Why Did Ken Crow Make Such a Mess Out of the Iowa Rally?

By Stacy Drake:

Robert Stacy McCain has been all over what he calls the “Indianola ‘Clusterf**k’” today and has added another post to the mix, along with this picture:

He writes:

This photo — showing Texas Gov. Rick Perry talking to Ken Crow — was taken Saturday by Lisa Krantz of the San Antonio News-Express at a Polk County (Iowa) GOP fundraising event in Des Moines.

The title of McCain’s post is called “Iowa Conspiracy Theory,” and indeed there are some theories floating around after Crow’s handling of the event in Iowa, especially after this picture surfaced. McCain seemed to downplay the possibility that Crow being a well-known supporter of Rick Perry’s had anything to do with what happened today. He wrote:

Way too far-fetched for my tastes. Is Team Perry really so crafty that, months in advance, they would dispatch a clandestine operative to insinuate himself among Iowa Tea Party activists, persuade them to invite Palin to a big rally, and then wreck the whole thing on purpose just to make Palin look bad?

don’t believe that Perry’s people plotted this out “months in advance” either. I don’t even know if Perry’s people “plotted” this out at all. I do know that Ken Crow is a Rick Perry supporter who has managed to make a mess out of a highly publicized event that Governor Palin will be headlining on Saturday. I also know that he has been trashing Governor Palin to the press.

Make of it what you will.

Breaking: Rick Perry Admits That He Is Indeed Dumb

By Gary P Jackson

On Tuesday I addressed Rick Perry’s letter in support of Hillary Clinton’s plan to “reform” health care in America. I noted this was just one in a series of poor judgements, and even poorer policy, that render Perry unfit to hold the highest office in the land.

What I didn’t address what his campaign’s weasel words on the subject, as quoted in the Daily Caller: [emphasis mine]

Asked by TheDC about the 1993 letter, Perry’s presidential campaign defended it, saying the full scope of Clinton’s healthcare plan was not yet known when Perry signed it.

“You need to read the letter,” top Perry political strategist Dave Carney told The Daily Caller. “He praised her efforts in trying to tackle the issue and urged her not to overlook rural Americans. The letter was at the onset of her efforts before she proposed anything. No one could have imagined the horrible monstrosity she cooked up, in fact not to be outdone until ObamaCare years later.“

“As Agriculture Commissioner he was concerned that rural Americans would be overlooked and their options even more limited,” Carney continued. “Working with the administration regardless of party, working with members of the other party, as long as you don’t violate your principles, is important to getting things done.“

I’m getting old, but my memory of the events is Conservatives not only “could have imagined the horrible monstrosity she cooked up” but did from the second it was announced Hillary had started!

The socialist wing of the democrat party spent almost the entire 20th Century attempting to engineer a government take over of America’s health care system. I posted video of Ronald Reagan talking about this in my previous article. It’s worth revisiting.

Like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is a Saul Alinsky communist. Unlike Obama, she knew Alinsky personally, to the point he tried to hire her as a “community organizer.” Hillary wrote an analysis of Alinsky’s methods for her senior thesis at Wellesley College. They remained friends until Alinsky’s death in 1972.

This is rather common knowledge. Since many, if not most democrat politicians, are followers of Alinsky, surely Rick Perry knew of Clinton’s communist leanings.Perry was a member of the democrat party until 1989.

One of Alinsky’s teachings is to drop the openly radical nonsense, like the terror bombings Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers was into. Alinsky advised his pupils to take a bath, cut their hair, and put on a smart suit. The idea was to blend in with the establishment, and eventually BECOME the establishment. It was a good plan that worked out well, for the hard left. They are now part of the establishment.

Hillary was able to blend in and look respectable, but Conservatives saw her coming a mile away when she pounced on health care. It was a disaster for Bill Clinton, as even some democrats opposed the idea, and would be one of the reasons the democrats lost their 40 year control of the House.

But Rick Perry’s campaign would have you believe “No one could have imagined the horrible monstrosity she cooked up“? It’s more like everyone, but Rick Perry, could imagine it!

This is nothing more than a typical politician trying to spin a horrible decision. A fellow who has a history of supporting plans that Conservatives will never approve of. A candidate who is saying don’t look at my record, just listen to my pretty words.

In the end, there are only two possibilities regarding the Clinton letter. Rick Perry really didn’t have a clue, which makes him incredibly dumb [and naive] or he and his campaign are being a whole lot less than truthful.

