And Then There Were 12… Rick Perry’s In: GOP Prez Game Changer on Iowa Straw Poll Day (video)
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on August 13, 2011
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has announced he's running for president
Things just got a whole lot more interesting in the Republican presidential race — Texas Gov. Rick Perry just announced at the RedState blogger gathering in Charleston that he’s throwing his metaphorical cowboy hat in the ring.
Not that we didn’t already know, wink wink, this day was coming, that Perry was indeed preparing for today’s announcement, but now it’s official, baby.
Best blog post title of the week on Rick Perry is from Ace of Spades HQ: Rick Perry: I’m Here To Chew Bubblegum And Kick Ass And I’m All Out Of Bubblegum.
In his Texas governorship, Perry, a retired Air Force captain and a former Democrat who switched to the Republican party in 1989, is the longest continuously serving current U.S. governor, and the second longest serving current U.S. governor after Terry Branstad of Iowa. A tad more hands-on governing experience than our current Whiner in Chief has. Perry’s college records reportedly reveal that he wasn’t the best student, was a prankster — a shame that we can’t compare them to our current POTUS since Barack Obama has been allowed to lock up tight ALL his school records and grades, from elementary school through Harvard. IMHO, based on Perry’s continued success as governor of Texas and Obama’s abysmal, failed presidency, one would have to conclude that academic achievement vs. real life doesn’t mean squat.
But I digress.
The governor has gotten some heat, notably from Mike Huckabee, who called Perry’s timing of the announcement on Iowa Straw Poll Day a “tactical blunder” and “bad form,” that it’s “disrespectful” of the Iowa process. Others don’t agree.
And then there were 12… here are the 12 as of today who’ve announced themselves as GOP presidential candidates (alphabetical order by surname): Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Fred Karger, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Vern Wuensche.
Associated Press: Gov. Perry Announces Presidential Bid | August 13, 2011
Rick Perry presidential announcement, as seen in Ames | August 13, 2011
This Glenn Beck interview with Gov. Perry aired in June 2011.
What, no state income tax in Texas? Healthy state environment for businesses and jobs growth? Embracing of the Tenth Amendment, of the US Constitution? Not supporting unions for federal employees? Supporting Israel and being concerned that our relationship with Israel is not being respected by Team Obama? How dare he! The blasphemy of all that against Dear Leader Obama and his statist administration, as well as Perry’s military background, is making liberals froth, fume, and spew.
Glenn Beck to Gov. Rick Perry: You Could Be a Real Problem for America
From AP:
CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — Texas Gov. Rick Perry joined the Republican presidential field Saturday and told supporters he would make the federal government “as inconsequential in your lives as I can” by reducing taxes and easing regulations.
Perry announced his plans before an overflow crowd at the conservative RedState Gathering in South Carolina, an important early primary state. His entry came hours before the release of results from a straw poll in Iowa where the crowded field of candidates was competing. Perry’s name wasn’t on the ballot, though it could be written in.
A much longer version of Perry’s announcement.
Rick Perry – “I Declare My Candidacy for President of the United States”
Yeah, this tweet from RickPerryFacts cracked me up:
Tweet from rickperryfacts: 'The Most Interesting Man in the World doesn't always vote, but when he does, he votes for Rick Perry'
About the author
Vern Wuensche? Who the heck is that?
According to Wikipedia, there are currently 14 candidates. Add Andy Martin, Thaddeus McCotter, Jimmy McMillan, and Buddy Roemer and take out Pawlenty and Vern Wuensche.
And this website says something completely different. That one lists Vern Wuensche, but he doesn’t even have a Wikipedia article.
Pawlenty dropped out after the piece was written – I think that Andy and the others never officially declared their decision to run, but had created “exploratory groups”. I could be wrong – things change by the hour. Vern isn’t make much of an impression and McCotter didn’t meet the 1% support in the polls threshold required to be included in the first debate before the straw poll. It’s confusing, ever-changing, and makes my head hurt. Now Paul Ryan is considering running and Donald Trump is making noise about running as a third-party candidate. Who knows?
After reading my comment again, it seems like I could be interpreted as “commanding” or something. That is not how I intended it at all. I am confused at the disparity between the different sources I looked up (and your post) as to the actual number of candidates and as to whether they are declared or have exploritory committees. Also, I haven’t watched any debates or anything so I don’t know who was in them.
I think Jimmy McMillan was one of the first candidates declared. Also, I seem to remember seeing a vampire that declared his presidential bid on that Wikipedia page that I don’t see any more. I don’t remember what his name was, but if it was a legitimate bid (and not some joke or something), he would be another candidate (that, of course, has no chance of winning anything). I think the strong contenders are fairly straightforward, but it is all these minor candidates that cause all of the confusion (for me, anyway). Fortunately, they must be fairly inconsequential.
