Train 1 scumbag 0

They say crime does not pay. They also say it is foolish to be on the tracks when a train is coming. Looks like they are right on both counts!

Via NYDN:

Justice hit an Iowa crook like a freight train, Des Moines cops say.

Lopez Christian Webster, 32, broke into an East Grand Ave. home on Tuesday and stabbed a man repeatedly before fleeing with the warning “move and I kill you,” KCCI-TV reports.

But his getaway was not so clean. Webster tried to hop some train tracks — as a Union Pacific train rolled through — and was sliced in half and killed instantly, the Des Moines Register reports.

The train conductor had no idea Webster, who tried to pass between two cars as the train was moving, had been fatally struck. The train was finally flagged down in Ankeny, Iowa, about 12 miles north.

Karma? I could say something about the bad guy being “beside” himself over this, but that would not be in good taste

 

Another Day, Another Extremist Democrat

Tom Harkin really hates those damn Tea Party types. I mean come on, common Americans getting involved in the political process? That is like soooo inconvenient for Statists like Harkin

Via The Hill:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) on Friday said that the Tea Party movement is just as dangerous for America as the Civil War.

“A small group of willful men and women who have a certain ideology about how our country should run and what we should do cannot get their way in a normal discourse and votes,” Harkin said. “Since they can’t get their way they’re going to create this confusion and discourse and hope the public is so mixed up in who to blame for this that perhaps they’ll blame both sides.”

“That is the path they see for taking over the government. It’s dangerous, very dangerous. … Every bit as dangerous as the break up and the Civil War.”

Well first off the “Civil War” is not an accurate name for that conflict. A civil war would be two or more factions fighting to control government. The Confederate States seceded, formed a NEW nation, and fought only to defend the right to do so. But, more to the point. Harkin calls the Tea Party “willful” as if they are children throwing a tantrum. Actually, they, unlike parasites like Harkin, they Care about our nation and the Constitution, which, of course can make life tough on Harkin who really does not give a rats ass about the Constitution!

The Tug of Peace? Good Freaking Grief!

The wussification of America continues

Tug of war was a suitable game for the old America, that had not yet been fundamentally transformed into a land of unadulterated moonbattery. Now we have tug of peace:

Participants group themselves around a rope that has been tied in a knot to form a circle. Players squat down around the rope, holding the rope with both hands. At the count of three, all players lean back and-using the energy of the group-they stand up. When everyone has stood up (and cheered), players can, on the count of three again, carefully lean back into a squat.

In this game, the counterbalance support that players provide to one another is a graphic representation of mutual support and cooperation. It’s a totally different experience than Tug-of-War, which can be a painful exercise that activates aggression and leaves players in the dirt.

Or maybe, since the exercise allows people to stand up by pulling against each other, it symbolizes how competition causes everyone to rise. But I doubt that’s what the creator Maria Sapon-Shevin had in mind, considering that she is a barking moonbat:

Mara Sapon-Shevin is a professor of education at Syracuse University. She teaches, writes, and lectures all over the world on the value of inclusive education, not just as a way to help students learn, but as a tool for building strong communities and promoting social justice.

More of this Marxist Moron’s deluded thinking at Moonbattery!

 

House votes to defund Obama’s back door Dream Act

Good for them, I wonder how long until Senator McCain is bashing them as wacko birds over this

The House of Representatives voted 224–201 Thursday morning to deny funding for the Obama administration’s controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. The policy, which was implemented via executive order in June 2012, effectively assumes the enactment of the DREAM Act, legislation that has failed to pass Congress on multiple occasions, and has raised concerns about executive overreach:

Republicans have argued that these orders amount to the selective enforcement of U.S. immigration laws that discourages enforcement against children who were brought to the United States illegally, or illegal immigrant adults who are not in any legal trouble. Many Republicans have dubbed Obama’s orders as “administrative amnesty.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) sponsored the amendment to the 2014 Department of Homeland Security spending bill, and called for its passage in late Wednesday debate by saying Obama’s orders — also known as the Morton memos — violate the Constitution.

