BY WILL WEISSERT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed sweeping new abortion restrictions on Thursday that could shutter most of the state's clinics that provide the procedure, a final step for the Republican-backed measure after weeks of sometimes raucous protests at the state Capitol.
Supporters credited God's will and prayer as the governor signed the legislation, with protesters' chants of "Shame! Shame! Shame!" echoing from the hallway. Opponents have vowed to fight the law, though no court challenges were immediately filed.
"Today, we celebrate the further cementing of the foundation on which the culture of life in Texas is built upon," Perry told an auditorium full of beaming GOP lawmakers and anti-abortion activists. "It is our responsibility and duty to give voice to the unborn individuals."
The law restricts abortions to surgical centers and requires doctors who work at abortion clinics to have hospital admitting privileges. Only five of the 42 abortion clinics in Texas - the nation's second-largest state - currently meet those new requirements. Clinics will have a year to either upgrade their facilities or shut down after the law takes effect in October.
The law also bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, based on the disputed notion that fetuses can feel pain at that point of development, and dictates when abortion-inducing drugs can be taken.
Supporters argue the new law will ensure high-quality health care for women, but opponents view it as over-regulation intended to make abortions harder to obtain.
Similar measures in other states have been blocked by federal judges, and opponents in Texas said they'll pursue a similar course.
"The fight over this law will move to the courts, while the bigger fight for women's access to health care in Texas gains steam," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.
The action fund is the political arm of Planned Parenthood, which announced later Thursday that it would close its clinics in Bryan, Huntsville and Lufkin by the end of August. The group cited years of state budget cuts to women's health programs, not the new law. Only the Bryan facility offers abortions.
"In recent years, Texas politicians have created an increasingly hostile environment for providers of reproductive health care in underserved communities," said Melaney A. Linton, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast.
Perry and other top Republican leaders made passing the law a top priority, in part to please the most conservative wing of the party before the primary election in March. But it touched off weeks of protests that saw thousands of activists on both sides of the issue descend on the Texas Capitol in an outpouring of activism unseen in at least 20 years.
After the regular legislative session ended May 27, Perry added passing the abortion measure to lawmakers' agenda for a 30-day special session. But on the last day to pass bills, Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis staged a more than 12-hour, one-woman filibuster hoping to talk past a midnight deadline and kill the legislation.
Republicans used parliamentary objections to silence Davis, but just before midnight hundreds of bill opponents in the Senate gallery screamed and cheered so loudly that all work stopped on the Senate floor below until it was too late. It launched Davis into an overnight political sensation.
But Perry called lawmakers back for a second special session - setting up the bill's final approval last week.
"When Governor Perry signed the bill, he signaled a clear break with Texas families," Davis said in a statement Thursday. She said Perry and his party's elected officials "have now taken sides and chosen narrow partisan special interests over mothers, daughters, sisters and every Texan who puts the health of their family, the well-being of their neighbors, and the future of Texas ahead of politics and personal ambitions."
The signing ceremony was moved from Perry's office on the second floor of the Capitol to a basement auditorium, surrounded by dozens of state troopers who tightly controlled who entered and braced for potentially hundreds of activists. Instead, only about two dozen showed up, clutching coat-hangers and signs that read "My Body, My Choice" and "Shame!"
Perry drew applause for warmly greeting and shaking hands with Dem. Sen. Eddie Lucio of Brownsville, the only Senate Democrat who supported the bill.
As the governor and other lawmakers spoke, protesters repeatedly chanted "shame!" loud enough to be heard. Once the bill was signed, they hooted and then sang Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It!"
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who oversees the state Senate, blamed "intentional chaos created by the radical left" for the bill not passing sooner.
That was a common sentiment among supporters. The Catholic Association said in a statement: "Rick Perry is a brave man for standing up to the mob tactics of the abortion lobby and has earned the respect of pro-life women and men across the country."
Republican Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, who sponsored the bill in the Texas House and mistakenly suggested during debate that emergency room rape kits could be used to terminate pregnancies, said: "It really was the hand of God" and prayer that helped make the signing possible. Laubenberg told Perry, who announced last week that he wouldn't seek a fourth full term as governor next year, that: "Your eternal legacy will be as a defender of life."
Sen. Glenn Hegar, a Katy Republican who sponsored the bill in the Senate, called it "a very proud day in Texas history."
"This will literally change the lives of millions of Texans," Hegar said. "Not just today in 2013, but for eternity."
Link:
Showing posts with label Rick Perry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Perry. Show all posts
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Grandpa the spider monkey picks Speaker Newt Gingrich to win N.H. primary
Staten Island simian has no taste for front-runner Mitt Romney
By Barry Paddock / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
The psychic spider monkey at the Staten Island Zoo picked Newt Gingrich as the top banana in New Hampshire’s Republican primary, even though he’s languishing in the polls.
