Archive for the ‘Rick Perry’ Category
Rick Perry mistakenly called on a mannequin with its hand raised at a town-hall event in South Carolina on Friday. The female mannequin was wearing a Squat N’ Gobble T-shirt, the restaurant where the incident took place, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Rick Perry doesn’t matter in the eventual outcome of who wins the GOP nomination. It won’t be him, that seems pretty clear. But folks who can’t win the nomination are certainly capable of impacting the conversation (Ron Paul, anyone?).
And Rick Perry has been quite vocal that several federal agencies need the ax. This of course led to the famously embarrassing debate gaffe (“oops”) that effectively ended his chances of winning the contest. If you can’t remember a list of 3 things you hate, how can you remember important things, like the differences between Sunni and Shi’ite, or how the recent developments in Afganhistan are going to determine future interactions with Pakistan.
But that hasn’t stopped Perry from decrying the terrible agencies. The thing is: I’m not sure Rick Perry knows anything about the federal agencies he wants to destroy. In his original 3, Perry listed Commerce and Education. You might notice that is only 2. True. He forgot the third. To help him, Ron Paul suggested he might mean the EPA (which caused not even a blink in the media–that’s how loathed the EPA is in the GOP), but apparently he meant to include Energy, he claimed later.
So, then it was Energy, Commerce and Education. Now, Perry is back, hitting his talking points, and naming his 3 agencies to immediately end. What are they?
“Three right off the bat, you know, commerce, interior and energy are three that you think,” Perry said during a radio interview with Bill Edwards on WTKS Radio in Savannah…Asked if Perry meant to include the Department of Interior in his list, Mark Miner, spokesman for Perry, told reporters: “It shouldn’t be surprising the governor is talking about another federal agency that needs to be looked at and cut.”
So that’s it? Apparently it doesn’t matter to Perry what agencies he chooses, as long as he mentions cutting federal agencies. If that place uses tax dollars to do things around the country, or to put it another way, is a federal agency, then it should be DESTROYED!
(Interior by the way is pretty good thing to have around, though of course it has its problems. It manages things like federal lands (BLM, Park Service), Native American issues (BIA), US Fish and Widlife, surface mining, and water. You know, all that hippy bullshit that is required for things to live. Cut it!)
Today is the New Hampshire Primary. The day New Hampshire will vote for Mitt Romney, and the suspense for TRC will be: How well will Jon Huntsman do? That’s the only interesting part of today, besides the infighting and the crybabying and the general fun of political muckety-muck.
And muckety-muck there has been in N.H.
Gingrich is going crazy with his anti-Mitt railings. It is clear Mr. Gingrich’s pledge to run a clean campaign does not extend beyond the realization that voters don’t much like him, and to be successful, he’s going to have be a douche. Want proof? Check out Newt’s latest campaign website: Stop Romney’s Pious Baloney. Yeah. It’s essentially Newt barf in interweb form.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Santorum is getting his day in the sun: where rampant homophobia and anti-gay behavior should be rejected. Which, at least in part, it has been by the New Hampshire voters. And in return, Rick Santorum has turned sarcastic and bitter regarding the young people who find him distasteful. Well, at least he’s consistent (somebody will say, as they vote for him). Note to Santorum: you can’t claim to respect the dignity of the GLBT community, while wanting to outlaw gay sex and comparing their relationships to polygamy, or worse. Sorry.
Apparently Mitt Romney takes pleasure in firing people. That’s not a surprise, he’s a many times over millionaire who got his fortune by letting businesses go bankrupt. He’s the picture of the wealthy man becoming so by deciding the fates of others. Sure, some of those people got jobs at companies that succeeded, others had their places closed down and lost jobs. Don’t pretend otherwise. This is how Mitt Romney got rich. For this, he is the target of everyone’s ire. Which is just fine, if a bit, you know, disingenuous.
Huntsman seems highly reasonable, prepared for important issues, and relatively likable. Naturally, he’s failing. But there has been signs of hope for today. Hopefully New Hampshire can give him some momentum to make a run at it. He’s a reasonable man in a clown school.
Ron Paul is still doing what he does: rousing the rabble. Rick Perry is still somewhere, I think, waiting for New Hampshire to end so he can do in South Carolina what Paul does so well everywhere else.
I think that’s everyone. Have fun Granite Staters.
Today is the Iowa Caucuses, most well known as the kick-off to the Presidential Election 2012. TRC is pretty excited to see what kind of madness ensues this year, and to get things rolling, we offer readers the “Everything you need to know about the candidates for today’s Iowa Caucus” primer that will get you through the rest of January 3.
So what do you need to know?
Our Prediction: It appears that Ron Paul or Rick Santorum might win the Iowa Caucuses. Or maybe Mitt Romney. But probably someone more conservative like Santorum or Paul. Or Romney.
Also, Michele Bachmann is going to be keep “fighting” to “surprise” despite having a snowballs chance, and Newt Gingrich is going to be mean because he has always said he would run a clean campaign until he peaked then started trending downward thus allowing him to finally display is true dickish nature. Which if you recall is really, really dickish.