“The point here is … the President does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air, and he’s done both with these Morton memos in this respect,” King said.

President Obama works for us, and is bound by the Constitution. Facts he chooses to ignore. 

 

Wanted Fugitive Shot by Kansas Farmer

Still waiting on snarky Tweets from noted tool David Frum about how no one ever defends themselves with a gun

WELLINGTON, Kan. (TheBlaze/AP) – Authorities have identified a 42-year-old Iowa fugitive who was fatally shot by a farmer in south-central Kansas.

Sumner County Sheriff Darren Chambers says Joseph L. Lamasters, of Creston, Iowa, was wanted in that state for a probation violation stemming from drug charges.

KSN-TV reports Kansas authorities began searching for Lamasters after he left his ID at a Kansas Turnpike tollbooth Monday, apparently to retrieve money to pay the toll. That’s when authorities learned he was wanted in Iowa.

Lamasters ran into a wooded area and was spotted later Monday afternoon by a farmer. The farmer says he opened fire after Lamasters jumped out from a pile of feed sacks and threatened to kill him.

The sheriff says it was self-defense and he does not expect the farmer to be charged.

Oh no, even more bad news for Frum

On Tuesday night, an armed would-be robber approached a Miami man outside his apartment building and demanded his belongings.

Though it is not clear why, the robber then shot the victim in the hand. He didn’t know it at the time, but it would turn out to be a senseless violent act that cost him his life.

The victim, whose injury was said to be non-life threatening, then pulled out his own handgun in self-defense and shot his attacker several times. The violent robber later died at Miami’s Jackson Memorial Hospital due to his injuries.

What? No smart-assed comments Frum? Maybe he is too busy licking the boots of the DC elites

Rassmussen projects Romney to win 279+ electoral votes, Nate Silver hardest hit

Oh, poor Nate!

According to the latest Rasmussen state polls, Mitt Romney is in position to win the presidency; he should win at least 279 electoral votes. Romney leads in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire; Obama leads in Pennsylvania and Nevada. Wisconsin and Iowa are tied. Were Romney to win both Wisconsin and Iowa, he’d secure another 16 electoral votes, putting him at 295 electoral votes. By way of contrast, George W. Bush won 286 electoral votes in 2004.

 

 

Incompetent Iowa Professor Claims Jesus Was A Muslim (Video)

Iowa Professor Claims Jesus Was A Muslim – Gateway Pundit

Prof. Robert F. Shedinger, the head of the religion department at Luther College in Iowa, told ITCTV back in 2010 that Jesus was a Muslim.

(Mohammed was born six centuries after Christ!)

.

.
This crackpot is still pushing his nonsensical thesis that Jesus was a Muslim.

Campus Reform reported, via All American Blogger:

The head of the religion department at Luther College in Iowa recently argued that Jesus Christ, the central figure of Christianity, was in fact, a Muslim.

“‘Was Jesus a Muslim?” asks Prof. Robert F. Shedinger in the beginning of a book he published this year entitled Was Jesus a Muslim? ” I will answer with a very qualified yes.”

In a recent interview Shedinger also defended his controversial thesis explaining that a Muslim undergraduate student had sent him on academic odyssey that culminated with him asking himself “Was Jesus a Muslim?”

“Even as a Christian I have to answer yes to that,” said Shedinger, who is the head of the religion department at Luther College in Iowa.

Shedinger also argued that Islam is a better fit for Jesus since it is not a religion but a “social justice movement.”

“I had to rethink what Islam is… I came to the conclusion that it was a social justice movement and I think that’s who Jesus was in the first century so I conclude Jesus is more like a Muslim,” he said.

