U.S. 2012 Election

[OldSolduer]

He got voted in by blacks (most who have never voted), welfare people and a bunch of white idealist suburbanites that swallowed his 'Hope and Change' bullshit.

He's been able to deliver on nothing. He's got near both Houses in revolt. The country is bankrupt. He is closing in on 'Executive Orders' to ensure the populace follows his edict.

He has accomplished in one term, what took Trudeau almost forty years to accomplish here, before the sanity of of the CPC found it's way into the collective psyche of the Canadian public.

Let's not forget who crowned him....Oprah Winfrey. The Queen of TV (and we all know its all about Oprah) told her viewership that Obama was the only choice.

 

[toyotatundra]

He got voted in by blacks (most who have never voted)

Untrue. Blacks have usually voted in significant numbers in presidential races. Black turnout increased somewhat in 2008.

http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/no-gap-in-racial-turnout-in-2008-elections-youth-gap-narrowing/

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Untrue. Blacks have usually voted in significant numbers in presidential races. Black turnout increased somewhat in 2008.

http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/no-gap-in-racial-turnout-in-2008-elections-youth-gap-narrowing/

So what you're saying is the black vote increased last election. Glad we can agree :

And no, sorry, I didn't read your reference.

 

[a_majoor]

Steering in a slightly different direction, the Democrat candidate for the 2012 election is just as unknown and unknowable as in the 2008 contest:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/07/13/the-opacity-of-hope/?print=1

The Opacity Of Hope
Posted By Richard Fernandez On July 13, 2011 @ 10:50 pm In Uncategorized | 79 Comments

Angelo de Codevilla’s [1] review of six accounts of Barack Obama’s life at the Claremont Review of Books ends in the conclusion that Obama was always something other than what he portrayed himself to be. What that is, in Codevilla’s summary, is this:

In sum, Barack Obama grew intertwined with the narrow, self-referential left side of the American Left. They helped one another believe they had come up the hard way, as underprivileged but brilliant, square-jawed tribunes of the common man. Their common problem, however, is that their agendas are antagonistic to people unlike themselves, and that they cannot keep from showing their contempt for the common folk in whose name they would ride to power.

Since the days of Karl Marx’s First International a century and a half ago, this very human opposition between socialist theory (egalitarianism) and socialist reality (oligarchic oppression) has bedeviled the Left. Marx laid the problem bare in his “Critique of the Gotha Program” (1875). Lenin dealt with it honestly and brutally in What Is to Be Done? (1902)—the foundational document of Communism. By acknowledging that the Communist Party is not the common people’s representative, but rather its “vanguard,” Leninists were comfortable with a party responsible only to itself and to history, a party that openly demanded deference from the humans whose habits it forcibly reshaped. Communism’s undeniable horrors forced the New Left to disassociate itself from What Is to Be Done? and once again to pretend that its socialism was neither oligarchic nor coercive, that somehow it was on the side of ordinary folks. This is a much tougher sell in the 21st century than it was in the 19th. Contemporary socialists try to explain away the common man’s suspicion of them as harbingers of oligarchy, corruption, and coercion by resorting to jargon (e.g., “false consciousness” and “socio-economic anxiety”). But that is ever less convincing. This is why the movement argues so strenuously with itself about whether and how much it should dissimulate its agenda.

Which is one reason why it plays the “race card” and seizes on recruits like Barack Obama: because many black Americans’ ancestors were slaves, must not any black American be, ipso facto, unquestionably, a member and true representative of the downtrodden? And if a skeptic should argue that this or that black man is really a representative of old, white, nasty socialism, of the Corporate State, of upscale parasites who prey on working people, it is easy enough to re-focus the argument on the skeptic’s “racism.” If blacks inclined to play this role did not exist, the Socialist movement would have every incentive to invent them. And in a sense it tries to invent them, through the “black studies” programs that now divert so many young Americans from useful lives into partisan service.

Obama is as close as one could imagine to a made-to-order front man for contemporary, upscale, shy-about-itself, nouveau socialism. From his earliest age, he shaped his dreams about himself to act out a character wholly fictitious, namely a black American from a humble background who rose up out of brilliance and merit, and who yearns to draw all of America’s low-born (plus the rest of mankind) up through the same paths. But he is none of that. Equally imaginary is his vaunted understanding of and sympathy for foreign cultures. A typical multiculturalist, Obama speaks no language other than a peculiar version of English. His native language, loves, and hates are common to some of the most leftist elements of the current American ruling class.

That class knows about America only that it must be changed, and looks at the vast majority of Americans the way carpenters look at warped pieces of lumber. Barack Obama is neither more nor less than its product and agent.

There is much else in the reviewed books that Codevilla weighs, puts aside skeptically, or takes with a grain of salt. For example, there are the accounts that neither his father, mother, nor his maternal family nor even his Indonesian stepfather were just plain folks. It seems likely they were distinctly political animals with powerful beliefs and vaulting ambitions. There is the suggestion that they moved on the fringes of a CIA faction that “considered themselves family members of the domestic and international Left. They believed that America’s competition with Soviet Communism was to be waged by, for, and among the Left.”

Codevilla makes his arguments and one may believe them or not. But what is not in dispute is that Barack Obama is the least known quantity in the modern American presidency. He said of himself in his own book, or what is said to be his own book, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” Certainly his biographies show him as something very different from the image he portrayed on the hustings. Codevilla argues that far from being a hardscrabble black man made good, Obama is the product of an elite system of formation.

What the nature of that formation was is open to debate. Its elusiveness is indirect proof of the shortcomings of the gatekeeping system. Whether one cares for President Obama’s character or politics is a matter of political choice. But the choices should be as clear as the lettering in packages that we buy. That the nature of his politics and character should, in his third year of office, still be shrouded in ambiguity and remain in an unreadable script suggests a failure in the political and journalistic system to tell the public what was inside the box.

For surely the public had a right to know. Yet the same line of reasoning can also be marshalled to argue that the absence of narrative means there is no malignant narrative. “No Label” can simply mean too good to characterize. The opacity of Barack Obama might mean there is no conspiratorial pattern present; and what people take to be guile is but complexity. In that view Obama is merely the blank screen on which his opponents project their own bigotry.

But that is too facile an answer. It is also an example of what is sometimes called an “argument from ignorance”; the assertion that something must be good because it cannot readily be proven to be bad. It is logically sounder to assert that the more we know about the president the better off we are, because an argument from knowledge is always better than an argument from ignorance.  Yet there are some who would disagree that knowledge is our due. There is the view that a lot of knowledge, not just a little, is supremely dangerous. Only by turning our eyes aside from knowledge can we act. It is the frightful sight of the abyss that we must hide from sight  to nerve ourselves to scale the mountains.

W.H. Murray, a Scottish mountaineer [2], is famous for a remark he made about inner decisions; a remark that many Leftists would intuitively recognize. Describing his Himalayan expedition of 1951, Murray wrote that the expedition’s key act was to step into the unknown:

but when I said that nothing had been done I erred in one important matter. We had definitely committed ourselves and were halfway out of our ruts. We had put down our passage money— booked a sailing to Bombay. This may sound too simple, but is great in consequence. Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way. I learned a deep respect for one of Goethe’s couplets:

Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it!

And in that light some may think it best not to know who or what Barack Obama is; at least not in comparison to what they imagine him to be, lest to know too much extinguish hope, not simply in the man, but in the Dream.

“No Way In” print and Kindle edition at Amazon [3]
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5 [4]

Article printed from Belmont Club: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/07/13/the-opacity-of-hope/

URLs in this post:

[1] Angelo de Codevilla’s: http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1852/article_detail.asp
[2] W.H. Murray, a Scottish mountaineer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._H._Murray
[3] “No Way In” print and Kindle edition at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1453892818/wwwfallbackbe-20
[4] Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5: http://wretchard.com/tipjar.html

And the disconect between socialist theory and practice is certainly going to be a huge (if unremarked) current in the campaign; the rhetoric of "Hope and Change" vs the practical results since 2008 that Americans are experiencing in their day to day lives.

 

[a_majoor]

The TEA Party movement continues to groow and evolve. look at the highlighted quote and think about the implications of that:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/19/whither-the-tea-party#

Whither the Tea Party?

By Ned Ryun from the July/August 2011 issue

Following the Tax Day tea party rallies this past April, people began wondering if the Tea Party movement had peaked: the number of rallies was down, and the crowd sizes were in many places a fraction of what they’d been in 2009. Of course, since April 16, 2009, the left has been predicting the demise of the Tea Party movement, more believing its own press clippings than the actual reality of what was, and is, taking place. Almost as much as the left, establishment Republicans have also been wondering when the “crazies with pitchforks” will go away and let them return to the status quo of capitulating to the latest Democrat bill in between finding very little to cut from bloated government budgets.

So I asked Tea Party leaders from various parts of the country to share their thoughts about the current state of the Tea Party movement. Jason Hoyt, of the Florida Alliance (a statewide coalition of a 100-plus tea parties), told me, “In the beginning, rallies were necessary to let everyone know we’re here and announce to the rest of America that you’re not alone in your frustration. In the summer of 2009 we attended town halls, and by the beginning of 2010 we began engaging candidates. And as the amazing results from the November election suggest, we had learned and actively participated in GOTV [get out the vote] activities by the summer of 2010.”

Ken Emanuelson, of the Dallas Tea Party, had many of the same sentiments. “Listen, there’s a reason the 2011 rallies were smaller: rally fatigue. The large rallies of 2009–2010 represented the outpouring of decades of frustration. People had a need to vent, and they vented with a vengeance. Soon enough, however, most tea partiers realized that rallies, by themselves, would change nothing,” he said. “Further, there’s only so many ways you can say ‘We’re screwed’ before it gets tiresome. Yeah, we’re screwed. And? Starting in 2010, the true ‘movers and shakers’ of the movement (maybe 20 percent) went to work figuring out how to pull the access panels off ‘the machine’ and find its vulnerabilities. They were the same people who were organizing and promoting rallies a year earlier. Come 2011, most of the core activists simply had too much on their plate to worry about political circuses.”

