Wendy Davis Poses with a Shotgun, Democrat Party Sez: “She Will Do Her Best to Kick Some Ass With It!” –UPDATED

UPDATED

I was remiss in noting this gun, that was once owned by Texas Governor Ann Richards, was given to Wendy Davis by Richard’s daughter Cecile, the president of Planned Parenthood. [Her ONLY constituency] No word on whether Davis, or the baby slaughtering blood cult she represents, plan on using the shotgun as a faster method of “family planning.”

By Gary P Jackson

You know how democrats are always screaming about the evil’s of gun ownership, and the “violent images” of gun owners exercising the Second Amendment rights?

Yeah forget all of that!

National punch line, and [snort] Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis accepted the gift of former Texas Governor Ann Richards’ old shotgun, and couldn’t wait to pose with it, in an effort to look like an “authentic” Texan. Literally no one was fooled!

Amazingly, the Texas democrat party tweeted this:

.@WendyDavisTexas receiving Ann Richards' shotgun at #tcdplive #txgov pic.twitter.com/x7B3BAOGc1

— Texas Democrats (@TXDemParty) January 29, 2014

Then with no sense of irony whatsoever, this:

.@WendyDavisTexas is presented with Ann Richards' shotgun, says she will do her best to kick some ass with it! #tcdplive #txgov

— Texas Democrats (@TXDemParty) January 29, 2014

It should be noted that democrats ripped Texas Monthly Magazine to shreds for using this cover photo of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who will be our next Governor …. barring something drastic …. like the end of the world.

A later edition of the far left magazine was filled with complaints from readers about the “unfortunate” and “violent imagery” of Abbott with HIS shotgun after this cover hit the newsstands. Evidently it’s OK for a gun grabbing radical Marxist like Wendy Davis to pose with her gun though. I mean it’s not like she actually knows how to use it!

In case you wondered:

NRA gives @GregAbbott_TX an "A" on gun rights. @WendyDavisTexas gets a "D"

— Travesham (@Travesham) January 30, 2014

The Texas Monthly cover story on Abbott included a trip by the author with Abbott and a bunch of his lifelong friends on a bird hunt. Our Attorney General is reportedly a pretty good shot!

This Davis photo sort of reminds me of 2004 when John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, ran for president, and went hunting! “Can I get me a huntin’ license here?” Painful to watch.

On Twitter, it was noted that Wendy Davis looks about as “badass” with a shotgun as Richard Simmons holding a broadsword!

With the shotgun, @WendyDavisTexas looks about as badass as Richard Simmons holding a broadsword. @StevieJWest @instapundit

— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 31, 2014

Texans are proud gun owners, with many having concealed carry permits. [No permit, license, or registration necessary to simply own a gun in Texas]

What angers me is the fact democrats, who want to take away every American’s right to own a gun, have the nerve to post this photo of Davis, and the comment that she wants to use the gun to “kick some ass“. Wendy Davis is, herself, against Texans’ [and Americans’] God given, Constitutionally protected, right to bear arms!

Throw in the fact these Anti-American clowns loose their shit any time an America patriot is shown holding a gun, and go on for DAYS about the evils of gun ownership, and gun violence, while implying Davis is going to USE her shotgun to “kick some ass” shows what a bunch hypocrites, with vicious and violent fantasies, democrats truly are.

The good news is Wendy Davis has a better chance of the Catholic Church naming her it’s next Pope, than ever being elected Governor of Texas!

Democrats who want Wendy Davis to “kick some ass” with her new shotgun go absolutely ape-shit, with seething rage and hatred, when they see a photo of THIS WOMAN with a gun: [So here are a bunch of them!]

Yes, this is Governor Palin, in her role as Commander-in-Chief of Alaska’s National Guard, doing a bit of target practice with a .50 cal.

In case we haven’t sent democrats into a coma yet, here’s Bristol Palin showing Wendy Davis, who definitely needs some NRA safety training, how it’s done:

Bristol, with her dad, Todd, on a hunt:

Bristol and her DWTS co-star Mark Ballas at the gun range:

Oh yeah, here’s Governor Palin’s youngest daughter, Piper, shooting on horseback:

H/T Twitchy

Eric Holder: No Executive Privilege for Texas Governor

Eric Holder’s DOJ is suing Texas over it’s common sense Voter I.D. law. Claims Texas Governor has no right to assert Executive Privilege.