Either way, this is not the sort we need leading this nation. We already have Barack Obama, who is both dumb and a liar.

When Will The Power Really Come On?

By Patrick S Adams

Having endured the wrath of Hurricane Irene and being without power for 2 1/2 days, it gives me pause for thought. The feelings of everyone in my neighborhood as to when will the power come on reminds me of how Sarah Palin supporters must feel after having been in a “country without power” for a little over 2 1/2 years.
The emotions range from optimism at the start to frustration right before the power actually comes back on. Even though the election of 2008 was a “bad storm,” we watched conservatives come together to revive their movement through Tea Party activism and Town Hall meetings in much the same way that neighbors came together after Hurricane Irene to help each other clear trees and debris off their property.

But once the neighborhood work was done, it was time to sit out on the porch and make calls on generator charged cell phones to conduct business that would normally be conducted online or in person at locations that would have had power under regular conditions. As time passes, the neighborhood gets restless. People approach power company trucks and ask “when will you be by me?” Folks are beginning to find out that some areas are coming online and others are still in the dark. You can sense the frustration.

Politically, Virginia and New Jersey came online first with the election of Republican governors to replace Democrats. Then slowly other states came online and even half the U.S. Capitol now “has power.”

Emotions still range throughout neighborhoods, though. When you see the extent of the damage, one has to wonder if the power company is even capable or willing to fix it all. That is where we are at now politically.

Sarah Palin has the ability to “turn the power back on” for the United States. There will still be those who would prefer to be in the dark living off candles and generators. But for most of us, having the power back on means being able to get back to working on improving our lives instead of surviving.

Normally, when the electricity comes back on, trees have been pruned, lines have been strengthend and weaknesses in the electrical grid can be more easily addressed now that there is a all hands on deck operation under way.

This is what has to happen to our political system. It’s not just enough to “get the power back.” This is an opportunity to prune the waste, cut down the trees that could cause future power outages and fix worn out or blown transformers. This is where the Tea Party comes in. This is where Sarah Palin comes in.

There are times where we become angry and frustrated. Why is the power not coming back on? Where is she? Is she even running? Is the power company really going to do the job right this time or are they just going to turn it over to the same old lackeys who built this rickety power system in the first place once the “problem” is fixed?

The removal of Obama is like the removal of debris. The removal of RINOs is like the cutting down of trees that would hang over the lines for the next storm. But getting the power grid to work at optimum efficiency is going to require electing Sarah Palin president.

Listen to Patrick’s World USA on Blogtalk Radio tonight at 11pm ET 8pm PT.

Sarah Palin To New Hampshire On Labor Day

By Gary P Jackson

After what is expected to be a landmark speech in Iowa on Saturday, Sarah Palin will spend Monday, Labor Day, in the first primary in the nation state of New Hampshire. Sarah will headline a Tea Party Express event.

“We are always thrilled to have Sarah Palin join one of our rallies,” Tea Party Express chairman Amy Kremer said in a statement released late Tuesday.

“She is an electrifying figure in conservative politics and a hero to the tea party movement.“

Game on.

The Letter In Which Rick Perry Praises Hillary Clinton For Her Socialized Medicine Scheme Shows A Pattern

By Gary P Jackson

One of our readers sent this a couple of days, now I see Drudge has picked up on it, and Team Perry is scurrying to explain it all. This is more than a letter from one democrat to another, it shows a pattern that Perry can’t escape.

From the letter:

I think your efforts in trying to reform the nation’s health care system are most commendable.

I would like to request that the task force give particular consideration to the needs of the nation’s farmers, ranchers, and agriculture workers, and other members of rural communities,” Perry continued, noting his administration’s focus on economic development for rural Texans. “Rural populations have a high proportion of uninsured people, rising health care costs, and often experience lack of services.

Again, your efforts are worthy, Perry concluded, “and I hope you will remember this constituency as the task force progresses.

Perry ends his letter:

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance

Now in all fairness, Perry was a democrat back then. But despite reports to the contrary, democrats in Texas were and are just as whacked out as any other democrat. And supporting socialized medicine goes against the very fiber of the American soul.

To me, this shows a pattern for Perry, and no, I’m not just talking about the Gardasil fiasco, which was nanny statism and crony capitalism deluxe. Earlier we reported that in 2001, as the REPUBLICAN Governor of Texas, Perry backed a bi-national insurance scheme that would have included Mexico.

