An Interview With Rick Perry On Illegal Immigration

Right Wing News has just released a 10 question interview with Rick Perry on illegal immigration.

In this interview, Rick Perry is asked all the questions on illegal immigration that people have wanted to hear him asked. Over the course of the interview, Perry revealed a lot of new information on how he'd handle the illegal immigration issue if he becomes President. Although he might disagree with this characterization, his positions on the issue seem to be well to the right of where many conservatives believe he is on illegal immigration.


Here are just a few excerpts from the interview.

•  If Rick Perry becomes President of the United States, would that fence on the border be completed in your first term?

"I think what caused the hang up was that after it was passed, it was amended to give Homeland Security complete discretion on how, when and whether the fence ever gets built. Obviously with this president, that means it will never be completed.

If I’m elected, I will direct my Secretary of Homeland Security to expedite construction of strategic fencing along the border, especially in high traffic areas where manpower alone is insufficient to do the job."

• Was the Obama Administration right to sue Arizona over their immigration law?

"I respect the right of all states to develop their own solutions, whether they use the Texas model or the Arizona model. I applaud my fellow governors who are showing leadership on this issue, because President Obama certainly has not."

• Can you explain your "I don’t think you have a heart" comment from the last debate?

"On the issue of all Texas residents paying in-state tuition, I regret the comment from the debate. It was a poor choice of words, and it wasn’t fair to those who disagree with the policy."

• Would you like to get rid of E-Verify and if so, what would you replace it with?

"I agree that some kind of electronic verification system is needed so we can make sure employers comply with the law not to hire illegal immigrants. E-Verify is a federal government created and run program, and as a result there have been a number of problems with it so far. The Department of Homeland Security estimated the system could fail to identify more than half of all illegal immigrants. But just because it has problems doesn’t mean we should throw employee verification out. It means we should make it work. ...So as president, I’d work to put in place an E-Verify system that’s more accurate, less burdensome and really delivers the results we need it to."

• Do you support the  Federal DREAM Act?

"I too oppose the federal DREAM Act and will oppose it as President."

•  Would you support comprehensive immigration reform?

"The debate on immigration reform is meaningless until the federal government secures the border. There’s just no point in passing new immigration laws when we can’t even enforce the ones we’ve got. Once our borders are secure and we’ve fixed the problem with visa “overstays,” then we can seriously address our broken immigration system. But step one is to secure that border so we have the ability to enforce the law."

These represent only part of the interview questions and answers. It is worth your time to read the entire interview.  Click here to go to Right Wing News for the entire interview

The Rise and Fall of Rick Perry->And The Lid Teaches His Friend Jazz The Facts About Israel

Participating as a guest on the Rick Moran show is a guilty pleasure, and last night's show was probably one of the most enjoyable ever.  Rick, who is an editor at both PJM, American Thinker and runs his own blog Right Wing Nut House is very masterful at getting his guest to think and interact and last night the interaction between Stephen Green the famous Vodkapundit, my good friend Jazz Shaw who blogs at the Hot Air Green Room and myself was pretty spirited.   Make sure you listen to the last segment where we discuss the Middle East.  For those of you who don't know both Jazz and me, we agree 95% of the time, that 5% is mostly comprised of the Middle East. While Jazz will probably still disagree, I didn't argue with Jazz's opinions but the facts that he based his opinions on.

(if you cannot see media player below Please Click Here)

The Fox Google Debate-Who Won-Who Lost-Who Hates That New Sound

After taking a detour to MSNBC and CNN, tonight conservatives and Republicans across the country found themselves back in familiar territory... FOX. This time the format was different, more questions from the voters, and those questions were actually voted on by the public. As expected the moderators tried to spark battles between the two front runners and it worked. Lets dive into to the debate top lines.

• Biggest Loser-That's easy,  that new sound for going over your allotted time.  Every time I heard that dammed thing I kept looking at my PC trying to figure out why I was getting an error sound.  Please guys go back to the door bell sound, maybe it will help Gary Johnson with his neighbors dog.

•  Most Tiresome Exchange- The first spat between Romney and Perry, where one guy quoted the others book and the other retorted with "you read it wrong." Personally I skipped both those books. As a rule I skip political candidate's books preferring to get my political propaganda for free. But for those who want to pay for candidate's books I came up with an idea that was actually quoted by Politico:

Jeff Dunetz (@yidwithlid), of New York, said the sparring over Perry’s book, “Fed Up,” and Romney’s “No Apology,” gave him a new business idea.“Hey I think I am going to start an online business,” he tweeted. “The Perry/Romney book club.”

