Rick Perry may not be up to all this debatin' and articulatin':
A spokesman for Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, whose candidacy has faltered after several poor debate appearances, said on Wednesday that he might not participate in some of the coming face-offs.
“We will look at each debate individually and then make a decision,” Mark Miner, the spokesman, told The Times’s Richard A. Oppel Jr.
I think if he skips the debates he may as well skip the rest of the nominating process, and that's not just me:
It’s not clear whether Mr. Perry could skip the debates without a steep political cost. By refusing to appear on a national stage now — after being criticized for his previous performances — he might open himself to charges that he is afraid to debate.
However...
When running for governor last year, Mr. Perry managed to avoid debating his Democratic rival, Bill White, by linking his participation to the issue of Mr. White’s release of financial disclosure information. Mr. Perry refused to debate until Mr. White, the former mayor of Houston, released more information. Mr. White accused Mr. Perry of being afraid to debate.
I think an incumbent who is known to the voters is in a much better spot to work that ploy than one of many contenders for the Republican throne.
Cain sure is blowing it.
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 27, 2011 at 04:18 PM
How so, TK??
Posted by: bolitha | October 27, 2011 at 04:22 PM
Yay, new thread!
I would like to take this opportunity to say hi to Chubby, if you're reading. We miss you! Hope all is well.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 27, 2011 at 04:26 PM
Whoopee, went to lunch and came back to this wonderful blast of fresh air!
Me too, Chubby - what Porch said.
Posted by: centralcal | October 27, 2011 at 04:31 PM
There are too many debates, and they do not reflect favorably on the anti-Obama movement, so I say let Perry stay away. How he will get attention is up to him.
Posted by: peter | October 27, 2011 at 04:34 PM
Yay!
Posted by: Old Lurker | October 27, 2011 at 04:34 PM
TM:
What If Davey Crockett Skipped The Alamo?
He would have lived to fight another day. I think that's what Perry has in mind as well.
Posted by: Appalled | October 27, 2011 at 04:38 PM
If anybody bothered to read the link I had to the WSJ in the dead thread, these debates are at best a carny sideshow and a terrible way to accurately evaluate candidates. Talking about complex issues in sound bytes; what could go wrong with that?
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 27, 2011 at 04:42 PM
porchlight,
Continuing the conversation...
I love Austin. I love Texas. I love Texans. Our manufacturing facility is in Buda and most of our employees come from Kyle/New Braunfels. We turn away more than not because they cannot pass a drug test required by the insurance. The ones that do pass very often have literacy issues, alcohol problems, domestic problems, and miss a lot of work due to health issues. We don't hire illegals but it is a temptation because what they lack in English skills they more than make up for in work ethic. I am speaking in generalizations but Texas can not escape the fact that we have the highest illiteracy rate in the country. We rank 45th in healthiest states. 2nd in child poverty.
Most Texans I know wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I understand that but what works or doesn't work here doesn't necessarily translate well to much of the rest of the country.
Posted by: ljm | October 27, 2011 at 04:43 PM
Perry has already toasted himself.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 27, 2011 at 04:44 PM
Born on a mountain top in Tennessee . . .
But, I ask TK, was he natural born?
Posted by: MarkO | October 27, 2011 at 04:47 PM
ljm,
Thanks for the followup. I can imagine it is challenging to find good employees in certain areas.
Don't you think that the illiteracy and child poverty rankings are substantially impacted by the immigration situation, though?
Posted by: Porchlight | October 27, 2011 at 04:50 PM
Thanks to whoever linked the Project Veritas "To Catch a Journalist" on the other thread! That video was very interesting to watch. What a bunch of smug bastards!
Posted by: centralcal | October 27, 2011 at 04:50 PM
p.s. I also wouldn't necessarily blame all of Texas's problems on Rick Perry, any more than I would give Mitt Romney credit for the high levels of college education among adults in the Boston metro area.
That said, I'm not a huge Perry supporter. I would have been more of one if he wasn't blowing his campaign so badly.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 27, 2011 at 04:52 PM
I think we all agree that the present system has devolved into a free for all which mainly provides fodder for the Dems and MFM in the upcoming general election.