Let’s not forget that as Charmain of the Republican Governor’s Association, Perry teamed up with his democrat counterpart, Joe Manchin to write a series of letters begging Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to pass TARP. Bi-partisanship at it’s “finest“!

Patterns ….

Perry talks a different story now, but I’d much rather look at the man’s actual record as Governor of Texas. No smears, no BS.

The more you dig into Perry’s actual record the more you realize that he isn’t all that much of an upgrade from the current president. Yes, Perry would make a better president than Obama, but so would almost anyone, that’s not a very high standard.

Again, Perry has talked big lately, but with the campaign disavowing much of that fiery rhetoric, it all becomes meaningless.

We all give Mitt Romney hell for creating the first socialized medicine program in America, giving the Obama regime the needed blueprint for a national version of the same thing, on steroids. And we are right in giving Romney hell. That said what Hilary Clinton had proposed, and Perry enthusiastically backed, was not much different. Given the fact Perry backed a plan that would have not only included Texas, but another COUNTRY, please tell me how Perry is much different than Romney?

There’s a lot of things in Perry’s record as Governor to give Americans great pause. There are better choices.

As a reminder, here’s what the great Ronald Reagan had to say about socialized medicine. This applies to HillaryCare, RomneyCare, and ObamaCare.

Flashback: Sarah Palin: Alaska’s Promise for the Nation

By Gary P Jackson

One of my favorite things that shows up in my mailbox regularly is Imprimis from Hillsdale College. If you aren’t a subscriber, you are missing some great commentary. It’s free, so sign up here.

On August 2, 2008, before she was chosen as the Republican vice presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin gave a speech outlining Alaska’s role in America’s future. Specifically she’s talking about energy independence, and national security. What strikes me most is Governor Palin’s consistency. She was saying the same thing in 2008, before most Americans knew who she was, as she does today in 2011, when everyone knows who she is.

More importantly, she’s just as correct today, as she was in 2008. Sarah is the only candidate who seems to understand the link between energy independence and national security. She’s absolutely the only one talking about it. She’s also the only one with actual executive experience in the energy sector. When she talks energy, she talks from first hand knowledge.

Sarah Palin actually has a solid plan for making America energy independent. A plan that will create millions of jobs, jump start our economy, and make us a lot safer and more secure.

From Imprimis online:

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on August 2, 2008, aboard the Regent Seven Seas Mariner in Juneau, Alaska, to Hillsdale College friends and supporters during the College’s “North to Alaska” cruise from Seward to Vancouver.

NEXT YEAR IN ALASKA we are celebrating 50 years of statehood. We are still a very young state, and we’re still experiencing some growing pains, perhaps, as we seek opportunities for Alaska to become more self-sufficient and less dependent on the federal government. And the key to our becoming self-sufficient—and doing our part for our fellow Americans—is to develop further our state’s vast natural resource wealth.

Fifty years ago, this was our deal with the federal government—that we pull our own weight. And we’ve already come a long way from being known as “Seward’s Folly,” back when Alaska was purchased from the Russians for two cents an acre. We’re earning our keep, largely by tapping our energy resources such as crude oil and liquefied natural gas. In fact, Alaska has our nation’s only liquefied natural gas export facility, located in the south-central Alaska town of Nikiski. But Alaska could and should be doing much more.

Being an Alaskan today is especially exciting and historic, as the energy and fuel crisis in our nation spawns creativity and makes us reevaluate what is important and necessary. As we consider where our energy will come from in the future, Alaska can and must be a big part of the answer. In fact, Alaska has already begun to take the lead on a sorely needed national energy policy. Groundbreaking history was made just up the hill at the capitol building yesterday, as Alaska’s lawmakers voted to award TransCanada Alaska a license to proceed with fieldwork, permitting, and development of the biggest construction project in the history of North America—the building of a natural gas pipeline, a project we have been fighting to begin for three decades. Once constructed, this pipeline will supply four to four-and-one-half billion cubic feet of natural gas per day—roughly six percent of America’s demand—to our fellow countrymen in what we call “the lower 48.”

Just to provide some perspective, Alaska has tens of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas under the surface, especially on the North Slope. Alaskans have longed for the right to access our gas and more of our oil to assist in supplying the U.S. market, and now we are finally on the road to doing so. This $30-40 billion infrastructure project—which will be built by the private sector—is one of the most exciting and progressive events in Alaska’s history.