I appreciate the mention folks but next time could you link to the site and invite people to click on an ad or hit the tip jar?

Question Number 1: Why is it so hard for Mitt Romney to say these simple words, "Barack Obama is a socialist"? In 1996 he ran for the Illinois state senate on a the socialist "New Party" ticket that doesn't make him a conservative.

• Rick Perry might have taken a giant step backwards tonight. This was his third debate, and if debates had the same "rules" as dating, on the big third date Perry would not be staying the night.  The last debate Perry was the target and held his own, this time it seemed that the Texas Governor made unforced errors.  When Perry and Romney were in the middle of the great book debate, I didn't really get the feeling that he really read the book.  Perry didn't seem to have a handle on his answers, he was fumbling around too much.  But that was just style, I think he lost big on his immigration answers. He may be right allowing Texas Illegals to go to collage but he is wrong for giving them a major discount. Governor Perry totally blew the question about Pakistan losing control of its nukes to terrorist's.  Well I think he blew it...it seemed like rambling and in the end I had no real idea what he said. he got one of those 3 a.m. calls telling him that Pakistan lost control of its nuclear weapons to the Taliban.  Oh and that nice quote he gave from that woman with Cervical Cancer? It turns out he met with the woman AFTER he made the executive order. And what was with that feeble line about mating Cain and Gingrich, I am going to have nightmares.

Question Number 2 When Michele Backmann tries to push her way into questions she wasn't asked, why don't the moderators tell her to wait for her turn.

• Mitt Romney I am not a big fan of Mitt, but he was the clear winner tonight. He looked Presidential, deflected most attacks with humor, and won most of the exchanges with Governor Perry. I also believe that tonight he gave his best answer ever to the Romneycare attacks, adding I made some mistakes to his usual states rights answer. Warning!  Gov. Romney shouldn't talk about others being "flip-floppers" that's the teapot calling the kettle black.

Question Number 3  Doesn't Herman Cain understand is that the Dems will turn his 999 upside down making it the 666 plan. That may make some of my Christian friends a bit nervous. 

• Newt Gingrich- Once again he proved himself to be Brilliant. He also proved himself to be totally humorless with his arrogant refusal to answer the stupid VP question. Come on Newt, it was a puff question, you could have said everyone is qualified an that was it. But you started out with a little "sermonette" about Newt don't play that. It just made you look stiff. 

Best Line of the night-Gary Johnson's line about his neighbor's dogs being the only ones creating shovel ready jobs.

• Rick Sanatorum-Probably his best debate so far. He really lead the attack on Perry's immigration policy and forcefully criticized Huntsman's call to leave Afghanistan.  On the other hand his answer on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was...well confusing. 

Question Number 4-Why didn't the moderators ask Ron Paul the Israel question? He seemed to be chomping at the bit to blame the whole thing on the Joooooose.

•  Jon Huntsman- I have to be honest after his first answer where he started with a cheesy sounding declaration of how wonderful his wife is, I forgot he was there. Well except for when Rick Santorum attacked him. 

Question Number 5- OK I know this is sexist because I am not commenting on the other candidates' outfits, but they were wearing dark suits. Am I the only one who thought that Michele Bachmann's red dress was hard on the eyes?  I kept imagining her putting on a green hat with a white fluffy ball at its tip and singing Christmas carols.

• Ron Paul and Gary Johnson the only difference between the two is that Gary Johnson never published a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic newsletter.  I noticed another similarity between the two, they both seemed nervous.  Not scared-nervous, but Bruce Banner "I am about to snap and become a big crazy green monster" nervous. Speaking of that......

Duh Question of the Night: When Mike Wallace asked Ron Paul a question which basically said,  "Congressman do you REALLY believe that nutty stuff that comes out of your mouth?" Of course he does Chris, didn't you see the tin foil hat he wears?

• Herman Cain-I wish each candidate had his sense of humor and joy for life that Herman Cain has. The story of his cancer survival was the emotional high of the night. His 999 plan is simple and popular,  even though it could lead to a disastrous combination of high income and high VAT tax.

Advice To Fox For The Next Debate: Fox did a good thing by trying the word clouds to see if they would work.  They didn't so please lose them.

