Texas Governor Rick Perry has plenty of vulnerabilities that I dont know why whomever dug this dumb attack up on him did, but it’s stupidly unnecessary.
According to the Washington Post, Perry and his father held leases on a property in West Texas that was once called “N*****head.” The camp was called by that name for years before Perry and his father partook in the lease. A stone bearing this word stood at the entrance to the property, but the word was later painted over, and the rock was overturned so the offensive word would not be seen, the Post reported.
The Perry campaign contested the claims made by the Washington Post, saying the family never owned the property that bore the derogatory name.
“A number of claims made in the story are incorrect, inconsistent, and anonymous, including the implication that Rick Perry brought groups to the lease when the word on the rock was still visible. The one consistent fact in the story is that the word on a rock was painted over and obscured many years ago,” Perry communications director Ray Sullivan said in a statement.
Lets assume the charge is true: Oh no… He once leased a property with a bad word painted on a rock that was later painted over. He didn’t make up the name or paint the rock but he leased the property, so… he… er…. idk what.
I don’t even want Rick Perry to win the Republican primary, let alone win the Presidency against Obama, but this is a stupid cheap shot. I wouldnt care if there was video of him giving an hour long speech on racial inferiority from that time (the 80s) cuz, um – hello? – he’s got 20 years of a record being in elected politics. judge that record. Anything racist, hateful, insensitive or bigoted in there? no? then STFU unless there is a personal-life instance that someone wants to come forward with that is a jarring example of something bigoted or cruel. otherwise who gives a floop about a racial slur painted on a rock 25 years ago? Especially when no one befucsides Sean Hannity seemed to give a shit that Obama’s pastor said the same racial slur multiple times during church sermons.
While we’re at it: I also don’t give a shit that Herman Cain didn’t know what “the right of return” was and I don’t care that Barack Obama didn’t know how to pronounce “corman”. These are 1-second “lulz and move on” flubs that dont matter.
UPDATE: It was brought to my attention by a Mitt Romney supporter that Rick Perry would assuredly be making a big deal about this if it were Mitt who was the target of this story. Given Perry’s attacks on Mitt, this is undoubtably true. If the tables were turned, perry absolutely would be all serious-face “this is unacceptable” grandstandy about it so in that regard, yes, it’s schadenfreudey to point out.
His campaign would be photoshopping an image of Mitt painting the N word on it, like how they spliced the audio to make it look as though Mitt was supporting Race to the Top.
definitely. although i dont think the something it says is that he’s dishonest but that he’s just too green as a candidate. he’s probably heard accusations that its unfair and just hasnt looked into it cuz he’s too busy having the next unfair attack ad made. Mitt had a little of this going on in 07 where he made some – not false or edited attacks like this – but kindov weak attacks made and then never responded to the accusations that they were deceptive or didnt tell the whole truth. thats no bueno. he learned and hopefully Perry will too after he loses this election.
Huckabee’s exclusive interview with the GOP presidential frontrunner might also make you want to take this review course: A Brief History of Why Huckabee and Romney Don’t Like Each Other – although I think it’s more accurate to say that Huckabee holds more of the fued. While Romney has defended Huckabee and spoke kindly of him since the 2007 primary campaign, Huckabee continued to do the opposite of Romney:
Long after the campaign ended with niether of the two winning the nomination, Huckabee dredged up old wounds in a November 2008 book. He wrote that he felt “total disrespect” when Romney didn’t call him after he won the Iowa caucuses and characterized Mitt as being “anything but conservative until he changed the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president.” He then panned Romney’s economic shtick by writing why don’t you let voters “eat stocks.”
The first problem with the Beacon Hill study/attack on Romneycare it that it is limited to determining the impact of health care cost increases on the surrounding economy. It is not designed to determine what caused the increase in health care costs to begin with. The study, in other words, had no basis for concluding anything about Romneycare.
But it gets worse. The study makes this assumption because it defers to an earlier study which, in perhaps a Freudian slip, states at one point: “We employed the same mythology.” And, indeed, there is “mythology” in their methodology. Their trend numbers, which they use in comparing health costs under Romneycare with costs before Romneycare, are faulty. For instance, in Table 11 their “trend” numbers claim that costs in 2006 were expected to decline from 2005, but this is clearly a false trend since costs had increased every year since 1998.