Wouldn't the primary candidates and the party be better served by having e.g. the RNC or the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society sponsor a set number of debates and develop a more candidate friendly format that allow each candidate to distinguish his/her approaches from those of the likely opponent in the general election?
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | October 27, 2011 at 04:53 PM
we have the highest illiteracy rate in the country.
Well yeah if you include the illegals and children of illegals who struggle with English, yeah. I can assure you the high school in my suburb is one of the top ranked high school in the country. It will compete with any one you can name. Cant speak for Buda ISD but its pretty small now isnt it?
Posted by: GMAX | October 27, 2011 at 04:54 PM
That was moi
Posted by: narciso | October 27, 2011 at 04:57 PM
Oh goody. A T1000 seminar with anti-Tex illustrations. Phbbbt! said Bill the Cat.
Pizza King has 'em both beat by a mile on ads. He's running a very good marketing operation and the product doesn't turn the stomach.
Tex is preparing for San Jacinto and has plenty of ammo.
Has anyone else considered making Tea Party donations in lieu of Christmas gifts this year? I'm thinking of doing so as a civics lesson for the teenage grandkids.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 27, 2011 at 04:59 PM
"When running for governor last year, Mr. Perry managed to avoid debating his Democratic rival, Bill White....."
Sigh. I'm sensing an unfortunate psychological pattern here. He clearly needs the practice -- especially when he has no natural talent for unscripted face-to-face engagements -- because Presidential debates are the most important, timely, exposure the nominees get.
The primary show trials may seem like a farce, but we do learn things from observing the candidates (and their MSM interlocutors), themselves. Everything else is filtered by the press. They're the smoke filled back rooms now.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 27, 2011 at 05:01 PM
Yes, Huntsman was less skincrawling in that one, Captain.
Posted by: narciso | October 27, 2011 at 05:03 PM
I hope Tops sees that video.
He led the FDL rebellion on the WaPo when the WaPo dared to publish that the Abramoff scandal involved Dems, too. He was also a huge Valerie Plame cheerleader. Anybody who disagrees with him he calls a culture warrior.
Posted by: MayBee | October 27, 2011 at 05:05 PM
Cain and Newt are having a Lincoln-Douglas style debate on entitlements next week. The "emcee" will be Rep. Steve King (R-IA). I think the sponsor is a TX tea party group. I don't think a network has signed on to air it yet.
Perry has committed to the next debate. If he does reasonably well and drops his angry mien, I don't think skipping most of the debates will hurt him nearly as much as his continuing to stumble and alienate would.
Posted by: DebinNC | October 27, 2011 at 05:07 PM
I know Davy Crockett. Davy Crockett was a hero of mine. Rick Perry is no Davy Crockett.
His leaving the debates because he's giving a poor performance is reminiscent of Rudy Giuliani waiting to campaign until Florida because he had a bad time with the press in Iowa. You're either in the race/fight or you're not.
Posted by: Barbara | October 27, 2011 at 05:07 PM
Who, MayBee? J.R.?
Posted by: centralcal | October 27, 2011 at 05:08 PM
Perhaps the best gift you could give them would be throwing Zero and bunch of like minded libs in the Senate out on their ear.
They wont appreciate it much in the present. But it might be the difference between a difficult future and a prosperous one and that is one hell of a gift.
Posted by: GMAX | October 27, 2011 at 05:09 PM
Rick Ballard:
"Has anyone else considered making Tea Party donations in lieu of Christmas gifts this year? "
Sweet revenge on all the libs who give money to their own favorite charities in my name, and then send the "gift" card to me. Take that! Merry Christmas!
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 27, 2011 at 05:09 PM
You have a touching faith, in the mediated debates, 'Please make them stop' it's only less optimistic than say trusting the ISI, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | October 27, 2011 at 05:10 PM
On the literacy issue, Whole Language never went away, it simply got renamed. There is an active movement to regard pushing Hispanics to learn English as asking them to turn their back on their cultural heritage. If you use sight words and look to the context on page and guess in one language, results are bad. If students are not really be taught to read phonetically in either language, you really limit them substantially. But it is absolutely not accidental. I have not tracked in Texas but I have in CA and AZ. Hard to imagine the Dana Center would be behind so many other bad ideas in ed and not this one.
