Run, Rick, Run!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
62

[quote]Menthol wrote:
Thought Investors Business Daily had an informative article about the Texas governor, and the employment situation under his administration. He has a good record.

“In Texas, Perry Outshines Obama”

But just as noteworthy is the contrast between the two leaders’ economic records.

By almost every measure, Texas has done far better over the past 2 1/2 years under Perry’s stewardship than the nation as a whole has done under Obama’s, according to an IBD review of government data.

Jobs. Texas is one of only eight states to have seen a net gain in jobs since Obama took office, adding 64,400. Only tiny North Dakota comes close, with 27,800 net new jobs, driven largely by that state’s oil drilling boom.

The U.S. overall has lost a net 2.4 million jobs since January 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What’s more, since the recession ended in June 2009, Texas has added 298,600 jobs, accounting for 52% of U.S. net job growth.

A recent USA Today report noted that while the energy boom has helped Texas as well, employment growth has been “broad-based,” with gains in sectors including education, health care, leisure, and professional and business services.

Unemployment. Texas’ jobless rate has been consistently below the national average, peaking at 8.3%.The national average topped out at 10.1%. The state’s unemployment rate is still a full percentage point below the national average.

Economic growth. In 2010, Texas’ economy grew 5.3%, according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. The overall U.S. economy, in contrast, grew 3.8%.

Wages. Texas has seen wages climb faster than the country overall. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average wage for employees in Texas rose 7.4% between May 2008 and May 2010 (the latest data available). For the nation as a whole, average wages climbed 5%.

Population. Texas is also experiencing a population boom, as people flock there for job opportunities.

A recent study by Michael Cox, former chief economist for the Dallas Fed, found that Texas was by far the top destination for people moving in the country, with a net gain of half a million migrants between 2004 and 2008. The vast majority came from other states.

The rest can be read at:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/581393/201108121903/In-Texas-Match-Up-With-The-President-Its-Advantage-Perry.aspx?src=HPLNews
[/quote] The oil industry caused jobs in Texas, not Perry. Under Perry spending is up, education is down, our roads are being sold to middle eastern royalty and illegals waltz around like Texas is their private, income tax free playground.

63

I never have understood exactly what a Federal “Education Department” does…when so many issues involving education are already done on the local level.

Mufasa

64

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
We’ve talked about this before, Zeb. (i.e. the VP).

I agree with you…

“Perry/Bachmann” makes no sense because they appeal to almost the very same base. He needs to “pull in” a constituency that could get him “over-the-hump” should there be a close race with the President.

“Romney/Bachmann” simply will not work. (And as I’ve indicated, “Romney/Anyone” will not win over the Evangelical/Religious Right vote).

Mufasa[/quote]

The religious right is not going to vote democrat, period so it’s not such a need to appeal to them all that much. I agree there has to be at least some broder appeal…Obama is weak, but still has the support of the media and his normal contingency, despite the fact he has fucked up everything.
Personally I am not to terribly interested in the Religious Right being too thrilled. That usually means said candidate may lead from the pulpit and I definitely don’t want that.

65

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I think both egos are WAY too big for that ticket, Zeb.

I just can’t see either man being a VP to the other.

Mufasa[/quote]

Perry wouldn’t be as he is Gov. of Texas which is a better job than VP. But this is Romney’s final round up. He’d take it if it came down to that or nothing. But he’d probably prefer Treasury Secretary over VP.

66

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
There was some talk several months (or more) ago that suggested Perry might want the VP slot. I think that makes since. Consider how he has ruled in Texas, from the VP position he can set the groundwork and place his people for a presidency after 8 (or 4) years.

Oh, my dad (in Texas) told me on the national news last night (not sure which channel but one of the main ones) talked about how Texas has a $1 fee on each months electric bill that is to help those who are unable to afford electricity to pay their bills. Perry took half of that money to help meet the $27 billion needed to match the budget. So Perry took this money from the very poor, dooped the state’s taxpayers, instead of pulling money from the slush fund (which would have covered the budget shortfall and a practice he had done twice already) and nearly decimated the public education funding. I do not think he will look good under media spotlight.[/quote]

There is no living breathing republican who challenges Obama that the press will not attempt a total beat down on.