The vast majority of scholars, historians, Muslims, and Christians date the birth of Islam to 622 ADE when the Prophet Muhammad claimed to have received visions that were eventually compiled into the Koran. Jesus, on the other hand, is believed to have existed more than 600 years earlier, at around 0 BCE.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Like a bad case of food poisoning, Governor irrelevant is back

Yep, John Huntsman, of the Charlie Crist/Dede Scozzafava Wing of the Republican Party is auditioning to be “That” Republican. “That” Republican being the Republican that the media will fawn over because “that” Republican will throw Conservatives under the bus, painting the Right as “nutty” or ” out of touch”. In short “That” Republican, be it Davis Frum, David Brooks, Charlie Crist, Meghan McCain, or John Huntsman is willing to be a useful idiot for the media.Stacy McCain, like me, is, shall we say NOT a fan of Huntsman

“Jon Huntsman quit the 2012 presidential campaign just as he ran it all along: Sowing confusion with contradictory messages. …
“Students of American political history who examine the peculiar course of Huntsman’s campaign will undoubtedly scratch their heads and ask themselves, ‘What the f–k was that all about?‘”
– Robert Stacy McCain, “A Fitting Finale to the Huntsman Flop,” Monday, Jan. 16, 2012

And now, Huntsman has gone the way of Crist, sinking a knife into the back of the GOP

Keep that in mind as you read this report from Buzzfeed’s Zeke Miller:

Former Republican candidate Jon Huntsman took a battle axe to his own party, comparing it to China’s Communist Party and criticizing it’s standard bearer in a wide-ranging interview at the 92nd Street Y Sunday night.
Recounting his first experience on the presidential debate stage in Iowa last August, Huntsman says he was struck by the question “Is this the best we could do?”
Huntsman, the former Utah governor and once President Barack Obama’s Ambassador to China, expressed disappointment that the Republican Party disinvited him from a Florida fundraiser in March after he publicly called for a third party. . . .
“So I had to say I believe in science — and people on stage look at you quizzically as though you’re was an oddball,” Huntsman said, explaining why he was “toast” in Iowa. . . .
On foreign policy, Huntsman questioned his former Republican opponents’ hard-line positions on China. “I don’t know what world these people are living in,”he said, not naming Mitt Romney by name.

Dude. I was there at the press conference in Myrtle Beach, S.C., when Huntsman quit and endorsed Romney. What was the New York Timesheadline on the story about that press conference?

Huntsman Leaves Race
With Plea for Party Unity

That was Monday, Jan. 16, just six days after he called his third-place finish in New Hampshire a “ticket to ride” and barely five months after the Aug. 11 Fox News debate in Ames, Iowa, where I first dubbed him “Governor Asterisk.” From the outset, his candidacy lacked any plausible rationale. One might call Jon Huntsman a “useful idiot,” but this would immediately prompt the question, “What actual use did he serve?” He never had any “path to the nomination,” and his faux campaign existed only to garner glowing coverage from the liberal media, to hog up time in televised debates, and to enrich the ruthless campaign consultants who somehow managed to convince him he had a chance.

So here we are in April, three months after he endorsed Romney and pleaded for “party unity,” and Chumpsman is publicly trashing the GOP? Once more we must ask: “What the f–k was that all about?”

It is all about getting a show on CNN or MSNBS maybe, or maybe just a personal vendetta. Or maybe Huntsman is mad at the GOP voters for being too “stupid” to vote for him. No wonder, since all he did was kick Conservatives in the teeth with his pompous act in the campaign. Frankly, Huntsman sounded more like a Liberal every debate. And now, he is going to try to teach us rubes us all a lesson. But, he is too irrelevant to matter.

Please say a prayer for Rick Santorum’s daughter

To everything there is a time, and now is the time to pray for Bella, Rick  Santorum’s daughter

POLITICO reports that Karen and Rick’s youngest daughter Isabella “Bella” Santorum has been admitted to a Philadelphia hospital, and all of the candidate’s Sunday morning campaign appearances have been canceled.