I believe I have said this before and it was part of the tragedy of APS but ignorant and aggrieved and thinking as a group is politically powerful. Especially if they are immigrants who can then be sold on the great usurpation of the formerly glorious lost kingdom.
Posted by: rse | October 27, 2011 at 05:10 PM
Rick, Obama has warned that if he loses we will face an era of self-reliance. This might be a good preparatory step.
BTW if others have ideas on how to prepare for that era, I am happy to steal them for Sunday's column.
Posted by: Clarice | October 27, 2011 at 05:23 PM
ccal- yes. JR
Posted by: MayBee | October 27, 2011 at 05:24 PM
porchlight,
I don't blame all or really any of Texas' problems on Rick Perry. The difference, as I stated in the Romney thread in my opinion is that Perry seems to be running for President of Texas. In attempting to sell the-way-we-do-things-down-in-Texas - as a way to solve the countries problems begs close scrutiny of the state.
I voted for George W Bush twice. The reason I am not supporting Perry isn't because of Texas. It is because his worldview seems to stop at the Texas border.
The problems and successes of Texas can be attributed (I'm generalizing again) to its natural resources, large size and the grit of the people but it is unique to Texas and has little relevance to Rhode Island or Illinois.
Posted by: ljm | October 27, 2011 at 05:26 PM
From the AP -20 minutes ago:
It's a decision that ultimately could cause other Republicans to bow out of the more than half-dozen face-offs scheduled between now and the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3.
Perry does plan to participate in a Nov. 9 debate at Oakland University in Rochester, Mich. — his sixth — but he hasn't committed to any others beyond that as political advisers hunker down to determine how best to proceed. He's juggling fundraising and retail campaigning with only two months before the first votes in the Republican nomination fight are cast.
"We haven't said no, but we're looking at each debate," campaign spokesman Mark Miner said Thursday. "There are numerous — 15, 16, 17 — debates, and we're taking a look at each one and we're making the appropriate consideration."
He said that "while debates are part of the process, they're just one part."
How is that getting translated to-Perry is essentially "skipping -the debates."?
***
-Here:I think if he skips the debates he may as well skip the rest of the nominating process, and that's not just me:
It’s not clear whether Mr. Perry could skip the debates
***
Where is it being implied that Perry is going to skip-
all of the debates?
Posted by: tasker | October 27, 2011 at 05:28 PM
I don't think his birth in the State of Franklin would affect his citizenship, MarkO, but I am not sure.
That being said, since the Constitution was ratified September 17, 1787 and Crockett was born August 17, 1786 well after the nation gained it's independence. The language of the Constitution allows him to be President.
Not only was he natural born, but he was also a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution.
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 27, 2011 at 05:31 PM
Your resource for Perry's decision on debates (first link) goes to the blog The Caucus at The New York Times where conveniently they don't fully quote Perry's adviser.
Yikes!
Posted by: tasker | October 27, 2011 at 05:34 PM
I think even the viewers are reaching a saturation point with these debates. Too many, too frequently - and almost no winnowing of the field, which clutters the stage and splinters the allotted time per candidate.
Posted by: centralcal | October 27, 2011 at 05:35 PM
Jim Rhoads:
"Wouldn't the primary candidates and the party be better served by having e.g. the RNC or the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society sponsor a set number of debates and develop a more candidate friendly format...."
They sure would. The hurdle would be getting the big networks to carry those programs, if they can't showcase some of their own. The number of actual primary voters, let alone the general public, who would tune in elsewhere or watch a whole debate on YouTube, must be painfully slim. The RNC's hands off approach is a big mistake in any case, though, IMO. Survivalist food fights may serve a certain purpose, but if GOP HQ could figure out some way to highlight the strengths of their contenders too, they could all be promoting Republican principles of one sort or another and getting a head start on the general election, as well as competing with each other.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 27, 2011 at 05:35 PM
one thing we know now is how the candidates handle themselves in front of the cameras. Maybe we should poll JOM'ers on who came across best. I would ask for objective analysis uncolored by skin crawling, holy sweet Jesus aversion/profession, mormon aversion, and other peripheral factors.
Come New Hampshire or any other primary that comes before it in this damn circus act, who would seem to do best and inspire the confidence and support of the JOM community?