• Michele Bachmann- After the first debate I was a big Bachmann fan, now I just find her annoying. She seems to say the same thing over and over.  The Congresswoman had one excellent answer and on totally awful answer. The excellent answer was the revisiting of "What percent of my income do I deserve to keep question." She gave the answer the candidates should have given last time. They deserve to keep 100%, but they need to pay in something to help the country running. But her answer to the question about the charge that the Cervical Cancer shot caused Mental Retardation was awful, she failed to take responsibility for her own statement. When confronted with the fact that medical associations disputed that claim, Bachmann she was only passing along something that a woman told her. Well if she passed along info without knowing it was true she was being irresponsible. If she did think it was true, she should have stood up for it, rather than push it off to an anonymous woman.

As it is now 2am and I need to get up in four hours, I will leave things, at that....more tomorrow.

Was Rick Perry's Israel Speech Over-The-Top? Let's Look At the Facts

Rick Perry came to New York today to give a foreign policy speech. He focused on Israel and the Middle East. His criticism of Obama was taken by some as over-the-top.

“Simply put, we would not be here today at the very precipice of such a dangerous move if the Obama policy in the Middle East wasn’t naive, arrogant, misguided, and dangerous,” said Perry, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

He continued: “The Obama policy of moral equivalency, which gives equal standing to the grievances of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism, is a very dangerous insult.”

Perry accused the Obama administration of encouraging the Palestinians to abandon direct talks with Israel, in a “policy of appeasement.” 

 Let's breakdown Perry's statement and see if he was being accurate or exaggerating.  

• Has Obama's Policy Been Naive? YES! What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession, a settlement freeze, was not perceived by Israel as a minor one. This was a major error by Obama. And when he added Jerusalem to his demands it just compounded the situation. His insistence for a freeze and the constant public berating of the Jewish State has turned the Israeli population against Obama, and increased the support of Prime Minister Netanyahu even with the Israeli left, no fans of Bibi, but who the President would look to for support.
  
  At the same time the President's demands have given the Palestinians an excuse to avoid negotiations and the other Arab nations an excuse to avoid making the "gestures" for which the President is looking.
  
  The President's "rookie" mistake has not only hurt his own strategy, but damaged our relations with the only real democracy in the Middle East.

• Has Obama's Middle East Policy Been Arrogant?  Yes! Let me count the ways, when he left the Prime Minister stewing in a conference room for a few hours while he went up to the White House residence to have dinner with his wife and children (who were in NY at the time) that was arrogance.

He displayed even more arrogance last year at the UN when he said he would like to see a Palestinian State at the UN in 12 months; he said it was really possible (because he could succeed in 12 months what others couldn't do in 40 years). That last little display of arrogance certainly helped the Palestinians work up the nerve to attempt what he promised on their own.

• Has Obama's Middle East Policy Been Misguided? If by Misguided Rick Perry meant wrong, well the answer is yes.  Lets look at it this way, at the end of the Bush administration the two sides were talking.  Now almost three years later, the Palestinians have used Obama's words about settlements as an excuse to avoid negotiations. Yes Obama's Middle East policies have been misguided.

• Has Obama's Middle East Policy been dangerous? Yes! Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, President Obama's policy has been all over the place.  Sometimes bashing our friends while supporting our enemies.  In Libya it seems as if he helped establish a new regime that is loaded with people from al Qaeda. Obama's waste of time, reaching his hand out to Iran, while the Islamic state continued with its nuclear bomb program was certainly another example of Obama's policies being dangerous, in this case to both Israel and the United States.

• Has Obama's Policies drawn a moral equivalence between  terrorism and Israel's defense against terror?  Yes! Remember the Guerrilla Flotilla? That ship load of terrorists from Greece that attack Israeli soldiers boarding the boat to get it to turn around? Just a few days after the incident tonight Barack Obama advanced his sellout of Israel by sending Hillary Clinton in front of the cameras to condemn Israel. As if Israel was wrong for trying to defend herself.

• Has the Obama administration waged a policy of appeasement, encouraging the Palestinians to abandon direct talks with Israel? Yes! When Obama's settlement talk caused the Palestinians to follow the president's lead and abandon talks until Israel stopped adding units to existing communities, Obama did not press them on it. Heck even when Netanyahu offered to continue the building freeze if the PA would recognize Israel as the Jewish State, Obama was silent.

