Rick Perry: By The Numbers

[Mizzougrad96]

And I like your HOF threads...

 

[YankeeFan]

CNN's reporter in Tripoli says most of the "minders" have left the hotel where the media is.

Sometimes it feels like that around here.

(No offense.)

 

[Greenhorn]

The government doesn't produce anything but misery? No national defense/military? The government doesn't produce those things.....

 

[JRoyal]

One of my favorite parts of the story is where it points out that Texas managed to escape some of the damage from the housing collapse. You know how? They have tighter regulations on the mortgage market than most other states.

But government regulations aren't the answer.

 

[Point of Order]

Does Rick know that abstinence and abstinence education are two different things?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I want a candidate who will raise the trade tariffs so it's no longer in the best interest of every company to be based in China. That would bring a ****load of jobs back to the US and if that happens, I'm willing to deal with prices coming up a bit.

Will any candidate do that? Not in a million ****ing years...

 

[suburbia]

I want a candidate who will raise the trade tariffs so it's no longer in the best interest of every company to be based in China. That would bring a ****load of jobs back to the US and if that happens, I'm willing to deal with prices coming up a bit.

Will any candidate do that? Not in a million ****ing years...

My question is why.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I understand that politics are in the news, but why should anyone be allowed to start a thread that just by the title is trying to pick a fight?

When is the last time I started a thread you didn't ***** about?

How about you start a thread that isn't picking a fight? You can't start a thread with this title and have a legitimate discussion/debate.

What would happen if Hondo, Tony, me or printdust started a thread that said "Obama, complete fraud..."

Some of us would also like to have a political discussion on these boards and considering how that is barely even allowed at this point, starting threads like this will just prevent that from happening.

Fair enough.

 

[Birdscribe]

And the hypocrisy. It burns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/rick-perry-is-a-socialist_b_930916.html

Here's your money graf(s):

"In 2010, Perry was confronting a state budget deficit of $6.6 billion. A constitutional amendment mandated that Perry balance the budget somehow, but instead of using a "rainy day" fund established with state money, Perry decided to tap a different source to fill the void. The stimulus. According to Politifact, Perry and the Republican-controlled Texas legislature requested, received and used $6.4 billion in stimulus money to help balance the budget. 97 percent of the budget shortfall was filled with stimulus money.

There's more.

In addition to the $6.4 billion to balance Rick Perry's budget deficits, Texas also used $5.7 billion in stimulus money in 2010 for "programs such as highway and bridge construction, child care development programs and weatherization assistance."

Perhaps Governor Rambo should give the money back.

 

[User 11148]

I want a candidate who will raise the trade tariffs so it's no longer in the best interest of every company to be based in China. That would bring a ****load of jobs back to the US and if that happens, I'm willing to deal with prices coming up a bit.

Will any candidate do that? Not in a million ****ing years...

Honestly, Mizzou ... might there be a benign reason why no candidate would do that? As in, it might be a really, really bad idea?

 

[Inky_Wretch]

You damned liberals need to realize city, county and state gub'mint jobs are good, it's just them Federal gub'mint jobs that are signs of a socialist takeover of America!

 

[exmediahack]

The White House/Left are terrified of Rick Perry.

That's why the attacks are out now. They're not going after Bachmann, Gingrich, Huntsmann or any of the also-rans.

They know Perry is the real deal...at least politically. He will solidify the South (FL, NC, VA) and *may* be able to push into the Midwest (Iowa, Ohio, Indiana) and West (Nevada). That equals 278. He could lose either Iowa or Nevada and still win.

It's easy to nitpick the small things of a campaign, be them "secession"/"treasonous" or "clinging to their religion".

This comes out to...which base is energized and who are the Soccer Moms gonna vote for next year? The people who will, ultimately, decide the next president will be the "Churchgoing White Folk" of Indiana, Virginia and Ohio. They were apathetic in 2008. If they are galvanized in 2012, Perry wins those states.

If Romney is the nominee, he may win PA and VA but won't solidify IN, FL, or NC.

Perry is the only choice that can beat President Obama, heads-up.

 

[Blitz]

This is a website full of opinions, which keeps it interesting. I don't think Perry's gonna be able to win the fight, but it would be interesting to see him emerge as you say and become the GOP candidate.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

The White House/Left are terrified of Rick Perry.

That's why the attacks are out now. They're not going after Bachmann, Gingrich, Huntsmann or any of the also-rans.

They know Perry is the real deal...at least politically. He will solidify the South (FL, NC, VA) and *may* be able to push into the Midwest (Iowa, Ohio, Indiana) and West (Nevada). That equals 278. He could lose either Iowa or Nevada and still win.

It's easy to nitpick the small things of a campaign, be them "secession"/"treasonous" or "clinging to their religion".

This comes out to...which base is energized and who are the Soccer Moms gonna vote for next year? The people who will, ultimately, decide the next president will be the "Churchgoing White Folk" of Indiana, Virginia and Ohio. They were apathetic in 2008. If they are galvanized in 2012, Perry wins those states.