This is a good start, to be sure. But Alaska has much more to offer in the way of resources. And let me tell you clearly that we can do so in a way consistent with good environmental stewardship. Each and every Alaskan recognizes that our most precious resource is the pristine environment in which we are privileged to live and where our “First People” still subsist to this day. No one can love or care for Alaska more than Alaskans. And we who live here recognize that sound science and constantly improving technology make it possible to extract oil and gas safely and responsibly. Furthermore, with gas and fuel prices reaching record highs, oil and gas must be extracted—even as we move in the direction of renewable and alternative sources of energy.

Because of the lagging economy, Americans do not have time for “all talk and no action.” Here at home, Alaskans struggle with the highest gas prices in the nation—the cost of gas in parts of Alaska is four to five dollars more per gallon than gas in the lower 48—and many face the choice between heating their homes and putting food on the table. Now other Americans are experiencing the same challenges. And we are in this position only because Alaska’s vast resources are being warehoused underground by Congress—placing us in a ridiculous and difficult position.

The price of oil, and now gasoline, has always been sensitive and subject to events occurring outside the U.S. We have placed ourselves in the position of having to plead with Middle Eastern suppliers to increase production, when instead we could lift the development bans that are keeping us from our own resource independence—namely, the bans relating to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and offshore drilling.

Alaskans find it incredibly frustrating that others—many of whom have never even set foot in our state, much less lived here—dictate how and when we can best use our own resources. Whether over the barren tundra or in our majestic mountains, we have a strong history of responsible development. To date, Alaska has sent more than 15 billion barrels of oil, safely and efficiently, to the lower 48. One look at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System illustrates that development and wildlife can and do coexist.

I’ve heard it said by some politicians that Alaska doesn’t have enough oil to make a difference. I can tell you honestly that we do have enough. And while consultants and experts debate the current energy crisis, Alaska is already preparing for its next role—providing American consumers with a safe and secure domestic source of crude oil and natural gas. In fact, if energy imports were curtailed completely, Alaska could provide our nation with seven years of crude oil independence and an eight-year supply of natural gas. These are numbers that reflect known and recoverable oil and gas deposits.

To repeat, Prudhoe Bay has produced 15 billion barrels of crude oil, and there’s more where that came from in ANWR, which is home to more than ten billion barrels of oil and nine trillion cubic feet of natural gas. I know this is a controversial issue. But most Americans do not realize that of the 20 million acres that make up ANWR, we are asking for the right to access just 2,000 of them—a mere 1/10,000th of the total area. Opening up just that sliver of ANWR—which would create a footprint smaller than the total area of Los Angeles International Airport—could produce enough oil (an estimated one million barrels per day) to ease America’s fuel crisis and greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

It is also estimated that there are 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil and another 104 trillion cubic feet of natural gas offshore. In other words, offshore areas that are geologically promising, such as the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, hold roughly three-and-one-half years of U.S. oil consumption and four-and-one-half years of natural gas.

Congress can make it possible to take advantage of these resources right now, by streamlining access to offshore areas. As usual, outside interests are throwing up roadblocks and manipulating the legal system to achieve their agenda. But we need to bring some sanity back to the legal and permitting processes in the area of energy production.

In calling for bans to be lifted in order to get our nation out of the chokehold of high oil prices and dependence on the Middle East, I am certainly not rejecting the idea of alternative and renewable resources. I believe that we need to move in that direction, ultimately weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels. But we can’t do it overnight—or even over a decade. In Alaska, we have almost limitless opportunities for thermal, wind, solar, and hydroelectric energy. In fact, our capital city of Juneau receives 80 percent of its electricity from hydroelectric energy. Recently we have created a renewable/alternative energy fund with an initial $50 million that will build to $250 million over a five-year period. Yet until the science is fully developed, until all our vehicles are green, we must wisely and responsibly utilize known and given oil and natural gas resources so that we can provide for ourselves.

Alaskans are a very unique kind of people. We hear this on a regular basis from our visitors from the lower 48. One thing that makes us so unique is that we are at once fiercely independent and incredibly community-minded. It may seem as though these two qualities would be in conflict, but I believe they are the complementary qualities which, in tandem, drove the American Revolution. Our forefathers fought and died for liberty and independence, but they did so together. Today, as we seek freedom from dependence on foreign oil—and freedom from having to send our presidents to plead with the Saudis for more oil production—we must join together again, in the spirit of freedom and independence, to gain access to our own energy resources.