“Rick and his wife Karen are admitting their daughter Bella to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia this evening. The campaign will cancel Rick’s upcoming Sunday morning Florida campaign schedule. However, Rick intends to return to Florida and resume the campaign schedule  as soon as is possible,” Santorum communications director Hogan Gidley said in an email to POLITICO Saturday night.

Bella was born in 2008 with Trisonomy-18, a serious chromosomal defect, and Santorum has discussed Bella’s health and condition on the campaign trail before.

“I have a little girl who’s 3 1/2 years old,” he told Christian conservatives in Iowa before winning that lead-off contest.

“I don’t know whether her life is going to be measured – it’s always been measured – in days and weeks. Yet here I am. … because I feel like I wouldn‘t be a good dad if I wasn’t out here fighting for a country that would see the dignity in her and every other child.”

Yes, Rick, you did say “Black people” and no you should stop weaseling your way around it

Because frankly, there was absolutely nothing wrong with what Santorum said. It is good to seek to help people get jobs, or better jobs, and to get them off government dependence.

The problem is that Santorum looks bad, not for what he said, but for trying to lie about it by denying he said it!

Iowa runner-up Rick Santorum said Thursday that he would be “a much bigger player” than expected in the New Hampshire primary and denied saying that he didn’t want “to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

Santorum allegedly made the controversial comments when discussing welfare in an interview Wednesday night with Fox News, but he maintained that people misheard the word “black” when he stumbled on a word.

“I looked at that, and I didn’t say that. If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — came out.  And people said I said ‘black.’ I didn’t,” Santorum said.

 “And I can tell you, I don’t use — I don’t — first off, I don’t use the term ‘black’ very often. I use the term ‘African-American’ more than I use ‘black’ … I think sometimes you want to give someone the benefit of the doubt if it’s a little bit of a blurred word.”

Come on, DEFEND what you said man! Make the ideological points about why you are right instead of whining that you did not say it! In other words act presidential!

By the way, if anyone wants proof of what Santorum said, The Last Tradition has the video

Are there really “fake” Catholics?

Apparently some folks are questioning the authenticity of Rick Santorum’s Catholicism, Adrienne has the scoop Jill has even more

As for me, I do not believe in questioning someone else’s faith. Believe me, I have trouble enough with my own. But seriously, I have serious reservations about Santorum. He strikes me, as I have said before as a bit too socially Conservative. Not that I think he is a bad guy. I am not going to take the low road just because I prefer Perry to Santorum. Yes, I will question ideals, principles, and the records of the candidates. But, as for making half-assed slurs? Nope! Let other bloggers post this type of crap

A story on Rick Perry’s decision to stay in the race (an updated and expanded version of this post by Josh Hafner), which mentions Joe Allbaugh and Dave Carney among the crew of idiotic “strategists” responsible for running the doomstruck farce that is the Perry campaign. Evidently, Allbaugh and Carney didn’t get enough humiliation in Iowa to suit them, and are determined to utterly destroy any future political prospects for their client, the once widely-respected governor of Texas whom they’ve turned into a national laughingstock.

All I can say is this, anyone who does not respect Perry has problems I cannot help them with. The man’s record is rock solid, far more than Santorum I would say. I can say that because I have never heard Perry whining that he love earmarks, but that they were “Constitutional” so therefore the were OK. As to the national laughingstock crack, well we will soon see how Santorum fares won’t we? Likely he will be the 2008 version of Mike Huckabee, ensuring that once again we get an establishment nominee in 2012. Of course, that would not make him a laughingstock, not at all. Santorum is a good man, although he is not as Conservative as we are led to believe by his fans. Santorum hates big government, unless it is doing what he thinks is best. Santorum would be far preferable to President Empty Suit, or Mittens that is true, but I fear he is more Huckabee than Reagan.