Posted by: matt | October 27, 2011 at 05:35 PM
"Where is it being implied that Perry is going to skip-
all of the debates?"
Same MFM spin room used yesterday to thump the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being ever known.
Nice catch.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 27, 2011 at 05:39 PM
Your rules of civility will keep me from voting in the poll, Matt.
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 27, 2011 at 05:39 PM
Nice catch.
Thanks.
I don't know why we let the liberal media lead us by the nose during the Republican primary process....
Habits are hard to break I suppose.
Posted by: tasker | October 27, 2011 at 05:45 PM
So, the AP was more fair than the Times, what is the world coming to?
Posted by: narciso | October 27, 2011 at 05:50 PM
tasker:
"There are numerous — 15, 16, 17 — debates, and we're taking a look at each one and we're making the appropriate consideration."
centralcal:
"Too many, too frequently - and almost no winnowing of the field, which clutters the stage and splinters the allotted time per candidate."
If Perry is just being selective, then I'd call it good news, with some relief. I can only pray he'll devote a chunk of time in between to stepping up his game with prep and practice, not just stumping for money or speaking to friendly audiences. His best moment, to date, was his announcement speech, alas.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 27, 2011 at 05:52 PM
Whose that, Rick?
Been busy with the school science fair.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | October 27, 2011 at 05:54 PM
who came across best.
I think Newt did. (that is without my holy sweet Jesus profession)
Posted by: Janet | October 27, 2011 at 05:54 PM
I don't know why we let the liberal media lead us by the nose during the Republican primary process....
We don't just call it "the party of stoopid" out of thin air; likewise the ignorant primary schedules.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 27, 2011 at 05:54 PM
The debates as currently structured are nearly useless. It'd be nice if one of the winners came forward with an alternative proposal, but until they do . . .
That said, Perry needs a message. Entitlement and tax reform is the ticket, but not keeping Congress's hands off the nonexistent SS surplus. I think a lot of voters would welcome a frank conversation about the nation's finances instead of the focus group tested sound bytes proposed by the political panderers. Welcome or not, it's certainly what we need.
And if we're going to have any chance of that, we need to shelve the current debate format.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 27, 2011 at 05:54 PM
O/T, but I am curious to see what Narciso thinks about something. Mark Krikorian at NRO writes today about the absurd WaPo instigated attacks on Marco Rubio. In doing so he raises a point I have made now again quite subtly. We are always pushed to say Hispanic and Latino. In my neck of the woods that would be Mexican. We may have a stray Cuban or Colombian here or there, but primarily we have huge numbers of Mexicans. So, without futher ado, here is a taste of Krikorian's piece:
So, Narciso what are your thoughts about lumping all Hispanic/Latino peoples together?
Posted by: centralcal | October 27, 2011 at 05:56 PM
This is the worst thread in JOM history and I cannot wait for it to end.
I used that comment as an excuse to stop reading that thread, and it took me a couple of days to get to it, so thank you Clarice.
Here in the fresh thread, I just wanted to make one point on the previous discussion:
Whatever happened with past Republican nominees, whether they were conservatives or moderates, this is a whole new ballgame. There hasn't been such a golden opportunity for a true, solid, small-government Constitutional conservative to take over the presidency from a weak, complete and total failure since Carter -- and this one might be even better, because Obama is even worse than Jimmy. If we nominate a squish in 2012 in the face of such an opportunity, especially if he or she wins, the next chance won't come before some of us are long gone.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 27, 2011 at 05:57 PM
Matt,
Camera prescence:
[as if its a news anchor audition]
Romney
Cain
Gingrich (color commentator role)
Huntsman
Bachman
Santorum
Perry
Paul (the Andy Rooney segment)
Posted by: Jack is Back! | October 27, 2011 at 05:59 PM
I agree with Janet because this is a forum where Newt shines. He's had what seems like a gazillion years to be a regular on the Sunday gabfests so he's very adept at talking about issues in sound bytes, which is what all of this is. He feels so comfortable in it that he's willing to take time to chide the mods for steering things away from any subject that could lead to criticism of El JEFe.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 27, 2011 at 05:59 PM
matt: I have watched every televised debate so far, and there isn't one answer to your question of who came off best. Depends on each of the different debates (Perry was only in 3 of them, btw).