I say this to you not just as Alaska’s governor, but as the mother of a soldier—my son, Track, will soon be deploying overseas in service to his country and to a war that is certainly complicated by our dependence on foreign resources.

We must open ANWR and lift the ban on offshore drilling. The science and technology to harvest our resources responsibly and safely are in hand. The time for congressional action and leadership is now.

~ Sarah Palin

Is Rick Perry a Fiscal Conservative?

UPDATED

Scroll down to the bottom for the update.

By Stacy Drake

According to Roger Simon, any headline that ends with a question mark can always be answered “no.”

Over a week ago, the Perry-friendly Redstate published a presumptuous piece titled “Rick Perry, our next President.” The author listed a few items that he or she (anonymous author) felt are Rick Perry’s strongest selling points. With regards to the way Perry handled the Texas state budget, he or she wrote:

[Perry] Presided over 10 years of balanced budgets, including two times where Texas was faced with serious shorfalls, and despite the usual liberal handwringing and demands to deplete the Texas rainy day fund and raise taxes, Perry and the Republicans in the Texas lege did neither, keeping the spending in check.

The State of Texas (like most states) is required to balance their budget. They have a balanced budget amendment, so technically it would have been unconstitutional for Perry not to have balanced the Texas state books. But just how did Perry “despite the usual liberal handwringing” keep “the spending in check?” According to a report from CNN Money (emphasis):

Texas Gov. Rick Perry likes to tell Washington to stop meddling in state affairs. He vocally opposed the Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus program to spur the economy and assist cash-strapped states.

Perry also likes to trumpet that his state balanced its budget in 2009, while keeping billions in its rainy day fund.

But he couldn’t have done that without a lot of help from … guess where? Washington.

Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.

“Stimulus was very helpful in getting them through the last few years,” said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies for the National Association of State Budget Officers, said of Texas.

Even as Perry requested the Recovery Act money, he railed against it. On the very same day he asked for the funds, he set up a petition titled “No Government Bailouts.”

Perry used the same money he spoke out against from Obama’s stimulus package to close his state’s deficit in 2010. And just how is that “keeping the spending in check?”

During the last budget signed by Governor Perry, he didn’t have the option to utilize stimulus funds to close the deficit. Instead he used accounting gimmicks, very similar to the ones we’ve become so accustomed to seeing coming out of Washington. Reason reported:

According to a report by ABC News, Perry’s budget also closed a big part of its budget gap by delaying a $2.3 billion education payment a single day. Thanks to that one-day delay, the payment will fall into the next budget year, and therefore will not technically affect the current year’s budget.

From the ABC report:

Gov. Rick Perry signed a budget that was balanced only through accounting maneuvers, rewriting school funding laws, ignoring a growing population and delaying payments on bills coming due in 2013. It accomplishes, however, what the Republican majority wanted most: It did not raise taxes, took little from the Rainy Day Fund and shifted any future deficits onto the next Legislature….

Much of the overall savings came through cuts to university and state agency budgets, but the bulk of it came from accounting sleight-of-hand and putting off the biggest problems until lawmakers come back in 2013. At that point, lawmakers will be bound by the balanced budget law to tap the Rainy Day Fund to cover any existing deficit and House rules will require fewer votes to do it….

But all the deferred bills and payments will come due eventually, and the Republican victory in not tapping the $6.5 billion Rainy Day Fund is for this year only. Conservative lawmakers readily admit that one of the first things they’ll do when they come back in 2013 is tap that resource.

Perry’s handling of the budget appears to be all smoke and mirrors. He didn’t take bold steps like Governor Palin did when she reduced Alaska’s liabilities and SAVED surplus money instead of letting lawmakers spend it. As Whitney reported:

Governor Palin was a frugal budgeter as the Governor of Alaska. During her tenure, she cut spending 9.5% while also vetoing nearly half a billion dollars in spending. She did this during strong economic times. It should be noted that in addition to the traditional budget and capital budget that states are responsible for implementing, state governors are also responsible for managing their state debts and liabilities. These are often tied to bonds (both state and municipal) and state worker pensions […] Compared to all other candidates and potential candidates, Governor Palin increased the debt at a much slower rate and reduced total liabilities at a much higher rate than any of her fellow governors.

Governor Palin was and is a fiscal conservative. She went to great lengths to get Alaska’s financial house in order, while Perry used a national handouts and gimmicks to balance his state’s budget. By doing these things, Perry didn’t solve any problems, or address why his state has budgetary shortfalls in the first place. He simply kicked the can down the road, leaving these issues for others to contend with at a later date.