They then subtract their false trend numbers from the actual cost increase, creating the impression that costs rose at a faster rate. The bogus numbers compound each year, as the false trend numbers get further off course. We can see this play out in each of their tables. Consider table 12, insurance premiums for an average single plan. From 2000 to 2005, costs increased by $1500; meanwhile, from 2004 to 2009, costs only increased by $1100. That’s a downward trend. Yet the study claims that the premium rate in 2009 was $215 higher than the trend.
This disqualifies both studies. The first study was based on the difference between actual numbers and false trend numbers. The second study is based on the first study.
Even with the flaws in Romneycare, the costly provisions added by the legislature and new governor, it has slowed the rate of many health care cost increases in Massachusetts – despite the aging population of baby boomers (eg. hip and knee replacements are up dramatically, as well as MRI/CT scans, and mobility scooters). In all, it is working. Think how effective it would be if Romney had been able to do it his way. As he said, “There is no question in my mind that our program could be significantly improved if it were managed by a conservative administration.”
Using the raw data contained in their own tables, let’s look at how costs have slowed. Keep in mind that Romneycare went into effect in 2007. To measure it’s effectiveness we start with the previous year, 2006, so as to contrast the status prior to the law taking effect with the most current status reflected in available numbers.
Table 9: State medicaid spending increased by $1.4 billion from 2003 through 2006, and by $1.5 billion from 2006 through 2009. Again, the slight increase is attributable to the aging population.
Table 10: Medicare Advantage monthly rate increased by $166 from 2002 through 2006, and by only $139 from 2006 through 2010.
Table 11: Medicare Personal Health Care expenditures increased by 1.4 billion from 2003 through 2006, and by only 1.3 billion from 2006 through 2009.
Table 12: Average Insurance Premium (Single) increased by $952 from 2003 through 2006, and by only $820 from 2006 through 2009.
Table 13: Average Insurance Premium (Family) increased by $2423 from 2003 through 2006, and by $2433 frp, 2006 through 2009. Only ten dollar difference between cost increases.
As far as comparing MA with other states, MA had the highest costs before Romneycare. They are higher now, they were higher then. However, Rhode Island and New Jersey are right behind MA. The obvious correllation here is that RI, NJ and MA are by far the three most densely populated states in the nation. When you receive an MRI scan, the hospital charge is primarily for their investment in purchasing the scanner in the first place, not the cost of the actual scan. Likewise, additional costs accrue in densely populated states. Land costs more, so hospitals cost more. Construction is more crowded, cumbersome and costly. The initial expenditure is higher, and so then are the costs to recoup that expenditure.
Massachusetts has both the second highest personal income per capita, and personal disposable income per capita, behind only Connecticut. Disposable income influences the health care decisions people make, such as how often to visit their doctor and to seek care at a hospital. This affects cost.
Generally speaking, our two parties have wanted to nominate candidates who have shown special strength among the voters who know them best. None of the nine candidates who participated in the Fox News/Google debate in Orlando has really done that. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have won elections by margins comparable to those of John Cornyn and Paul Cellucci, competent officeholders but not on anyone’s list of presidential candidates. Ron Paul ran well ahead of his party base in 2010 against weak opposition; Michele Bachmann has not done so in three races against vigorous opponents. Newt Gingrich’s record of running ahead of party is spotty; Herman Cain’s is nonexistent.
Rick Santorum outperformed the Republican base in 1992 and 1994, but woefully underperformed it in 2006. Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson won solid majorities for reelection against weak opposition.
None of them has performed, at least recently, as Chris Christie did when he was defeated an incumbent governor by a 48%-45% margin in New Jersey in 2009, a year after it had voted 57%-42% for Barack Obama, or Mitch Daniels, who was reelected over a former member of Congress by a 58%-40% margin in Indiana on the same day the state voted 50%-49% for Barack Obama, or Paul Ryan, who has been reelected with between 63% and 68% of the vote between 2000 and 2010 in a district which voted Democratic for president by 49%-47% in 2000, 54%-46% in 2004 and 51%-47% in 2008. These are Republicans who have shown the capacity to overperform the party’s generic base.