Another day, another example of how wacky the Left is

Courtesy of Blazing Cat Fur

The term formerly known as “blind spot” is now to be known as “blank spot” according to the Babbleloons, as in;

“Such ‘blank spots’ [Editor's note: a substitute phrase for the ableist term 'blind spots'] are gaps in knowledge resulting from our social location. Therefore, this assignment challenges us to think critically about our blank spots, or the things we have been conditioned not to understand.”

Ableists? Good grief, is there any group of people the Left will not try to make into a victim group? Is there no limit to their victim pimping? Now people who have no “handicaps” are bad, oppressive bigots, or Ableists! I think we have our first Marxist Moron of 2012.

More lunacy here

Picking winners and losers, Santorum style

I like Rick Santorum, but his support of this type of thing bothers me greatly.

The next piece is his economics section, but while he sounds the same general theme as the other campaigns—too much spending and statism, and the need to cut the size of government—he spends a lot of time talking about his proposal to eliminate the corporate tax on manufacturing. The reason we need to give special status to manufacturing, he says, is that the sector is fungible. Goods can be produced anywhere, so Santorum believes we need to give those businesses special protection to keep them in America. Captive businesses—my words, not his—can be taxed at the normal rate because, he says, it’s harder to relocate those jobs. Why should florists and restaurants pay corporate taxes but not manufacturers? “Because,” Santorum says, “this restaurant isn’t moving to China, right? The florist isn’t moving to China.”

Hmmm, I must say, we should have one flat, and yes low, rate for all corporations, and individuals, that makes sense. But, giving one industry lower taxes than others is just another way of allowing government to pick winners and losers. Taxes ought never be used to punish, or reward certain behaviors. And the same rule ought to apply to taxing companies.

What Santorum is advocating here is making some businesses pay more corporate taxes than other businesses. Sorry, Senator Santorum, but that stinks, and it is sad that you would support such a policy. Frankly, it seems as if you do not want less government as much as you want the government meddling in ways that you approve of. Andy at Ace of Spades asks the obvious question

Wait. What? Sprinkle the word “green” in there a little and this quote could have come from Obama.

I thought we were against picking winners and losers via the tax code, but it seems that none of our potential candidates can resist it.

I would add here that one candidate does see one tax rate for everyone. Hmmm, who is that? Oh yes, Rick Perry!

Dan Riehl: Waiting for the Romney vs Perry finals

Dan lays out a scenario, that,I must say, seems perfectly reasonable to me

There is a reason why we saw so many attacks on Texas Governor Rick Perry early on, even allowing for his self-inflicted debate wounds. He has always been the only real competition for Mitt Romney. That has not changed. Here is how things stand in Iowa today according to Marist.

23% for Mitt Romney (+4)

21% for Ron Paul (+2)

15% for Rick Santorum (+9)

14% for Rick Perry (+4)

13% for Newt Gingrich (-15)

6% for Michele Bachmann (-1)

2% for Jon Huntsman (No change)

7% are undecided (-2)

I don’t care about Paul’s die-hard, and some even fanatical, supporters, he is not a viable Republican candidate for the Oval Office. Santorum has always been all-in in Iowa, basically living there and visiting every district. That and his social conservatism gives him special appeal in Iowa. He’s a good man; however, I do not believe he will be able to attract the kind of money it takes to sustain a long, broad campaign, no matter how he finishes up.

Gingrich has had his run and is now collapsing nationally. I don’t see that trend reversing itself. When Newt gets into trouble, he always doubles down and manages to find a way to make it worse. Hell, he’s already had his first scandal as an executive, resorting to blaming a staffer for fraud that kept him off the ballot in Virginia. And we’re supposed to have faith in this guy to put the right people in some hypothetical administration? I don’t think so. Bachmann is also done. It’s over, call it a day after Iowa, Michelle.