It appears Perry has also created some problems with the overall Texas debt. According to PolitiFact, he doubled it (emphasis):

“Debt has almost doubled in Austin under Gov. Perry,” White said. “They think you will not notice this!”

Game on. Is White right?…

Perry is one of four members on the Bond Review Board, which ultimately approves most state debt transactions. And over the years, we found, he was a leading advocate for expanding state debts to pay for transportation projects and to combat cancer.

It turns out that transportation is responsible for most of the added debt load under Perry, increasing from basically nothing in 2000 to $11.8 billion outstanding as of Aug. 31 2009. That’s because before 2001, the Texas Department of Transportation lacked the authority to borrow money to pay for road projects. Voters gave it that power in 2001 when they approved a constitutional amendment that Perry supported.

Addressing transportation in his 2001 state of the state speech, Perry said, “I would like for both chambers to pass a bonding program to jump-start construction across our state.”

In 2007, voters also passed a constitutional amendment to create and fund the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas with $3 billion in bonds over 10 years, starting in January 2010. Perry had championed the cause with cyclist and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong and others.

Where does that leave us?

It’s clear the amount of state debt has more than doubled since Perry became governor.

Perhaps the thing that stuck with me the most after looking through these aspects of Perry’s record is the difference between his words and his actions. On the very same day that he “railed” against government bailouts, he also took $6.4 billion federal tax-dollars to balance his own budget shortfall. Perry talks a good game about fiscal responsibility, but when you sit down and read through his actual record, it doesn’t exactly match his rhetoric. If Rick Perry says one thing and does another on state level, what makes us think he wouldn’t do it nationally?

Update: I realize that some of you have a problem with the fact that I used Politifact as a source. Perhaps you had good reason considering PolitiFact has been skewed in the past. Point taken.. However, please note that the report I posted by Whitney backs up what PolitiFact wrote. They reported that Perry “more than doubled” the Texas state debt during his tenure. In fact Perry tripled the Texas debt:

During the fiscal years for which Rick Perry exercised budgetary authority as Governor of Texas (FY02 through FY10)

• Debt outstanding increased 184.2%, or 20.5% per year

• Per capita debt outstanding increased 140.4%, or 15.6% per year

• Total liabilities increased 60.6%, or 6.7% per year

• Total liabilities per capita increased 35.8%, or 4.0% per year

So that’s a total debt increase of 184.2%.

The numbers come from reports published on the official State of Texas website:

http://www.window.state.tx.us/finances/pubs/cafr/01/index.html

http://www.window.state.tx.us/finances/pubs/cafr/10/pdf/96-471-CAFR2010.pdf

Happy Anniversary Todd and Sarah Palin

By Gary P Jackson

Todd and Sarah Palin are celebrating their 23rd wedding anniversary today. Here’s some photos of them together:

Todd and Sarah share each others adventures:

Aboard the USS Stennis:

The Iron Dog!

On this date in 2008 Sarah and Todd started out a big adventure:

All things point to an even bigger adventure to come.

Here’s wishing Todd and Sarah many more years of happiness together.

There is a neat slideshow of Sarah and Todd together here.

August 29, 2008– The Day the Ship Left the Harbor

by Whitney Pitcher

Three years ago today marks what many would consider a political shockwave, in the announcement of Governor Palin as Senator McCain’s 2008 vice presidential running mate. While the political pundits were anticipating that Senator McCain would choose the likes of a Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty or maybe even a Joe Liebermann, the Arizona Senator chose instead a relatively little known governor from the state of Alaska.  There were some, though, with far more political clairvoyance than the rest of the country, C4P’s own Adam Brickley was among those who had such foresight, and he spearheaded a “draft Palin for VP” effort. He and others watched through the night to learn that indeed a plane from Alaska was traveling to Ohio, as Senator McCain was poised to make such a historic announcement.