By Gary P Jackson

With President Barack Obama claiming “executive privilege” over thousands of documents that would prove him and his Attorney General Eric Holder complicit in mass murder, it’s interesting to look at what the same Attorney General, who was just held in both civil and criminal contempt of Congress, had to say about Texas Governor Rick Perry back in April and May.

Hans von Spakovsky at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government notes:

As if the DOJ stonewalling of Congress is not bad enough, however, Eric Holder apparently does not believe that executive privilege is either “fundamental,” as he put it, or even legitimate to the operation of state governments. His Justice Department is in litigation with the Lone Star State over its new voter ID law. After the Justice Department objected to this common-sense election reform on the erroneous claim that it is discriminatory and violates Section 5 of the Voting Rights Acts, Texas filed suit in federal district court in the District of Columbia.

Trial is set to begin on July 9. The parties have been waging a discovery battle as the Justice Department has sought to take the depositions of state officials and to obtain voluminous amounts of privileged documents.

In fact, the Justice Department filed motions in April and May to compel Texas to produce those documents. In one motion filed on April 25, DOJ argued that there was no “deliberative process privilege over documents in the possession, custody, or control of the Office of the Governor.” The Texas governor has a potentially stronger claim of privilege than even the one asserted by President Obama, because Obama is shielding DOJ documents and agency deliberations that do not involve his own White House communications and his own personal decisions. In other words, the very type of stronger executive privilege that would protect presidential communications is, according to Eric Holder, non-existent when it comes to the chief executive of Texas.

In that same motion, Holder asserts that there is no privilege protecting “communications between a legislator and a state agency, as well as to purely internal documents produced by a state agency after communications with a legislator.” Yet in the Fast and Furious investigation, Holder has asserted that executive privilege covers his department’s communications and “purely internal documents.” Compare DOJ’s claim in the Texas case to the statement of White House spokesman Eric Schultz who said that the “Courts have routinely considered deliberative process privilege claims and affirmed the right of the executive branch to invoke the privilege even when White House documents are not involved.”

DOJ also argued that there is no legislative privilege shielding communications between and by state legislators similar to the “Speech or Debate Clause” that protects congressional representatives under the Constitution. DOJ tried to convince the court that even if there was such a privilege, it should “yield to the important federal interest in enforcing the Voting Rights Act” and should be “abrogated” because of the supposedly “extraordinary procedural irregularities associated” with the passage of the voter ID law.

The other interesting fact in this litigation that again shows up the Holder Justice Department, as well as the White House, is that Texas produced a detailed privilege log that describes the documents the state is withholding, as is required in any dispute over privileged documents. Justice argued in its motion to compel that “the privilege log [produced by Texas] is insufficient to determine the propriety of the assertion of privilege over some documents.”

Yet the Obama administration has produced no such privilege log or list whatsoever of the documents it claims are shielded from disclosure. The whole purpose of such a log is to make sure each document has been thoroughly reviewed by the party claiming the privilege so that no broad, sweeping claim is made without an individual review. And as Justice argues in the Texas case, it gives that other party the ability to contest the attachment of the privilege to specific documents that the party does not believe should be shielded. But the Holder Justice Department and the White House have not complied with this requirement.

Read more here.

We have a lawless President and a lawless Attorney General, who runs a lawless Department of Justice.

In Obama’s America the Rule of Law does not apply to him, or any of his henchmen and cronies. It’s completely out of control and never ending.

Obama and Holder use the Justice Department to attack those who oppose their radical agenda, shield their friends [and themselves], and generally oppress the will of the American people.

We must not only defeat Obama, and every single democrat running for every single office in the land, we must demand criminal indictments, and convictions, for Obama, Holder, and everyone else involved in the criminal enterprise known as the Obama regime.

Obama and Holder facilitated the mass murder of hundreds of Mexicans and the capital murder of border agent Brian Terry. [and possibly other federal agents]

Justice will be denied until these people are held accountable.

Industrial Strength Hypocrisy: Newt attacks Romney Over Bain, While Having Sat on Board of Leverage Buy Out Firm Himself

Gary P Jackson

As if Newt Gingrich couldn’t become even more of a despicable human being.

Newt Gingrich and his sidekick Rick Perry have decided to attack Mitt Romney over his time at Bain Capital. Newt has been using Communist/Occupy talking points to not only attack Mitt Romney, but capitalism itself. It’s an incredibly disgusting spectacle.