67

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I never have understood exactly what a Federal “Education Department” does…when so many issues involving education are already done on the local level.

Mufasa[/quote]

So true.

68

[quote]pat wrote:
The religious right is not going to vote democrat, period so it’s not such a need to appeal to them all that much. I agree there has to be at least some broder appeal…Obama is weak, but still has the support of the media and his normal contingency, despite the fact he has fucked up everything.
Personally I am not to terribly interested in the Religious Right being too thrilled. That usually means said candidate may lead from the pulpit and I definitely don’t want that.[/quote]

Agree, Pat. This is more about appeal to Independents/Undecided (Which “PWI” had shown absolute DISDAIN for over the years!)…but they are the “over-the-hump” vote in close races.

As Zeb has pointed out, a candidate needs to appeal to its base hard in the Primary…then in the General election move more in the “opposite” direction.

I think Perry can do this…Bachmann not so much…and in the GENERAL election, I agree…“Campaigning-from-the-Pulpit” will not be a good strategy.

Mufasa

70

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I never have understood exactly what a Federal “Education Department” does…

[/quote]

It spends other people’s money. For no good reason.
[/quote]

How dare you.

Apparently you have a laundry folding robot now and you know exactly how penis size influences a gay mans love life.

Money well spent.

71

I consider myself one of the ‘religious right.’ Alienate us to pick up some independents and you’ll lose. And you’ll lose big. I’d sooner throw away my vote on some 3rd party candidate than some pro civil union, pro-choice, with an aversion to “god bless america,” libertarian. Or, some GoP progressive-lite. I’d sooner let the democrats run the nation than reward the GoP.

72

Pawlenty’s out. Perry might as well be the GOP candidate. I have no hope for the GOP or the presidency in the upcoming election.

73

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The religious right is not going to vote democrat, period so it’s not such a need to appeal to them all that much. I agree there has to be at least some broder appeal…Obama is weak, but still has the support of the media and his normal contingency, despite the fact he has fucked up everything.
Personally I am not to terribly interested in the Religious Right being too thrilled. That usually means said candidate may lead from the pulpit and I definitely don’t want that.[/quote]

Agree, Pat. This is more about appeal to Independents/Undecided (Which “PWI” had shown absolute DISDAIN for over the years!)…but they are the “over-the-hump” vote in close races.

As Zeb has pointed out, a candidate needs to appeal to its base hard in the Primary…then in the General election move more in the “opposite” direction.

I think Perry can do this…Bachmann not so much…and in the GENERAL election, I agree…“Campaigning-from-the-Pulpit” will not be a good strategy.

Mufasa[/quote]

Honestly, I think all thought all the players were very weak. Some are ok, some are just jokes. I always knew it was going to require somebody coming out of the wood work who was not known. I just think don’t think anybody had the ‘it’ factor it was going to take to beat obama. It was reminding me of '04. Bush was unpopular, but the field of democrats were so weak that the best guy they could come up with was Kerry? A tree stump could have beat Bush, but Kerry was so bad he really scared the shit out of people. At least they know what they had with Bush.
Such is the Republican pool, up until Perry showed up.

He seems strong. He carries the kind of aura that is going to be able to beat obama. Obama may have fucked up, but he can speak well enough to make you think the lump of shit your are eating is Filet Mignon. It’s early yet, but I think he’s got the ‘it’ that can beat obama.
Like I said it’s early. If the republicans have demonstrated any skill lately, it’s the ability to steal defeat from the jaws of victory.
Even shitty incumbents are hard to beat.

I agree playing to the core is fine for now, but don’t lie to them either. If the core doesn’t have the good damn sense to know that you need broad appeal to win, then let the idiots vote for obama, instead.
The only issue I, personally am hard right on is abortion, the rest, I lean. The problem with the hard right is they are as liberty thieving as the left. I want my freedom first.