It’s becoming evident tea partiers are demonstrating political savvy: rallies fundamentally change nothing, so they’ve begun asking what does cause change, and then going out and doing those things that bring it about. Tim Dake, of the Wisconsin GrandSons of Liberty, laid out what he and the other allied Tea Party leaders are doing in their state: “In Wisconsin we are currently evolving from helping the legislators’ bills to writing and pushing our own. Some legislator leadership still tries to screw us over but we are finding ways to resolve that too. Next up will be trying to figure out how to rewrite the legislative rules.”

Dake and the other leaders in Wisconsin, though they helped promote and organize the February 20 rally in Madison with American Majority in support of Governor Walker’s Budget Repair Bill, are not focused on rallies. They played an instrumental role in the recent state supreme court race, touching tens of thousands of doors on behalf of Justice Prosser, and also drove much of the successful signature collecting for the recall efforts against Democratic state senators. So what Dake and other leaders across the country have really done is asked—and resoundingly answered—their own question: “Why do meaningless rallies when there’s real political work to be done?”

Lesley Hollywood of the Northern Colorado Tea Party perhaps put it best. “The outlet of activism has shifted, just as it would with any movement. Hosting and attending rallies served its purpose at one time: it built relationships, engaged the public, grew the movement, and gave interested individuals a place to get connected. But after two years and numerous rallies, members are ready for something different and they are putting their energy into more effective outlets,” she said. “Here in Colorado we are fighting redistricting, we are focusing on municipal elections and issues, and we’re watching the state legislature and gearing up for 2012.”

As to where they plan on going in 2011 and 2012, Jason Hoyt noted, “The level of participation at monthly meetings is staying steady while we’re gearing up for a very big and creative summer of recruiting and educating the public. As we see it, November 2010 was a mere practice run for 2012. Just wait till you see what happens when we implement what we’ve learned.” Ken Emanuelson, demonstrating how truly effective leaders are going local to bring national change, said, “We’re busy at the City Hall fighting against the crony corporatist ‘sustainable development.’ We’re busy at the County Commissioner’s Court making local commissioners famous for their thuggery. We’re busy at the state capitol working to pry the dirty fingers of the crony corporatist old-boy network off the levers of power.”

Perhaps even more intriguingly, Ken added, “I’m confident that the Tea Party’s best days are still ahead, whether it calls itself the Tea Party, or something else. If you want to see a true revolution, just wait until the center-right grassroots finally succeed in making common cause with the center-left and minority grassroots against the public/private crony corporatist establishment. If and when that happens, game over. I think the proper term is, ‘sea change.’ ”

Jason related that he speaks at many non-Tea Party events, and will ask the audience to raise their hands if they consider themselves part of the Tea Party. In one women’s Republican group, only three or four raised their hands. Then Jason asked one of them what her definition of “being a part of the Tea Party” was. She stated the core principles of the Tea Party movement (limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free enterprise) perfectly. Jason then asked, “Based on that definition, who here believes they are part of the Tea Party?” Everyone present raised her hand. And contrary to what many on the left or the Republican establishment hope for in the next few years, I believe more and more Americans will be raising their hands and saying, “I am the Tea Party movement.” 

 

[tomahawk6]

I dont see the Tea Party making common cause with the left.They are diametrically opposed to each other.

 

[a_majoor]

I think the implication is the TEA Party movement is not so much a Left/Right thing (although there are elements of that) but rather a populist movement directed against the current political class. TEA Party members are actively seeking to take over the Republican party ward by ward, as well as setting their sights on every level of elective office from city dogcatcher to POTUS. I have heard from several sources that people identifying themselves as Democrats are involved in the movement.

So the real contest is actually Populists vs Crony Capitalists, but the current American political structure is only set up for two parties. The current iteration of Democrat Party policies is much more heavily tilted towards Cronyism, so we see the TEA Party movement  focusing on the Republican Party by default.

 

[muskrat89]

I have heard from several sources that people identifying themselves as Democrats are involved in the movement.

For quite some time, we were active in the local Tea Party. One of the regular attendees was an African-American lady Democrat who shared more core values with the rest of us than one might think. Founding principles, less government, balanced budgets, etc. She was particularly interested in effecting change at the precinct level, with the intent of making her Democrat candidates accountable to the citizenry - much like the rest of us are trying to do.

 

[a_majoor]

The candidates who can articulate this the best will probably do well:

http://biggovernment.com/kschlichter/2011/08/08/anticipating-the-coming-convulsions-as-the-welfare-state-dies/

Anticipating the Coming Convulsions as the Welfare State Dies
by Kurt Schlichter

It’s already happening – the liberal dream of a perpetual social welfare state where deadbeat liberal constituencies feed off of the work of productive conservative citizens in perpetuity is dying.  There’s no doubt about that; the only question left is how long and hard the process will be as the hideous leviathan the utopian liberal establishment has created convulses and dies.

It’s going to die hard.  And ugly.

The collapse is well-underway in Europe – Greece has gone from the cradle of democracy to a cesspool of union-fueled mobs – but America faces the same trauma.  As the contradictions inherent in the vision of a societal plan based on the notion that an ever-expanding pool of Democratic-voting serfs sucking the wealth away from the mostly Republican-oriented producers who labored to create it become more apparent, the reactions and rear-guard efforts of the terminal liberal elite will grow more extreme.

We are already seeing the liberal elite lash out in anger and frustration at what is a perfect storm of failure.  Glenn Reynolds, the legendary Instapundit, chronicles the daily disintegration, while the brilliant Mark Steyn’s cheery new book, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, drops on August 8, 2011 – I’ll race you to Amazon to get a copy.

As the three components of the liberal establishment – the media, the unions and politicians – rage at the dying of the liberal light, the insanity meter will swing far into the red.  It’s already begun.  The Tea Party has dared to speak the truth, and the uncomfortable realities it has pointed out have destroyed the bogus consensus that has allowed the debt Titanic to sail giddily on toward the iceberg.  That’s why the establishment response is to demonize the popular movement.  We’re “terrorists” or “lunatics” or, bizarrely, “hobbits.”  Our crime is telling the truth.

Never mind that the Tea Party candidates were absolutely clear about their debt crisis solution when running for election – the voters spoke.  Apparently, the only polls that matter get taken around the tables at Manhattan and Georgetown dinner parties – and, oddly, the results are always unanimous in favor of a “compromise” that tries to shore-up the crumbling status quo.

The problem with the Tea Party is not what it does – at best, right now, it can only make a moral and political case; it does not have the numbers to make anything happen without non-Tea Partiers joining it.  The problem with the Tea Partiers, in the eyes of the liberal establishment and the pet moderate GOP enablers, is that it dares to point out the indisputable truth that must be hidden at all costs:  That the social welfare state is unsustainable and will collapse.

But the demonization campaign does not seem to be working as expected – amazingly, the Tea Party caucus was able to provide the missing spine to the go-along/get-along gang running the House and present a primary-based incentive to the collegial Senate Republicans who have to face the voters next year and don’t want to join booted squish ex-Utah senator Bob Bennett in his new sinecure as the MSM’s go-to, slam-the-conservatives, pseudo-GOP nobody.  While the resulting deal was terrible, it was still a massive humiliation for the liberal establishment.  They are not in a forgiving mood, and it’s easier to hate on the Tea Party than face the fact that they’ve driven us to bankruptcy.

So when demonization doesn’t work, government lifers like Senator Kerry advocate silencing the opposition.  One might think that a United States senator demanding that the media refuse to report the views of his political opponents because too many people are accepting them might stir some outrage in the media.  But then, if you did, you probably might believe in unicorns, leprechauns and global warming as well.

Instead of a chorus of outrage at this creepy fascism, the media elite seem to think this is a great idea.  But that should not be a surprise.  The media – at least the old media (call it the MSM) – is dying, killed off not only by technology that allows conservatives to evade the gates it used to defend to prevent the political discourse from being contaminated with ideas that challenge its foundational liberal premises.  It is grasping at a life preserver, trying to take in a few more lungfuls of air before it sinks under forever.

With the establishment politicians far “out of their depth” in response to the coming crisis, watch for more moves by the Left not to resolve the situation but to kill the messenger.  Do not put it past the elite to actually try again to limit debate using law and/or regulations.  They still salivate at the notion of killing off conservative radio by resurrecting the Orwellian Fairness Doctrine, and the government at one point argued that it had the right to criminally prosecute citizens for publishing a book critical of politicians until it backed down.  Note that the MSM strongly supports these forays into fascism – not surprising since they think that the Constitution that allows conservatives’ voice to be heard is a “problem.”

But it will be impossible to regulate conservative opposition out of existence – not just because of the First Amendment but because the coming reckoning will be so severe that it can no longer be swept under the rug.  Yet, rug sweeping will become their next strategy.  Playing off the demonization tactics, they will continue to attempt to engage moderate – read “squishy” – Republicans toward some sort of “compromise” that will give them just a bit more time before everything comes crashing down.  Watch for this when the “Super Commission” comes back with its plan.  Their goal – get past November 2012 then hopefully use the crisis to their advantage to turn the ship of state even harder to port.

But that’s a fool’s errand.  The DC establishment can ignore math, but math won’t ignore it.  There is simply not enough wealth that exists or can be imagined into existence through borrowing to support the redistributionist utopia they seek.  Greece is a harbinger of the future.  The EU will cobble together a bogus bailout that will keep the Hellenic rowboat afloat just a bit longer before it is swamped, but Zorba best learn to swim because it is going under.