As Governor Palin walked onto that stage with her family in Dayton, Ohio, America saw a woman who was the antithesis of the status quo. She was a woman who realized that motherhood and political life were not mutually exclusive. She was a woman who rejected traditional feminism, but embraced life and empowerment of women. She was a woman of faith who realized that being a light to the world means neither blinding people, nor hiding that light, but letting it shine. She was a woman who disproved the false choice between ignorance and intellectualism by exhibiting intelligence, wisdom and common sense. She was a leader who made decisions based on what was best for her state, not her political career. She was a politician who realized you could govern without losing your integrity, as she fought corruption and reformed ethics. On August 29, 2008, we were introduced to this woman:

In her introductory speech, Governor Palin spoke of a ship in harbor being safe, but such safety was not why the ship was built. Political leadership is not about making safe choices or calculated decisions; it is about taking measured risks and making principled decisions.  Many eagerly anticipate that Governor Palin will leave the proverbial harbor for another electoral voyage in the 2012 presidential election. Meanwhile, the same political pundits who were predicting a “safe” Vice Presidential candidate in 2008 are criticizing Governor Palin for not launching her ship on their timetable and for not hiring the “right” contractors and boat manufacturers to build the ship. It would serve the punditocracy well to remember that amateurs built the Ark, but professionals built the Titanic.  Two ships. Two destinations. Two very different outcomes.

Governor Palin has been studying the nautical maps, checking the weather and is prepared to conquer any sea squall.  As one of her recent Facebook notes indicates, she seems to be planning her route accordingly:

We hope to see many of you there as we gather to discuss the direction of our country and the way forward with our fundamental restoration of all that is good and strong and free in America

Governor Palin will launch her ship for this voyage in her own time, and as any fisherwoman can tell you, the North Star is a pretty good guide.

P.S. A very happy 23^rd anniversary to Todd and Governor Palin!

Perry Campaign: Everything in “Fed Up!” Was Meaningless BS

By Gary P Jackson

I have a copy of Rick Perry’s Fed Up! on my bookshelf. In the book Perry sounds like the kind of solid conservative Americans would like to have in the movement. I must say I enjoyed the book, and agreed with what was written. Thing is, it seems Perry himself does not.

One of the main themes of the book was going back to the Founder’s original intent of a decentralized government, with the states more in charge and responsible for things affecting the people. The entire book is an homage to the Tenth Amendment.

Another strong theme is, Perry wants nothing to do with Washington, or it’s politics. He also says [as he has many times] that being Governor of Texas is the “greatest job on earth.” And yet, he wants to leave that and go to the cesspool that is D.C.? The D.C. that he said in his book he wanted nothing to do with? Hmm.

Perry has also said that Tenth Amendment stuff was just BS as well, if not in words, then by his actions.

When he first got serious about running for President, and the issue of gay marriage came up, he got it right, at first. It’s a states’ rights issue. Then when pressured, he flip-flopped faster than Mitt Romney on his best day, and said we need a federal ban on gay marriage.

Same goes for abortion. That Tenth Amendment became meaningless as soon as Perry was approached. The reason Roe v Wade is bad law is because it usurped states’ rights. The federal government has no business dealing with this issue. Left alone, most states would ban, or severely limit abortion all on their own. Perry should know this, as Texas, thanks to our legislature, is doing everything it can to limit the slaughter of the innocent.

That said, you can’t have it both ways. You either believe the Tenth is the law of the land, or you don’t. You can’t say you are 100% for it, except when it’s inconvenient.

Recently Perry, who talks tough, was called out for statements he made about Social Security. Neil King Jr writes in the Wall Street Journal: [emphasis mine]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry used to be pretty frank when it came to the country’s Social Security system. In his fiery anti-Washington book, “Fed Up!“, published last fall when he had no plans to run for president, Mr. Perry called the program, which turned 76 on Monday, “a crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal.”

He suggested the program’s creation violated the Constitution. The program was put in place, “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government,” he wrote, comparing the program to a “bad disease” that has continued to spread. Instead of “a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme,” he wrote, he would prefer a system that “will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement.”

But since jumping into the 2012 GOP nomination race on Saturday, Mr. Perry has tempered his Social Security views. His communications director, Ray Sullivan, said Thursday that he had “never heard” the governor suggest the program was unconstitutional. Not only that, Mr. Sullivan said, but “Fed Up!” is not meant to reflect the governor’s current views on how to fix the program.

The issue bubbled up Thursday, when a gaggle of protestors confronted Mr. Perry outside a café in Portsmouth, N.H., accusing him of trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Perry didn’t respond when one of the protesters inside the café accused him of believing the Social Security system was unconstitutional.

In an interview, Mr. Sullivan acknowledged that many passages in Mr. Perry’s “Fed Up!” could dog his presidential campaign. The book, Mr. Sullivan said, “is a look back, not a path forward.” It was written “as a review and critique of 50 years of federal excesses, not in any way as a 2012 campaign blueprint or manifesto,” Mr. Sullivan said.