And the soothsaying simian completely rejected front-runner Mitt Romney in Monday’s electoral challenge set up by the Daily News...
The 40-year-old monkey has a good record when it comes to athletics: he picked the Super Bowl champions and six of nine U.S. Open tennis winners.
When he entered the rain-forest exhibit on Monday, he was confronted with six bananas nestled in hay, each one bearing the name of a GOP candidate.
Without hesitation, he lunged for the Gingrich banana, then grabbed the Jon Huntsman banana in his other hand.
But the former House Speaker held more sway than the ex-Utah governor over Grandpa. He gobbled up Newt first — then picked up the Rick Santorum banana.
Next went the Rick Perry banana before he finally developed an appetite for Huntsman.
Romney’s win at the Iowa caucus and his first-place finish in the latest polls didn’t mean a thing to Grandpa.
His banana was eaten by a female companion — just like the one for Ron Paul, who is running a distant second in the New Hampshire polls.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Newt Rips Media For Bias & Bigotry Against the Church
“I just want to raise a point about the news media bias,” Gingrich said after a rhetorical skirmish about gay marriage. “You don’t hear the opposite question asked.
“Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?”
“The bigotry question goes both ways,” Gingrich added. “And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.”
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Mark Levin: Virginia Ballot Fiasco is Intentional, to Help Mitt Romney
From The Right Scoop:
"Mark Levin, being a disenfranchised Virginian, weighed in on the Virginia ballot fiasco, saying that the compliance rules were changed a month ago and that it is not the fault of the candidates. In fact, he believes the rules were changed to help shove Romney down our throats."
"Mark Levin, being a disenfranchised Virginian, weighed in on the Virginia ballot fiasco, saying that the compliance rules were changed a month ago and that it is not the fault of the candidates. In fact, he believes the rules were changed to help shove Romney down our throats."
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Cuccinelli reconsiders changing 2012 Virginia ballot
By Lauren King
The Virginian-Pilot
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is reconsidering a call for emergency legislation to allow more Republican presidential candidates on Virginia’s primary ballot.
On Saturday, he said Virginians should be able to have their chose of the full field of presidential primary contenders, instead of the two who qualified for the March 6 primary. Of the four Republicans who filed petitions in Virginia, only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas made the ballot.
Today, he said in a statement that he still feels strongly that Virginia should change its ballot access requirements.
“However, after working through different scenarios with Republican and Democratic leaders to attempt to make changes in time for the 2012 Presidential election, my concern grows that we cannot find a way to make such changes fair to the Romney and Paul campaigns that qualified even with Virginia’s burdensome system,” he said in the statement. “A further critical factor that I must consider is that changing the rules midstream is inconsistent with respecting and preserving the rule of law – something I am particularly sensitive to as Virginia’s attorney general...”
Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling applauded Cuccinelli's decision to reconsider his call for ballot access changes this year, saying it would have been unfair to Romney and Paul who successfully complied with Virginia's requirements and qualified to be on the ballot.
"Going forward, I would also encourage Attorney General Cuccinelli to avoid making public statements that criticize our state election laws while his office is defending the State Board of Elections in a lawsuit that has been brought against them by Governor Perry and certain other presidential candidates," the statement from Bolling's office said. "I am concerned that such public comments could be used against the Commonwealth in our effort to defend these lawsuits, and I am confident that the Attorney General would not want to do anything that could jeopardize his office's ability to win this case."
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Virginia GOP to Require Loyalty Oath in Presidential Primary
(Richmond Times-Dispatch) RICHMOND, Va. -- The state Republican Party will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the March 6 presidential primary.
Anyone who wants to vote must sign a form at the polling place pledging to support the eventual Republican nominee for president. Anyone who refuses to sign the pledge will be barred from voting...
Saturday, December 24, 2011
100,000 Wanted to Facebook "Like" Newt Gingrich Onto Virginia Ballot
I just started a new facebook page as a place for grassroots conservatives to urge Virginia to allow the leading Republican contender for the presidency onto the Virginia ballot. Gingrich is the Republican leader nationwide and in Virginia! It's absolutely ludicrous, if not criminal, for Virginia to deny the conservative base and tea party favorite a spot on the ballot while they promote their elite ruling class RINO!
Do not allow Virginia to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of conservative grassroots voters who would mark their ballots for Newt Gingrich! Adding insult to injury, they don't even allow write-ins on their ballots!
It truly is a one man election (disregarding the Ron Paul nutcake). You can vote for anyone you wish in Virginia as long as his name is Mitt Romney.