The problem Mitt Romney faces is that explaining conservatism to “conservatives” is not like chess. In chess, there’s an objective measure. Most folks are unable to absorb (and thus appreciate) sophisticated analysis. In chess, it doesn’t matter if others are able to see your strength. You just hit an opponent with a checkmate and others are left wondering afterwards what happened – because even though they don’t understand the nuances of “how” you did it, they can at least understand “that” you did it.
But when it comes to explaining principles, there is no clear objective standard for people to follow. Sometimes this can be overcome through sheer explanation, but too many loud, lazy voices with agendas are eager to interfere. So, Mitt is like a Kasparov with a long record of impressive wins, but his antagonists spread confusion – ie “This sixth grader has won more games than Kasparov, so he’s better than Kasparov” or “Kasparov claims to be good at chess, but he completely gave up his queen, he traded it for a pawn! He doesn’t even know that a queen is worth more than a pawn!” And people buy this stuff.
Still, Romney keeps trying to explain it to them – because he cares about our future. That’s why Romney kept hammering the social security issue. It wasn’t for cheap political points, it was because he did not want the GOP nominee to have such a liability in a general election. That’s the same reason he dropped out in 2008. The entire establishment wanted him to keep going – including Santorum, Bachmann, Rush, Levin, Hannity, you name it. He was introduced by Laura Ingraham. He could have kept going. But he knew the options were to either let McCain be the nominee, or pursue a course that could lead to a brokered convention and leave the ultimate nominee with a huge liability that would be difficult to overcome. He sacrificed his own chances for the greater good:
Notice his wife at the end. This was a difficult decision, a sincere decision. And Romney was right about his primary reason, Obama’s foreign policy. Just look at the chaos Obama has created in the Middle East. Iran is closer than ever to acquiring nuclear weapons, the Palestinians believe Obama promised them their own state, unnecessary problems with Turkey, attacked Libya, and apologized to the whole Middle East for America’s alleged crimes.
Rick Perry came prepared with an attack on Mitt Romney that in Romneys book No Apologies, he claimed that he wanted the Massachusetts healthcare model to be adopted by the rest of the country, yet in the paperback edition this was deleted. While one specific line may have indeed been edited from the paperback, a scan of the original book proves that the context was unchanged and that Romney did not in fact advocate the whole country having MA-care foisted upon them. The book, provided by pro-Romney site WhyRomney.com instead says the opposite of what Perry claimed.
Reposted from WhyRomney, with permission:
Critics cite differences between the paperback and hardcover editions of Romney’s book, “No Apology,” accusing Mitt Romney of subtly changing positions on Obama’s policies to harden his stance for political reasons. However, critics falsely lead people to this conclusion by taking excerpts out of context. For instance, critics claim that Romney called Obama’s stimulus plan “a failure” in the paperback but not in the hardcover. The truth however is that Romney wrote the hardcover during the initial phase of the stimulus and thus could not yet claim that it had “failed,” or elaborate on the effectiveness of details which had not yet been implemented. But Romney specifically said on page 145 of the hardcover that Obama’s stimulus had “already been far less than successful,” and Romney predicted “it will impose a heavy burden on the economy in the intermediate and long term.”
Critics also fail to mention that on page 31 of the hardcover, Romney says “the record and achievement of modern free-market capitalism” is “now at risk because of the economic policies of President Obama.” Romney goes on to say, “His effort to expand the size, reach and role of government is without precedent in our history. His plans would leave us with a crushing deficit and debt, far beyond anything we have ever experienced.” Also on page 31, Romney writes that “at a time when Europe is moving away from socialism and its many failures, President Obama is moving toward that direction.”
Likewise, critcs claim that in the hardcover Romney promoted Obama’s stimulus on pages 144-145 as something that would “accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.” But in fact, Romney’s statement was alluding to the limited tax cut portion of the stimulus, having put it in that context in the previous line which critics leave out, by statinSupremg that congressional Democrats fail to understand “the crucial role played by tax cuts.” It is in this context that Romney said the stimulus would not help “as much as it could have had it included genuine tax- and job-generating incentives.”
In a similar criticism, critics accuse Romney of being soft on Obamacare in the hardcover because in the paperback he stated that it should be “repealed,” but in the hardcover did not call for a “repeal.” The truth however is that Obamacare had not passed when Romney wrote the hardcover edition and its passing seemed less likely at the time because of the election of MA Senator Scott Brown. With no law to repeal, a call for repeal would have made no sense. Furthermore, Romney had no pressing need to discuss Obama’s health care ideas in extended detail.