I think it would be awesome if Paul Ryan ran (and won). Honestly, Donald Trump scares me. If he runs as a third party candidate or indepent, Obama would probably win (or he would at least have a better chance at winning).
No worries, Naamloos. I’ve run into the same frustrating thing, and if reports and files aren’t constantly reviewed and updated, you could be reading something in a major news source from this morning that was unknowingly outdated the day before. Even the aritcle’s timestamp is no indication of the “latest and greatest.” Same thing with death counts of major disasters – there’s a correlation there somewhere.
Pain in the arse, as they say. When I wrote this piece, I had glanced at a news article from earlier in the day that stated there were 11 declared candidates, and so Perry would make 12. But my source could have been outdated or miscounted. Not a big deal – there are a lot of Repubican presidential potentials, suffice it to say, and we’ll leave it at that.
You’re dead-right about Trump – I don’t know if he’s just yammering as he is inclined to do, but a third party candidate in the POTUS race would be a disaster. That’s why I don’t want the Tea Party to create its own, either. And yes, I LOVE-LOVE-LOVE Paul Ryan (I’ve expressed in previous posts that I wish that he’d run), so we’ll see what happens. It’s anyone’s guess at this point. And nothing yet from Sarah Palin – my gut tells me she won’t run, but my gut has been wrong before.
Jonathon Sharkey, that is who that vampire was. Now he’s back on the Wikipedia page.
My concern with Sarah Palin is that I wonder if she would be able to beat Obama. She seems to be quite polarizing, and, although she has undoubtedly become more adept at “campaigning,” or whatever, since 2008, I believe the media and Democrats would do whatever they possibly can to destroy her. I am surely not the most qualified person to discuss this, but I am skeptical that she would have any chance at winning, even if she did enter the race (and I share your gut feeling about her running).
Thanks for the “vampire update,” I was not aware of him until you brought it to my attention.
The ultra liberal media prides itself on excoriating females who DARE to not be victims. And being a liberal/Democrat is no guarantee of safe haven. The media happily attacked Hillary Clinton much more than they EVER did Obama or Biden or even her philandering husband, Slick Willy. Geraldine Ferraro was torn apart back in the day, even in the last year before her death… by the Obama administration, no less. However, being a female conservative means the media will pump up the vicious rhetoric into a junkyard dog frenzy.
Sarah Palin has been the leftwing media’s favorite punching bag since about 5 minutes after McCain announced she would be his VP running mate back in the summer of 2008. Immediately, the Chicago machine/Obama gang sent 30 lawyers and investigators up to Wasilla, Alaska to dig up as much dirt as they possibly could. What they couldn’t dig up, they invented. And then they’ve continued to slam, denounce, mock, attack, and lie about her for the past 3 years. Even idiot Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, with all her stupid bubble-headed comments and out-and-out lies has been given many passes by the media since she became DNC chair – if Palin had said any of the stunning crapolla DWS has said, it would have been a field day in the mainstream media. Look at how MSNBC and other liberal media sources attacked Palin after her Paul Revere comment, even though what she said was historically accurate. It didn’t match Longfellow’s poem (he took quite a bit of poetic license), and now that the media has been exposed about being wrong about Palin, there has been NO effort to correct the record or apologize. So, many Americans still believe Palin was a historical dunce because MSNBC said so for nearly a solid week on television.
That is kind of what I suspected, and it’s another reason why I would be wary of her nomination. Don’t get me wrong, I am a fan of Sarah Palin’s, but there is just too much “baggage” with her. Same thing with Michele Bachmann (although I wouldn’t support her for other reasons). I don’t get the media’s intense hatred of conservative women. It’s just downright absurd. I get the feeling that maybe it has something to do with their religion (and their outspokenness regarding it); the media (and other leftists, of course) would apparently have everyone believe that being a Christian (but not a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, New Age weirdo, Wiccan, or any other miscellaneous religion) is somehow equivalent to being mentally handicapped. In addition, they don’t fit the left’s narrative regarding successful women (or something). Dare I say liberal women (and men) are the actual dunces (cases in point: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Sheila Jackson Lee). If anyone on the right were as dumb as either of them, we would sure as hell know about it.
Excellent points made. I’m also mixed on whether I’d want Palin to run for many of the same reasons you’ve cited, although I love her and admire her tremendously. That woman has a spine of steel and has dealt with the attacks and lies far better than anyone I’ve ever seen, male or female. She’s a force to be reckoned with, but you’re right about what will happen should she choose to run.