We need to write or call the Republican Party of Virginia to register our outrage and if you are a facebook user, please visit and "Like" the "Newt Gingrich on Virginia Ballot" page.
Thank you all very much, and Merry Christmas!!
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Gingrich defends lead at Republican debate
Reuters Pictures
By Jason Clayworth (AFP)
DES MOINES, Iowa — White House hopeful Newt Gingrich took the gloves off Saturday as he defended his frontrunner status in a feisty debate among the narrowing field of Republican presidential contenders.
Faced with a barrage of attacks on his conservative credentials, history of adultery and controversial remarks calling Palestinians an "invented" people, the former House speaker played tough and kept his cool as he stood his ground.
Slammed by his rivals for "stirring up trouble," Gingrich insisted that "the Palestinian claim to a right of return is based on a historically false story," adding: "These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools."
"I think sometimes it is helpful to have a president of the United States with the courage to tell the truth," Gingrich said. "Just as it was when (Ronald) Reagan went around his entire national security apparatus to call the Soviet Union an evil empire."
Gingrich was also not afraid to launch a biting personal attack after main rival Mitt Romney called him a "career politician" and Washington insider who does not know what it takes to fix the sputtering US economy.
"I spent my life in the private sector. I understand how the economy works," Romney said before ridiculing Gingrich for supporting mining missions on the moon and changing child labor laws so kids can work as janitors at school.
Gingrich shot back at the former Massachusetts governor: "Let's be candid. The only reason you didn't become a career politician is you lost to (former senator) Teddy Kennedy in 1994."
Romney suffered a self-inflicted blow later in the debate when he challenged Texas Governor Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet over what Romney wrote about health care.
President Barack Obama's Democrats were quick to fire a salvo at the multi-millionaire, noting that $10,000 is more than four months' pay for most Americans and enough to cover more than a year's worth of mortgage payments on a typical home.
"He's going to own that $10,000 bet line. Nothing else he has said in this debate matters," tweeted Brad Woodhouse, communications director for the Democratic National Committee.
The debate comes just three weeks before Iowa holds the party's first nominating event on January 3 to pick who will challenge Obama in November 2012....
Mitt Romney Challenges Rick Perry To $10,000 Bet At Iowa Debate
(Huffington Post) Mitt Romney is tired of hearing about the change made to his book that touts Massachusetts' CommonWealth Care as a "model for the nation." But Rick Perry keeps bringing it up. So Romney proposed a $10,000 wager -- perhaps unprecedented in presidential debates, although we'll wait for Gingrich to provide the historical background.
Sadly, Perry didn't want to take the bet, so we never got to learn what the terms were exactly. Instead, Romney quoted from the chapter in which he said that every state should have the opportunity to make its own health care plan.
My colleague Ryan Grim quips: "How many people have you met who casually make $10,000 bets?" It's pretty "1 percent," if you ask me.
To put the amount in perspective, according to a tweet from West Wing Report, "The $10K bet Romney offered to make represents three months pay for most Americans."
Conservatives didn't hold back on jokes directed at the wealthy Romney. Jonah Goldberg of the National Review tweeted that "Romney promises that his butler will 'personally deliver' $10,000 check if he loses," which was quickly retweeted by RedState's Erick Erickson.
Jonathan Martin, who covers the GOP race for Politico, also pounced. "Who among us doesn't wager $10K at a time?" he tweeted.
Link:
Romney's $10,000 bet highlights personal wealth
STEVE PEOPLES, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — He could have bet a beer. Or maybe a steak dinner.
But during a heated dispute with Rick Perry during Saturday night's debate in Des Moines, Iowa, Mitt Romney extended his right hand and asked the Texas governor if he'd wager $10,000 to settle a dispute over his healthcare record. The rich bet instantly provided Romney's opponents with new ammunition for their charge that he's out of touch with middle-class America.
"I'm just saying, you're for individual mandates, my friend," Perry said to Romney.
"You've raised that before, Rick, and you're simply wrong," Romney responded, extending his hand toward Perry. "Rick, I'll tell you what: 10,000 bucks?"
Perry laughed it off: "I'm not in the betting business."
Democrats and Romney's Republican challengers pounced almost immediately.
"I want to know if he has $10,000 in his pocket," Newt Gingrich's spokesman, R.C. Hammond, said after the debate.
Romney's personal wealth and privileged background have long been viewed a potential political vulnerability.
He's the son of a former governor and made a fortune leading a venture capital company in Massachusetts.
Romney disclosed earlier in the year that his personal wealth is estimated at between $190 million and $250 million.
But as a presidential candidate in recent months, he's made a point of courting middle-class America.