When Obama made his big Middle East speech in May he made demands if Israel, to begin negotiations with an agreement to return to 1947 Armistice Lines, but didn't make any demands on the Palestinians, like demanding they recognize Israel as a Jewish State. That is appeasement!

 So where does that leave us? Everything that Rick Perry said today is true and can be justified by Obama's actions.  Which means that anybody who says that Rick Perry was over the top today is 100% wrong.

The New Democratic Meme Jews Opposing Obama Are Evil, Greedy, and Have Dual Loyalty

by Barry Rubin

I was horrified by reports that the powerful congressman, Henry Waxman, had said that Jews in the ninth New York district voted against President Barack Obama “to protect their wealth.” Could the obsession with backing Obama have led a leading Jewish politician to make such a stereotypical antisemitic remark?

In fact, Waxman’s statement was taken out of context. As usually happens, however, a proper understanding of what someone is saying teaches far more than stereotyping their argument.

Let’s examine Waxman’s statement as quoted in The Hill newspaper:

“I think Jewish voters will be Democratic and be for Obama in 2012, especially if you get a Republican candidate like [Texas] Gov. [Rick] Perry. But there’s no question the Jewish community is much more bipartisan than it has been in previous years. There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.”

Let’s consider this statement. The first part is correct: More Jews are voting against Democrats and will vote against Obama, but the majority will continue to support them. The problem comes in the second part and an accurate reading teaches us several things.

First, the Democratic Party has taken a sharp turn to the left and much of which passes for “liberalism” nowadays is in fact a radicalism that opposes traditional liberal ideas. American liberalism has never been systematically or doctrinally anti-capitalist, much less anti-American.

There is a vast scam going on that represents the current left’s success in doing what the Communist Party tried to do in the 1930s. That’s why many liberal—and especially Jewish—intellectuals have turned against what’s happening now. Even many of those Democrats and Jews in general who vote for radicals-pretending-to-be-liberals do so with deep doubts.

Hey, Mr. Waxman, I’d love to vote Democratic but I can’t because your party and president advocate and implement policies that endanger the United States, destroy the economy, create unemployment, and destabilize the world. They also damage Israel’s security, Middle East stability, the struggle against revolutionary Islamism, and even build anti-Israel views and hatred among many American supporters of your side. If you want my vote, get rid of Obama and change your policies.

Instead, what we’re getting is the manipulation of habit and fearmongering to make Jews–and others–think that conservatives and Republicans as a blend of country club antisemite, Nazi storm trooper, and religious fanatic. The administration and its supporters are doing everything possible to spread hate, fear, and arrogant snobbishness toward fellow Americans.

The reference to Perry is an example. Is the fact that Governor Rick Perry is a pious Christian really some threat to Jews? Definitely not, but how many Jews will believe that? Well, under 50 percent for sure. There is, however, a new paradigm, at least in the United States, in which believing Christians are more friendly to Jews and Israel on the whole than are atheists.

Second, it is absurd to say that Jews “misunderstand” Obama’s Middle East policy. They understand it all too well. I want to stress, however, that the problem is not just U.S .-Israel relations but the wider regional approach taken by the administration that makes Israel’s situation far worse and more dangerous.

Let’s remember that Waxman campaigned hard for Obama by telling Jews that the candidate loved Israel and was no problem for it. Waxman lied; the peace process died, thanks not to Israel but to Obama. Equally, Obama has been soft on or actually favored the forces most inimical to Israel: Egyptian revolutionaries including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, the Islamist regime in Turkey, and the Syrian government. His policies have helped to block any discussion of Islamist and Islamic antisemitism, the main threat to Jews in the world today.

Thus, while many have overstated the problems Obama’s policies have brought to Israel–for example, military ties are as good as they have ever been; Obama will veto the unilateral Palestinian independence move in the UN–the dangers and damaged arising from Obama’s administration have been gigantic. Incidentally, in three years I don’t think Obama has made a single statement ever that combined support for Israel with blame for its enemies.

Finally, there is the big controversial point. Waxman doesn’t say that Jews are voting based on their wealth but only Jews who vote against Obama and his supporters. This is an old theme: anyone who doesn’t support this administration is doing so because they are greedy while supporters vote for it because they are noble and altruistic.