If Romney is the nominee, he may win PA and VA but won't solidify IN, FL, or NC.

Perry is the only choice that can beat President Obama, heads-up.

They're not going after the others? Really?

Bachmann's been ripped on for being "crazy". Newt's been ripped on for cheating on his wife during the impeachment stuff. Romney's been ripped on for being a Mormon.

Huntsman seems to be the only guy not getting ripped on so far. That's because no one knows who the hell he is.

State governors rarely get much attention from out of their state. Everyone else is more concerned with their governor. But once they declare for national office, that's when the scrutiny happens. We're only now learning about Perry, beyond that he's 1. the Governor of Texas and 2. Someone who wears his religion on his sleeve.

There's a lot more we're going to be learning about him in the next few months. And while it may seem like an attack, it is his record that he is running on. And that's what we're discovering about right here.

 

[printdust]

Please yank this clown off the stage already.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/perry-criticizes-government-while-texas-job-growth-benefits-from-it/2011/08/18/gIQAPPZQSJ_story.html?hpid=z1

“The fact is, government doesn’t create jobs, otherwise the last 21 / 2 years of stimulus would have worked,” Perry said this month in a speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures. “Government can only create the environment that allows the private sector to create jobs. The single most important contributor to our jobs-friendly climate here in Texas is our low tax burden, because we know dollars do far more to create jobs and prosperity in the people’s hands than they do in the government’s.”

...

Between December 2007 and last June, private-sector employment in Texas declined by 0.6 percent while public-sector jobs increased by 6.4 percent, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Overall, government employees account for about one-sixth of the workforce in Texas.

So let me see if I have this clear, ****: Your point seems to be that 5/6s of the jobs market expanding doesn't create more jobs than 1/6?

That aside, the private sector actually produces things. Government doesn't produce anything ... other than misery.

The man currently sleeping in the White House has done a lot better.

But it's official. The liberals here have ceased their attacks on Bachmann. Rick Perry is in their crosshairs.

 

[GoochMan]

The White House/Left are terrified of Rick Perry.

That's why the attacks are out now. They're not going after Bachmann, Gingrich, Huntsmann or any of the also-rans.

They know Perry is the real deal...at least politically. He will solidify the South (FL, NC, VA) and *may* be able to push into the Midwest (Iowa, Ohio, Indiana) and West (Nevada). That equals 278. He could lose either Iowa or Nevada and still win.

It's easy to nitpick the small things of a campaign, be them "secession"/"treasonous" or "clinging to their religion".

This comes out to...which base is energized and who are the Soccer Moms gonna vote for next year? The people who will, ultimately, decide the next president will be the "Churchgoing White Folk" of Indiana, Virginia and Ohio. They were apathetic in 2008. If they are galvanized in 2012, Perry wins those states.

If Romney is the nominee, he may win PA and VA but won't solidify IN, FL, or NC.

Perry is the only choice that can beat President Obama, heads-up.

I don't think Perry gives them as many night sweats as Romney does. I think they'd rather go against him because he fits neatly the opposition they're trying to define right now.

I don't know that I agree with that--I can't see Romney winning in the end myself--but that's kinda what I see from the cheap seats.

 

[BrianGriffin]

Please yank this clown off the stage already.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/perry-criticizes-government-while-texas-job-growth-benefits-from-it/2011/08/18/gIQAPPZQSJ_story.html?hpid=z1

“The fact is, government doesn’t create jobs, otherwise the last 21 / 2 years of stimulus would have worked,” Perry said this month in a speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures. “Government can only create the environment that allows the private sector to create jobs. The single most important contributor to our jobs-friendly climate here in Texas is our low tax burden, because we know dollars do far more to create jobs and prosperity in the people’s hands than they do in the government’s.”

...

Between December 2007 and last June, private-sector employment in Texas declined by 0.6 percent while public-sector jobs increased by 6.4 percent, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Overall, government employees account for about one-sixth of the workforce in Texas.

So let me see if I have this clear, ****: Your point seems to be that 5/6s of the jobs market expanding doesn't create more jobs than 1/6?

That aside, the private sector actually produces things. Government doesn't produce anything ... other than misery.

The point is that 5/6 of the job market didn't expand.

The government jobs weren't just ALL of the growth. They were MORE than all the growth. They were the equivalent of a running back having 300 of his team's 275 yards because the rest of the team actually combined for negative yardage.

(Incidentally, I once covered a game where that actually happened.)

I covered a team where that would happen almost every week. It was a college team that had a work-horse back and otherwise, they'd throw. So he'd rush 20 times for 100 yards and the quarterback would be sacked three times for 20 lost yards and they'd finish with about 23 rushes for 80 yards and they'd throw 40 times.

This is what I love about political discussions on a sports journalism board...