Then the other failed states of Europe – Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal – will collapse too, taking with them Europe’s banks and our banks along with them.  The only reason we won’t fail first – S&P did not act too early but, rather, far too late in downgrading the US – is that Europe’s social democratic elite is even more delusional than ours.

It’s over.  The system must crash and reboot.  The choice is a hard landing or a harder landing.

The prescription is clear to anyone looking at the situation, except for the establishment that will not see it because to admit what must be done and embrace it means to wave goodbye to its members’ power, prestige and position.  We need to slash spending to less than the revenue we take in – the difference going to pay off the $14 trillion-plus tab.  And we need to do it now, not in some hazy future where some other Congress will have to make the tough calls – though reality may just make them for it.

That means a radical return to Constitutional government where the federal government goes back to what it was formed to do – those things set forth in the Constitution and nothing else.  The relatively easy part will be zeroing out the cowboy poetry slams, largely unwatched government TV networks and creepy shrimp-on-a-treadmill study grants.

The hard part is the entitlements all of us were promised and none of us will ever see.  It means repealing Obamacare, but moreover returning the responsibility for health care to where it belongs – the individual.  The same with retirement – Social Security is a ponzi scheme and everyone knows it.

Government student loans, farms subsidies, corporate bailouts, food stamps, Section 8 housing  – none of these are federal responsibilities.  These should be eliminated not only because they are counterproductive, ineffective and soul-crushing for recipients but because if we don’t do it on our own terms fiscal reality will do it for us cold turkey.  And let’s not forget eliminating vast swaths of federal regulations – something that will both free up business and have the added benefit of dumping hundreds of thousands of government loafers off of Uncle Sam’s payroll.

There is a major change coming, and it could get ugly.  Union members will do their masters’ bidding with the support of the MSM, threatening violence and maybe committing some.  Look for well-planned and carefully-coordinated “spontaneous” mass marches on public buildings by scores of public employee union slugs demanding we keep subsidizing their retirements at full pay at age 50.

Fortunately, again as observed by Glenn Reynolds, the present crop of union activists aren’t the hardscrabble blue collar bruisers of the storied past.  Today, most seem to be skinny green tea-sipping public school teachers, naggy Department of Weights & Measures diversity officers, or massive welfare-dispensing office drones clad in form-fitting purple size-XXXXL SEIU t-shirts that were made in China.  Not exactly a fearsome crew, unless you’re between them and a muffin.

The Tea Party did not cause what will be a brutal reckoning.  It only pointed out the truth  and said, “No more” – an unforgivable crime to the people who caused this disaster and want to keep milking the system for as long as possible. The key to getting through the coming trauma – and it will be traumatic, as the social contract the liberals unilaterally imposed is rewritten by an implacable reality – is for the productive citizens of the United States to stand firm and stand fast.  In other words, just the way Americans have gotten through every other crisis we’ve faced before.

America’s greatest days need not be in the past.  Guided by the Founder’s vision and the principles of the Constitution, we will find that they lie ahead, over just one more hill.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It was old news before it happened but Rick Perry is in the hunt according to this report reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/rick-perry-announces-bid-for-2012-republican-presidential-race/article2128819/

Rick Perry announces bid for 2012 Republican presidential race

JIM DAVENPORT AND BETH FOUHY
COLUMBIA, S.C.— The Associated Press

Published Saturday, Aug. 13, 2011

Texas Gov. Rick Perry entered the Republican presidential race Saturday and jolted the crowded field seeking to unseat President Barack Obama, casting a shadow all the way back to the Midwest, site of an important early test of his rivals' strength.

Mr. Perry told voters in a conference call Saturday from Columbia, South Carolina, that he wants to take on Mr. Obama and said that “I full well believe I'm going to win.”

About an hour later, he outlined his principles in a speech at a conservative conference in Charleston, South Carolina, declaring that if elected president, he would work to make Washington as “inconsequential” to Americans' lives as possible.

He accused Mr. Obama of providing “rudderless” leadership at home and abroad. He declared that he wants to cut taxes and free businesses from the shackles of regulation to spark an economic recovery.

Mr. Perry spoke only a few hours before the release of results from a straw poll in Iowa, the state which holds the first nominating contest next year.

In Iowa, thousands of Republicans munched on barbecue and mingled with presidential hopefuls on a college campus in Ames where they began voting in the first test to see how the candidates are faring with the party's base in the leadoff caucus state.

Under bright sunshine and mild weather, activists strolled through tents erected by the campaigns for live music and roamed the campus of Iowa State University. Voting started at 11 a.m. EDT (1500 GMT) and was to run until 5 p.m. EDT (2100 GMT).

The poll results are nonbinding, amount to a popularity contest and offer candidates a chance to test their get-out-the-vote organizations with the thousands of activists who pay to attend the event. Nonetheless, the outcome probably will provide a road map for the Iowa campaign heading into the caucuses that are scheduled for early February to choose delegates for the party's national presidential nominating convention.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads national polls and many states' surveys for the chance to challenge Mr. Obama, who is considered vulnerable in next year's election because of lingering high unemployment and the sputtering economic recovery. But there is no shortage of rivals looking to emerge as the top alternative to Mr. Romney, who lost the nomination in 2008 to Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Even before he officially entered the race, polls of Republican voters showed Perry running only a few percentage points behind Romney, who has been emphasizing his business background to persuade voters he can turn the economy around. But many conservatives have not embraced him because of his past support as Massachusetts governor for abortion and gay rights and a health care reform package used by Obama as a model for legislation that Republicans loathe. Evangelical Christians, a key part of the Republican base, also look askance at Mr. Romney's Mormon faith.

Through three terms as Texas governor, Mr. Perry has overseen significant job growth in his state while working to keep taxes low. He was an early backer of the small government, anti-tax tea party movement. He enjoys the support of social conservatives because of his opposition to abortion and gay rights. He is also an evangelical Christian who organized a well-attended prayer rally in Houston last week.

That makes him an immediate threat to another presidential contender, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, who vaulted to the top of polls of Iowa Republicans due to strong support from social conservatives and tea party activists. Mr. Perry, who is Texas' longest-serving governor, has the executive experience that Ms. Bachmann lacks.

Mr. Perry is also a prodigious fundraiser who has begun laying the groundwork for a national finance network that supporters say would rival Mr. Obama's. Mr. Obama is expected to exceed his record $750-million haul from 2008.

But some Republicans worry that Perry's hard-core conservatism and Texas style may not play well in a 50-state contest, against Mr. Obama particularly so soon after his predecessor as Texas governor, George W. Bush, served in the White House. Mr. Bush had record low approval ratings when he left office in 2009.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is headed Monday to begin a three-day bus tour of Iowa and two other Midwestern states critical for his re-election at a time when he is slumping in the polls after a summer of discontent over a protracted debt showdown with Republicans and the downgrade in the nation's credit rating.

Mr. Obama's bus tour, his first as president, will take him to farmland and rural towns in Minnesota, Iowa and Michigan that launched his first White House bid but where his standing, like elsewhere, has grown precarious as the economy has slumped. The former Illinois senator is expected to tell audiences that he agrees with their frustrations about a dysfunctional federal government.

The Iowa straw poll was expected to winnow down the field of Republican candidates seeking to challenge Mr. Obama. Poor showings usually force some candidates, mostly those who are not well-known and are struggling to raise money, to abandon their bids, and that could happen this year, too.

The candidates with the most to lose in the Iowa poll were two Minnesotans: Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Ms. Bachmann.

Mr. Pawlenty, languishing in early Iowa polls, hoped a strong showing would demonstrate “momentum” and prove he's a strong player in the race. Bachmann wanted to build on the growing support she's enjoyed since entering the race this summer.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, whose libertarian, small government views have earned him an enthusiastic base of supporters, could surprise some of his more prominent rivals with a strong straw poll showing.

In Ames, Mr. Paul referenced his fellow Texan Perry's entrance in the race and said he didn't anticipate many of his supporters jumping ship for what he called a “super-establishment candidate.”

Republicans wouldn't speculate how many people they expected would spend $30 each to attend the event. Turnout in past has ranged from 14,000 to 23,000.

Mr. Romney won the straw poll four years ago but isn't actively competing this time, and former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, who has bypassed Iowa almost entirely, weren't scheduled to be in the state. Both spent Friday in New Hampshire, the state which holds the first presidential primary next year.

The nine candidates on the ballot Saturday also included former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and businessman Herman Cain.

Mr. Perry and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who made a splash Friday when she visited the Iowa State Fair, weren't on the ballot. But their supporters planned write-in campaigns that could outpace candidates who have spent months trying to line up supporters to participate.

The straw poll has a mixed record of predicting the outcome of the precinct caucuses. In 2008, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who eventually won the nomination, didn't compete in the straw poll and finished in 10th place.

Mr. Perry, 61, was scheduled to make his first visit of the year to New Hampshire later Saturday before stepping onto Iowa soil Sunday.

Mr. Romney has dominated early polling in New Hampshire, where he has a summer home and has devoted much of his campaigning so far.

I was in Texas last winter during the gubernatorial primaries: Perry was challenged by US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, herself a well funded candidate and a prodigious campaigner. It was a rough, even dirty campaign but Perry won fairly easily - even though Hutchison tried to position herself to his right.

I think Perry is a more credible challenger than is Romney and far more credible that e.g. Bachman, Pawlenty, et al. It's early going, but this is bad news for Obama ~ maybe worse for Palin.