"I didn't grow up poor. And if somebody is looking for someone who's grown up with that background, I'm not the person," Romney said during the debate, noting that his father was poor at one point in his life. "They made sure we had jobs when we were growing up. They made sure we didn't spend money foolishly."
That did little to stop the Democratic National Committee from using the $10,000 bet to fuel an immediate political attack. In a statement, the DNC said $10,000 is almost three times more than what an average family spends on groceries in a year and more than a year's worth of mortgage payments for the typical American home purchased today.
Link:
Friday, December 9, 2011
Newt Gingrich - RINO or Genuine Pro-Life Reagan Conservative?
By Jim Robinson
(Free Republic) I posted the below in response to a FReeper who asked me what we should do in regards to progressives Newt and Romney. And he asked me what would George Washington do? So I got to thinking about why I've been gravitating towards Newt. In fact it kept me up for half the night.
Here is my reply:
Well, I’ll tell you, after Palin declined to run I really didn’t have a dog in this race. I liked Bachmann and Cain a lot, even Perry, but not as much as I liked Palin. Bachmann and Cain are both conservative enough, but neither have really been tested in higher office, nor do they have much experience in world affairs.
I also had high hopes for Perry because it looks like he’s done a great job in Texas, but his positions on the border issues turned off a lot of people. And his “heartless” statement didn’t win him much opportunity to turn that around.
I guess Santorum is conservative enough and possibly Huntsman, but neither engender much enthusiasm or excitement. Seems they’re just going through the motions. Don’t know if they have the real world experience to be CINC anyway.
Bachmann seems to be trying really hard but don’t know if she’s really qualified for the top spot either. Even so, had Bachmann really lit a fuse on the trail, I probably would have stood by and supported her, but she flopped and is unlikely to recover.
I thought early on that if Perry got into the race (without Palin) that he’d suck all the air out of it and would dominate. But he flopped. And then Cain took off like a rocket and he flopped.
Now Cain didn’t have elective experience, but he looked like a great conservative so we were all hoping and pulling for him. Well, that didn’t turn out well.
Mind you, that abortionist, lib progressive bastard Mitt Romney is just sitting there smiling through all this and he, Rove and the GOP elite think they’ve got it in the bag. Just gotta hang in there, not say anything rash, not rock the boat, no mistakes, just play defense as one by one the upstart tea party conservative candidates burn themselves out.
In my mind, we must defeat Romney AND Obama. I don’t think George Washington is going to be smiling down on us if we had this great tea party opportunity to knock off the progressives and we let Rove, Romney and the corrupt good old boys club bushwhack us. We’re supposed to be the bushwhackers.
So like a whole lot of conservative Republicans and tea party folks, we’re bouncing candidate to candidate looking for the one to knock off Romney so we can take the tea party battle directly to Obama. Romney is no tea party person. He and Rove, et al, sneer at us. No way in hell are they going to do anything we’re interested in doing even if they do get elected. It’ll be government as usual. Big. They hate us worse than they hate the democrats because we’re a direct threat to their power base.
So in comes Gingrich. Didn’t much care for him at first, mainly because of his well known baggage, and his perceived RINO plumage, but he began making a lot of sense and scoring a lot of points in the debates. Turns out his depth of knowledge and experience in government affairs both domestic and foreign and his experience with Ronald Reagan, the Reagan Revolution and the Republican Revolution of the 90’s are quite extensive and quite impressive if you look.
He’s been through the mill and that’s what a lot of our younger less experienced, less traveled candidates are missing. In the debates he comes off as a wiser, more experienced, more knowledgeable, level-headed senior statesman. And it appeared to me that the other candidates acknowledged and respected that.
So I start thinking back about his history as a congressman and speaker, and lo and behold, it appears to me he’s not such a RINO after all. He was a genuine Reagan protege. And he learned well from the master communicator. He eventually set a goal for himself to build a Republican majority and to take the speakership, and he determinately accomplished that goal.
And he had some great conservative accomplishments as congressman and speaker. He passed the contract with America. He cut taxes. Cut the deficit. Reformed welfare. Blocked HillaryCare. Became a thorn in President Clinton’s side, blocked much of his liberal agenda and ultimately allowed impeachment to proceed. Then of course, he resigned due to his own infidelity scandal. But, unlike Clinton, he didn’t deny it, didn’t lie about it, and he did the right thing by resigning.
Bottom line though, through his years with the Reagan Revolution and the Republican majority much conservative good was accomplished. The Wall came down, the Soviet Union collapsed and our great Reagan economy flourished for two decades.