In fact, while Romney has a reputation as a flip-flopper (which this ad tries to exploit), he has been consistent in saying he did not want to import his plan to the rest of the country. When the Massachusetts law was passed in 2006, he appeared on MSNBC and was asked whether it would work for the rest of the country.
“Well, it will work for Massachusetts, and that’s of course the thing that I had to focus on,” Romney replied. “There are certain aspects of it that I think would work across the country, perhaps better in some states than others. Of course the great thing about federalism is you let a state try it and see how it works before you spread it out.”
Romney made a similar point in an interview with Dan Balz of The Washington Post in 2007, as he recalled during last week’s debate. “Instead of having the federal government give us one-size-fits-all, everybody-must-follow-the-same-plan, let states develop their own,” he told Balz.
We closely compared the chapter on health care in the two editions so you don’t have to. Essentially, it is clear that the hardcover edition was written when Obama’s health-care plan was still a work in progress. For instance, Romney spends some time denouncing the idea of a public option as “government-supplied insurance.” The paperback was published after the health-care law was passed, so the paragraphs on the public option — which had been abandoned by Obama — are dropped.
The main point: Romney has long said he did not view his plan as a model for the nation, and he has not wavered on that stance.
Livonia Rep. Thaddeus McCotter told The Detroit News this afternoon that he is leaving the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
McCotter says he will give his support to former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and will likely run again for the 11th District congressional seat he’s held since 2003.
McCotter began his long-shot bid for the White House in July, billing himself as the voice for a new generation of conservatives. He campaigned on a dramatic reform of Social Security, and a tougher approach to dealings with China.
However, in June McCotter called Romney Obama’s de facto running mate and in fact, the news of the endorsement sits right above the most recent news item about McCotter on FoxNews.com which was this very criticism leveled against the candidate he now champions.
Quotas are not conservative. They are an inept or intellectually lazy means of assessment. If people are not committing crimes, we shouldn’t arrest folks just to meet a quota. And when everyone has a job, we don’t need to prioritize job creation or criticize the leader for “failing to create jobs.”
At the end of Mitt Romney’s term as Governor, MA had a healthy unemployment rate of 4.7 (below 4 becomes unhealthy). There was no job problem, and no need for an artificial “fix.” When Romney took office, the state faced a massive budget problem, which Romney successfully solved.
So why does Rick Perry point out that Romney didn’t create many jobs? Because many people are confused. We are now in a jobs crisis, nationally, and people are thinking in terms of the need to create jobs.
The only way MA could have created more jobs under Romney is if the population in MA had increased. But MA is the third most densely populated state, right behind RI and NJ. Texas has 26 times the area of MA. That means, unlike MA, Texas has room for sprawl (which it has seen in excess) – meaning cheap land for people as well as businesses building stores and factories, equaling jobs.
Logistically, TX is a frontier. And because of its central placement, temperate climate and sophisticated urban variety, it is a hub. Combine this with its conservative laws (pre-dating Rick Perry) and built-in natural resources, and Texas is an obvious place for people to move.
Still, as Mitt Romney pointed out, a much higher percentage of jobs were created in TX under both Richards and Bush than under Perry. This may indicate that suburban TX is finally beginning to see some saturation after the massive population increase of the last 20 years.
The bottom line is that Texas has had room for bringing in new people. MA population has seen little change in 20 years, while TX has had a 40% increase in population over that same period. While Perry would like to take credit for job growth, especially since the recession, recent growth has been demonstrably chaotic rather than ordered. Just as Babe Ruth hit more home runs than anyone else but also struck out more than anyone else, when people have taken their savings and moved to Texas in the last 3 years, they have naturally generated some jobs but also been left with a lot of unemployment.
To illustrate the chaos which Perry takes credit for, consider that a year ago MA and TX had the same unemployment rate, 8.2% (Sept. ’10). Now, MA is down to 7.6 and TX is up to 8.4. Is this the result of Perry’s careful planning and micromanagement? If so, he has failed. If not, he should stop pretending to assume credit for the jobs situation in Texas.
Be the First to Comment 