 

[a_majoor]

A few moments of levity; if you start calling political opponents "Hobbits", well what did you expect to happen?

http://pajamasmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/08/12/the-middle-earth-guide-to-campaign-2012/?singlepage=true

The Middle-Earth Guide to Campaign 2012—Updated

One ring to rule them all/one ring to find them/one ring to tax them all/and in indebtedness bind them.

Two weeks ago the Wall Street Journal likened congressional Tea Partiers to hobbits:

The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against…Barack Obama. The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea-party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor.

[emphasis mine]

The trope took off the next day when Senator John McCain (R-AZ) read the article approvingly during debate on raising the debt ceiling. Liberals reveled in this GOP establishment belittlement of the party’s fiscally conservative faction, but that didn’t stop journalists from finding allegedly-offended Tolkien scholars who sliced and diced the metaphor more quickly than Aragorn did the Mouth of Sauron. And like one of the Nazgûl, the issue refuses to die — not two days ago McCain snubbed a call to recant from  a Tea Party Gaffer at a town hall meeting back in Arizona.

So the GOP establishment, via the hobbit metaphor, dismisses Tea Partiers as diminutive Don Quixotes; simultaneously, many Tolkien fans and scholars take umbrage at the very notion that hobbits were anything but bucolic deadbeats longing for official Gondorian government subsidies of their mind-altering pipe weed. Neither is entirely correct. (Nor, for that matter, was Senator Rand Paul in calling John McCain a “troll”— a doctor should know that it’s McCain’s debating skills, not his skin, that turns to stone in the sunlight.)

Tea Partiers ARE very much like hobbits — and hobbits are not prehistoric hippies. Despite Professor Tolkien’s admonition that he “cordially dislike[d] allegory in all its manifestations,” various scholars in the last 60 years have employed Lord of the Rings [LOTR] as a palantir through which to view the world wars, the Cold War, environmentalism and Christian history (to name but the most obvious). Why not, then, do likewise for the contemporary American political scene — especially since the WSJ has already set the first foot upon this road? Let us see where it takes us…

The first leg on this journey is figuring out what the Ring represents in modern political discourse. Since the Tea Party is trying to cast it into the fire, it must be American government spending and debt (which includes deficits, of course). That would make Congressman Paul Ryan Frodo since he knows more about that burden than anyone; and thus Samwise Gamgee must be John Boehner because he helps Frodo and he cries a lot.

Merry and Pippin, the other two major hobbits, would thus have to be Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor — although the thought of McConnell’s mug on a  1-meter tall hobbit frame is a nightmare on the order of Tolkien’s visions of massive tidal waves and giant spiders.

Who advises the hobbits — as well as the other characters in this conservative’s Middle-Earth?  Mainly Limbaugh the Grey, sent by the Valar to contest the will of the Dark Lord by inspiring all Men and Elves via three hours of daily radio programming and special advisory scrolls known as newsletters.

He’s assisted in this role by our world’s Elrond — Charles Krauthammer.

Both urge resistance to the Dark Lord….wait for it…George Soros. (Sorry, making Obama the “Dark Lord” would not only send a thrill up Chris Mathews’ “racism” antenna, it would give BHO far too much credit.) “Soron” hopes to seize the Ring of Debt for himself in order to transform the Middle-west and the rest of America into Mordor with a view — also known as Greece. Soron is, however, a bit distracted at present with this $50 million lawsuit brought by a Witch Queen.

Obama, then, is relegated to the role of Saruman — trying to be in charge, hoping to seize the Ring for himself, but really only doing the Dark Lord’s bidding: undermining capitalism, hosting Haradrim religious dinners at the White House, and playing golf on Sunday mornings.

Once you’ve identified the major character analogs, the rest of the script just writes itself. The Witch King is either Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, depending on which one you think has more testosterone (probably the latter). Grima Wormtongue — Saruman’s oily, duplicitous adviser — is David Axelrod (if only he’d shave his mustache like Brad Douif did his eyebrows).

It’s tempting to associate Hillary Clinton with Gollum, since both want to possess what they consider their “Precious” — but in her three years as secretary of State she’s almost earned the right not to be mocked so cruelly. But only almost.

Orcs are public sector unions, ACORN, anyone who writes for Huffington Post, and every other evil, statist minion ever identified by Glenn Beck. Speaking of Beck, his closest equivalent is Denethor, Steward of Gondor — well-spoken and intelligent but more-than-slightly crazed.

So with a Mormon Denethor, we must posit the other Mormon candidates — Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman — as the brothers Boromir and Faramir.  Boromir has more passion in his shield than does Romney in his entire body, but both die early on (Boromir in battle, Mitt in early primaries).

Huntsman resembles Faramir in his moderation, soft-spoken demeanor, and unerring ability to be overshadowed by any other character or inanimate object in the room. You just know Faramir would support civil unions, if such didn’t carry the death penalty in Gondor.

Legolas was tough, but his real world stand-in would have to be Rick Santorum, because while both appear at first to be brave leading men, each soon gets relegated to side-kick status — Legolas as a set-up man for Aragorn, Santorum probably as SecState in another Republican’s future administration.

Who plays Gimli, the plain-spoken, brave, and humorous Dwarf?  At the risk of being assaulted on Facebook, it would have to be Ron Paul. It’s not hard to imagine Paul muttering about “the consistency of Federal Reserve bankers’ droppings,” belching loudly, or being offered, by Santorum, a box to stand on during a GOP debate.

The tragic role of King Theoden goes to Herman Cain, since the former’s bewilderment by Saruman is mirrored in the latter’s bafflement over how to deal with radical Islam.

Newt Gingrich is Eomer, another brave and intelligent character who inevitably winds up, after a few good orations, playing second fiddle.

There are really only three major female characters in LOTR, all of them good. Our Elf Galadriel is Ann Coulter because…well, because she’s tall, blonde, and attractive. What more reasons do you need? Of course, the two other female characters must be Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

Palin is Arwen: a striking, brunette Elf Princess who inspires via thought and speech but is more of a divan diva than an action figure. (It is, however, untrue, that the latter ever said “I can see Valinor from my house.”) Bachmann much more fits the role of Eowyn, who gets into the fray against the Witch King as a true queen of rage.

Astute Tolkien fans will have noticed that no Aragorn analog has been adduced. That’s because no one has earned it yet. Seven years ago your humble correspondent laid out the reasons why Aragorn would make a good President, mutatis mutandis. Perhaps Rick Perry can wear that crown — but I doubt it. They just don’t make ’em like Aragorn any more (if they ever really did at all).

So starting in January 2013 we’ll probably have to muddle through with a flawed Boromir, Theoden, or Eowyn in charge. But since Obama’s erstwhile allies are now turning on him as viciously as Wormtongue did Saruman, the chances of one of those three becoming king or queen increases daily. Under restored, rightful conservative rule, the Tea Party hobbits will have to “bow to no one” — or apologize for their actions.

Saturday Update: Now that Rick Perry has formally announced his intention to seek the crown, the Aragorn comparisons are worth re-visiting.  Both are dark-haired and handsome, with a military background and arguably more practical experience than any of the others (while a decade as Texas’ governor is not equal to six decades of toil, missions and fighting across the length and breadth of Middle-earth against Sauron and his allies, it beats the hell out of being governor of Taxachusetts, Congresswoman or pizza mogul). But Perry’s ideological (if not bloodline) predecessors from the same state were not exactly stellar examples of dealing with taxes and spending, even if neither Bush was as wrong-headed as Isildur–so whether Perry will be able to rise above them, or fall into darkness with all that is left of the mainstream GOP, remains to be seen.

Just please don’t let Perry sing at his Inauguration.

 

[a_majoor]

Governor Perry's speech:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/13/gov-rick-perry-america-needs-new-leadership-full-text-of-announcement-speech/?print=1

Gov. Rick Perry: America Needs New Leadership (Full Text of Announcement Speech)
Posted By Gov. Rick Perry On August 13, 2011 @ 12:25 pm In Politics | 202 Comments

Howdy. Thank you, Erick (Erickson, editor of RedState). It is great to be at RedState. And I’ll tell you what, it’s even better to be governor of the largest red state in America.

It’s sure good to be back in the Palmetto State, in South Carolina. I enjoy coming to places where people elect folks like Nikki Haley, true conservatives. And also where they love the greatest fighting force on the face of the earth…the United States Military.

And I want to take a moment and ask you to just take a silence, think about those young Navy SEALs and the other special operators who gave it all in the service of their country. Just take a moment to say Thank you, Lord, that we have those kind of selfless, sacrificial men and women. Their sacrifice was immeasurable, their dedication profound, and we will never, ever forget them.

I stand before you today as the governor of Texas. But I also stand before you the son of two tenant farmers, Ray Perry, who came home after 35 bombing missions over Europe to work his little corner of land out there, and Amelia who made sure my sister Milla and I had everything that we needed, including hand-sewing my clothes until I went off to college.

I am also the product of a place called Paint Creek. Doesn’t have a zip code. It’s too small to be called a town along the rolling plains of Texas. We grew dryland cotton and wheat, and when I wasn’t farming or attending Paint Creek Rural School, I was generally over at Troop 48 working on my Eagle Scout award.

Around the age of 8, I was blessed – didn’t realize it, but I was blessed to meet my future wife, Anita Thigpen, at a piano recital. We had our first date eight years later. And she finally agreed to marry me 16 years after that. Nobody says I am not persistent.

There is no greater way to live life than with someone you love, and my first love is with us today, my lovely wife Anita. We’re also blessed to have two incredible children, Griffin and Sydney, and they are also with us today, and our wonderful daughter-in-law Meredith. I’d just like to introduce those two. Thank you.