Now, if a progressive RINO had been in charge of the congress during this period, who knows what would have happened. I’m sure the history would have been a lot different. Remember, before Gingrich and his Republican Majority, we conservatives had wandered in the wilderness for 40 years!! And our country was on life support after Jimmy Carter nearly killed it. And the democrats were saying at the time that there was nothing we could do about it. We were going to be stuck with the cold war. Stuck with the Soviet Union, stuck with Iran. Stuck with high oil prices, gas lines and rationing. Stuck with recession, high interest rates, high inflation and high unemployment from that point forward. They could not be fixed. Jimmy Carter and the democrats had given up on America and surrendered the USA to our fate as a failed nation.
In walk Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich and reestablish that great shining city on the hill! Thank God! It’s not the end of the world after all. Iran returns the hostages immediately. Reagan takes the Soviet Union head on! Reagan takes the democrats head on and doesn’t take no for an answer. Takes his ideas to the people. It was a struggle but eventually the economy began turning. Reagan’s central theme domestically was that the government was too big, too intrusive, taxes too high, too much spending, too many regulations, too many restrictions on business and industry and they all must be cut. And he took that battle over the heads of the democrat congress to the tax payers and they loved it. Sound familiar?
And in 1994, Newt Gingrich leads the charge against the democrats who had been in power for 40 years and the Republicans take the majority and Gingrich becomes Speaker. He dreams up the contract with America which was designed as an extension of the Reagan Revolution and and included items attempting to balance the budget, reform welfare, tort reform, term limits, line item veto, etc. Some of it was successfully implemented, some not. But under Gingrich they did cut the deficit and balance the budget four years running. Sound desirable? Sound progressive?
How many times in our history have you seen a liberal progressive, cut taxes, cut regulations, cut spending, cut welfare, balance the budget, block big government programs like HillaryCare, impeach a sitting president, etc?
Never! In other words, all this to say Newt is NO RINO!! He’s a pro-life, pro-small government, pro-national security, Reagan conservative!! In short, we’re desperate, and he’s exactly what we’re looking for, and he’s running head and shoulders over the rest of the field, so what the hell are we squabbling about?
Yes, Romney and Rove hate him, the Republican establishment elite ruling class hates him, the liberals hate him, the democrats hate him and they hate him for the same reasons the taxpayers will support him, the lovers of liberty will support him, the defenders of life will support him, the defenders of national security will support him, the lovers of the Reagan Revolution will support him, and we the tea party should support him!! He’s a tax cutting, budget balancing, strong defense, small government, pro-life Reagan CONSERVATIVE!!
After reviewing Newt vs Romney, George Washington would say, go, NEWT!!
I’ll take a chance with Newt. Over Romney? You betcha!!
What say you?
(Free Republic) I posted the below in response to a FReeper who asked me what we should do in regards to progressives Newt and Romney. And he asked me what would George Washington do? So I got to thinking about why I've been gravitating towards Newt. In fact it kept me up for half the night.
Here is my reply:
Well, I’ll tell you, after Palin declined to run I really didn’t have a dog in this race. I liked Bachmann and Cain a lot, even Perry, but not as much as I liked Palin. Bachmann and Cain are both conservative enough, but neither have really been tested in higher office, nor do they have much experience in world affairs.
I also had high hopes for Perry because it looks like he’s done a great job in Texas, but his positions on the border issues turned off a lot of people. And his “heartless” statement didn’t win him much opportunity to turn that around.
I guess Santorum is conservative enough and possibly Huntsman, but neither engender much enthusiasm or excitement. Seems they’re just going through the motions. Don’t know if they have the real world experience to be CINC anyway.
Bachmann seems to be trying really hard but don’t know if she’s really qualified for the top spot either. Even so, had Bachmann really lit a fuse on the trail, I probably would have stood by and supported her, but she flopped and is unlikely to recover.
I thought early on that if Perry got into the race (without Palin) that he’d suck all the air out of it and would dominate. But he flopped. And then Cain took off like a rocket and he flopped.
Now Cain didn’t have elective experience, but he looked like a great conservative so we were all hoping and pulling for him. Well, that didn’t turn out well.
Mind you, that abortionist, lib progressive bastard Mitt Romney is just sitting there smiling through all this and he, Rove and the GOP elite think they’ve got it in the bag. Just gotta hang in there, not say anything rash, not rock the boat, no mistakes, just play defense as one by one the upstart tea party conservative candidates burn themselves out.
In my mind, we must defeat Romney AND Obama. I don’t think George Washington is going to be smiling down on us if we had this great tea party opportunity to knock off the progressives and we let Rove, Romney and the corrupt good old boys club bushwhack us. We’re supposed to be the bushwhackers.