Thus Mitt Romney is your winner. Even if he doesn’t win, he wins. I mean, look at these guys:
There you have it. Your 2012 Republican field.
A follow up to yesterday’s rant against the evangelical Rick Perry’s evangelical commercial about President Obama’s War on Religion. You’ll remember the key quote from the political spot: ““You don’t have to be in the pews every Sunday to know that there is something wrong with our country, when gays can openly serve in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.” Besides being totally aggravating, Perry is actually wrong. TRC was in no place to highlight legal nuance yesterday, but today this is still bothering us, so here you go.
There is nothing keeping prayer out of schools in the United States. There is no law banning school prayer. At least, not in the manner that Rick Perry, and many other religious individuals in America think there is. For some reason, it has become a de facto position of many evangelicals, and the Religious Right, and the Catholic Church, among others, that the Supreme Court banned prayer from public schools in the 1960s.
In the interest of people knowing what the hell they are talking about, here’s some clarification. Prayer is allowed in public schools. It has never been banned, and the right to pray in schools has been defended by the US Gov’t, the ACLU, the American Center for Law and Justice, etc, etc, etc. Prayer in school is legal and safe and well protected by the Constitution. Glad we cleared that up. Unfortunately, that point has been quite difficult to make to the public. Jeffrey Weiss at Real Clear Religion points out the key distinction that was made in the Supreme Court, and the sloppy coverage from the press that accompanies the infamous prayer in school decision.
No matter what one thinks of Perry’s candidacy, this one is another major “oops” for the campaign.
I admit, he’s not alone in making his error. The Associated Press’s analysis of the ad was critical, but also veered off the tracks and into the legal abyss.
Wrote AP political reporter Beth Fouhy: “The Supreme Court prohibited school prayer in two landmark decisions in 1962 and 1963, calling it an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.”
Which is sooo close to being correct. The court actually prohibited mandatory school prayer. And that one word makes all the difference. (See: Twain, Mark on lightning-bug vs. lightning.)
The truth is that kids pray in schools and on school grounds all the time. Many surely do it silently before the math midterms. But they also pray very publicly, in organized events. They do it plenty in Rick Perry’s Texas, as a matter of fact.
As an example, Weiss highlights See You at the Pole, a very public, Pray-to-Jesus-oriented event that happens once a year at schools around the country. I remember that event from my high school days. Such an activity is quite constitutional, as it should be.
And due to such events, every student who has ever gone to a public school is very much aware that prayer, quiet and self-contained or over-the-top public displays of hand-holding, is allowed. To suggest otherwise is to deceive. Is Rick Perry in favor of mandatory prayers in school? Or does he just not know that prayer is actually allowed in school? Or is he an idiot? Liar? These seem to be the options.
Again, Rick Perry’s political advert is not important. It’s a politician abusing religion and religious individuals to make hay in a primary election that Perry won’t win anyway. But sticking up for the actual legal rights of Americans is a worthy pursuit. Clarifying misrepresentations of the US Constitution matters a lot more than Perry’s forgetful campaign for President. No one may learn the difference, but that doesn’t make the difference any less important.
Before I start, I know this doesn’t really matter. But oh man, sometimes you just gotta rage.
Rick Perry is now playing to the lowest common denominator of American Politics: be afraid for your religion, it is under attack.
According to Perry’s new ad, Barack Obama, American citizen, Christian, all around seemingly good guy, and President of the United States, is waging a war on religion. That’s right. It’s not just a war on Christmas anymore. It’s a war on Religion. Such a statement is so preposterous, so fucking slanderous and careless and debasing that it makes TRC’s eyes red with seething anger. And that is not easy to do.
Says Perry: “You don’t have to be in the pews every Sunday to know that there is something wrong with our country, when gays can
only openly serve in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.” AAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Rick Perry, please, answer me: Which kids can’t celebrate Christmas? Honestly, where are they? Show me kids that cannot celebrate Christmas. Once, I used to believe in prayer, and guess what I did? I prayed in school all the time, pretty much anytime I wanted. You know who cared about that? NO ONE. We even had a Bible study that had a facutly adviser and everything, can you believe the injustice? So, honestly, what are you talking about? You are either lying, or drumming up fear in the Christian community to somehow make them believe that Christianity is being threatened by that scary black president who just can’t be trusted. Liberals are not attacking your religious heritage. Many, many, many, many, many liberals (including President Obama) actually share your religious heritage. It is a broad and wonderful heritage that includes liberals. Do you know that? Seriously? Do you? Seriously, do you?
If you are more even-tempered than I am regarding people abusing religion, here’s Perry, ruining everything:
TRC is reviving an old (old) blog feature from a previous era, the Welcome to ________’s America.
Perry called the birther movement “a good issue to keep alive…You know, Donald [Trump] has got to have some fun. It’s fun to poke [Obama] a little bit and say, ‘Hey, let’s see your grades and your birth certificate.’ I don’t have a clue about where the president — and what this birth certificate says. But it’s also a great distraction.
Well said. You’ve never looked more presidential.
The Texas governor was speaking Wednesday at the Western Republican Leadership Conference. He was telling the audience, “you won’t hear a lot of shape-shifting nuance from me.”