What I learned growing up on the farm was a way of life that was centered on hard work, and on faith and on thrift. Those values have stuck with me my whole life. But it wasn’t until I graduated from Texas A&M University and joined the United States Air Force, flying C-130’s all around the globe, that I truly appreciated the blessings of freedom.

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, I realized that the United States of America really is the last great hope of mankind. What I saw was systems of government that elevated rulers at the expense of the people. Socialist systems cloaked maybe in good intentions but were delivering misery and stagnation. And I learned that not everyone values life like we do in America, or the rights that are endowed to every human being by a loving God.

You see, as Americans we’re not defined by class, and we will never be told our place. What makes our nation exceptional is that anyone, from any background, can climb the highest of heights. As Americans, we don’t see the role of government as guaranteeing outcomes, but allowing free men and women to flourish based on their own vision, their hard work and their personal responsibility. And as Americans, we realize there is no taxpayer money that wasn’t first earned by the sweat and toil of one of our citizens.

That’s why we reject this President’s unbridled fixation on taking more money out of the wallets and pocketbooks of American families and employers and giving it to a central government. “Spreading the wealth” punishes success while setting America on course to greater dependency on government. Washington’s insatiable desire to spend our children’s inheritance on failed “stimulus” plans and other misguided economic theories have given us record debt and left us with far too many unemployed.

But of course, now we’re told we are in recovery. Yeah.

But this sure doesn’t feel like a recovery to more than nine percent of Americans out there who are unemployed, or the sixteen percent of African Americans and 11 percent of Hispanics in the same position, or the millions more who can only find part-time work, or those who have stopped even looking for a job.

One in six work-eligible Americans cannot find a full-time job. That is not a recovery. That is an economic disaster.

If you think about it, for those Americans who do have full-time jobs, they aren’t experiencing economic recovery with the rising fuel costs and the food prices that are going up. Recovery is a meaningless word if the bank has foreclosed on your home, if you are under water on your mortgage, or if you are up to the max on your credit card debt. Those Americans know that this President and his big-spending, big-government policies have prolonged our national misery, not alleviated it.

And what do we say to our children? Y’all figure it out? Don’t worry, Washington’s created 17 debt and entitlement commissions in 30 years, but the fact of the matter is they just didn’t have the courage to make the decisions to allow you to have the future that you actually deserve? That Washington wouldn’t even make modest entitlement program reforms in this last debate? And the President even refused to lay out a plan, for fear of the next election? How can the wealthiest nation in the history of civilization fail so miserably to pay its bills? How does that happen?

Well, Mr. President, let us tell you something: you can’t win the future by selling America off to foreign creditors.

We cannot afford four more years of this rudderless leadership. Last week, that leadership failed, and the tax and spend and borrow agenda of this President led to the first ever downgrade of the credit rating of the United States of America.

In reality though, this is just the most recent downgrade. The fact is for nearly three years President Obama has been downgrading American jobs. He’s been downgrading our standing in the world. He’s been downgrading our financial stability. He’s been downgrading our confidence, and downgrading the hope for a better future for our children. That’s a fact.

His policies are not only a threat to this economy, so are his appointees – a threat. You see he stacked the National Labor Relations Board with anti-business cronies who want to dictate to a private company, Boeing, where they can build a plant. No president, no president should kill jobs in South Carolina, or any other state for that matter, simply because they choose to go to a right-to-work state.

You see, when the Obama Administration is not stifling economic growth with over-regulation, they are achieving the same through their reckless spending. Debt is not only a threat to our economy, but also to our security.

America’s standing in the world is in peril, not only because of disastrous economic policies, but from the incoherent muddle that they call foreign policy. Our president has insulted our friends and he’s encouraged our enemies, thumbing his nose at traditional allies like Israel. He seeks to dictate new borders for the Middle East and the oldest democracy there, Israel, while he is an abject failure in his constitutional duty to protect our borders in the United States.

His foreign policy seems to be based on alienating our traditional allies, while basing our domestic agenda on importing those failed Western European social values. We don’t need a president who apologizes for America. We need a president who protects and projects those values.

Look, it’s pretty simple: we’re going to stand with those who stand with us, and we will vigorously defend our interests. And those who threaten our interests, harm our citizens – we will simply not be scolding you, we will defeat you.

Our nation cannot and it must not endure four more years of aimless foreign policy. We cannot and must not endure four more years of rising unemployment, rising taxes, rising debt, rising energy dependence on nations that intend us harm.

It is time to get America working again. To get citizens – to get our citizens working in good jobs and getting the government to working for the people again.

Page one of any economic plan to get America working is to give a pink slip to the current resident in the White House.

Listen, we just got to get back to the basic truths of economic success. As Governor, I’ve had to deal with the consequences of this national recession. In 2003, and again this year, my state faced billions of dollars in budget shortfalls. But we worked hard, we made tough decisions, we balanced our budget. Not by raising taxes, but by setting priorities and cutting government spending. It can and it must be done in Washington, DC.

Dr. Schwertner (State Representative, R-Williamson County, TX), we have led Texas based on some just really pretty simple guiding principles. One is don’t spend all of the money. Two is keeping the taxes low and under control. Three is you have your regulatory climate fair and predictable. Four is reform the legal system so frivolous lawsuits don’t paralyze employers that are trying to create jobs.

Over the years, we have followed this recipe to produce the strongest economy in the nation. Since June of 2009, Texas is responsible for more than 40 percent of all of the new jobs created in America.

Now think about that. We’re home to less than 10 percent of the population in America, but forty percent of all the new jobs were created in that state.

I’ve cut taxes. I have delivered historic property tax reductions. I was the first governor since World War II to cut general revenue spending in our state budget. We passed lawsuit reform, including just this last session a “loser pays” law to stop the frivolous lawsuits that were happening.

And I know I’ve talked a lot about Texas here in the last little bit. I’m a Texan and proud of it. But first, and foremost, I’m an incredibly proud American.

And I know something: America is not broken. Washington, D.C., is broken!

We need balanced budgets. We need lower taxes. We need less regulation. And we need civil justice reform – those same four principles. Our country’s most urgent need is to revitalize our economy, stop the generational theft that is going on with this record debt.

I come to South Carolina because I will not sit back and accept the path that America is on. Because a great country requires a better direction. Because a renewed nation needs a new president.

It is time to get America working again. And that’s why, with the support of my family, and an unwavering belief in the goodness of America, I declare to you today as a candidate for President of the United States.

It’s time for America to believe again. It’s time to believe that the promise of our future is far greater than even our best days behind us. It’s time to believe again in the potential of private enterprise, set free from the shackles of overbearing federal government. And it’s time to truly restore our standing in the world, and renew our faith in freedom as the best hope for peace in this world that’s beset with strife.

The change we seek will never emanate out of Washington, D.C. It will come from the windswept prairies of Middle America, the farms and factories across this great land, from the hearts and minds of the goodhearted Americans who will accept not a future that is less than our past, patriots – patriots who will not be consigned to a fate of less freedom in exchange for more government.

We do not have to accept our current circumstances. We will change them. We are Americans. That’s what we do. We roll up our sleeves. We go to work. We fix things.

We stand up and proudly proclaim that Washington is not our caretaker and we reject the state that, in Margaret Thatcher’s words, she said a state that takes too much from us in order to do too much for us. We will not stand for that any longer.

We’re dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don’t even pay any income tax. And you know the liberals out there are saying that we need to pay more. We are indignant about leaders who do not listen and spend money faster than they can print it.

In America, the people are not subjects of government. The government is subject to the people. And it is up to us, to this present generation of Americans, to take a stand for freedom, to send a message to Washington that we’re taking our future back from the grips of central planners who would control our healthcare, who would spend our treasure, who downgrade our future and micro-manage our lives.

It is time to limit and simplify the taxes in this country. We have to quit spending money we don’t have. We need to get our fiscal house in order and restore our good credit. And we will repeal this President’s misguided, one-size-fits-all government healthcare plan immediately.

We’ll create jobs. We’ll get America working again. We’ll create jobs and we’ll build wealth, we’ll truly educate and innovate in science, and in technology, engineering and math. We’ll create the jobs and the progress needed to get America working again.

And I’ll promise you this: I’ll work every day to make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your life as I can. And at the same time, we’ll be freeing our families and small businesses and states from the burdensome and costly federal government so those groups can create, innovate and succeed.

I believe in America. I believe in Her purpose and Her promise. I believe Her best days have not yet been lived. I believe Her greatest deeds are reserved for the generations to come. With the help and the courage of the American people, we will get our country working again. God bless you and God bless the United States of America.

ALSO READ: It’s Perry Day in America: Wake Up and Smell the Idiocy

Article printed from The PJ Tatler: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/13/gov-rick-perry-america-needs-new-leadership-full-text-of-announcement-speech/

 

[a_majoor]

A prediction on how the campaign against Governor Perry might look (and it will be as vile as the one mounted against Governor Palin):

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Rick-Perry-First-Impressions

Rick Perry: First Impressions
Paul A. Rahe · Aug. 14 at 7:09pm

Yesterday, I listened twice to Rick Perry’s first advertisement. This afternoon – at the office where the internet connection is fast – I listened carefully to the first speech of  Rick Perry’s campaign. And I can say that I am both pleased and mildly worried.

The video I thought fabulous. It was low-key, gentle, soothing, and devastating. It muted the drama and appealed to the intellect, pointing to the obvious and quietly encouraging the listener to compare President Obama with Governor Perry and to judge them by their accomplishments. If Perry and his team can keep this up, he is likely to win. I am of two minds, however, about his announcement speech.