The latest one (Perry v. Romney fame) was by far the worst of all the debates. The whole crew looked petty, pathetic, and desperate - I have never been more disgusted with or embarrassed by any debate. That said, the ONLY person who came off half reasonble was Newt, as Janet said.
Posted by: centralcal | October 27, 2011 at 06:02 PM
BTW if others have ideas on how to prepare for that era, I am happy to steal them for Sunday's column.
Posted by: Clarice | October 27, 2011 at 05:23 PM
I'd say start by learning to budget, and assume that you will only ever have money that you have earned yourself. If it's not in your bank account, don't spent it.
Posted by: Ranger | October 27, 2011 at 06:03 PM
JiB,
Tongue in cheek reference to yesterday's fracas regarding the 'droid. It appears that it was driven by a bit of MFM chicanery.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 27, 2011 at 06:05 PM
ccal- I love that. That's what I was chuckling about the other day. A "Hispanic" issues fundraiser at the home of Spanish man, hosted by a Texan. As if they represent some group.
Posted by: MayBee | October 27, 2011 at 06:06 PM
--BTW if others have ideas on how to prepare for that era, I am happy to steal them for Sunday's column.--
It's simple really, clarice;
You go find some guns and a religion and then you cling bitterly to them.
And if some Dem (damn?) revenuer shows up at your shack and moonshine still you don't shoot til you see the whites of his eyes (or 'her eyes' if he/she is transgendered or lesbian. Unless he/she's ATF, in which case you hold off cause he might be bringing you some nifty fifty calibers and squad automatic rifles to shoot your rival moonshiners.)
Posted by: Ignatz | October 27, 2011 at 06:09 PM
Tongue in cheek reference to yesterday's fracas regarding the 'droid. It appears that it was driven by a bit of MFM chicanery.
Subsequently it seems that it was driven by an intraparty spat in Ohio, which is inexcusable and heads should roll.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 27, 2011 at 06:10 PM
I think lumping all "Hispanics" together is stupid. My Argentine born professional cousins have nothing much in common with Mexican laborers nor do Mexican skilled craftsmen; Cuban born immigrants who started their own businesses here have nothing much in common with Central Americans who came here later on to escape violence and terror and who are still desperately seeking to reach Middle Class status. Peruvian Hispanics are not Costa Rican in viewpoint or history and so on.
Posted by: Clarice | October 27, 2011 at 06:13 PM
Hispanic has roughly the same utility as European.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 27, 2011 at 06:19 PM
Steyn has an amusing take on the whole bibliophilic attempt at public diplomacy;
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281484/bulk-ordering-while-rome-burns-mark-steyn
Posted by: narciso | October 27, 2011 at 06:23 PM
ljm
I grew up about 10 miles south of Paint Creek, in Haskell. The values, habits, and world view learned there served me well while working in New York City for about 30 years. Perry's Paint Creek background (and A&M) is one of his great strengths.
Some of the other candidates seem to be running for president of Washington D.C.
Do not assume that we are all so provencial that we can't function outside our own borders.
Also, the border region skews the statistics you quote. Go read David Burges item-by-item comparison of Texas education statistics vs. Wisconsin's.
Posted by: Uncle BigBad | October 27, 2011 at 06:24 PM
Steyn has an amusing take on the whole bibliophilic attempt at public diplomacy
Shades of Jim Wright.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 27, 2011 at 06:29 PM
Clarice-the idea that higher ed is reenforcing seeing everything through the filters of race and ethnicity and gender and abhors any mention that individualism is a concept to be cherished is heartbreaking to me.
Maybe in the end BO, FLOTUS, Holder, and others will force a truly postracial approach because they are forcing an overdose of the superficial and the real damage affirmative action is doing. Special privileges for anyone needs to end-crony capitalism, affirmative action, regulation that hurts small business without lobbyists or the ability to pass on imposed extraneous costs.
Posted by: rse | October 27, 2011 at 06:36 PM
Clarice @06:13PM
Very well said. The only thing I would add: the ones that immigrated legally are not like the ones that came to America illegally, IMO. Speaking from my experiences of the past forty years.