As sick as Newt’s deranged attacks on the American way of life are, they are made worse by the fact that Newt sat on the advisory board of Fortsmann Little, a venture capital firm that operated almost exactly the same way as Bain Capital.

From Jeffry Bartash at Market Watch:

Gingrich, attacking Romney, fails to mention his own ‘raider’ past

Newt Gingrich has blasted Mitt Romney’s past as chief of the private-equity company Bain Capital, but the former speaker of the House isn’t talking about his own involvement with a similar firm.

Gingrich, who insists he’s a supporter of free markets, has generated lots of publicity over the past few days by arguing that the form of capitalism practiced by Romney was “flawed.” He’s accused Romney of making big bucks despite the failure of several companies in which Bain Capital took major stakes.

“I’m not nearly as enamored of a Wall Street model where you can flip companies, you can go in and have leveraged buyouts, you can basically take out all the money, leaving behind the workers,” Gingrich said during a weekend debate.

His line of attack is expected to be used by Democrats if Romney is ultimately chosen as the Republican’s nominee for president, a strategy that’s drawn criticism from other conservatives who say Gingrich and other GOP candidates should defend free-market economics.

Forstmann Little, founded in 1978, was involved in its heyday with companies such as Dr Pepper, General Instrument, The Topps Co. and Ziff-Davis Publishing. It was once one of the largest leveraged-buyout companies in the world.

Gingrich joined the firm’s advisory board in 1999 and served until 2001. Other board members have included Henry Kissinger, Bob Dole and Donald Rumsfeld.

Leverage-buyout firms use debt to buy established companies usually viewed as cheap or poorly managed, with the goal of improving operations and selling them later on for a profit. Private-equity firms also earn management fees while they run the acquired companies.

Forstmann Little had lots of success during the 1980s and 1990s, but it disbanded in 2005 after a series of poor investments during the Internet bubble. Some of those investments were made during the time Gingrich served on Forstmann’s board of advisers.

In its prime, Forstmann Little stuck to well-known companies and didn’t use as much debt as other private-equity firms. Ted Forstmann, the co-founder, even coined the famous phrase “Barbarians at the Gate,” which later became the title of a best-selling book, to describe rival firms that relied heavily on junk bonds to finance their controversial buyouts.

Bain Capital took the process a step further under Romney’s leadership, buying struggling companies or investing in startups. Some of those startups, such as Staples and Sports Authority, later became big successes. Other investments did not pan out, however.

Around the time Gingrich joined the advisory board, Forstmann Little made a series of investments in telecommunications companies such as XO Communications and McLeod Communications. Those investments proved very costly after the Internet bubble collapsed and stock prices of telecom companies tanked.

These mistakes eventually led to the demise of Forstmman Little. In 2005, the firm was found guilty of overinvesting money from Connecticut’s state pension fund in XO Communications. The firm paid $15 million to end litigation.

In all likelihood Gingrich played very little role in the investment decisions of Forstmann Little, but the firm’s strategy of making a profit was not much different from that of Bain Capital. And in the case of both firms, some investments failed and workers lost their jobs.

Romney claims that Bain Capital created a net 100,000 jobs – after subtracting jobs lost – via investments it made during his time he ran the firm.

I’ve read the book Barbarian’s at the Gate it’s a fascinating story about the eventual hostile take over of RJR/Nabisco. In fact, one of it’s authors comes from my hometown. There’s a movie by the same name that stars James Garner and Fred Thompson. It’s more of a send-up, but is pretty faithful to the book. I recommend both.

As an NHRA drag racer, and NASCAR fan, I was particularly interested in the story, and followed it in real time, as RJR/Nabisco’s Winston brand was the series sponsor of both the NHRA and NASCAR.

Winston single-handedly turned NASCAR from a small regional sport into the powerhouse it is today. They gave NHRA a big boost as well. RJR/Nabisco had the best sports marketing group in the advertising business. And RJR/Nabisco’s CEO, F. Ross Johnson understood that every nickel spent on sports marketing came back to RJR dressed up like a quarter.

Anyhow, a whole lot of us racers got a quick lesson on leveraged buyouts, and how things might have went.

Long story short, one of the biggest slash and burn, buy and break up artists, Kolbert, Kravis, and Roberts, would eventually end up with RJR/Nabisco. They would indeed sell off tons of assets, as well as complete divisions, like Nabisco. Luckily, they understood sports marketing was about the only way one could promote tobacco products at the time, so their support of our sport was left in place.