This mirrors Obama’s own claim that those who vote against him are merely reactionaries, racists, religious fanatics, and gun nuts. When he said that, Obama was speaking to a wealthy crowd of rich people in San Francisco ridiculing the less affluent. In some ways, despite the pejoratives, it was more truthful than what Waxman said, implying that Jews who don’t vote for Democrats are “bitter clingers” to Israel and their wallets.

Of course, this misrepresents points that people like Waxman want to hide.

I would bet that on the whole the income of Jews who will vote for Obama in 2012 is higher than those who will oppose him. A large proportion of those opposing Obama are not affluent but are hurt by his policies. I wouldn’t be surprised that if one only counts white voters, the average income of Obama supporters is higher than that of Obama opponents.

While the most wealthy people are probably disproportionately anti-Obama (though by a smaller margin than many would think), the upper middle class is disproportionately pro-Obama. Among white workers, at least, Obama supporters come from what Marxists used to call the “labor aristocracy,” highly paid union members. The ninth district of New York is a good example. Those voters are not affluent at all.

I cannot prove the above points statistically but there is undeniably a lot of truth in them.

In addition, Obama supporters are also acting “for economic reasons” and “to protect their wealth.” On one hand, there are the beneficiaries of government spending, many of whom don’t pay taxes. Those who work for government and those who benefit from handouts are also voting for their material interest. What do they care if taxes go up and debt becomes dangerous? And what of crony capitalism, in which favored fat-cats get billions in taxpayer money? Bureaucrats of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your entitlement claims.

A useful way of thinking about it is that Americans who vote against Obama are indeed thinking about their wealth. If the depression continues, if the economy collapses, if they cannot find a job or lose their job, if the dollar is reduced in value, if energy and other prices rise due to administration policy, then these people will certainly have less wealth. Since the administration’s policies are so damaging, there are likely to be more people worried about losing their life style or livelihood than those who think the administration will give them “free” (that is, funded by other American) goodies.

Of course, Waxman is still playing with dangerous antisemitic concepts. Similarly, the demonization of Israel by Obama supporters also feeds antisemitism. What is one to make of such common themes as Israel doesn’t want peace, is oppressive and brutal, etc. How far is the distance between that and saying that terrorism against Israeli citizens is justifiable or that Israel should be a pariah?

We haven’t gotten to the point where Waxman is saying that Jews who oppose Obama kidnap little Democrats and use their blood to make matzot but—and, yes, I’m joking—we may see something like this before November 2012.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com>    

The No Obama Speech, Lets Use Rick Perry as a Pinata, Republican Candidate Debate at The Reagan Library

Tonight conservatives and Republicans across the country found themselves in unfamiliar territory... MSNBC, the network host for The Reagan Library-No Obama Speeches-Lets Use Rick Perry as a Pinata-Republican Candidate Debate.  This was the first debate that would include the Texas Governor on the firing line. At the beginning it seemed as if the moderators were trying to make the debate, a war between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. In fact it seemed as if they weren't going to let any of the other six candidates come out and play. But then they switched tactics and made the rest of the evening a game of lets beat up the Texas governor. On many occasions candidates were not asked to express their opinion, but to comment on Perry's.  If one didn't know better they might suspect the NBC news staff was intent on bringing down Perry, or at least trying to give Obama ammo if Perry ends up with the nomination.

Who Won?  It depends,....once again Mitt Romney looked very Presidential. In most case he said the right things, the question is can you believe the guy. Romney did seem like a unifier something that will appeal to independents, but to get to the independents he needs to get the nomination and to be honest Romney is just not popular with his own party because of the lack of belief that he means what he says.

Romney did however have a  great comeback to Perry in one of the early exchanges, on the issue of who's state created more jobs:

"Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt,” Perry quipped, in a stinging reference to the former Massachusetts governor who lost the presidential election to George H.W. Bush.

Romney immediately shot back that “George Bush and his predecessors created jobs at a faster rate than you did.”

Later in the debate Huntsman topped them both reminding both Governors that it was his State, Utah that led the country in creating jobs.

Romney didn't win tonight, but he really didn't have to, for his campaign it was just important that he didn't lose.

While Romney looked presidential, Rick Perry looked "straight out of central casting" presidential.  He looks like a take-no-crap-from-anybody type who follows the old Teddy Roosevelt advice "Speak Softly but Carry a Big Stick." Perry was set up to fail by the moderators and handled himself admirably. 