Posted by: pagar | October 27, 2011 at 06:37 PM
when i was a teenager in Chicago, which then was yet to be supplanted by Los Angeles as the second-largest city in America, the immigrant youth of the different "Hispanic" nations used to have nationality-based gang fights with each other...the Borinquenos (Puerto Ricans) and Nicaraguans were particularly prominent in this regard as well as Mexicans. these are, in some cases, countries whose people have long histories of ethnically-inspired emnity against their neighbors going back to pre-Columbian times. and, as Clarice notes, these countries are so extremely diverse, and spread across such a wide swath of territory, that to lump them into one category is, at the least, demographically dubious. to call them "Hispanic" also makes Spanish colonization the central fact of these countries' very existence, their creation myth if you will. nobody refers to the nations across the world which use French as their official language and tribal languages in the outlying areas, as is true of Spanish in several Central and South American nations, as "Frankish."
Posted by: macphisto | October 27, 2011 at 06:38 PM
If the contenders wanted deep debates, I'm sure they could get them.
They would only need to act as one and demand a more challenging format.
But, obviously, they don't really want deep, challenging debates.
Posted by: mockmook | October 27, 2011 at 06:46 PM
Rick, Obama has warned that if he loses we will face an era of self-reliance.
Reminds me of a quote from P.J. O'Rourke's "Indivdualism 'R' Us
"Most government abuse of power is practiced openly, and much of it is heartily approved by The Washington Post editorial board and other such proponents of the good and the fair. But any time the government treats one person differently than another because of the group to which that person belongs - whether it's a group of rich, special-interest tax dodgers or a group of impoverished, minority job-seekers - individual equality is lessened and freedom is diminished. Any time the government gives away goods and services - even if it gives them away to all people equally - individual dependence is increased and freedom is diminished. Any time the government makes rules about people's behavior when that behavior does not occasion real and provable harm to others - telling you to buckle your seat belt or forbidding you to publish pornography on the Internet - respect for the individual is reduced and freedom is diminished."
Posted by: Rocco | October 27, 2011 at 06:46 PM
Where is it being implied that Perry is going to skip-
all of the debates?
I think it came from Perry himself, last night during an interview.
There are 18 more debates, 9 televised. The next one in Michigan.
If Perry has any hope of getting back in this thing, I don't see how he can skip the televised debates, at least up to the Christmas break.
When I was watching him in an interview, I realized that he has that same arrogant sneer that was Clinton's public look and used to make me want to jump thru the TV screen and knock it right off his face. I think Perry is just alittle too full of himself and the camera picks this up and magnifies it.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | October 27, 2011 at 06:49 PM
For the life of me, I can't remember when "hispanic" joined "African American" as a category to be given a leg up on the rest of the population. I also don't remember the rationale for special recognition of our neighbors south of the border. My impression is that it happened somewhat gradually and eventually coalesced into a full blown ethnic category. Interestingly, individuals with descendants from Spain and Portugal do not qualify as "hispanic" unless they got to the US through Central or South America. What's that all about?
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | October 27, 2011 at 06:50 PM
it's not just that legal and illegal immigrants are different; illegal immigrants e.g. from different parts of Mexico are culturally different. there was a noticeable change in the illegal Mexican population in California in the mid-1980s which i believe was linked to changes in the economy and a resulting shift in the parts of Mexico from which people were coming and going to Northern California. this was when we started seeing the immigrant knife-murders of wife, children, in-laws, and anyone else handy in the family that since have become so common in California that they don't even make the evening news any more; the first was a guy named Ramon Salcido who lived a couple of miles from me back then in Sonoma County, and it was a HUGE deal back then, so much so that they had to move the trial to Lassen County or somewhere like that.
i believe that this is one reason for the divide on illegal immigration between the relatively laissez-faire Texas approach and the more hardline California/Arizona attitude: the two areas are dealing with different populations from different parts of Mexico, and thus their experiences are socially, culturally, and logistically different in many ways.
Posted by: macphisto | October 27, 2011 at 06:50 PM
Ryan Announces Series of Listening Sessions in October
From his website.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | October 27, 2011 at 06:53 PM
TK, I was KIDDING. Meet me for a martini. We both need one.