I’ve mentioned this before, but I also have some experience at turning businesses around. At one point during my long career in the automobile business, I was asked to join a group whose only reason for existence was turning around failing dealerships within a large dealer group.

This wasn’t a fun job, as firing people was going to happen. Sometimes management would see the writing on the wall, and just leave, other times they had to be asked to go. Many times, most of the sales force, with a bit of retraining, could stay. Other times everyone but the mechanics and the wash boys had to be let go, and things had to be rebuilt from the ground up.

When we were finished, there was a viable dealership where once a failing business stood. During my time with the team, only one dealership couldn’t be saved. It was just too far gone.

That’s how capitalism works.

Here’s what folks that don’t understand capitalism should know.

When anyone comes in to rescue a failing company, they usually have two choices. Fire some people, and do whatever it takes to make the business viable again, or just let it fail. Better to have a few people lose their jobs, than all of them. In our case [most of the time] we were talking 10-15 people losing jobs vs 100 or more, had the dealership failed. You hate to see one person lose their job, but these folks lost them because they simply weren’t in the right occupation.

With a firm like Bain, or Fortsmann Little, the numbers of employees are obviously a lot larger, but the concept is the same.

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to go after Mitt Romney, though I’m finding if it’s Newt, whatever the angle of attack is, Newt is worse on the same thing!

Mandates, cap&tax, amnesty, Big Government boondoggles. You name it, Newt is worse than any of these cats. Including Romney

Anyhow, lots of legit reason to not support Mitt Romney. Lots of reasons to question his abilities. This isn’t one of them.

It’s bad enough for Newt to assault the American way, just because he got his feelings hurt, but to attack Mitt for being involved in venture capitalism, while at the same time being involved in the same thing, with a similar company, is despicable.

Newt is dishonest as they come. A professional liar, and smear merchant.

He’s also managed to make me do something I never thought possible: Defend Mitt Romney! And judging by my Twitter feed today, I’m not the only who Newt has converted over to this position!

Attacking Mitt Romney is fine, so long as you use facts. So long as the attacks are fair. Using dishonest smears, and acting like a socialist, is not fair. It’s not the American way.

*Correction:

One of my Twitter friends on Twitter reminded me Fortsmann Little was not really a venture capital firm, like Bain. Teddy Fortsmann’s company, like KKR, used debt to leverage buyouts. Thus Fortsmann Little was a leverage buyout firm. [LBO] Still, in practice, they operated much in the same way Bain does which was the main point.

Rick Perry Mitt Romney a Bit of Money Laundering and a Million Dollars Worth of Hypocrisy

By Gary P Jackson

The 2006 election was tough on Rick Perry. He faced Texans who were as angry as they have ever been in the state’s history. The Trans-Texas Corridor fiasco, along with various scandals, and a general displeasure with Perry as Governor, had Rick scrambling.

Like 2010, Perry faced three primary challengers. He also had two high profile independent challengers [four in all]

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, former Railroad Commissioner, and former City of Austin Mayor: Carole Keeton Strayhorn, and Texas musician/songwriter/mystery novelist/humorist Kinky Friedman were both making noise against Perry. Then there was the democrat candidate, Chris Bell.

As Strayhorn and Friedman were polar opposites, politically, there was no chance of working out a deal where one would drop out and endorse the other. As it ended up, Strayhorn got a pretty solid 18.13% [797,577 votes] in the general with Friedman getting 12.43% [546,869 votes] mostly from would-be democrat voters.

Rick Perry squeaked by with 39.03% [1,716,803 votes] over Chris Bell’s 29.79%. [1,310,353 votes]

Besides the sad fact that in a state of 25 million people, so few actually vote, the results are telling.

That’s not the issue at hand though. With Friedman taking so many votes from Chris Bell, Perry was a shoe-in for re-election. Texans don’t elect democrats to statewide office anyway. Haven’t in a long, long time. And yet, as typical for Perry, he had his henchmen cook up an ad hammering Chris Bell for taking $1 million from a Houston trial lawyer.

Texas, unlike most states, puts few limits on campaign contributions. For individual donors, the sky is the limit. It’s why crony capitalism, and other corrupt dealings are so rampant. Anyhow, even though he didn’t need to, Perry, who has all sorts of million dollar contributions from special interests of his own to explain, went after Bell anyway.