74

[quote]Otep wrote:
Pawlenty’s out. Perry might as well be the GOP candidate. I have no hope for the GOP or the presidency in the upcoming election.[/quote]

Pawlenty never had a chance. But obama is beatable.

75

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I never have understood exactly what a Federal “Education Department” does…when so many issues involving education are already done on the local level.

Mufasa[/quote]

Spend money and meddle.

76

[quote]Otep wrote:
Pawlenty’s out. Perry might as well be the GOP candidate. I have no hope for the GOP or the presidency in the upcoming election.[/quote]

What’s making you feel this way, Otep?

Mufasa

77

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Please don’t vote for this yahoo. Just Google his voting and spending records. He is not a conservative at all and he hates education.[/quote]

most conservatives don’t believe in government run or funded education.
[/quote]

Good point.

I believe the federal government should not participate at all in education.

I don’t even believe the states should fund it. It’s the biggest monolithic pile of bureaucratic bullshit there is.

Schools should be private. Period. The market and private sector could easily take of it more efficiently and with better results. Guaranteed.

That doesn’t mean minimum schooling requirements shouldn’t/couldn’t be mandated by law.[/quote]

Look at the largest economies around the world. How many of those do not have public education. An uneducated populous is a drain, not a boon, for a country’s economy.

I am not saying that private schools are a bad idea. But looking at public verse charter schools in Texas, the charters have been less successful overall that the public schools in graduation rates. That said, there are real gems of charters schools as there are really good public schools. There just happens to be plenty of bad schools, public and charter, as well.

I used charter schools because those are the ones, generally, that parents can use vouchers to pay for tuition.

Also, bear in mind my wife and I are both teachers. But I will admit I am more likely to home school my daughter than send her to the elementary school at the end of our block (which is considered the best in out city of residence). I think there needs to be some government role in schools. I think a fundamental base curriculum would be a great idea. But I also think that the overseeing of schools through the lens of standardized testing is bad. The thing is, parent involvement in the schools can do more to improve schools than government mandates. Sorry for the rant.[/quote]

Graduation rate is not a good predictor of success. I know a lot of public schools that just push kids through doesn’t matter what they do. I would say the only real measure of success is standardized tests at this point. I know they are lacking too, but right now we really don’t have anything.

What role does government have. To say that we need public education is to assume the only way a child can be educated is through government intervention. I and my wife are more then capable to educate our children. Probably in a better capacity than a public school. so why should we be forced to fund it, why should anyone be forced to fund something they have no say in.

And sorry, but if school wants to push agendas, they should be shut down. It is my role, as a parent, to teach my children morality and social issues, no one else.

if the school is doing a good job it will be supported, no need to rob property owners to do it.

78

Snooze.

79

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I consider myself one of the ‘religious right.’ Alienate us to pick up some independents and you’ll lose. And you’ll lose big. I’d sooner throw away my vote on some 3rd party candidate than some pro civil union, pro-choice, with an aversion to “god bless america,” libertarian. Or, some GoP progressive-lite. I’d sooner let the democrats run the nation than reward the GoP. [/quote]

I’m from the same place and I second that motion! And that’s one reason that Huntsman is a loser going in.

80

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I consider myself one of the ‘religious right.’ Alienate us to pick up some independents and you’ll lose. And you’ll lose big. I’d sooner throw away my vote on some 3rd party candidate than some pro civil union, pro-choice, with an aversion to “god bless america,” libertarian. Or, some GoP progressive-lite. I’d sooner let the democrats run the nation than reward the GoP. [/quote]

I’m from the same place and I second that motion! And that’s one reason that Huntsman is a loser going in. [/quote]

So you would throw away your vote, allowing Obama to win, rather that voting for somebody who may not be ideal, but at least holds views closer to yours than obama, over spite? That just doesn’t make sense…You are still responsible for your vote. If you deliberately throw your vote, you deserve what you get which is 4 more years of obama, which is 4 more years of entitlements, horrible economy and liberal agendas. No thanks.