So like a whole lot of conservative Republicans and tea party folks, we’re bouncing candidate to candidate looking for the one to knock off Romney so we can take the tea party battle directly to Obama. Romney is no tea party person. He and Rove, et al, sneer at us. No way in hell are they going to do anything we’re interested in doing even if they do get elected. It’ll be government as usual. Big. They hate us worse than they hate the democrats because we’re a direct threat to their power base.
So in comes Gingrich. Didn’t much care for him at first, mainly because of his well known baggage, and his perceived RINO plumage, but he began making a lot of sense and scoring a lot of points in the debates. Turns out his depth of knowledge and experience in government affairs both domestic and foreign and his experience with Ronald Reagan, the Reagan Revolution and the Republican Revolution of the 90’s are quite extensive and quite impressive if you look.
He’s been through the mill and that’s what a lot of our younger less experienced, less traveled candidates are missing. In the debates he comes off as a wiser, more experienced, more knowledgeable, level-headed senior statesman. And it appeared to me that the other candidates acknowledged and respected that.
So I start thinking back about his history as a congressman and speaker, and lo and behold, it appears to me he’s not such a RINO after all. He was a genuine Reagan protege. And he learned well from the master communicator. He eventually set a goal for himself to build a Republican majority and to take the speakership, and he determinately accomplished that goal.
And he had some great conservative accomplishments as congressman and speaker. He passed the contract with America. He cut taxes. Cut the deficit. Reformed welfare. Blocked HillaryCare. Became a thorn in President Clinton’s side, blocked much of his liberal agenda and ultimately allowed impeachment to proceed. Then of course, he resigned due to his own infidelity scandal. But, unlike Clinton, he didn’t deny it, didn’t lie about it, and he did the right thing by resigning.
Bottom line though, through his years with the Reagan Revolution and the Republican majority much conservative good was accomplished. The Wall came down, the Soviet Union collapsed and our great Reagan economy flourished for two decades.
Now, if a progressive RINO had been in charge of the congress during this period, who knows what would have happened. I’m sure the history would have been a lot different. Remember, before Gingrich and his Republican Majority, we conservatives had wandered in the wilderness for 40 years!! And our country was on life support after Jimmy Carter nearly killed it. And the democrats were saying at the time that there was nothing we could do about it. We were going to be stuck with the cold war. Stuck with the Soviet Union, stuck with Iran. Stuck with high oil prices, gas lines and rationing. Stuck with recession, high interest rates, high inflation and high unemployment from that point forward. They could not be fixed. Jimmy Carter and the democrats had given up on America and surrendered the USA to our fate as a failed nation.
In walk Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich and reestablish that great shining city on the hill! Thank God! It’s not the end of the world after all. Iran returns the hostages immediately. Reagan takes the Soviet Union head on! Reagan takes the democrats head on and doesn’t take no for an answer. Takes his ideas to the people. It was a struggle but eventually the economy began turning. Reagan’s central theme domestically was that the government was too big, too intrusive, taxes too high, too much spending, too many regulations, too many restrictions on business and industry and they all must be cut. And he took that battle over the heads of the democrat congress to the tax payers and they loved it. Sound familiar?
And in 1994, Newt Gingrich leads the charge against the democrats who had been in power for 40 years and the Republicans take the majority and Gingrich becomes Speaker. He dreams up the contract with America which was designed as an extension of the Reagan Revolution and and included items attempting to balance the budget, reform welfare, tort reform, term limits, line item veto, etc. Some of it was successfully implemented, some not. But under Gingrich they did cut the deficit and balance the budget four years running. Sound desirable? Sound progressive?
How many times in our history have you seen a liberal progressive, cut taxes, cut regulations, cut spending, cut welfare, balance the budget, block big government programs like HillaryCare, impeach a sitting president, etc?
Never! In other words, all this to say Newt is NO RINO!! He’s a pro-life, pro-small government, pro-national security, Reagan conservative!! In short, we’re desperate, and he’s exactly what we’re looking for, and he’s running head and shoulders over the rest of the field, so what the hell are we squabbling about?
Yes, Romney and Rove hate him, the Republican establishment elite ruling class hates him, the liberals hate him, the democrats hate him and they hate him for the same reasons the taxpayers will support him, the lovers of liberty will support him, the defenders of life will support him, the defenders of national security will support him, the lovers of the Reagan Revolution will support him, and we the tea party should support him!! He’s a tax cutting, budget balancing, strong defense, small government, pro-life Reagan CONSERVATIVE!!
After reviewing Newt vs Romney, George Washington would say, go, NEWT!!
I’ll take a chance with Newt. Over Romney? You betcha!!
What say you?