Posted by: MarkO | October 27, 2011 at 06:58 PM
When I was watching him in an interview, I realized that he has that same arrogant sneer that was Clinton's public look and used to make me want to jump thru the TV screen and knock it right off his face. I think Perry is just alittle too full of himself and the camera picks this up and magnifies it.
Reading between the lines-it seems as if you might be personalizing...
That's a pretty strong reaction and summation of nonverbal communication.
Who is your candidate?
Has Perry attacked him?
Do you personally identify with that candidate somehow?
Posted by: tasker | October 27, 2011 at 07:01 PM
Shoot I could add "her" but somehow I don't think your candidate is Bachmann.
For example are you Mormon and your candidate is Romney.
Are you Libertarian or a gynecologist and your candidate is Ron Paul?
Is your candidate Gingrich and mom named your brother Newt?
You get the idea.
Posted by: tasker | October 27, 2011 at 07:03 PM
Jim, I think it could be narrowed down to the period in time where the African-American society was put on notice by Cheech and Chong's release of Basketball Jones.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_Jones_featuring_Tyrone_Shoelaces
That, in turn, gave NBC the courage to go thru with Chico and the Man.
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 27, 2011 at 07:03 PM
Heh, TK.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | October 27, 2011 at 07:09 PM
Unclebigdad,
I'm sure yours and Rick Perry's upbringing has served you well. I hope that I did not give the impression that Rick Perry doesn't have good values. My point is that at least up until recently, before he released his economic plan, his main "selling point" was Texas. He has not shown significant dexterity in addressing national issues.
I am actually surprised that Perry has not done a better job campaigning. It's tough duty and he just doesn't seem prepared for it or particularly engaged.
Posted by: ljm | October 27, 2011 at 07:10 PM
bullseye, tasker!
Posted by: centralcal | October 27, 2011 at 07:10 PM
I think lumping all "Hispanics" together is stupid.
I think a Cloward-Piven strategy to increase the number of Hispanics (or "Latinos") is in order. Anyone who has the slightest distant relative from any Spanish or Portuguese speaking country should self-identify as a "Hispanic or Latino" at work. I do it, because my Italian grandfather was born in Brazil, due to a murky issue which nobody wanted to talk about while they were still alive, related to his father vacating Italy for a time after killing someone.
As far as I know, there's no hard-and-fast rule for what specific percentage of Latino blood must be in someone's veins in order to allow them to claim this status. Does anyone know of one? (I'd hate to be in violation...)
Posted by: Extraneus | October 27, 2011 at 07:11 PM
Heh
http://themoderatevoice.com/126776/wall-street-threatens-to-become-a-productive-member-of-society/
“We are Wall Street. It’s our job to make money. Whether it’s a commodity, stock, bond, or some hypothetical piece of fake paper, it doesn’t matter. We would trade baseball cards if it were profitable. I didn’t hear America complaining when the market was roaring to 14,000 and everyone’s 401k doubled every 3 years. Just like gambling, its not a problem until you lose. I’ve never heard of anyone going to Gamblers Anonymous because they won too much in Vegas."
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | October 27, 2011 at 07:11 PM
Martinis are in order.
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 27, 2011 at 07:13 PM
Number one is close to the mark, Tasker.
Posted by: Ignatz | October 27, 2011 at 07:15 PM
I just spent an hour outside Holy Cross in sleet which rapidly turned to snow, holding my sign, authored by Capn' Hate, protesting the ACLU. I'm not sure I have ever been this cold before, and that is after a hot shower.
I am the last person I would ever call an activist. I really can't figure out what happened to me.
Posted by: Jane | October 27, 2011 at 07:15 PM
Obama happened to you Jane! Warm up and sip on the Grey Goose, girlie, you had a busy afternoon.
Posted by: centralcal | October 27, 2011 at 07:19 PM
Mark Knoller has been tweeting about the Dinner with Obama prize winners (from the June contest) finally getting their prize. I think 4 of them (3 union members and 1 small businessperson) got air fare to DC, a hotel room and dinner. Total value of prize $1,075 and it is, of course, taxable. snort.
Posted by: centralcal | October 27, 2011 at 07:26 PM
Good on ya Jane.
How long you figure these malcontents in the tent cities remain at 30 degrees farenheit?