Perry's appeal is that he is direct and says what he thinks, but he has to learn to explain himself better; he is right Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but he needs to explain why. Tell people what a Ponzi scheme is and explain why it is a valid comparison. He also should bone up on some of the other theories about what causes climate change, Solar Activity, ocean currents, etc. Its the same thing as his Ponzi scheme line, he is 100% right but needs to explain himself better.

Newt was, well Newt. Just like the Fox debate he went after the moderators and the media, at one point saying , "I'm frankly not interested in your efforts to get Republicans fighting each other."  He continued with all Republicans should "defeat efforts by the news media" to spark an internal struggle when the real objective is to defeat Obama in 2012. He was right, it was a good point but it seemed like deja vu all over again. We heard that act in the last debate.

Michele Bachmann had another bad debate.  More than any of the other candidates,  she seemed as if she was just repeating talking points.  At one point she said one of her jobs as nominee is to elect 13 more Republican senators. To my ears that line sounded like she was trying to work for ACORN. I understand the power of positive thinking, but there is a thin line between positive thinking and flinging too much bull-crap.  Today Michele was a bit to heavy on the Bull-Crap.

If I had a dollar every time Herman Cain said 9-9-9 my bank account would be approaching seven figures.  Its not that his plan is bad, but he uses it as the answer to every question, whether appropriate or not. Besides, doesn't 9-9-9 seem like one of those long distance services that used to be popular like "dial 1-10-10?"

Ron Paul was scarier than usual, we're  talking about "frothing from the mouth" crazy.  The way he jumped from point to point made it almost seem that the guy was losing his hold on reality. And Ron, if you are going to shrink government to your desired levels you do have to answer the question what would you replace it with. 

 If there is a "Mr Cellophane"  in this campaign there it is Rick Santorum. While I don't agree with all of his positions, he handled himself very well when asked a question, but he wasn't asked many.  Santorum's answer to the Catholic-poverty question was really heartfelt and the GOP should heed his approach on the reasons the welfare system needed to be changed.

"There is no one in the 12 years I was in the United State Senate who did more to work on poverty than Rick Santorum," Santorum said. He then went on to discuss his work on the welfare reform bill in the 1990s. "We didn’t pass it to cut money, we didn’t pass it to punish anybody, we changed the welfare system because it was punishing people…it was creating a culture of dependency and we went out and talked to the American public and said trust us to end this federal entitlement, put a work requirement in place, put a time limit on welfare…and we will transform it from a dependency system to a transitional system."

 And finally we have the former Governor of Utah, Doctor Huntsman and Mr. Hyde. Jon Huntsman is so right on so many issues and extremely wrong on so many others. His economic program is excellent, but his refusal to acknowledge that the global warming consensus is non existent is very problematic. Especially when he gives the media (and the Democrats campaign lines about rejecting science). Its not a rejection of science it is a scientific disagreement.

In the end tonight's debate served to clarify the GOP picture for the next five months till people begin to actually vote in primaries.  It is a contest between Perry and Romney, the once promising Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann continue their march backwards.  Santorum and Huntsman have their moments but gain no traction. Newt has good ideas and zingers, but the fact is people just don't like him, and Dr Ron Paul is still a couple of french fries away from a happy meal.

The Rick Perry Secession Myth-He Never Advocated Secession

One claim that has been pushed by progressives is that Rick Perry suggested that Texas secede from the union.  Like many many progressive memes, that simply is not the truth but a liberal spin on what came out of the Texas governor's mouth.

The rumors began with a grain of truth, after a tea party rally in 2009, Perry said

We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

He started by saying We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. He never said Texas wants to pull out, or that he wants Texas to pull out. Anybody who says anything different is just plain lying. 

Read the full exchange Perry had with Reporter Associated Press reporter Kelley Shannon:

Shannon: Some have associated you with the idea of secession or sovereignty for your state.
Perry: I think there’s a lot of different scenarios. Texas is a unique place. When we came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.

You know, my hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that? But Texas is a very unique place and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.

A report by they liberal leaning Fact Check.org points to another incident drummed up by some liberals

Some Perry critics have also pointed to another statement from Perry, this time to a group of tech bloggers taking a tour of his Capitol offices the month before the tea party interview. At one point, according to audio posted on YouTube, Perry tells the group, "When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic. We were a stand-alone nation. And one of the deals was, we can leave any time we want. … So we're kind of thinking about that again."

The line was met with laughter, suggesting it was not meant as a serious position statement.

