles Dorsey, 62 and a Texan for 35 years, said many of the jobs being created don't even pay minimum wage, adding, "Texas has the lowest average hourly income of any state in the United States other than Mississippi. I think people need to understand the type of jobs being created."
Along with the unemployment and jobs situation in the state, native Texan Ronni Bowman, third year student at the Thurgood Marshall School of Law, referenced the large number of residents without health insurance.
Saying that he panders to special interests, Melanie Spratt-Anderson, the first Black and three-term Upton County attorney, said Perry's only interest in health care came in the form of a 2007 executive order to inoculate girls, by the sixth grade, with Merck's Gardasil while at the same time refusing to sign legislation to renew the Children's Health Insurance Program. The state legislature was able to stop this action and Perry's connections to Merck were under scrutiny. She said, "Anybody that has enough money to contribute to him, will get what they pay for."
Dorsey questioned Perry's transparency. "Unfortunately, the people of Texas cannot even get his calendar for last month or months before. ... One of the things that really bothers me is that the guy is so secretive about what he's doing that every seven days all of his emails are purged. So people don't really know what he is doing and what he has done."
Dorsey also called Perry "one of the biggest phonies I have ever seen," with George Powell, a 15 year Texas resident, adding, "He has a reputation for being all fluff. Everything is ceremonial."
Which probably explains why each one dismissed Perry's Houston day of prayer and fasting. Powell said, "Clearly it was just to jumpstart his campaign." Hasan added, "I think it's a ploy to get more votes."
Saying that Texas politicians pander to conservative Christians, Spratt-Anderson added, "It was purely to get the votes. I wish Christians would stop falling for that."
"That's why I'm saying he's a phony," said Dorsey. "Up until recently, Rick Perry has not been a very religious person. In fact, if you ask his church, he's only tithed like $98 for the whole year. But now, all of a sudden, he's become this religious person, [saying] that we can pray everything away.
"Unfortunately if people fall for this, we're in a world of trouble."
No one recommended Perry as a candidate to look at when voting for president. "I think we'd be looking at another George Bush," said Spratt Anderson. "... I don't think it would be good."
Powell concurred, saying that while Perry is probably the best in the Republican field right now, all that really means is that he is just the least objectionable of a lot of really bad choices. Holley said, "He'd just bring more destruction to the people of the United States."
"The country is in trouble and needs someone with the ability to get us out reasonably," said Dorsey. "I want people to really look at the true Rick Perry. Because if they did, they would never vote for him."
Last Updated ( Monday, 05 September 2011 06:37 )
http://www.flcourier.com/flnation/61...al-rick-perry-
I'll stand by my assessment of Ron Paul from an earlier post assessing the GOP candidates.
If the election were held based on the number of and enthusiam of internet posts, college students, and straw poll voters, Ron Paul would be nominated (and lose to Obama). If the election is based on actual registered voters casting votes at real ballot boxes, Ron Paul is unelectable. If not winning a single primary = being the GOP nominee, I guess Ron Paul will be it!
Interesting article. However, how many GOP primary voters read this paper? Or would give it much credance if they did?
Well, that didn't take long. Bachmann has lost most of her Tea Bag support, and has plummeted out of the race. Her campaign reorganization is just blah-blah. We didn't even have to wait for the Marcus Factor.
Perry is now the Tea Bag candidate.
Romney is the Anti Tea Bag candidate.
Now there's a choice for you!
Obama's deficit proposal marks a move away from compromise
By calling for a millionaire's tax and threatening to veto any bill that doesn't address revenue as well as spending,
Obama tacitly admits than his push for a 'grand bargain' with the GOP failed.
President Obama walks from the White House Rose Garden after discussing his plan to cut the deficit.
(Jason Reed, Reuters / September 20, 2011)
By Peter Nicholas and Lisa Mascaro, Washington Bureau
September 19, 2011, 7:54 p.m.
Reporting from Washington—
Over the summer President Obama pushed a "grand bargain" that called on Republicans and Democrats to forge a compromise: Each would agree to painful sacrifices that would slash the nation's deficit and shore up the social safety net for decades.
The approach failed to achieve a deal, angered many Democrats and coincided with a steady drop in Obama's prospects for reelection.
In releasing a new deficit-cutting plan Monday, Obama displayed a striking change in course. His shift in both substance and rhetoric amounted to a tacit admission that the strategy he had pursued from April through August had failed.
Gone was the effort to strike a deal with Republicans. Gone were the summertime proposals to consider raising the eligibility age for Medicare or to change the cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security. Gone too was the conciliatory language about finding common ground and challenging the orthodoxies of both parties.
In their place was a firm veto threat, changes in Medicare that would largely protect beneficiaries, a demand for higher taxes from the wealthy and a catchy slogan, the "Buffett rule," designed to convey Obama's belief that people earning more than $1 million a year should not be able to pay a lower tax rate than middle-income households.
"It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million," Obama said. "Anybody who says we can't change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out. They should have to defend that unfairness."
The country faces a choice — higher taxes on the wealthy or deep, painful spending cuts, he declared.
"This is not class warfare. It's math," Obama said.
Even late last week, the degree to which the White House would shift course remained unclear. Administration officials were still weighing possible cuts in Medicare benefits when they held a closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats, who argued strongly against that — a message the White House apparently took to heart.
The 90-minute session went a long way toward shoring up Obama's support from his allies on Capitol Hill even if they disagree with specific aspects of his proposals, as several key Democrats certainly will.
Republicans, meanwhile, rejected Obama's proposals just minutes after he rolled out his plan in a Rose Garden speech.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said, "Pitting one group of Americans against another is not leadership."
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the chamber's Republican leader, dismissed the proposal as a "massive tax hike, phantom savings."