The campaign’s disavowal of “Fed Up!” is itself very new. On Sunday evening, at Mr. Perry’s first campaign stop in Iowa, a questioner asked the governor to talk about how he would fix the country’s rickety entitlement programs. Mr. Perry shot back: “Have you read my book, ‘Fed Up!’ Get a copy and read it.“

In the book, Mr. Perry dings politicians who don’t have the courage to take on Social Security. So what is his position now? “The governor wants to see the benefits for existing retirees and those close to Social Security be strongly protected,” Mr. Sullivan said. Beyond that, “he believes a full review and discussion of entitlement reforms need to be had, aimed at seeing that programs like Social Security and Medicare are fiscally responsible and actuarially sound.“

The fact that Perry’s campaign is saying the book is not a “2012 campaign blueprint or manifesto” while Perry himself is saying “read my book” [rather than just answer a question] should bother voters. It should bother them a lot.

The Perry campaign is saying “don’t believe a word in it, it’s irrelevant now” while their guy is saying hey, go read my meaningless words!

We already know we can’t trust the words written on the page, so why bother?

It’s also hypocritical for to Perry call out others who don’t have the courage to do something about Social Security, when it sure sounds like he doesn’t either.

Now wait, hold the phone, as I write this, I see a new report from the Los Angeles Times. It’s all OK now, Perry is back to attacking Social Security again![emphasis mine]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is standing firm in insisting that Social Security, the federal government’s insurance programs for retirees and disabled, is a Ponzi scheme designed to deceive the young.

In a weekend campaign stop in Ottumwa, Iowa, Perry, who has surged into the lead in the Republican presidential sweepstakes in at least one major poll, repeated his characterization of the social insurance program that is generally supported by the electorate. He has made the same point before, especially in his book, “Fed Up!,” though at one point his campaign tried to explain that he had softened his language.

There’s more.

So Perry “softened” his rhetoric, his campaign disavowed his book, and now it’s all back on. See, it’s all better now!

The Hill reported a few days ago that something else Rick Perry was all for in the book, the “flat tax” is being distanced by the campaign:

The campaign of Texas governor and GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry is being hounded by statements he has made.

The Perry campaign on Monday was, once again, trying to distance itself from another policy prescription in Perry’s book, “Fed Up!,” which was released last year.

In the book, Perry argues that the federal government should repeal the 16th Amendment — which grants Congress wide leeway to levy income taxes — and institute instead a “flat tax” that would tax all Americans at the same rate, regardless of income.

But a Perry spokesman conceded Monday that dramatic income tax reform was likely a non-starter, according to The Washington Post. The campaign declined to reaffirm support for the repeal of the 16th Amendment or the passage of a flat or national sales tax, despite continuing to assert that the current tax code is “onerous, complex and confusing.”

Read more here.

So which is it?

The book is a full throated defense of the flat tax, and Perry laid out a reasonable plan, but now the campaign “declined to reaffirm support“? Does Perry believe a flat tax is the answer, or not? Or is it all just too damned hard?

How does one count this anyway? Is it a flip-flop, or pure political cowardice?

Sorry, but I want a candidate who says what they mean, and means what they say. I don’t want “nuance” or “softened” rhetoric. I don’t want someone who’ll write a book, and when asked a question, instead of answering, refers people to that book, while at the same time his campaign is saying you can’t really believe a word in that book!

I want someone, who when talking tough, and prescribing tough medicine, has the courage of their convictions. Someone who not only knows what must be done, but will actually do it, if elected. 

This is vintage Rick Perry though. Talks a good game, but when it’s post time, he comes up limp. Texans know this already.

I read Fed Up!. I enjoyed Fed Up!. I’d vote for the character “Rick Perry” portrayed in Fed up!. Sadly, “Rick Perry” is a fictional character, and doesn’t exist. The real Rick Perry is just another politician, and not a particularly appealing one at that.

I’ve asked readers before to look at Perry’s record. Not the media nonsense, not the smears, just his actual record as Governor of Texas. That’s all one needs to know to understand Perry is not suited for the job of President of these United States.

The book deal proves Perry is just another pandering political hack who wrote Fed Up! because he figured that’s what people wanted to hear. I’m not saying Perry didn’t believe some of what he wrote. [though his campaign is] What I’m saying is Perry isn’t prepared to defend what he said, or live by it.

Perry, like most career politicians can talk the talk, but has no intention of walking the walk.

America deserves better.