Saturday, November 12, 2011
The Big Loser of the Night: CBS
If there was a loser on the debate stage tonight, it was CBS. First, they scheduled their debate on a Saturday night between two major football games. Then they decide to only broadcast the first hour of their 90-minute debate. Then their Internet feed failed for the final 30 minutes. This was CBS’s first and only debate — and it showed.
Scott Pelley was a terrible moderator. He treated the men who might be the next commander in chief like schoolchildren, cutting them off in mid-sentence, lecturing them to answer his questions. He even lectured Newt Gingrich on policy, telling him that killing “terrorist suspects” is “not the rule of law.” Big mistake. Newt smacked him down, explaining that we are at war and in war we are allowed to kill the enemy without a court order.This was CBS’s first and only debate — and it showed.
Of the candidates, Rick Perry had his best debate by far. His construct of starting at zero on foreign aid with every country (including Israel) and then deciding from there what is in our national interests got good applause, and both Newt and Romney openly embraced it. He had several self-effacing jokes about that agency he forgot about at the last debate (Energy) which got big (friendly) laughs from the crowd. Despite Pelley’s blatant efforts to trip him up, he did not trip. Who would have imagined that Perry’s best debate would be on foreign policy?
Newt had a very good night as well. In addition to smacking down Pelley on killing terrorists, he refused to take the bait in Pelley’s effort to start a fight between him and Romney. He was clear and articulate and will only enhance his growing following with his performance.
Romney put in another strong night. His best moment was when he was asked if he would negotiate with the Taliban: “We don’t negotiate with terrorists, I won’t negotiate with the Taliban.”
Bachmann got off several good lines, declaring that Obama stands with Occupy Wall Street but not with Israel, and that when it comes to terrorist interrogation, Obama is letting the ACLU run the CIA.
Cain seemed to struggle and was out of his element. Seemed like every answer seemed was: I will gather the facts and consult with my commanders/cabinet. His best moment was when he was asked about waterboarding and declared clearly: “I do not agree with torture. Waterboarding not torture. It’s an enhanced interrogation technique.” (Romney was not asked, but his campaign tweeted his agreement with Cain).It was a good discussion, undermined by Pelley’s poor moderating and CBS’s failure to broadcast effectively. Fortunately, there will be another discussion of foreign policy and national security soon: the AEI/Heritage/CNN debate on November 22. It will be in prime time on a Tuesday — on a network that knows what it is doing.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Perry says it was a ‘mistake’ for him to participate in 2012 debates
Senior Political Reporter
(The Ticket) Many political observers agree that Rick Perry's dismal debate performances have helped spark his dramatic collapse in recent polls. Now, not surprisingly, the Republican presidential hopeful insists his biggest mistake in the campaign so far was agreeing to participate in the forums at all."These debates are set up for nothing more than to tear down the candidates. It's pretty hard to be able to sit and lay out your ideas and your concepts with a one-minute response," the Texas governor told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly. "So, you know, if there was a mistake made, it was probably ever doing one of the [debates], when all they're interested in is stirring up between the candidates instead of really talking about the issues that are important to the American people..."
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Newt Gingrich: Does Faith Matter? Absolutely.
From Yosemitest:
At 12 minutes 30 seconds into this video at the Western GOP Debate, Las Vegas, NV, started a question
that Newt Gingrich gave the most important and best answer in the whole debate.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR AND DEBATE MODERATOR: And welcome back to the CNN GOP debate live from the Venetian in Las Vegas.
Let's continue. We've got an e-mail question that was left at cnnpolitics.com.
This is from a Mike Richards who says:
Senator Santorum, this is in reference to a Baptist pastor who, at the Values Voter Summit, after introducing Governor Rick Perry, said of --
said that "Mitt Romney is not a Christian," and that "Mormonism is a cult."
Those were his words.
Should...
(BOOING)
COOPER: Should voters pay attention to a candidate's religion?
SANTORUM: I think they should pay attention to the candidate's values, what the candidate stands for.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: That's what is at play. And the person's faith --
I -- I'm a Catholic. Catholic has social teachings.
Catholic has teachings as to what's right and what's wrong.
And those are legitimate things for voters to look at,
to say if you're a faithful Catholic, which I try to be --
with respect to how you live your life and -- and how you would govern this country.
With respect to what is the road to salvation, that's a whole different story.
That's not applicable to what -- what the role is of being the president or a senator or any other job.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, you agree with that? GINGRICH: Well, I think if the question is,
Now, I happen to think that none of us should rush in judgment of others in the way in which they approach God.
And I think that all of us up here I believe would agree.
(APPLAUSE)
But I think all of us would also agree that
(APPLAUSE)
Who you pray to, how you pray, how you come close to God is between you and God.