Posted by: Gmax | October 27, 2011 at 07:29 PM
For the life of me, I can't remember when "hispanic" joined "African American" as a category to be given a leg up on the rest of the population.
I don't remember either, but grouping "hispanics" together is definitely a result of the AA efforts. When I went to school it just wasn't anything anybody thought about.
Someone came along and decided if you could make enough people think they were part of some larger group, then that group could be used for political gain.
There was a brief time a few years back when they tried to do this with Asians too (back when Paula Zahn was on CNN), but it didn't take.
All you have to do is look at Obama's re-election strategy to see how segmented the politicians *want* the populace to be.
Posted by: MayBee | October 27, 2011 at 07:30 PM
it is, of course, taxable. snort.
That is the textbook definition of adding insult to injury.
I dont suppose 2nd prize was two dinners with mr me?
Posted by: Gmax | October 27, 2011 at 07:30 PM
ccal- are they eating at the White House?
Posted by: MayBee | October 27, 2011 at 07:31 PM
Reading between the lines-it seems as if you might be personalizing...
Well since I said, "I was watching...", "I realized...", and "I think...", I would say I was stating a personal opinion about Perry's problem, IMHO, when appearing before the camera.
Who my personal choice is has yet to be decided (contrary to the JOM conventional wisdom), but my remarks are based on my background of prepping and promoting political candidates. In other words, it was an observation.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | October 27, 2011 at 07:32 PM
I tell ya, I wouldn't be there much longer. Hopefully they dressed better than I did. My pants were soaked, as were my feet. Someone lent me gloves but my hands never warmed up. I had no idea it was winter when I left the house.
I will take some sadistic glee at the next pix I see of them. At least I know what I am protesting. And I did have the best sign!
Posted by: Jane | October 27, 2011 at 07:32 PM
No, MayBee it was a DC restaurant - no White House, no Lincoln bedroom.
Posted by: centralcal | October 27, 2011 at 07:35 PM
Correction, MayBee - Liberty Tavern, Arlington, VA was the dinner spot.
Posted by: centralcal | October 27, 2011 at 07:38 PM
The prize winners were:
A retired teacher from Brighton, Colorado
An artist and retired professor from Corydon, Indiana
A U.S. postal worker from Chandler, Arizona
And an entrepreneur and small-business owner from Minneapolis
Posted by: centralcal | October 27, 2011 at 07:40 PM
For the life of me, I can't remember when "hispanic" joined "African American" as a category to be given a leg up on the rest of the population.
I can't remember exactly either, but it seems it started after "W" started campaigning or got elected and dems were up in arms when he would address Hispanic groups in Spanish. And it seemed to come to a head around the time Bush put forth his 5-Point Plan to deal with illegals. I know there was a big dust up during the Reagan years, but I don't even remember that time that corresponded with a time we were in transit and transferring from Calif. to South Carolina.
It might also be the 24 hour news cycle. We've had Cinco de Mayo celebrations here as long as I can remember, but they were small and local. With social media and cable news, these events have grown to huge protest events and now get covered for days.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | October 27, 2011 at 07:41 PM
Jane,
Look at it as your Valley Forge. You are a true patriot who got off the sofa to something that mean't something. Thank you. A great American.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | October 27, 2011 at 07:42 PM
Another chart of the day. What American wealth distribution would look like if it were Real Estate.
http://www.juancole.com/
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | October 27, 2011 at 07:43 PM
::to DO something:: Darn iPad. Aaaaaaaaarghh.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | October 27, 2011 at 07:43 PM
but my remarks are based on my background of prepping and promoting political candidates.
A Credentialed Assertion Monkey Asserts!
Posted by: Ahhum | October 27, 2011 at 07:44 PM
I will take some sadistic glee at the next pix I see of them. At least I know what I am protesting. And I did have the best sign!
Jane:
Take all the glee you can muster. They just showed a shot of the Occupy Wall Street crowd and not a single protester anywhere, just lots of tarps and tents with a blurb about how they were all hunkered down inside the shelters because of the cold rain.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | October 27, 2011 at 07:44 PM
I didn't have my glasses on and I accidentally read the sitepest's post.
Posted by: peter | October 27, 2011 at 07:45 PM