 

[BrianGriffin]

The White House/Left are terrified of Rick Perry.

That's why the attacks are out now. They're not going after Bachmann, Gingrich, Huntsmann or any of the also-rans.

They know Perry is the real deal...at least politically. He will solidify the South (FL, NC, VA) and *may* be able to push into the Midwest (Iowa, Ohio, Indiana) and West (Nevada). That equals 278. He could lose either Iowa or Nevada and still win.

It's easy to nitpick the small things of a campaign, be them "secession"/"treasonous" or "clinging to their religion".

This comes out to...which base is energized and who are the Soccer Moms gonna vote for next year? The people who will, ultimately, decide the next president will be the "Churchgoing White Folk" of Indiana, Virginia and Ohio. They were apathetic in 2008. If they are galvanized in 2012, Perry wins those states.

If Romney is the nominee, he may win PA and VA but won't solidify IN, FL, or NC.

Perry is the only choice that can beat President Obama, heads-up.

They aren't covering Bachmann? That's news to me.

If you look at the motivations for why coverage of the GOP race would revolve around Romney, Bachmann and Perry and you think it's because they are "after" Perry, then your name truly is apropos.

I mean, if you're covering Cowboys camp, are you breaking down every move by Tom Brandstater the way you are with Tony Romo?

 

[exmediahack]

I'm not talking about the media coverage. I'm talking about what the White House is saying about potential opponents. Big difference. They're going after Perry because they're afraid of him capturing the vote of every white male in a swing state who goes to church on Sundays other than Easter. And, they are especially, worried about the female voters who - time and time again - prove they will vote for the smoother talker in every election. (Reagan. Reagan. Clinton. Clinton. Gore. Obama. I am not counting the 1988 nor 2004 elections because both major party candidates were uninspiring speakers. Those were toss-ups. )

Perry's a smooth talker. That terrifies Obama, who cornered the market on "political pillow talk" three years ago.

The media *is* covering Bachmann -- but the White House isn't attacking her and probably won't - as they don't want to appear "anti-woman" to the delicate Soccer Moms and their precious swing votes.

In fact, they would prefer she wins nomination. No way she wins a general election. No way she gets more than 38% of the vote vs Obama.

I also think the White House knows that Romney is the "Hillary Clinton of the Republicans". The safe choice that can hold the base (Clinton in 2008) but won't "expand the base" (Obama in 2008).

2008: "Ain't no minorities gonna stand in the rain for three hours to vote for Hillary Clinton."

2012: "Ain't no megachurchers in IN/OH/NC/VA gonna stand in the rain for three hours to vote for Mitt Romney."

There's your difference. The White House knows Perry can galvanize the base and create enthusiasm, like Obama did on the Left in 2008. Obama's team wants the Republicans to nominate the "next man up", as they usually do...when they lose (Dole 96, McCain 08). Romney is the 2012 next man up.

Look back at 2008. Even with the badly-damaged Republican brand, would Hillary have beaten McCain? Maybe to "more than maybe". But not by the tail kicking Obama gave McCain.

 

[BrianGriffin]

I'm not talking about the media coverage. I'm talking about what the White House is saying about potential opponents. Big difference. They're going after Perry because they're afraid of him capturing the vote of every white male in a swing state who goes to church on Sundays other than Easter. And, they are especially, worried about the female voters who - time and time again - prove they will vote for the smoother talker in every election. (Reagan. Reagan. Clinton. Clinton. Gore. Obama. I am not counting the 1988 nor 2004 elections because both major party candidates were uninspiring speakers. Those were toss-ups. )

Perry's a smooth talker. That terrifies Obama, who cornered the market on "political pillow talk" three years ago.

The media *is* covering Bachmann -- but the White House isn't attacking her and probably won't - as they don't want to appear "anti-woman" to the delicate Soccer Moms and their precious swing votes.

In fact, they would prefer she wins nomination. No way she wins a general election. No way she gets more than 38% of the vote vs Obama.

I also think the White House knows that Romney is the "Hillary Clinton of the Republicans". The safe choice that can hold the base (Clinton in 2008) but won't "expand the base" (Obama in 2008).

2008: "Ain't no minorities gonna stand in the rain for three hours to vote for Hillary Clinton."

2012: "Ain't no megachurchers in IN/OH/NC/VA gonna stand in the rain for three hours to vote for Mitt Romney."

There's your difference. The White House knows Perry can galvanize the base and create enthusiasm, like Obama did on the Left in 2008. Obama's team wants the Republicans to nominate the "next man up", as they usually do...when they lose (Dole 96, McCain 08). Romney is the 2012 next man up.

Look back at 2008. Even with the badly-damaged Republican brand, would Hillary have beaten McCain? Maybe to "more than maybe". But not by the tail kicking Obama gave McCain.

Yup, I wouldn't disagree with any of this. I was assuming because most of the criticisms I've seen on here were media-oriented -- or at least appeared to be -- that's what you meant.