No shit. You don’t strike anyone as a terribly nuanced in your political views.
We are in the throes of another presidential primary season, which means, among other things, that religion and politics are being uncomfortably joined together, and candidates are enduring the headaches that result from tearing them asunder. Last time it was Christianity as understood by white Americans in suburbs clashing with the Christianity of urban African-Americans. This time the contrast is evangelical Christianity and the cult of Mormonism, or the Religion of Mormonism, or the Christian Denomination of Mormonism, depending on whom you ask.
Front-runner for the GOP Presidential Nomination, Mitt Romney, is a Mormon. Everyone knows this. Some people, like evangelical Christian and former front-runner for the GOP Presidential Nomination, Rick Perry, may not be comfortable with Romney’s Mormon faith. There is wide swath of opinions, apparently, on whether Mormon’s belief in Christ makes them Christians, or whether their religion is outside the bounds of Christianity, and is thus a false religion.
Growing up in the Midwest, I knew several Mormon families, and they seemed to be generally viewed as slightly odd if not kooky, but certainly not as a threat. They were our friends and their Mormonism was known and not commented upon. It was just kind of weird. (Originally I wrote down some of the beliefs of the Mormon Church that seem strange, but when you write them side by side, Christianity’s beliefs really aren’t any less kooky.) This is not news to the Mormon Church, which has been making great strides to advance its image of normalcy in the US in recent years. I’m sure you’ve seen the commercials (which I’m not going to link to, but you can watch them all at mormon.org).
But the Midwest tries hard to be nice. There’s seems to be a little more worry regarding the Mormon Church in other circles, such the centers of the Evangelical Church. It seems fair to say that (correct me if I’m wrong) Evangelical Christianity does not accept Mormons into the fold, and as Evangelicals have a strong voice in American Politics, problems are bound to appear when someone, like Mitt Romney, tries to blend the two. The most recent uproar comes from Pastor Robert Jeffress, who introduced Rick Perry at a speaking engagement. Jeffress described Mormonism as cult, called Planned Parenthood a slaughterhouse, and asked, ““Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person — or one who is a born-again follower of the lord Jesus Christ?””
Small uproars ensued. Mitt Romney asked Perry to publicly decry the claim that Mormonism is a cult, which Perry did not do, because Jeffress is not an associate of Perry’s, which then turned out not to be the case, so Rick Perry did acknowledge his belief that Mormonism is not a cult, shortly after describing Jeffress as having “knocked it out the park” with his introduction. These are the binds one will inevitably find in the mixture of presidential politics and religion.
Many journalists/bloggers/rabble-rousers ran with the Perry-Romney-Cult dust-up, since they love writing about the consequences of these kind of religious intervals into presidential politics. And who doesn’t? It’s great fodder for complaining; that’s what we’re doing right now. The question I have and I haven’t seen addressed is: why should anyone be surprised that a Southern Baptist Pastor believes, and would say, that Mormonism is a cult? Of course that’s what Jeffress thinks, along with a lot of evangelicals around the world. Because Mormonism isn’t Christianity, at least not to Jeffress. What else does it take for a religion that is not Christianity to be considered a cult by Christians like Jeffress? This is religion we’re talking about. It’s not acceptable (possible?) to dispute the Truth when one’s religion has a different capital-T than another religion. Overlapping Truths, I can understand, and promote. But exclusive Truths don’t overlap. And if you are outside, your options are few and unpleasant.
Remember that uproar over Reverend Wright and Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign? I wondered the same thing about that issue. Why wouldn’t Reverend Wright, a black preacher in a black community in Chicago, preach what he preached? And why wouldn’t white suburban Christians not feel threatened? That makes perfect sense. It’s all considered Christianity, to the Christian who believes it.
So here’s a little rant: The shock people feel at the exclusivity or the rigidity or the offensive nature of someone else’s beliefs is either false, or misplaced. Religion has no place in politics, whether you think Mormonism is a cult, or think that evangelical Christianity is oppressive, or Reverend Wright’s Christianity is anti-white, or that Religion impedes the progress of society. If you adhere to the strict notion of capital-T religious truth, then the others have to be wrong, by necessity, and you are free to condemn them to hell or to accept the differences. Either way, it shouldn’t matter, because none of this has a place in politics. The only way that these conversations serve the presidential process is to demonstrate how candidates handle bad press. If you are President Obama, you give a speech on religion and race and handle the problem with poise and grace. If you are Mitt Romney, you keep your hands clean and stay above the fray. And if you are Rick Perry, you continue your fall from relevance, because, unfortunately, religious discrimination in politics does not play outside of a small community of religious hardliners.
Regardless, keep your religious muck out of the political process. There is plenty of muck gumming up politics as it is.
In my last post, I made this comment about the potential differences of the 2012 GOP presidential field: The difference is not so much ideological as it is how these individuals would represent political difference to the nation; their politics aren’t terribly far apart, but how they would hold the office of the presidency might be.
Now I want to illustrate that point. Here are the cover images of the economic plans of the two leading GOP candidates.