"You do that and I'll move in!" someone is heard to joke back, to more laughter.

A year after the AP interview Perry was asked by Newsweek about  the incident:

 Exactly one year ago today you were on the steps of Austin City Hall, talking about the possibility of secession.

I said that we live in an incredibly wonderful country, and I see absolutely no reason for that to ever happen. But I do understand people's concern and anger about what this administration is doing from an economic standpoint—in particular, the long-term debt that's being created for not only them but for future generations.

 As Rick Perry becomes a more formidable candidate for President there may arise many reasons to vote for him or not, but advocating secession should not weigh in on your vote either way.  The truth is that was decided by the Civil War, and Perry has never advocated Texas leave the United States.

Is John Huntsman-Posturing For 2016?

I often wonder why Jon Huntsman is still in the race he is almost an afterthought in the campaign.  In the Iowa straw poll results he finished 9th with only 69 total votes out of almost 17,000 votes.  Huntsman received fewer votes than Rick Perry who got 718 write-in votes and he didn't even announce that he was running until the straw poll voting had already started.

In a campaign season where Republican's are trying to recapture their conservative mantle, Jon Huntsman is a liberal Republican.  In fact many a pundit has wondered if Huntsman was running for the nomination of the wrong party.

The Wall Street Journal said that Huntsman's contrary positions are part of his strategy, at least as it applies to global warming. The Journal says that Huntsman is using climate change as his opportunity to differentiate himself by appealing to Republicans to the left of Mitt Romney.

As Jon Huntsman tries to save his GOP presidential bid, he's decided to embrace global warming as a wedge issue. Mr. Manchin had the better strategy.

Mr. Huntsman, the former Utah governor and ambassador to Beijing, began his candidacy stressing his resume and his attractive family. With that getting him nowhere in a year when issues trump biography, he's now attacking fellow Republicans for, among other things, not embracing the science of global warming. "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy," Mr. Huntsman said on Twitter, a criticism of recent remarks by Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Mr. Huntsman followed that up on Sunday on ABC, telling Jake Tapper that the GOP has a "serious problem" when it becomes "anti-science."

Huntsman has two shots at winning, slim and none, but he is spending his time attacking the other candidates.  Its almost as if he is saying, "If I can't have the presidency no one can."

The broadside was part of a larger strategy of attacking all of his GOP opponents for something or other. He ripped Mitt Romney for flip-flopping on taxes, assailed Michele Bachmann for saying she'd get gas prices below $2 a gallon and called Mr. Perry "unelectable."

All of this is the hallmark of John Weaver, who is Mr. Huntsman's chief strategist. Mr. Weaver has long been at war with the GOP mainstream, and his candidates typically end up running against some element of the Republican base. That was his strategy in 2000 with John McCain, who won New Hampshire but lost in South Carolina after attacking fellow Republicans. Mr. Weaver was no longer advising Mr. McCain in 2008 when the Arizonan won the nomination. Mr. Weaver is angling Mr. Huntsman for a McCain-2000-style victory in New Hampshire.

The strange part is it just doesn't makes sense. True McCain got the nomination last time but he lost the election, the GOP isn't likely to make that same mistake with a nominee so soon after the 2008 Election.  The GOP is a lot different than it was it 2008, the traditional party hacks that helped nominate McCain have been overrun by the conservative wing of the party.  Huntsman's no idiot, he understands this, so it leads back to the question what the heck is the former Utah Governor doing.

Here's another suggestion. What if Huntsman is posturing himself for a 2016 run.  Perhaps he remembers the conservative movement in the early 1960's and he is expecting the 2012 GOP nominee to lose in the same way LBJ trounced Goldwater.

If that is behind Huntsman's  strategy of being a liberal Republican in a conservative world he is in for a big surprise. Barry Goldwater was running against someone who was a popular president at the time. A return to conservative values was something new for the for the country and the party. In fact many in the traditional GOP Republican did not work hard to elect because of the divisive primaries that let to his nomination.

The 2012 nominee (as long as it isn't Ron Paul) will have the support of a united party.   The nominee will be facing a president whose programs, especially in the area of the number one issue, the economy is very unpopular. In 1964 there was no reason to change course, this time there is every reason to change.

According to the WSJ Jon Huntsman is posturing himself to become the liberal alternative in 2012.  It would not be beyond reason for Huntsman's approach to be directed toward 2016. Either way the former ambassador to China seems out of touch with the country and with his party.  Perhaps his time would be better spent doing something else.