I agree, Bachmann is done, thankfully, Huntsman is a non-factor. Santorum has Iowa and nothing else, sorry Stacy McCain, but I am not sure if I can overcome my natural distrust for any man that wears sweater vests. But seriously, like Dan here I think Santorum IS a good man, but he will not do much outside of Iowa. Newt? Nope!

Dan also predicts, quite correctly, that the Roves and other establishment GOP types will try to crown Romney as soon as Huntsman, and Bachmann drop out. Dan is, I think dead on target about the brutal, and bogus attacks on Perry early on. Perry is the one guy that ultimately Obama fears most, and that scares the Establishment GOP types the most as well.

Dan sums it up very well. If we, the Conservatives can resist the establishment whispering Romney in our ear, we will have a clear choice. And as I have said, a clear chance to REALLY change Washington!

There will be some give and take during what I’ll call stage 2 – see below. What must happen as things shake out is for the other competitors to fall away, leaving Perry as the last not fully DC establishment candidate remaining to oppose Mitt. This is the period during which conservatives must continue to come together and consolidate around Perry as the not-Mitt candidate, if you will. If we do that, the stage will be set for a head-to-head match up on Super Tuesday.

February 4, 2012 Nevada (caucus)

February 4–11, 2012 Maine (caucus)

February 7, 2012 Colorado (caucus)Minnesota (caucus)Missouri (primary) – *See note below on Missouri

February 28, 2012 Arizona (primary)Michigan (primary)

March 3, 2012 Washington (caucus)

It will not be easy and is sure to be a tough, dirty fight. But if conservatives want a nominee more in line with their views, as opposed to Washington’s, then March 6 is the day to ultimately demonstrate it. Even then it will not be over. A positive is that Perry should prove to be the stronger of the two as we move on into the South. The way the schedule plays out, it could very well be a seesaw battle.

But if we can pull this off, conservatives will finally have the fight they want and also be in a position to win it. As a conservative, this is the best case scenario I can envision playing out. But we cannot give up early, or easily. Obviously, Texas Governor Rick Perry and his team must do their part, as well. Barring that, it will be Mitt and quite likely what Hillsdale College History Professor Paul Rahe recently called just another bump in the long, gentle road leading us to soft despotism” given a Romney nomination and potential victory in 2012.

In the end, we will decide if we want to beat Obama and elect a “Moderate” who will only play at real change, or if we want to beat Obama and elect a Conservative who will do his best to bring real change and reform. Please, my fellow Conservatives, choose wisely.

Nutbag Ron Paul Tells Iowa Voters Iran Needs Nuclear Weapons To “Gain Respect” From Israel, U.S. Sanctions Are “Act Of War”

Ron Paul Tells Iowa Voters Iran Needs Nuclear Weapons To “Gain Respect” From Israel, U.S. Sanctions Are “Act Of War” – Pat Dollard

Los Angeles Times:

Defending himself against charges of isolationism, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told voters in Iowa on Thursday that western sanctions against Iran are “acts of war” that are likely to lead to an actual war in the Middle East.

Paul, one of the leading contenders to win next week’s Iowa caucuses, said Iran would be justified in responding to the sanctions by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. He compared the western sanctions to a hypothetical move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which Americans would consider an act of war.

He also said he would not respond militarily to keep the strait open – because he would not consider it an act of war against the U.S. But if he were president, he would report to Congress on the issue, leaving it up to lawmakers to declare war if they wanted.

“I think we’re looking for trouble because we put these horrendous sanctions on Iran,” Paul told a midday audience at the Hotel Pattee in Perry, Iowa. He said the Iranians are “planning to be bombed” and understandably would like to have a nuclear weapon, even though there is “no evidence whatsoever” that they have “enriched” uranium.

Apparently alluding to Israel and its nuclear-weapons arsenal, Paul said that “if I were an Iranian, I’d like to have a nuclear weapon, too, because you gain respect from them.”

To approving applause from a crowd of about 125, the Texas congressman said that “we always seem to have to have a country to bash,” linking the current saber-rattling against Iran to previous hawkish rhetoric that led to conflicts in Iraq, Libya and elsewhere.