The “baggage” you cite is not her fault, and I believe that ANY conservative woman (as well as some liberal women) will have their families attacked (look at what they’re doing to Bachmann), yet the media has barely mentioned the scandals in Biden’s past nor his daughter’s drug bust. The UK covered Chelsea Clinton’s wild partying while the US media was silent (but the US media did attack the Bush daughters for it). This has been going on for a long time, not just now – although, it seems to have been cranked up more than in previous decades, likely because of the immediacy of the Internet.
The thuggery must be stopped, and because I don’t believe the liberal media will develop a conscience any time soon, we must fight fire with fire. As a female conservative, it sickens me what the liberal media gleefully does to the Palin family, to the tea party attendees, to Christians, to conservatives… heck, until very recently, NONE would whisper a hint of criticism or balanced appraisal about Barack Obama. Only Fox News and a few smaller organizations did, and the Soros/Obama/progressive monster went into overdrive. Any criticism was denounced as racist — but the media was mute when the criticism came from conservative blacks and Hispanics. Now even the Black Caucus is speaking out against Obama… the bloom is off the rose with a growing number of liberals, but it’s impossible to say what will happen in the next year. Which is why I blog, and I believe is your motivation as well. We need to sift through the liberal propaganda and uncover/expose what the mainstream media won’t publish or report until the outcry is too loud to ignore.
After I posted that comment I thought of something else. Maybe they can’t stand the thought of the first female president being a Republican and not a Democrat, and so they viciously attack female conservatives. I completely agree about Palin; her tenacity and fearlessness is very admirable. Not to mention her pragmatism. You don’t have to be female to be sickened by what the media is doing to her family. I only wish death upon someone if they have taken the life of another person. Some liberals seem to have no problem wishing death upon Sarah Palin and her family (while opposing capital punishment, no less). It is sickening and confusing. I have pretty much given up all hope of ever understanding the left-wing mindset; barring severe brain damage, I don’t think I ever could.
Hmm, I’ve not ever considered that, Naamloos. Intriguing idea that it is partially a jealousy-driven “we want to be first” motivation. And I agree – I can’t understand the leftwing mindset., either. Their brains are wired illogically. They’ve wished death on Palin for more than two years now, sent death threats to Bristol Palin while she was on that dancing competition, even sent death threats to the Republicans in Wisconsin because they wanted to be fiscally responsible and save the friggin’ state from the collective bargaining/union fat cats making the state go bankrupt.
From what I’ve read, conservative gays have been attacked more viciously by leftist gays than have ever been attacked by the general conservative population or by tea party attendees. I’ve written about it before, and have a portion of a thought-provoking piece by a conservative gay who is motivated and uplifted by Sarah Palin.
I will certainly look up your posts about conservative gays as I am very interested in your perspective as a Christian conservative. Many leftist gays are just like other leftists. When I first encountered their reaction to conservative gays, I was quite shocked and enraged (because they are supposed to be so tolerant). Now I find it amusing and pitiful that some people can be so irrational and hypocritical. Something else I’ve noticed is that they don’t seem to have any grasp of the concept of objectivity. If I am gay, I must automatically favor gay marriage and I cannot objectively and reasonably analyze it (according to them). In fact, according to them, only homophobes don’t automatically favor gay marriage (apparently).
At the risk of sounding like a friggin’ cliché, I have a number of friends who are gay. I have no interest or concern about anyone’s sexual orientation – just don’t let WASP heterosexual trailer trash and/or Beverly Hills sluts, nightclub party girls and boys, or militant/activist gays get in my face about their sex lives. I’m not interested or am uncomfortable, whether it is gay or straight – sex should be more personal and private than it has become. I don’t watch many sitcoms or reality shows these days because in 90 percent or more of them, they are about not getting enough sex, getting too much sex, getting just the right amount of sex, or being on the prowl for sex. TMI, for crikey’s sake. The cheap, easy sex jokes grew old in the 1980s, but have perpetuated because of either lazy, immature writing or lazy, immature audiences. The classic sitcoms of yesteryear (i.e., Dick Van Dyke Show, The Honeymooners, I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffith Show, The Bob Newhart Show, Leave It to Beaver, etc.) were about myriad topics other than sex. And M*A*S*H, while it had sexual components and running gags in its sub-stories, was more about people, universal issues and relationships, and how war affects people. I can’t think of a single current sitcom that will become an icon in years to come for basic values, family issues, or themes that celebrate honor or anything that isn’t sexually motivated.
On the gay marriage vs. gay civil union issue, Elton John has spoken out against gay marriage. So, per leftist gays, that would make him a homophobe, right? *wink, wink*
Here are a few pertinent news pieces on that:
Elton John Agrees with Rush on Gay Marriage
Elton John: Where Prop 8 went wrong
GOProud recently named Ann Coulter to their board, and she’s spoken out against gay marriage (but not against gay civil unions, big difference) for quite a while now.
I agree with you 100%.