On the one hand, he sounded the right themes. The antidote to this country’s soft despotic  drift is decentralization. When Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about this question, he had his eye on France, and he was offering the American example – federalism, decentralization within the states, religion, and the nuclear family – as an antidote. As I argued two years ago in Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift, our troubles today today arise from the partial collapse of the family, from religion’s decline, and from our abandonment of federalism. Think through the implications of Terrence Moore’s first post – on the welfare state – and you will get the picture. In his speech and video, directly or obliquely, Perry touched on all three of these questions, reasserting the central importance of the integrity of the family, intimating that religion is our moral anchor, and demanding a return to federalism. If he thinks through the logic of his own commitments – and perhaps he has done so already – his instincts will be pretty consistently sound.

On the other hand, Perry was folksy throughout – and that worries me a bit. The tone of the speech and the manner of delivery were pitch-perfect for Texas. I am not, however, certain that this will play for a national audience. I do not mean to suggest that Perry should never be folksy. He comes from Paint Creek, and this comes naturally to him. Moreover, he needs at the outset to gather to him those who belong to his natural constituency – which is made up of white people who live in the countryside and in small towns. But to persuade a wider audience, Perry will have to pitch his argument to an audience that thinks itself more sophisticated. I am not arguing that the city slickers really are more sophisticated; I am arguing that they are in the grips of a powerful prejudice against people from places like Paint Creek.

You will respond that Bill Clinton came from Hope, Arkansas, and you will be correct. But Bill Clinton went to Georgetown University and Yale Law School, and he did a stint at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. He was vetted. Perry is an outsider. Even in some circles in Texas, Aggies are regarded as hicks. It is easy to see what sort of campaign David Axelrod and his associates will gin up against Perry. It will draw on the instinctive bigotry that made it so easy to demonize Lyndon Baines Johnson and the younger Bush. Obama cannot run on his record. To win, he must demonize the alternative. It is going to be ugly.

Perry is an exceedingly successful Texas politician. He comes from a place that is self-regarding in the extreme (I speak as a native of Oklahoma) and inward-looking. He has never operated outside its borders, and he may be unaware of its parochial character. If he is, he needs to wake up right away – and Mitt Romney is perfectly situated to give him that wake-up call.

Here is what Perry needs to do. He needs to anticipate the assault.

For example, if Obama’s people play anti-Texas prejudice against him, he should mock their advertisements. Indeed, he might do well to hit them hard the day they play this card – by preparing humorous advertisements ahead of time comparing Texas . . . with Chicago. They could touch on corruption, gangsters, population explosion and population implosion, political practices. And it could all be done with a light touch.

The larger problem is this, however. Most Americans – outside Texas – associate a West-Texas accent and a folksy manner with stupidity. The Obama people – and, perhaps more subtly – the Romney people may try to depict Perry as a hick. This he can head off if he has the wit to recognize the obvious: that what plays in Texas may not play as well elsewhere.

My suggestion would be that he give two or three speeches at venues associated with the conservative intelligentsia. The speeches should be low-key, gentle, and, above all else, thoughtful. In them he should outline in a manner almost academic what he intends to do and why. One could deal with defense and foreign policy. Another could focus on healthcare. A third could take economic growth and the prerequisites for economic growth as its theme. In these speeches, his purpose should be to demonstrate that he is anything but a hick, anything but stupid, and that he has thought in depth and carefully about the larger issues we face. There should not be a hint of the campaign speech in them. They should be intellectually devastating without being polemical. His aim should be to dispel once and for all the suspicion that he is just another hot dog from Texas running his mouth in predictable ways.

I mention this now in the hope that someone in Perry’s entourage reads Ricochet. What Perry did in South Carolina on Saturday was appropriate for the occasion. But there are other occasions, and most of us are not Texans. If I were the head of the American Enterprise Institute, I would get on the phone tomorrow and invite Perry to give three lectures in DC. The trick here is to get out ahead of the onslaught and to kill the appeal to prejudice before it is even launched.

 

[a_majoor]

And a Left wing challenge to President Obama? (wierder things have happened):

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/14/a-lonely-nation-turns-its-eyes-to-matt-damon/

A lonely nation turns its eyes to… Matt Damon?

posted at 7:45 pm on August 14, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Clearly the field of presidential candidates isn’t fully settled out yet, as the weekend’s events in Ames, Iowa demonstrated. And some new faces may yet be showing up on campaign posters near you. Chris Christie? Rudy? The Revenge of The Donald? No.

Are you ready for… Matt Damon for president?

    Even in the increasingly wild world of American politics, it seemed an especially crazy idea: Matt Damon for president? After all, the handsome actor, whose boyish good looks belie the fact that he has just turned 40, is still best known for his early role in Good Will Hunting, where he played a working-class Bostonian.

    So why is Damon’s name being mentioned in the context of the 2012 race for the White House and a possible liberal challenge to Barack Obama? The simple answer is to blame leftwing firebrand Michael Moore.

Leaving Michael Moore and his desires for a left wing primary challenge to Obama aside for the moment, the article does go on to point out why the Left might take Damon seriously as a potential candidate. Rather than simply attaching his name to a few high profile charity causes like feeding the hungry in Africa, it seems that Damon has actually burned up some shoe leather in real political efforts at home. And out here in New York, he has hitched his wagon to one group in particular.

    Instead, Damon has lent his high profile name to the distinctly unfashionable cause of the Working Families Party. The WFP is an obscure leftwing political party that exists as a sort of pressure group in New York state on Democrats and leftists in order to pursue progressive ideals. Attaching your name to the WFP is about as far from trendy as any Hollywood celebrity could get. Yet Damon has been a passionate advocate for the party, appearing in a 2010 campaign video for them in which he urged New Yorkers to shun the Democrats and vote for the WFP as a genuine leftwing alternative.

The Guardian actually delivers a fairly honest description of the WFP, who I’ve written about here before. In New York, they are seen as the safe haven for people who think that the New York Democratic Party isn’t quite liberal – if not blatantly socialist – for you. (Regular readers also know that I’m not one of those writers who toss around the word “socialist” lightly. But the WFP fills the bill.)

I honestly don’t think the willpower exists on the Left to mount a serious challenge to Obama in a primary run. But if Damon has a big enough burr under his saddle, he has the kind of high profile soap box where he could cause headaches for the president during the 2012 cycle.

 

[DBA]

The larger problem is this, however. Most Americans – outside Texas – associate a West-Texas accent and a folksy manner with stupidity. The Obama people – and, perhaps more subtly – the Romney people may try to depict Perry as a hick. This he can head off if he has the wit to recognize the obvious: that what plays in Texas may not play as well elsewhere.

Bush played the folksy card and won two terms in office.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Bush played the folksy card and won two terms in office.

Agreed but, especially during the first campaign (against Gore) his campaign also played the Yale and MBA cards to try to offset the 'Texas yokel' bit.

Perry (or whomever the GOP runs against Obama) will have to have broad appeal to the Republican and Tea Party base and to independents ~ speaking our of both sides of their mouths is the stock in trade of political campaign managers.

 

[a_majoor]

The election will revolve around the economy, jobs and collapsed revenues. Here is the probable playbook, and the historical results of different economic policies. The upside is if US economic growth can be goosed to the Reagan era level, the new tax revenues will go a long way to fixing the deficit and debt (assuming this time the tax cuts are matched by corresponding spending cuts. The Democrat Congress of the early 1980's kept spending high even as tax rates dropped):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576530412322260784.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Opinion

Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics
One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

By STEPHEN MOORE

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.

The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.

The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP.

Robert Reich, now at the University of California, Berkeley, explained that "The recession of 1981-82 was so severe that the bounce back has been vigorous." Paul Krugman wrote in 2004 that the Reagan boom was really nothing special because: "You see, rapid growth is normal when an economy is bouncing back from a deep slump."

Mr. Krugman was, for once, at least partly right. How could Reagan not look good after four years of Jimmy Carter's economic malpractice?

Fast-forward to today. Mr. Obama is running deficits of $1.3 trillion, or 8%-9% of GDP. If the Reagan deficits powered the '80s expansion, the Obama deficits—twice as large—should have the U.S. sprinting at Olympic speed.

The left has now embraced a new theory to explain why the Obama spending hasn't worked. The answer is contained in the book "This Time Is Different," by economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. Published in 2009, the book examines centuries of recessions and depressions world-wide. The authors conclude that it takes nations much longer—six years or more—to recover from financial crises and the popping of asset bubbles than from typical recessions.

In any case, what Reagan inherited was arguably a more severe financial crisis than what was dropped in Mr. Obama's lap. You don't believe it? From 1967 to 1982 stocks lost two-thirds of their value relative to inflation, according to a new report from Laffer Associates. That mass liquidation of wealth was a first-rate financial calamity. And tell me that 20% mortgage interest rates, as we saw in the 1970s, aren't indicative of a monetary-policy meltdown.

There is something that is genuinely different this time. It isn't the nature of the crisis Mr. Obama inherited, but the nature of his policy prescriptions. Reagan applied tax cuts and other policies that, yes, took the deficit to unchartered peacetime highs.

But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War. What exactly have Mr. Obama's deficits gotten us?

Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.

 

[a_majoor]

The announcement that people on both the Left and Right may come next week:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/palintracker-whats-happening-on-september-3/?print=1

PalinTracker: What’s Happening on September 3?
Posted By Barbara Curtis On August 27, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 11 Comments

July 13

Rotten Tomatoes Lists Palin Film as “Science Fiction & Fantasy” [1]

Palin Points to Late-Summer Presidential Decision [2]

Consider the Source Department:
Mother Jones on The Rise and Fall of Sarah Palin [3]

July 20

Mainstream media putting negative spin on Palin film box-office take? [4]

July 21

Byron York at the Washington Examiner: Without running, Palin stays near top of GOP field [5]:

There’s a near consensus among Washington insiders that Sarah Palin will not run for president. But a new poll suggests the former Alaska governor would become an instant force in the race if she did choose to run.