Rick Perry To Announce At Red State Conference on Saturday

The Republican field is about to get a bit stirred up on Saturday as source within the Perry staff have leaked that the Texas Governor will be announcing his presidential bid at the Red State conference this weekend.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry will make "a definitive announcement that he is in the 2012 race for the presidency Saturday," aides told Fox News.

The language is significant. For several days the Perry camp has said he would signal his intentions and announce later.

"This is it," the sources explain. No exploratory committee, no more deliberation.

Perry will spend most of next week on the road officially campaigning.

Team Perry acknowledges they had only been hinting about a run earlier, but now tells Fox News first that Saturday is the official launch.

Perry will almost immediately become one of the GOP frontrunners according to polls, he probably has the most well-rounded support of any of the candidates for the nomination. But many have jumped into the race as a frontrunner and quickly faded from view when voters learn more about them.  

More to come

A Stupid, Stupid Decision By CPAC

The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor. -Ronald Reagan

 A "funny thing happened" while we were concentrating on the debt ceiling crisis at the end of last week, on Friday it told GOProud the organization for Gay Conservatives that its sponsorship dollars were no longer welcome.

"The American Conservative Union is preparing to open registration and announce sponsorship opportunities for our Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2012. As a courtesy to your organization, a previous co-sponsor of CPAC, this letter serves to inform you GOProud will not be invited to participate in a formal role for CPAC events scheduled during the 2012 election cycle."

The letter noted that GOProud "members" are welcomed and encouraged to attend "as individual registrants."

The John Birch Society received a similar letter but it is a different category as GOProud is an organization that will expand the reach of conservative politics, while just the name of the John Birch Society drives people away.

For those of you not familiar with GOProud one look at it's website shows that its priorities goals are the same as any other conservative group.

GOProud’s Conservative Agenda
The so-called “gay agenda” is defined by the left through a narrow prism of legislative goals. In contrast to the approach of the left, GOProud’s agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.
1 – TAX REFORM - We support replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax.  Until then, we support death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity; cuts in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.
2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.
3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM - The only way to permanent solvency in the Social Security system is through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.  Personal savings accounts would give gay and lesbian couples the same opportunity to leave their accounts to their spouses as their straight counterparts.
4 - RESPECTING THE PROPER ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY - We believe our Constitution should be respected and that judges appointed to the federal bench should recognize the proper and appropriate role of the judiciary as laid out by our Founding Fathers.
5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.
6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes that refuse to recognize the basic human rights of gays and lesbians, women and religious minorities.
7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.  Marriage should be a question for the states.  A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from the states.
8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship.  Such reforms would create jobs for all Americans – including gay Americans.
9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.
10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.

In other words they are more conservative than most of the Republicans in office today. So someone please tell me the problem? Heck, the even the group's stance on Gay Marriage is a conservative one, that it is a state issue.

The Wall Street Journal reports on remarks about same sex marriage made by Governor Rick Perry (R – TX) to GOP donors in Aspen, Colorado yesterday -

Perry, who has been weighing a presidential run, said he opposes gay marriage — but that he’s also a firm believer of the 10th Amendment.
“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” he said to applause from several hundred GOP donors in Aspen, Colo. “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

Governor, you are absolutely right!  Thank you for staying true to your conservative principles by supporting states’ rights.

Whats behind the CPAC exclusion of GOProud, sadly its because some groups such as the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women of America dropped out last year because GOProud was invited.

The next CPAC convention is a very important one, as it comes just nine months before what has the opportunity to be a turning point American election.  For the future of the country it is crucial that Conservatives become a real force in the Senate, Take over the White House and add to our number in the House.  Fighting the liberal/progressive machine of both parties will not be easy. The only way we can win is to grow the conservative base and to remain united in our purpose.

What the American Conservative Union did with CPAC has nothing to do with true conservative values, because GOProud supports those,  just reread the list above.  Sadly the ACU is trying to divide its ranks at a time when it should be uniting, it is trying to retract the conservative movement at a time it should be expanding.

Not allowing GOProud to sponsor CPAC again in 2012 was a stupid, stupid move. It made achieving our election 2012 goals that much more difficult.

My friend Doug Mataconis has the reaction from Andrew Breitbart and Roger Simon at his site....click here to read