I only say that because, hopefully, it will cause some liberals to have a myocardial infarction!
.
When I saw this article this morning, I assumed (yeah, I know!) I ass-u-me(d) that the left was gunning for him by making him look like a usurper of power. But in doing MY typical research I found that this article seemingly ONLY ties back to 'Yahoo News'.
.
It does have some hits at Democratic Underground, but little else in lefty world.
.
Could it be that they are ignoring this for fear that Perry will gain traction? That's how they treat the Iowa Straw Poll. They ignored the numbers, and failed to mention that Michelle Bachman won. Then, on Sunday after the poll, they started pushing Perry and RINO Romney into a logging chain cage match, (if you don't get that, you ain't a real 'merican!) yep'er, pushing them into a logging chain cage match, as if Iowa never happened AND they didn't report that Perry threw his hat in the ring AFTER Bachman won that poll.
.
I get that the MSM has outlasted their usefulness.
.
I get that Drudge, et al, have quicker news online than even HLN can get it on the tube.
.
But I fear that many well meaning boomers are STILL longing for the return of Cronkite, Huntley - Brinkley, and the 6 o'clock news for their intel, and they are NOT going to get the right intel to allow them to make educated decisions about the 2012 elections.
.
Anyway, go read what Perry proposes. I agree with everything BUT the 2/3 Congressional over ride of SCOTUS. I think it removes the checks and balances. Wadda'u think 'bout it?
.
.
Schteveo
9 comments:
Actually, i don't find fault with any of those ideas. We all know how much damage the SCOTUS has done in past years. Sure, they get one right now and again, but it usually doesn't work out so good unless you're a liberal. And, the biggest fault with the SCOTUS is that "they are answerable to no one".
Also, since the president decides who sits on the high court, (not counting the dog and pony show put on by congress) that can be a big problem if it's the "wrong" president, as was the case with the two female (?) ultra-Leftists the Marxist-in-Chief picked. We will be stuck with them for a loooooooong time!
I'm voting for Palin
I love watching the left squirm. Honestly Perry hasn't a snowball's chance in hell, the MSM will murder him and we will end up with another weak candidate in 2012. The sheeple of the USA will be coerced into voting for the marxist community organizer or it will happen through outright fraud. I have little faith in the SCOTUS especially since those communists were put in place.
And I thought I was being pessimistic!
Pessimistic? Maybe realistic?
"Save us from the American voters..."
“Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? ”
–- Matt Patterson, American Thinker
Patterson, evidently, forgets that Obama hails from the belly of corruption. Chicago Democrat Politics.
They COULD get a yellow dog elected.
"Let me get this straight: The conservative presidential field includes (1) the father of a socialized medicine regime every bit as disastrous as Obamacare, but who thinks his was OK because it was at the state level, (2) a woman who, in spite of having no interest in the subject, studied tax law because her husband told her to, and (3) a man who think it's OK if Iran gets nukes.
Holy crap. Romney, Bachmann, and Paul respectively seem to have distinguished themselves primarily by displaying astonishingly poor judgment. No wonder everyone is salivating over Rick Perry, hoping and praying he is the second coming (Perry himself is leading the prayer service). He may or may not be; like most Americans, I am just getting acquainted with the Texan.
One thing's for sure, however - conservatives deserve better candidates than the current crop, or at the very least more options..."
–- Matt Patterson
And Patterson would pick WHOM?
I hate snarky asshole writers who just whine. It's attitudes like that, that push shitbirds like Romney and McCain to the front!
And, as usual his intel on the three he mentioned look like sound bites from Jeneane Garafolo's stand up act at the GLAAD Convention.
Dick weed.
Post a Comment