“If you want to quiet things down,” he said, referring to Iran, “don’t put sanctions on them” because it’s “just going to cause more trouble.”

He said an Iranian blockade would be the most likely response to tighter sanctions because Iran has “no weapons of mass destruction” and shutting down the strait is “the most” it could do.

“I think the solution” to current tensions with Iran “is to do a lot less a lot sooner and mind our own business and then we would not have this threat of another war,” he said to applause.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

I was going to rip into Jennifer Rubin but…………..

Jill does a great job

Jennifer Rubin’s attack on Rick Perry this morning gives me hope that he’ll be the big surprise of the Iowa caucus. I don’t think she’d go after him like this if she didn’t see him as a threat to Romney:

If, in fact, his results are poor in Iowa and his days in the race are numbered, he will return to Texas a diminished figure. His immigration policy has incurred the ire of the base. His crony capitalism and big spending on himself (on housing and travel, and now his security detail) leave a bad taste in the mouths of Tea Partyers.

Really? And her candidate, who by no stretch of the imagination can be considered a conservative, is supported by Tea Party types? In his dreams.

Rubin really is pathetic here. It is one thing to think another candidate is the right guy, or woman, but Rubin takes some asinine shots

He might actually consider doing what Sarah Palin never did — hit the books, learn some public policy and restore his reputation. If he does that and is a team player (such as helping to elect Republicans around the country), he might have another shot at the presidency. But then again, perhaps he’s figured out that running for president is too far outside his comfort zone. One disappointing and personally humiliating run for the White House might be more than enough to satisfy his curiosity and ambition.

Personally humiliating? Yes, he’s made mistakes, but he’s handled them with humility and grace. He’s not the brittle figure who laughs tensely whenever his record is criticized, tries to show up his rivals in weird, out-of-touch ways, or constantly holds his finger to the wind, always ready to trim his positions accordingly. And maybe Ms. Rubin knows something I don’t, but last I heard, Perry was tied with the other two conservatives in the latest poll and has enough money to stay in the race beyond Iowa.

Go Jill!!

Perry rips Obama’s snub of the troops

Rick Perry gets it and lets Obama have it!

Texas Gov. Rick Perry hammered President Obama’s energy and immigration policies Wednesday and berated him for not holding a welcome-home parade to salute the U.S. soldiers who served during the war in Iraq over the past nine years.

“It really disturbs me that nearly after nine years of war in Iraq that this president wouldn’t welcome home our many heroes with a simple parade in their honor,” the 2012 Republican presidential candidate told nearly 100 members of the Westside Conservative Club.

“Maybe it’s because this war is unpopular with Democrats, I don’t know. But, Mr. President, our soldiers come first and it comes before party politics. We need to welcome our soldiers home – give them that parade, give them that pat on the back, tell them thank you for the freedom that we have in this country,” Perry told the suburban crowd during a stop on his central Iowa bus tour on Wednesday.

I wonder if gutless Mitt would say the same thing. Or maybe he would have to run it by a focus group first

I must really suck

I mean look, Pat Austin just endorsed Rick Perry, and listed all the bloggers that have also endorsed Perry. Well not quite all, you see, I get left out, the guy who endorsed Perry long before all the rest of these guys, and gals.

Which means that I must suck at endorsements, or that Pat secretly hates me, even though I am pulling for LSU to whip Bama!

The GOP establishment is wrong about Mitt, Ann Coulter hardest hit!