But the notion that you're endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary on what we mean by America.
At 12 minutes 30 seconds into this video at the Western GOP Debate, Las Vegas, NV, started a question
that Newt Gingrich gave the most important and best answer in the whole debate.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR AND DEBATE MODERATOR: And welcome back to the CNN GOP debate live from the Venetian in Las Vegas.
Let's continue. We've got an e-mail question that was left at cnnpolitics.com.
This is from a Mike Richards who says:
- "With the controversy surrounding Robert Jeffress, is it acceptable to let the issue of a candidate's faith shape the debate?"
Senator Santorum, this is in reference to a Baptist pastor who, at the Values Voter Summit, after introducing Governor Rick Perry, said of --
said that "Mitt Romney is not a Christian," and that "Mormonism is a cult."
Those were his words.
Should...
(BOOING)
COOPER: Should voters pay attention to a candidate's religion?
SANTORUM: I think they should pay attention to the candidate's values, what the candidate stands for.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: That's what is at play. And the person's faith --
- and you look at that faith and what the faith teaches with respect to morals and values that are reflected in that person's belief structure.
I -- I'm a Catholic. Catholic has social teachings.
Catholic has teachings as to what's right and what's wrong.
And those are legitimate things for voters to look at,
to say if you're a faithful Catholic, which I try to be --
- fall short all the time, but I try to be
with respect to how you live your life and -- and how you would govern this country.
With respect to what is the road to salvation, that's a whole different story.
That's not applicable to what -- what the role is of being the president or a senator or any other job.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, you agree with that? GINGRICH: Well, I think if the question is,
- does faith matter? Absolutely.
- we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights?
- religion, morality and knowledge being important, education matters.
Now, I happen to think that none of us should rush in judgment of others in the way in which they approach God.
And I think that all of us up here I believe would agree.
(APPLAUSE)
But I think all of us would also agree that
- there's a very central part of your faith in how you approach public life.
- that nothing in their faith would affect their judgments,
- how can you have judgment if you have no faith?
And how can I trust you with power if you don't pray?
(APPLAUSE)
Who you pray to, how you pray, how you come close to God is between you and God.
But the notion that you're endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary on what we mean by America.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Jeffress Says Satan Rules Catholicism
(The Catholic League) Last Friday, Rev. Robert Jeffress, the Dallas pastor who introduced Gov. Rick Perry at the Values Voter Summit, spoke derisively about the Mormon faith of Mitt Romney, making the case that “Mormonism is a cult.” Two days later, he chided Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism as “false religions.”
Last year, Rev. Jeffress said the Roman Catholic Church was the outgrowth of a “corruption” called the “Babylonian mystery.” He continued, “Much of what you see in the Catholic Church today doesn’t come from God’s word. It comes from that cult-like pagan religion. Isn’t that the genius of Satan?”
Catholic League president Bill Donohue offered these remarks today:
Where did they find this guy? When theological differences are demonized by the faithful of any religion—never mind by a clergyman—it makes a mockery of their own religion. Rev. Jeffress is a poster boy for hatred, not Christianity.
UPDATE:Catholic League president Bill Donohue released the following statement today:
Last night, I discussed the flap over Rev. Robert Jeffress with Chris Matthews on “Hardball” [click here]. While I made it clear that the anti-Catholic comments made by Jeffress must be roundly condemned, I also stated that I was not blaming Gov. Rick Perry for what the pastor said. One of the reasons I said this was because I was assured by my friend, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, that Perry would never countenance any scurrilous remarks about the Catholic Church.
When I got home, I received a phone call from Gov. Perry. Catholic activist Deal Hudson, who has a history of forging good relationships between Catholics and evangelicals, intervened in this matter and arranged for the phone call. Perry and I spoke candidly about the Jeffress incident, and about religion, in general. He spoke sincerely: nothing that Jeffress said about Catholicism represents his views.
I very much appreciate Gov. Perry’s interest in getting this issue behind him in a responsible manner. He succeeded. Case closed.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Romney's Remedy
By Avik Roy, Contributor
(Forbes) Lucas Baiano, the former Tim Pawlenty adman who has become infamous for his Michael Bay-like over-the-top political ads, complete with explosive sound effects and over-the-top rhetoric, has produced a new ad for Rick Perry on Romneycare. It’s getting a lot of play in conservative circles.
The ad opens with President Obama looking in the mirror, and seeing a sinister-looking Romney in his reflection, and later quotes Romney saying, “I like mandates,” and telling Tim Russert that “I would” strive to apply the Massachusetts model to the rest of the country. “Even the richest man can’t buy back his past,” concludes the ad...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)