This is where the story gets interesting. Interesting to the point of dragging poor hapless Mitt Romney and the Republican Governors Association into the deal.

From the Houston Chronicle:

It’s been widely reported that since Rick Perry became governor, Houston homebuilder Bob Perry has given him more than $2.5 million in campaign contributions.

But now, filings in a lawsuit over the 2006 governor’s race suggest that the Houstonian’s largesse has been considerably more impressive than the governor’s campaign contributions reports indicate.

Call it the $1 million question.

In the final weeks of the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, Perry campaign gurus got nervous about their position in an unpredictable field. After all, the governor faced not just a Democrat – Houston attorney Chris Bell – but independent candidates Kinky Friedman and Carole Keeton Strayhorn. Humorist Friedman gave Perry a huge gift by siphoning votes from Bell.

But Perry campaign consultant Dave Carney decided to deliver a knockout punch to the Democrat – and he did, with a tough television ad slamming Bell for accepting $1 million in contributions from Houston trial lawyer John O’Quinn.

“Sharks are circling,” it said, playing on the public’s contempt of plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Carney then turned to the Republican Governors Association for an infusion of funds, but the bean-counters there protested that they hadn’t budgeted any money for the Texas governor’s race.

In one of life’s delicious ironies, a decision on the Perry campaign’s plea for cash fell to none other than Mitt Romney, then-governor of Massachusetts and chairman of the RGA. So Carney and Perry aide Dierdre Delisi, now chairwoman of the Texas Transportation Commission, decided to pay him a visit. In documents filed in the Bell lawsuit, attorneys for the Perry campaign described what happened next:

“On Oct. 4, 2006, Dierdre Delisi and Dave Carney met with Mitt Romney, who was then chairman of the RGA. During that meeting, Gov. Romney stated that, on behalf of the RGA, he was about to accept a $1 million contribution from an individual Texan contributor.

Gov. Romney did not identify who the individual was, and TRP had no knowledge prior to that time that any individual was planning to contribute $1 million to the RGA. Following the meeting with Gov. Romney, Ms. Delisi contacted Bob Perry’s attorney Buddy Jones to ask whether Mr. Perry had contributed this money to the RGA. Mr. Jones ultimately confirmed that Mr. Perry had indeed made the contribution, and Ms. Delisi asked Mr. Jones to encourage the RGA to make some contributions in Texas since the RGA had raised such significant funds in Texas.”

The Perry campaign then received two $500,000 checks from the RGA: on Oct. 27 and Nov. 1.

Earmark denials

Contacted through a spokesman, Jones said Friday that “Bob Perry never contacted the RGA to ask for his contributions to be … earmarked. Perry is a longtime donor to many GOP causes, including the RGA, and trusts those candidates and organizations to make their own decisions about allocating resources.” Delisi didn’t respond to phone calls; Carney declined comment.

A spokesman for the Republican Governors Association has said that the group has a strict policy in not allowing donors to earmark their contributions for certain candidates. As Craig Holman, a campaign finance expert at the Washington, D.C.-based Public Citizen told me, earmarking would violate both state and federal laws against laundering money.

“It calls into question whether there is an intent to evade disclosure,” he noted.

A little hypocritical

Did Delisi’s phone call to Jones amount to pressure to earmark a contribution?

“The Texas Ethics Commission reviewed the issues surrounding the 2006 RGA contribution and did not find any violations,” Perry spokesman Mark Miner said in an email.

But that’s not exactly true, according to a TEC spokesman. The ethics commission reviewed a peripheral issue – the Perry campaign’s failure to disclose the RGA’s contributors. Since the Perry campaign corrected its filing in a timely manner, the ethics commission waived a fine. It did not investigate further “issues” surrounding the contribution. (The Perry campaign settled the lawsuit with Bell for $427,000, and the RGA is appealing a $2 million judgement against it.)

Why launder money when Texas allows contributions of any size? Given the theme of the television assault against Bell, accepting a direct $1 million contribution from Bob Perry would have seemed a little hypocritical. Not to mention, Gov. Perry already had ignited a firestorm of protest in 2005 when he appointed Perry Homes’ general counsel to the ill-conceived and (mercifully) short-lived Texas Residential Construction Commission.