I think we all can agree that Mitt Romney is the choice the GOP establishment wants us to close our eyes, hold our noses, and overcome our gag reflex and vote for. We all have heard the arguments for Mitt. He can  get those independents they tell us. He can reach the moderates they assure us. He is not “too extreme” He is smart, and a good debater, and oh yes, he is electable! The establishment is wrong though. I do not see Mitt as the “only electable” candidate.

what really worries me, though, is that the media has left Mitt alone. They have attacked Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, and boy did they attack Cain. Their most hostile attacks were, and still are launched towards Rick Perry. They have heaped praise on Mitt, while attacking the rest of the GOP field. Hmmmmm

This tells me something. Something, apparently, that escapes the all-knowing GOP establishment. The media WANTS Mitt Romney to win the GOP nomination! And why would that be? Of course it is because they truly see Romney as the guy Obama can most easily beat. Isn’t it interesting that the most LIBERAL of the GOP field not counting Hunstman of course, is the one the media is codling? Remember how the media loved the Maverick? John McCain? Until he got the nomination of course. Then out came the knives. Do the GOP “experts” like Coulter and the rest think this will NOT happen again?

I also think we can read from the attacks on Perry, that the media wants to pit him vs Obama the least! Given that the economy is the biggest issue, and given Perry’s economic record, and Obama’s, I think we can understand why the media has tried to destroy Perry.

Chris, at Wyblog, offers his take on Romney, and his inevitability as nominee.

 

*I’m the token Republican in a sea of blue state leftists, so naturally they think I have some kind of direct pipeline to either GOP or Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Headquarters, or something. If only they knew…

Almost unanimously they don’t like Obama. The reasons vary (alas some even feel that he hasn’t driven the country far enough to the left). I heard “weak,” “ineffective,” “unqualified,” and more than one wishful lament that a Draft Hillary movement hasn’t gained any traction.

So, what do I make of this? My socialist neighborhood clearly isn’t moving into the Conservative Camp. They recoil in horror at the thought of Newt Gingrich being the nominee. Ditto for Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann. Rick Perry intrigues them (as does Chris Christie) because both guys stand up for their principles, and the concept of “leadership” is a big factor among the sheeple. But their perception is that Perry is a lousy communicator and thus not “electable.” I guess they’re still looking for a silver-tongued messiah to lead them to the promised land. Which of course is how we got Obama in the first place.

In my mind this really seals Romney’s RINO status. Liberals are comfortable with him because he’s one of them. Ugh.

AH, the lie, and it is a lie, that Perry in unelectable, because he is “stupid” or cannot speak, a lie pushed by both the media and the GOP establishment, has caused many to think they can write him off. But, as Chris points out, the interest in Perry is real. This tells me that the more he talks to folks, and campaigns on the ground, his strong suit. The better his chances are.

Remember my first rule of politics, look at which Republican the media is propping up, then look for the Republican they are most intent on tearing down, the rest should be self-explanatory shouldn’t it?

As Chris says

I’m intrigued by the softness of Obama’s support here among the die-hard lefty faithful. And I’m sure we can do better than Mitt Romney’s interpretation of Obama Lite. C’mon Rick Perry, your moment awaits.

The best debate recap I have yet seen

At least on last night’s debate comes from Robert of American and Proud. Here is my favorite part, his breakdown of Michele “Facts, Who Needs Facts” Bachmann

She went after Newt with false accusations and stretched talking points that have been discounted over and over again. She’s coming across as deranged and unhinged. I guess that’s why Beck likes her.

OUCH, a jab at Bachmann with an added shot at Glenn Beck. Excellent! Robert also has this observation about Rick Perry

Rick Perry presidential candidate on campaign ...

Image via Wikipedia

This WAS Perry’s best debate to date. He was measured in his responses and he was also direct. He had a few memorable lines and he also stayed away from negativity for the most part. Perry if he can keep this style up may climb back up in the polls.

Spot on! Perry has risen in the Iowa polls, and I think he will continue to do so. Yes, I know the “experts” are saying this is a “two-man race” but, frankly the “experts” are so intent on being ahead of the curve, and backing the eventual winner that I stopped listening to them. Well, actually, I really never listened to them very much to begin with. They are more about convincing us how great they are at what they do, than actually being GOOD at what they do.