Los Angeles Times: Palin second only to Romney in Washington Post/ABC News poll [6]

July 23

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air: Palin: Obama now a Lame Duck President [7]:

Palin also warns the House leadership not to “get wobbly on us now,” but says that the main problem with Obama is that he “leads from behind.”

July 24

Maggie Walsh in Human Events: Palin and Bachmann: Room for Both on the Ballot, But Not in the Tiny Minds of the Media [8]

July 25

Why Are We Not Surprised Department:
SayAnythingBlog.com: New York Times Columnist Calls Palin, Conservatives “Ideological Fellow Travelers” Of Norway Terrorist [9]

July 26

Interview with Greta Van Susteren: Palin Blasts “Obama Drama” in Debt Debate: “It’s the Spending, Stupid … The President Does Not Know What He’s Doing” [10]

July 27

Sarah Palin to keynote September “tea party” gathering in Iowa [11]:

The former Alaska governor will headline a major “tea party” gathering in Iowa in September, just as the Republican nomination fight begins in earnest. Tea Party of America Wednesday announced Palin’s participation in the Sept. 3 “Restoring America” event.

“We don’t need a ‘fundamental transformation’ of America. We need a restoration of all that is good and strong and free,” Palin says in the group’s news release. “The 2012 election will be a great debate between those two conflicting visions for our country.”

“Gov. Palin embodies the spirit of public service that our founders believed was essential to the survival of our liberties and our republic itself,” Charlie Gruschow, Tea Party of America’s co-founder, said in the release. “We couldn’t be more delighted to have this citizen leader who represents the values that Iowans and Americans hold so dear.”

Paul Bedard in U.S. News: Why Palin, Bachmann Have Plenty of Time for Their Kids [12]:

GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway has an answer for those who think Palin, Bachmann, or other women with children don’t have enough time to raise them while serving in public office.

“As far as I can tell, she doesn’t have a boyfriend. So right there it frees up like 15 extra hours a week,” she says of Palin, with a swipe at the parade of male politicians caught in affairs.

“And she doesn’t play golf,” adds Conway. “That’s like seven hours every Saturday, eight hours every Sunday because there’s always a brunch involved. I just gave her 30 extra hours a week. These kids will be fine.”

July 28

Palin at Facebook: Congressional Freshman — For Such a Time as This [13]. A biblical allusion exhorts new conservative members of Congress to stay true to the principles on which they were voted in November 12.

July 29

The Right Scoop: Rush: We Are All Sarah Palin Now [14]:

I don’t want to hear any more crap from Democrats about civility! I don’t want to be preached to one more time by these holier than thou, better than everybody else, smarter than everybody else craven villains about civility!

I have to tell you folks and I know I am not alone, I am mad as all get out [that] the Democrats and their cohorts in the drive-bys have collectively ratcheted up this divisive, uncivil, reactionary language to trash the Tea Party and by extension conservatives. We’re not terrorists! We’re not killing people! We are Americans who disagree with YOU! We are Americans who disagree with statism! We are Americans who disagree with socialism, communism, and liberalism! We’re not holding anybody hostage, we ARE the hostages!

August 3

Associated Press: Ethics complaint against Sarah Palin dismissed [15]:

Alaska officials have dismissed an ethics complaint filed against former Gov. Sarah Palin that alleged she violated state law because the TLC docu-series Sarah Palin’s Alaska took advantage of a state film production incentives program she signed into law.

Just part of the relentless targeting which caused her to quit the governorship to save Alaska (and herself) the time, trouble, and funds to defend herself.

August 4

New Palin Documentary to Premiere; Her Hair Salon Gets Reality Show [16]

Matthew Vadum at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government on Palin’s rebuke of Vice President Biden’s reported characterization of Tea Party Patriots as “terrorists”:

Palin Hits another Bullseye: If Tea Partiers Were Terrorists, Obama Would Pal Around With Them [17]

August 8

Palin at Facebook: Conquering the Storm [18]:

Back in December 2010, I wrote: “If the European debt crisis teaches us anything, it’s that tomorrow always comes. Sooner or later, the markets will expect us to settle the bill for the enormous Obama-Pelosi-Reid spending binge. We’ve already been warned by the credit ratings agency Moody’s that unless we get serious about reducing our deficit, we may face a downgrade of our credit rating.” And again in January, in response to President Obama’s State of the Union address I wrote: “With credit ratings agency Moody’s warning us that the federal government must reverse the rapid growth of national debt or face losing our triple-A rating, keep in mind that a nation doesn’t look so ‘great’ when its credit rating is in tatters.”

One doesn’t need a Harvard Law degree to figure this out! Just look across the pond at Europe. European nations with less debt and smaller deficits than ours and with real “austerity” plans in place to deal with them have had their ratings downgraded. By what magical thinking did we figure we could run up perpetual trillion dollar deficits and still somehow avoid the unforgiving mathematics of a downgrade? Nothing is ever “too big to fail.” And there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Didn’t we all learn that in our micro and macro econ classes? I did at the University of Idaho. How could Obama skip through Columbia and Harvard without learning that?

August 10

Six Reasons Sarah Palin May Be Delaying Her Entry Into the Presidential Race [19]. Number one reason? She’s the only GOP candidate who can wait. Five more are worth reading too.

August 11

You Can Expect the Unexpected Department:

Surprise: Palin’s bus tour to roll into Iowa this week [20]:

After a nearly three-month hiatus, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is planning to crash the presidential party once again with a heartland-themed re-launch of her “One Nation” bus tour this week in Iowa, according to a Palin fundraising email obtained by CNN.

Palin is bringing her Constitution-themed bus to the Iowa State Fair, just 30 miles south of where the Republican presidential field will take the stage on Thursday for a presidential debate in Ames.

August 13

Riehl World View: Why Sarah Palin Needs To Run For President In 2012 [21]:

While always open to the idea of one day supporting Sarah Palin for president, since 2008, I’ve gone back and forth on whether or not I thought it was smart for her to run next year. Re-visiting my thoughts yesterday, what with Palin’s appearance in Iowa, not only am I convinced she should run, she needs to run and, regardless of one’s preferred candidate, all Conservatives should encourage her to run and welcome her into the race, assuming she does.

Put aside the purely Republican primary politics of it for a moment. Also, I’m not endorsing her, or anyone at this point. But what happened in Iowa yesterday was electric, not just for any Palin faithful, but for many Conservatives and especially the media. For better, or worse, Sarah Palin has star power — whatever that is. But she does have it; that’s for sure.

August 15

Palin Makes ABC Reporter Wait for Heifer [22]. That would be Jake Tapper, which makes it even richer.

The Sincerest Form of Flattery Department:

Obama Makes Like Palin, Embarks on Bus Tour [23]

Except hers is a tribute to the Constitution and his is a Batman-style black behemoth.

Palin at Facebook: A Humbling Reminder of Our Duty [24]:

Now it’s back to Alaska for the start of the school year. (And, of course, our annual visit to our own state fair where Piper looks forward to clogging on the Blue Bonnet Stage!) While kids crack open their school books, I look forward to continuing my own writing and research on strategies and plans to help move our country forward.

We will be back on the road soon, for on September 3rd we’ve been invited to a big Tea Party “Restoring America” rally in Waukee, Iowa. We hope to see many of you there as we gather to discuss the direction of our country and the way forward with our fundamental restoration of all that is good and strong and free in America. You can click here [25] for more information on the event.

August 16

Palin, Beck to appear together in St. Charles Oct. 7 [26]

The Huffington Post scoops a crucial story: Sarah Palin Rocks Polka Dots On Her Toe Nails [27]

August 19

Palin Blasts Absentee President Obama: “What Does He Really Do? … 2012 Can’t Come Soon Enough!” [28]

Sarah Palin hints at presidential bid on YouTube [29]: Palin releases a YouTube video that coyly suggests her plans to announce her candidacy on September 3.

Sarah Palin Iowa Organizer: “She’ll Run” [30]

Watch the Iowa Passion ad [31] and tell us what you think! I’m betting yes.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/palintracker-whats-happening-on-september-3/

URLs in this post:

[1] Rotten Tomatoes Lists Palin Film as “Science Fiction & Fantasy”: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/07/13/rotten-tomatoes-lists-palin-film-as-science-fiction-fantasy/
[2] Palin Points to Late-Summer Presidential Decision: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/13/palin_points_to_late_summer_presidential_decision_110572.html
[3] The Rise and Fall of Sarah Palin: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/rise-and-fall-sarah-palin
[4] Mainstream media putting negative spin on Palin film box-office take?: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/20/mainstream-media-putting-negative-spin-on-palin-do/
[5] Without running, Palin stays near top of GOP field: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/without-running-palin-stays-near-top-gop-field#ixzz1VWlUf0dg
[6] Palin second only to Romney in Washington Post/ABC News poll: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/sarah-palin-second-only-to-mitt-romney-in-washington-postabc-news-poll.html
[7] Palin: Obama now a Lame Duck President: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/23/palin-obama-now-a-lame-duck-president/
[8] Palin and Bachmann: Room for Both on the Ballot, But Not in the Tiny Minds of the Media: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45042
[9] New York Times Columnist Calls Palin, Conservatives “Ideological Fellow Travelers” Of Norway Terrorist: http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/new-york-times-columnist-calls-palin-conservatives-ideological-fellow-travelers-of-norway-terrorist/
[10] Palin Blasts “Obama Drama” in Debt Debate: “It’s the Spending, Stupid … The President Does Not Know What He’s Doing”: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/palin-blasts-039obama-drama039-debt-debate-039it039s-spending-stupid-president-does-not-k#ixzz1VWnMUpGr
[11] Sarah Palin to keynote September “tea party” gathering in Iowa: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-palin-iowa-20110727,0,2941080.story
[12] Why Palin, Bachmann Have Plenty of Time for Their Kids: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/07/27/why-palin-bachmann-have-pletny-of-time-for-their-kids
[13] Congressional Freshman — For Such a Time as This: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150252110003435
[14] Rush: We Are All Sarah Palin Now: http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-we-are-all-sarah-palin-now/
[15] Ethics complaint against Sarah Palin dismissed: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hj2opd_qJzwKCa8iPic_3mumtHbw?docId=0618dd98ba7343f4b9245ee86fe5b3ef
[16] New Palin Documentary to Premiere; Her Hair Salon Gets Reality Show: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpps/entertainment/new-palin-documentary-to-premiere-her-hair-salon-gets-reality-show-dpgonc-20110804-fc_14431256
[17] Palin Hits another Bullseye: If Tea Partiers Were Terrorists, Obama Would Pal Around With Them: http://biggovernment.com/mvadum/2011/08/04/sarah-palin-hits-another-bullseye-if-tea-partiers-were-terrorists-obama-would-pal-around-with-them
[18] Conquering the Storm: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150260905388435
[19] Six Reasons Sarah Palin May Be Delaying Her Entry Into the Presidential Race: http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/08/six-reasons-sarah-palin-may-be-delaying-her-entry-into-the-presidential-race.html
[20] Surprise: Palin’s bus tour to roll into Iowa this week: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/10/surprise-palins-bus-tour-to-roll-into-iowa-this-week/
[21] Why Sarah Palin Needs To Run For President In 2012: http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2011/08/why-sarah-palin-needs-to-run-for-president-in-2012.html
[22] Palin Makes ABC Reporter Wait for Heifer: http://nation.foxnews.com/sarah-palin/2011/08/15/palin-makes-abc-reporter-wait-heifer
[23] Obama Makes Like Palin, Embarks on Bus Tour: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/130965/obama-makes-like-palin-embarks-on-bus-tour/
[24] A Humbling Reminder of Our Duty: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150266426883435
[25] here: http://www.teapartyofamerica.org/event/restoring-america-event-sarah-palin
[26] Palin, Beck to appear together in St. Charles Oct. 7: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_fa905b02-c830-11e0-890f-001a4bcf6878.html
[27] Sarah Palin Rocks Polka Dots On Her Toe Nails: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/16/sarah-palin-toe-nails_n_928512.html
[28] Palin Blasts Absentee President Obama: “What Does He Really Do? … 2012 Can’t Come Soon Enough!”: http://pajamasmedia.comPalin Blasts Absentee President Obama:
[29] Sarah Palin hints at presidential bid on YouTube: http://vator.tv/news/2011-08-19-sarah-palin-hinting-at-presidential-run-with-video
[30] Sarah Palin Iowa Organizer: “She’ll Run”: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/08/19/palin-iowa-organizer-shell-run
[31] Iowa Passion ad: http://youtu.be/HUMPT8Y_KT4

 

[a_majoor]

Reading carefully, you can probably see the outline of the Republican candidate's plans. Is President Obama willing to triangulate? The available evidence suggests the answer is "no", although with the job and economic situation in the tank due to the failed stimulus program and economic uncertainty, it is quite possible there will be Democrat Senators and Congressmen willing to support some variation of this program to save their own seats:

Why Obama Can't Support A Real Jobs Program

I write about domestic and world economics from a free-market perspective. I am a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, at Stanford, and the Cullen Professor of Economics at the University of Houston. I am also a research professor at the German Institute for Economic Research Berlin. My specialties are Russia and Comparative Economics, and I am adding China to my portfolio. I have written more than 20 books on economics, Russia and comparative economics. My latest book is "Politics, Murder, and Love in Stalin’s Kremlin: The Story of Nikolai Bukharin and Anna Larina." I blog at www.paulgregorysblog.blogspot.com.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

President Obama’s much-anticipated jobs speech will undoubtedly cover more of the same things that already haven’t worked. He will propose an infrastructure bank, extension of unemployment and food stamps, promotion of green jobs, more government-corporate partnerships, and a one-year extension of the payroll tax reduction. He’ll advocate a second stimulus. He may be flanked by his jobs commission, headed by the CEO of General Electric, which earlier issued a lame interim jobs report.

His speech will not be about jobs. Instead, it will be a campaign speech in disguise.

Obama cannot propose a real jobs program. His constituents would rebel. A real jobs program attacks too many of the core beliefs of his party, such as minimum wages and higher taxes on the better off. Even if his presidency rested on it, Obama couldn’t emulate Bill Clinton’s 1996 Welfare Reform Act that triangulated him from his own party. There is no way for Obama to enunciate the equivalent of Clinton’s “We must end welfare as we know it.” His core beliefs rule out such a dramatic move to the center.

However, if Obama really wished to create jobs, he must:

1. Convince the business community that the President is not anti-business by:

Requesting the resignation of the entire National Labor Relations Board and dropping the case against Boeing Corporation for building a manufacturing plant in a right to work state. NLRB versus Boeing is the starkest symbol of the President’s anti-business stance. He must also reject union efforts to do away with the secret ballot in union certification elections.

Making real reductions in regulations by an executive order that places the burden of proof on regulatory agencies to prove that the benefits of regulation outweigh the costs using realistic estimates of benefits.

Issuing an executive order telling all agencies that they may not treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Delivering a series of speeches extolling the American free enterprise system.

Ceasing and desisting in promoting government-private business partnerships as the solution to our problems. All they do is promote crony capitalism, and they do not work.

Dropping the idea of an infrastructure bank.  It would simply be a political slush fund and encourage wasteful spending by political cronies.
Halt efforts to force banks to renegotiate mortgage and other loan agreements. Why should any lender lend when the government can force it to change the terms of the loan?

Pass negotiated free trade agreements and drop demands for extraordinary compensation for workers displaced by the trade agreement.

2. Take all steps necessary to hold down the price of energy. The President should remind us that increasing energy costs are job killers as we learned in the 1970s and 1980s. Among the specific steps he should propose:

Drop the EPA’s most recent rulings against coal-fired electricity.

Stop the impediments to offshore drilling and welcome new methods of producing natural gas.

Speed up the issuance of offshore exploration permits and do not triple the price of leases to bidders as he has done.

Demand that Treasury adapt a stance in favor of a strong dollar that would quickly reduce the price per barrel.

3. Create economic conditions that encourage businesses to hire and the unemployed to seek and accept jobs. To do this, the president should:

Not extend unemployment insurance. Empirical studies show that the unemployed find jobs shortly before their unemployment insurance expires. Further extensions will keep the unemployment rate high.

Drop the minimum wage for youths. This measure would encourage small and medium sized businesses to hire teenagers. It will lower teenage unemployment and give young people valuable work experience. (Many young people work for free as interns to gain experience).

4. Instead of trying to prop up the overbuilt housing market, the President should propose measures to allow the economy to work off its excess inventories of housing and to find a bottom in housing prices. Only after the bottom is reached will construction resume. To do this, he should:

Establish the equivalent of the Resolution Trust Corporation of the 1989 to 1995 period to sell off the stock of foreclosed homes quickly so as to achieve a bottom in the real estate market.

Announce a credible plan for the liquidation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Get the government out of the mortgage business. It was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that played a major role in getting us into this mess. Until they are liquidated, their losses should be included in the federal deficit for all to see.

5. The president should reduce the uncertainty within households and businesses caused by excessive government spending, deficits, and uncertain future tax liabilities. To do this, he should:

Support the extension of the Bush tax cuts so that businesses and households have clarity as to their future tax obligations. The Bush tax cuts should remain in effect until Congress passes broad tax reforms that eliminate virtually all tax preferences and lower tax rates.

Follow up the report of the Government Accountability Office on waste and duplication in government by eliminating unnecessary and duplicative federal programs. If federal budgets must be cut, cut duplicative programs and do not threaten reductions in essential services and social security.

Announce that ObamaCare is open for amendment so that a bi-partisan version can replace the bill that was passed without Republican support.

Announce support of the basic proposals of the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission. Fears of deficits and future default will only disappear when the public is convinced that realistic and tough reforms of our entitlement programs are being undertaken now, not in the distant future.

Restate the federal budget deficit to include the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security. Such an inclusion would multiply the already alarming deficits by a huge factor and would explain to the public the urgency of reform of Medicare and Social Security.

This laundry list suggests why President Obama will not announce a real jobs program. His constituents would launch a primary challenge. Some might even call for his impeachment. For these reasons, we can expect pabulum and platitudes in his jobs speech, despite projections that high unemployment is about to become our “new normal.”

If Obama announced such a program, would it enhance his chances for reelection? Could he pull off the equivalent of a Bill Clinton in 1996? He could take the opportunity to admit pass mistakes and to chart a new course. He might even announce the firing of Timothy Geithner, the face of Obama’s economic program.

If he could convince voters that his change of course is sincere, he would increase his popularity among independent voters. If Obama’s political instincts trumped his ideological instinct, this might be something worthy of consideration. My own guess is that he would dismiss such a change of course in a microsecond.

 

[Kalatzi]

Ahem,  Michele Bachmann seems tgo have a lock on the perfect answer to every politcal problem.

Deus Vult!!!!! iper:

Hurricane Elena - God is punishing Washington.

She says she has a lovley sense of humour. A true fact!! Proof here http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-ultimate-collection-of-stupid-michele-bachmann

If she gets in will be sooooo much safer with her finger on the trigger

It wil be interesting to see who else gets on side with this

Finally for those naysayers who say she is batsh*t crazy, I say enough!!!! Your offending the bats.