Democrats, of course, are not immune from large donors; Houston trial lawyers Steve and Amber Mostyn gave $8.8 million to candidates and political action committees during the 2010 election cycle.

No man is island

Now, Perry’s presidential campaign will benefit from the recent establishment of three Super PACS, new entities that can legally raise as much as money as possible, so long as they operate independently from the candidates they support. Does the 2006 incident foreshadow how well he Perry presidential campaign will keep a safe distance? This much we know: One Super PAC has been established by Mike Toomey, a former Perry chief of staff, who owns a private island off the coast of New Hampshire. His co-owner? Carney, who still serves as Perry’s chief political consultant.

Mike Toomey is the former Perry chief-of-staff who got big bucks as a Merck lobbyist, and who’s mother-in-law, Dianne White-Delisi is the Texas director for Women in Government, a group that gets big bucks from Merck as well. Women in Government has been called “Merck’s Trojan Horse.”

White-Delisi is also the mother-in-law of the chairwoman of the Texas Transportation Commission, Dierdre Delisi, who went with Perry’s man, Dave Carney, to shake down Mitt Romney and the RGA for some cash.

Let’s review:

After attacking democrat Chris Bell for doing the same thing he has been doing for years [taking huge money from special interests] Perry then sends his people looking for huge money, from the RGA and Mitt Romney.

It’s alleged that Bob Perry’s [no relation] $1 million contribution to the RGA made it’s way back to the Perry campaign in the form of the two $500,000 checks the RGA presented to Perry.

Craig Holman, a campaign finance expert, says “earmarking” money like this would violate both state and federal money laundering laws.

Though no one involved in this has commented, and the Texas Ethics Commission “stopped investigating the complaint” The Perry campaign settled the lawsuit brought by Chris Bell for $427,000 and the RGA had a $2 million judgement against them, which they are appealing.

That brings us to Bob Perry, one of the nation’s biggest Republican donors, and Rick Perry’s absolute top donor.

Bob Perry is an influential home builder and he has been influencing Rick Perry’s vote for quite some time. In the last debate Rick Perry claimed to be “offended” by the accusation that he could be bought for $5,000, the amount he claimed he had gotten from Merck. [we now know Perry has received quite a bit more than that from Merck]

Well, $5000 might not buy much from Perry, but a little over $2 million will buy you a whole lot.

After giving Governor Perry a sizable amount of moolah over the years, Bob Perry was not only able to see legislation incredibly favorable to homebuilders, [and devastating to their customers] one of good old Bob’s boys was appointed an executive of the Texas Residential Construction Commission that was created by the legislation. There were so many issues with this deal, the commission was abolished in 2009.

From the New York Times story about the corruption surrounding Perry and high dollar campaign donors [and their appointments to influential positions]:

n 2003, after a rash of mold-related lawsuits against home construction companies, Mr. Perry championed the creation of a state board, the Texas Residential Construction Commission. The new commission was a priority of Mr. Perry’s most generous contributor: Bob Perry, a homebuilder who has contributed more than $2 million to the governor over his career. (The two men are not related.)

The legislation creating the board also sharply limited the rights of homeowners to sue contractors for faulty construction, shunting most disputes to the commission. After its passage, Bob Perry and his wife sent two $50,000 checks to the governor’s campaign. Three weeks later, the governor appointed an executive of Perry Homes, Bob Perry’s company, to the commission, which was abolished in 2009.

Read more here.

I have to say the most frustrating thing about looking into Rick Perry’s record of corruption is the more you find, the more you find! By that I mean you go looking into to one thing, and find many more things, and each one of those will give you many more! Talk about a ponzi scheme!

There is so much money and influence peddling going on in Texas that it’s shameful. Texas needs huge reform. So does the United States.

Rather than work hard to reform Texas’ obviously corrupt political system, where politicians are bought and sold daily, Rick Perry has embraced it, wallowed in it.

Rick Perry is not just wrong for Texas, he’s wrong for America.

We already have a corrupt crony capitalist sitting in the Oval Office today. Replacing him with another one is not the answer.

Now other than the [alleged] money laundering, what Perry is doing isn’t illegal in Texas, but it should be. That Texas is run by special interests, that make real reform almost impossible, doesn’t excuse Perry from being as corrupt as they come.

There’s another Governor who fought the same sort of corrupt political system. Instead of embracing it, she made cronyism a crime. That is the sort of leader America needs.