But those Republican rejections may not trouble the White House because Obama's new proposal was designed less as a solution to the deficit problem than as a political argument to put before voters. It frames what the president's advisors hope will be a stark choice for Americans: a Democratic Party that seeks a mix of tax increases and spending cuts to pare the deficit versus a GOP that has ruled out tax increases of any sort, even on millionaires.
"The president put down a marker today, and he did it more forcefully than we have seen before," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters after Obama's speech, reflecting the Democratic hope. "It makes the Republican position almost indefensible."
Despite his sagging position in the polls, Obama and his aides have some reason to believe their new approach could work. Most Americans tell pollsters they believe that those earning more than $250,000 a year should pay higher taxes to reduce the deficit. And a solid majority support the president's call for ending the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest families which, Obama reiterated on Monday, were supposed to be temporary tax breaks.
"If Republicans want to go in a different direction from where the American people are, that is to their own political detriment," said Bill Burton, a former White House aide and cofounder of the super-PAC Priorities USA Action.
Obama's plan also could galvanize a Democratic Party that has been demoralized. A Bloomberg poll this month showed that 44% of Obama's supporters like him as much as ever, but 48% said they either no longer supported him or their enthusiasm had dissipated.
Democrats, some of whom were distancing themselves from Obama as recently as last week, rushed to compliment him Monday, with statements of support also coming from groups on the left that had been critical.
MoveOn.org, for example, will air a 30-second TV ad this week touting the Buffett rule, named for billionaire tax code critic and Obama supporter Warren Buffett. The spot urges people to call Congress and urge them to "raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires so all Americans pay their fair share."
On Monday, Obama appeared ready for a showdown with Republicans, vowing to veto any bill that cuts entitlement programs without also including revenue increases. "We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable," he said.
The president's deficit proposal now goes to the congressional "super committee," a group of six Democrats and six Republicans charged with cutting at least $1.5 trillion from federal deficits over the next 10 years. If the committee fails to come up with a proposal to send to Congress by Nov. 23, it will trigger automatic cuts to take effect in 2013, split between military and nonmilitary spending.
Now that Obama has released his deficit proposal, he will quickly return to pushing the legislation that addresses the deepest of voter concerns: jobs. Obama's reelection hinges more on the unemployment rate, currently at 9.1% nationally, than it does on debt levels.
Even as he unveiled his much-anticipated deficit reduction proposal, the president worked in a plug for his $447-billion jobs package, intended to boost hiring through a mix of federal spending to rebuild roads, bridges and schools; tax cuts for employers and consumers; and tax increases on the affluent.
"I'm ready to sign a bill," he said. "I've got the pens all ready."
peter.nicholas@latimes.com
lisa.mascaro@latimes.com
Noam N. Levey in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,791120.story
Now if only he can hold his guns...
Actually, it is not the RATE that is important, but rather the actual $ collected.In their place was a firm veto threat, changes in Medicare that would largely protect beneficiaries, a demand for higher taxes from the wealthy and a catchy slogan, the "Buffett rule," designed to convey Obama's belief that people earning more than $1 million a year should not be able to pay a lower tax rate than middle-income households.
I believe the "Buffet" rule was in response to a comment by Warren that he PAYS LESS TAXES than his secretary.
PERIOD.
Not rates, not any other language to hide the sheer fact that since he is being taxed on his earnings from stock and other dividends that his net tax cost was less than one of his higher paid, but significantly poorer, employees.
Forbes response to this being "Well, huh huh, look at the 70's!!! huh huh....". His point, semi valid, was that if there was more of an expense and a risk to investing, we would not see so much of it and our economy would stagnate.
Missing from the interview were questions about the government bailout of other "investments" that had gone sour, or the fact that there is a gross imbalance now between earned dollars and actual taxes paid that could easily be shifted into a more evenly weighted means of government funding. The problem being that everybody will naturally decry the loss of a dollar and shift to make it so it does not happen.
Whatever.
We need to encourage private investment and development, but we have already seen that our companies are more interested in the bottom line. if we want a true balance, we have to start looking for a way to make it so our own strength stops bleeding across our borders through our "own" companies.
RE: the effect raising taxes on the CEO class has on 'Job Creation'
I fail to understand how JPMorgan's hiring practices are influenced by Jaime Dimon's personal income tax rate.
Well, if that billionaire had to pay an extra million a year in taxes, he would not invest in companies like Exxon and Apple, therefore ruining the economy and stifling job creation!!!
Don't you know, if rich people are charged more, even if that comes to the same % as those above the poverty line, they crawl up inside their shells and never come out!!!
Seriously though, I think Forbes DOES have some good ideas about simplifying the tax code, but the way he defends the current dividend tax rates.... When, on average, these earn more than salaries/wages do, and that only those WITH substantial capital have a chance at earning MORE, it is a rather bizarre subject to hoist a banner behind.
What Obama Should Really Do To Spur Job Growth
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspe...-job-creation/
infotechsailor 1 week ago
hope this was recorded for youtube… schiff’s insights are byfar the most valuable and realistic advice that the congressmen will hear. unfortunately, they are also the least beneficial personally for either the congressmen or their wall street donors, and thus, least likely to be heeded.
nevertheless, Schiff’s austrian school economics will gain in popularity for the simple fact that they describe the reality of economics, versus the voodoo practices of today’s keynesian’s in the white house, wall street, and our nation’s universities.
Hey, Rick Perry just lost the Florida Straw Poll to Herman Cain! He got about the same amount of votes as Romney, who was officially not participating, although the party put his name on the ballot anyway.
His folks will try to spin this as not being a setback, but it is really embarrassing, since just yesterday Perry himself was talking about how big a deal Florida was to him.
http://news.yahoo.com/rick-perry-hop...181609435.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks